This is an archive of past discussions. 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, Sir,

I reworked the article about Vera King (subject) based on the Wikipedia Resource "Identifying and using independent sources". The sources are mostly found on Google Scholar and Google Books and are all independent from the subject. I did not find a hint in the Wiki-resource whereas citing reliable sources like Springer Link is assessed as self-promotion. In general, scientific researches lead to publications, that is one of their purposes.

Before I send the article again to a submission I would be happy if you have a look at the status. For clarification, I include the research about the sources into this posting. I understand and endorse the endeavor to maintain the Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedy, free from self-promotion and misuse for economic purposes. The corrections live up to this objective and hopefully, the requirements are now fulfilled.

Thank you for your corrections and hints to improve the article.

1: Doesn't work; looks like a self-published biography (faculty page). Reference: The link refers to the Sigmund-Freud-Institut, a worldwide unique and most reputed institution where the "subject" is part of the management. No self-promotion.

2, 3: Books written by the subject Research on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0%2C5&cites=10472637956277113320&scipsc=&q=Publication+version%3A+V.+King+%281995%29%3A+Die+Urszene+der+Psychoanalyse.+Adoleszenz+und+Geschlechterspannung+im+Fall+Dora.+Publisher+Internationale+Psychoanalyse%2FKlett-Cotta.&btnG= Reference: https://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSYCHE.050F.0574A Reserach on Google Scholar: https://www.google.de/search?q=Die+Entstehung+des+Neuen+in+der+Adoleszenz.+Individuation%2C+Generativit%C3%A4t+und+Geschlecht+in+modernisierten+Gesellschaften%2C+Springer%2C+edition+from+2004%3B+1.+edition+2002%3A+Leske+und+Budrich%3B+reissue+2004+VS+Publisher&rlz=1C5CHFA_enDE575DE575&oq=Die+Entstehung+des+Neuen+in+der+Adoleszenz.+Individuation%2C+Generativit%C3%A4t+und+Geschlecht+in+modernisierten+Gesellschaften%2C+Springer%2C+edition+from+2004%3B+1.+edition+2002%3A+Leske+und+Budrich%3B+reissue+2004+VS+Publisher&aqs=chrome..69i57.1023j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Reference: https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783322808899

4: Not linked, but by the name is a faculty page of a university Reference: Neutral source (federal department of education and science) research program which cites Vera King with link

5: Faculty page, possibly self-published Replaced by an official, administrative source which presents Vera King as a regular professor at the University of Frankfurt Reference: https://qis.server.uni-frankfurt.de/qisserver/rds?moduleCall=webInfo&personal.pid=20616&publishConfFile=webInfoPerson&publishSubDir=personal&state=verpublish&status=init&topitem=members&vmfile=no

6: Doesn't work Corrected. Didn't work due to a re-work of the website, sorry.

7 Reference Google Books: https://books.google.de/books?id=87Ge2UApx7YC&dq=Karin+Flaake,+Vera+King:+Weibliche+Adoleszenz.+Zur+Sozialisation+junger+Frauen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAmLqpnOrdAhXGmLQKHUrwC0kQ6AEILDAA

8 Reference: https://books.google.de/books?id=XMkkBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=King,+Vera+(2002).+Die+Entstehung+des+Neuen+in+der+Adoleszenz.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnocHlnerdAhUPElAKHbG2AEwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=King%2C%20Vera%20(2002).%20Die%20Entstehung%20des%20Neuen%20in%20der%20Adoleszenz.&f=false

9, Resarch Google books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Intergenerationalit%C3%A4t+%E2%80%93+theoretische+und+methodologische+Forschungsperspektiven%2C+In%3A+B%C3%B6ker+K+%26+Z%C3%B6lch+J+%28Hg.%29%3A+Intergenerationale+Qualitative+Forschung+-+Theoretische+und+methodische+Perspektiven. Reference was correct.

10: Written by the subject Source 1: Link replaced with a link to Google Books https://books.google.de/books?id=6QFlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&dq=%E2%80%98Lost+in+Perfection.%E2%80%98+Impacts+of+Optimisation+on+Culture+and+Psyche.+London:+Routledge&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMpt2vpurdAhULL1AKHdP_CFUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%98Lost%20in%20Perfection.%E2%80%98%20Impacts%20of%20Optimisation%20on%20Culture%20and%20Psyche.%20London%3A%20Routledge&f=false Source 2: The source is the publication of the research results. No self-promotion.

11: Faculty page, possibly self-published Link replaced with the official research paper (pdf), No self-promotion http://www.fb03.uni-frankfurt.de/68123801/Aporias-of-Perfection_Englisch-Version1.pdf

12: Doesn't mention the subject Replaced with link to personality-page on Volkswagen Stiftung. The subject is mentioned with her academic credentials. No self-promotion. http://portal.volkswagenstiftung.de/search/personDetails.do?addrNum=31679&fromProject=93264

13: Written by the subject A research project, not written by the subject. Now with the correct link: https://www.ipu-berlin.de/hochschule/forschung/projekt/das-vermessene-leben.html. No self-promotion

14: Mentions the subject in passing The subject is leader of the research program and gives the introduction to the conference, due to the German written article. No change necessary.

15: Interview with the subject (not independent) Sorry, but the source is absolutely independent. Great interview, no self-promotion. But this repaired reference looks better.

16, Corrected link leads now to the publisher page where the subject is mentioned.

17 Corrected link where the subject is mentioned.

18: Don't mention the subject Corrected link where the subject is mentioned as part of the editorial board.

Former reference: 19, Link will be removed until adequate source is found.

Former reference: 20, Subject is mentioned by name as member of the scientific advisory board (Wissenchaftlicher Beirat), likewise all the other members. No change necessary.

Former reference: 21: Mentions the subject by name only. Former reference: Link will be removed until adequate source is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Rudyguy21, I've accepted the draft, as I'm fairly certain she passes WP:NPROF, based on her role and her publications. I'm sure you will continue to work on it, but in the meantime - thanks for creating it. Brad v 21:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Bradv, for having accepted the submission Vera King, I appreciate. We will improve the article over time.

Have a nice day,

best,

Ruediger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To Brady: this concerns your rejection of the page "Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen." The reason you provide is: "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." Perhaps you can explain more. I thought I had taken great care to document every item with third-party sources, such a published books, articles, newspaper accounts, and neutral (ie not personal) web pages of institutions. In what sense is a newspaper article, a reference, or a review, or pages in well known books something "produced by the subject being discussed?" All these are the sources that document and verify a career of some notability. I have reviewed many artist pages on Wikipedia and followed their examples. All the sources cited are, without exception, independent, reliable, and published. I am puzzled how "Art in America," or the "Washington Post" can be considered neither publications nor reliable nor independent. I believe also that not a singe statement on the draft is subjective. Certainly no conclusions or value judgment are present, although the quantity of entries--unavoidable in a long career--may be considered non-neutral. Bt that puts me in a bind. Can you clarify? Thank you. Pmuehlen ( talk) 14:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if substantially reducing the amount of specific information provided on that page would constitute a positive step in the direction of acceptability. Might one, for example, simply summarize her career, citing highlights, such as exhibits in museums and other important venues, and publications, and leave all else to the list of third-party sources cited in the original? Doing so would deviate from typical detail given Wikipedia artist's pages that I have encountered, including those of many of her peers, but would be acceptable. Pmuehlen ( talk) 21:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Pmuehlen: You're on the right track – presently the article is a fairly exhaustive CV, which really is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, since you clearly have a conflict of interest on this article, it probably shouldn't be accepted until someone else can verify the sources clean it up to Wikipedia standards. Brad v 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Pmuehlen: I've left my comments on the article, but after a more thorough review I believe this subject does not meet the standards for inclusion for artists. If you are aware of any reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, or can prove that she meets one of the relevant notability criteria, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look, but my conclusion at this time is that this is not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. Brad v 01:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, and I am sure it's a thankless task. But permit me to offer some counterarguments to your assessment. You write: "I'm having trouble finding any sources that cover the subject in depth (or are even about the subject). Most of the coverage seems to be in passing, and the vast majority of the sources that are/were in this article are photo credits." (Around thirty references seem to have been deleted already, but I am not sure why). First, none of the references are photo credits, which I understand to refer acknowledgments of the source of a published photograph. Such is decidedly not the case in any of the references in the article. Most of the references are published art reviews in "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," (criterion #3 in Notability for artists) including in major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, either of her solo exhibits or of group exhibits in which she took part. Many of the references are anthologies in which her work has appeared. Some of the references are contextual, placing her work in a period of cultural controversy about a genre of photography in which, judging by dates and attention, she can be considered a pioneer. This alone should, I believe, qualify her for notability, in that she is "known for having contributed a significant new concept,"(item 2 in Notability for artists) namely highly controversial and much discussed photography of the male nude in the twentieth century. Regarding criterion #4 on your Notability page: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," I note that (b) her work has been a substantial part of a number of significant exhibitions, including in major museums, (c) has won significant critical attention in a number of publications, and (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. But you seem to have deleted all references to (d). Might I ask why, given that the items would support notability? I do understand (or let's say, I think I understand) that entries in Wikipedia need to meet some standards of notability. But even Wikipedia, or rather, individuals who judge entries for Wikipedia, can get this wrong. A recent famous example is that of Donna Strickland, a 2018 (female) recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics. Might you reconsider? Pmuehlen ( talk) 13:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Pmuehlen ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

An addendum: I mentioned Strickland before I learned you had been intimately involved. What a coincidence! I do like what you say in your piece explaining the case, and it helps me appreciate the issues involved. One drawback in the review process may just be a certain lack of field expertise, which may be unavoidable. In Strickland's case, it would probably have helped if the review had been by an individual more intimately familiar with her field of study, although, here I am guessing. You may, indeed be an expert in Laser Physics yourself. But, referring to an artist's page, particularly a photographer's page, I am struck that perhaps you may not be all that familiar with this particular world. Your mention that most references are mere photo credits has raised that doubt. But, again, I may be just guessing, and you may indeed be most familiar with everything involved with the arts and surrounding culture. Pmuehlen ( talk) 14:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Pmuehlen: just my two cents. Part of the problem is that you probably have a hard time be objective in this.

Criteria #3 states that it has to be more than just single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Criteria #2 says originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, which I don't think you have made a case for the artist having done. They might have been part of a broader discussion/controversy, but that isn't the same thing. If there is evidence that they invented one of those things, the article needs to say that and provide reliable independent sources that say it. Criteria #4 states substantial part of a significant exhibition, significant critical attention, is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (emphasis added). You don't need to make the case that their work has been covered extensively, you need to make the case about how they meet these specific criteria. {{u| zchrykng}} { T| C} 14:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

To [User:Zchrykng|zchrykng]: On the surface, what you note seems acceptable and sounds right.: Criteria #3 states: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The relevant sentence here is: "must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work...or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The work does meet this standard. Note, the sentence in : Criteria #3 does not contain the phrase "has to be more than." Further, don't you agree that words like "substantial" and "significant" are highly qualitative terms, easily subject to subjective interpretation? So, if you require a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" in photography, then I doubt that any photographer in Wikiland can qualify. It is simply not in the nature of this art form to have such attributes, except perhaps for the appearance of daguerreotypes at the beginning of photography in the nineteenth century. You would have to delete practically all photographers' pages from Wikipedia if this is the criterion. But if you relax this criterion a bit and make allowance for "originality," which is the more relevant criterion in art, then many of the artist pages on Wikipedia do qualify, and so does,I believe, the work of Bernis von zur Muehlen. Her contributions have been noted for their originality and have also been acknowledged as being pioneering in the sense that she was among the first two or three photographers to publicly exhibit photographs of the male nude for the first time in the early seventies. Further, as mentioned before, the work IS represented in a number of PERMANENT collections in several NOTABLE galleries or museums. But those references have been deleted without explanation. Pmuehlen ( talk) 15:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Pmuehlen, your best chance at getting this article accepted is to find two or three reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject (your wife), and to keep the article brief enough to only cover the information presented in those sources. Two or three good sources are preferable to 100 sources that only mention the subject in passing. I hope that helps. Brad v 23:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sachsach ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shramik Bharti ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sachsach ( talk) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bradv,

This is regarding /info/en/?search=Draft:Shramik_Bharti

here is your comment "I suspect this may be notable, but that depends on finding better sources that cover the topic in depth and not just passing mentions. This reads like it's using a source that's not listed here for the bulk of the content -- is the author connected with the company?"

1. Please see that out of 21 different sources which I have sighted are some are the National Newspaper like The Hindu,Times of India in India. Some Magazines like India Today also have National stature. These are considered most trusted news sources here in India. 2. UNESCO sources are also mentioned. 3. Please understand that this entire article is on a social organziation which are not that media savvy and most of the times their good work receives not that much media highlight. Still the above sources mention about Shramik Bharti, which itself is a huge accomplishment. 4. I agree that some of the sources may not be btter as per wiki standards. And I will delete those if you think that will make the article more authentic as per wiki. 5. I am not connected with organization. I have been working to bring highlight to such social organizations and individuals who have devoted their life time for the betterment of world. So yes, if you consider this as a connection then I am connected to all the genuine grassroots organizations.

Hope to receive a constructive feedback from you so that we both can bring some more such important yet easily forgotten works of grassroots people.

For making your Superlinks user script display the AfC flowchart when editors visit draft pages. Brilliant idea! Enterprisey ( talk!) 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Bradv, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018 ^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^{( info)} — A new script created for quickly placing {{ copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NARTIST-4(d)---> ?? ∯WBG ^converse 16:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" would still need a reliable source, would it not? If the subject meets that criteria it should be possible to find coverage, but so far all I've been able to turn up is passing mentions and self-published sources. You're welcome to take a stab at it if you see it differently, though. Brad v 21:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Wardlow. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		Thank you for all of the work you do on Wikipedia and in AFC. I know that you recently got some negative press coverage, and I thought it was incredibly unfair that you were being attacked for following the rules and trying to work your way through backlog. While Wikipedia's poor coverage of women is a major problem, lashing out at individual editors for making good faith contributions is not the way to solve it. Anyways, thanks for continuing to keep up the good work throughout this ordeal. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 21:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that I am a little irritable today, as a result of seeing unexpected disagreements in several different matters. I am unsure whether to follow up with citations or let the matter rest and go back to my usual course of sticking to individual article discussions. I know I am a far outlier on the GNG, but did not think I was on WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's assessment, but I want to point out that almost all drafts about academics get rejected at AfC for notablitly at least once, if not multiple times. It is not obvious that this group of people would have their own criteria for notability. Only a handful of reviewers know about or understand WP:PROF. If we don't see them they don't get accepted. When the issue came up after the Nobel announcement I felt very guilty for getting mad about women's issues on Wikipedia and taking three months off at just the wrong time (and not doing much since). I often went through rejected AfCs looking for academics. So I want to apologize to you for not being there in the spring. And it was just bad luck that you were the reviewer who rejected it. Someone else would have rejected it too. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think StarryGrandma is right that many reviewers would have rejected it, and I did not mean to imply any particular general problem with your reviewing. Like her, I too try to find the rejected ones. If, as usually is the case, they are in fact unacceptable for WP:PROF, I try to at least add a comment explaining the correct reason. The most serious problem with academics I face at AfC is the ones that are clearly promotional but also clearly notable--I am very familiar with the style of university PR staff. I will send these back at least once for revision, in the hope that somebody will actually fix them. Usually they don't, and if they're important enough and easy enough to fix, I do it--or at least feel bad if I don't have time to do it. . But they are really totally promotional beyond the ordinary, I will sometimes give up and use G11 as the only effective way of communicating. I did so at least once in the last few days. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ DGG: I will send these back at least once for revision, in the hope that somebody will actually fix them — that's precisely what I did. It was a poorly sourced BLP created by a single-purpose account. I've explained all this already, so your comment that the decline was erroneous still requires explanation. Brad v 19:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROF is poorly understood by most editors here. At the time you declined she met criteria #3 of WP:NACADEMIC with a reference in the article that confirmed it. The reference to the society bestowing fellowship was enough, though many editors don't realize this. That reference also confirmed biographical details. The notability rejection was incorrect and would have misled the original editor. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication anywhere of a consensus that The Optical Society meets the definition of a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", nor does a visit to that article give one that impression. Regardless, notability requires verification, so the claim still needed be supported by independent sources, which is why I sent it back. I am repeating myself now, so please read the essay. Brad v 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You pulled a really short straw in the review lottery and got unjustifiably pilloried for it. I can understand that you are upset. But you keep asking DGG for an explanation. The criteria you quote actually says a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. As a physicist I find it strange you would think The Optical Society isn't a major scholarly society. The draft also said at that point she had been president of the society, criteria #6. The explanation is that the decline did not understand that she met WP:PROF, WP:PROF needs to be clearer about sources, and most editors would have done what you did. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We can't see the page on the Optical Society website as it existed at the time, but it said little more than that she once served as president of the society and was still a board member. The draft was completely lacking in independent sources, which violates WP:NRV and WP:BLP.

Notable topics get declined at AfC all the time, not because the reviewer has performed a WP:BEFORE search and determined the subject is not notable, but because the draft needs further work. And normally we don't vilify reviewers for not performing the extra work themselves — AfC is not RA.

So I agree with your comment that most editors would have done what I did, but that's because it was the right thing to do. Brad v 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Optical Society website was archived on 31 October 2016, then the next archive shown was taken on 2 October 2018, after the draft was declined. The drafter didn't respond to the talk page invitations, so no indication that they'd have come back to the draft... leaving it to the reviewer to effectively start the article, which isn't the idea of AfC in my understanding. Now if only a couple of the news outlets complaining had run a feature on her, that could have both inspired editors to work on an article, and given them a secondary source to use. But then they wouldn't have the exciting "bash Wikipedia" hook. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

By "right thing to do", I mean according to guidelines and generally accepted processes. Obviously the ideal thing to do would have been to improve and accept the article myself, but that could have been done by anyone. Referring back to the title of this section, you don't owe anyone an apology for not doing it yourself. And neither do I. Brad v 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This article's status was inquired about in IRC help tonight. I don't normally act on such help requests but given the interest in this area right now I'm making an exception. I presume notability because of the Royal Fellowship and so it feels like a good chance for someone interested in the area to take it the rest of the way now that the CV elements that caused DGG's original decline have been somewhat improved and the editor is still clearly interested in the subject. This is not an area of interest or expertise for me so I am not the right person to WP:SOFIXIT; I had been thinking about the right place to post this and it seems in light of the discussion above this might be it? ​ Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

yes, its improved, tho it still reads somewhat too much like a CV. It can be fixed further in article space. Though usually a different person should review (especially if its going to be another decline) , I accepted it myself, and will remove some duplication. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

restart

There are many different ways to review AfCs and do it well. (or NPP, which is essentially similar) We should try to get reasonably consistent results, but that doesn't mean we all do it the same way, or that any of us always does it in one particular way.

The way to get consistent results is to check each others' reviews. The system is set up to show them when we review what someone else has previously reviewed, and we also see them when there's a disagreement and an article goes to AfD or Deletion Review. Most of us occasionally look at others, and not only when we think something wrong. We work openly, and in fact I was explicit in asking to be an admin that my main purpose was to check others' work. If I improve my own, it's because others them, and say so when they would do differently.

Most people seem to deal with drafts (or articles) in sequence, and consequently often find themselves dealing with articles where they might not immediate recognize what is or is not likely to be notable, and rely on strict following of the notability & other guidelines. If they are careful, this works well.

Myself, currently I look for specific types of drafts (or new pages): ones so obviously promotional that they should be removed as soon as possible, ones so obviously notable and well sourced that they can be accepted immediately after just a check for copyvio, and ones in a field where I think I can tell whether or not the person is reasonably certain to be notable & the sources adequate--this is especially academics, but also some other types of articles where the standards are well established & I have some knowledge. Some fields I do not touch sports and popular music--in each of these I made very embarrassing errors in in my first year here.

Some articles I and any careful reviewer recognize as notable but not acceptable for other reasons, and then there's a choice of options. The basic choice is to send them back to be improved, and this is effective if you determine cleverly which are likely to be improved. Sometimes I & others fix them--there you have to be clever in knowing which an be improved quickly, because it's a tradeoff between fixing many articles a little, and doing a few completely.

Bradv, you review in a much wider number of fields than I do, & probably you have somewhat broader or at least different interests. I have looked back at a dozen or so in fields I would review myself, and we would do pretty much them same thing. As I said, that's the test, on whether in general there is consistency. It doesn't have to be exact. I'd even say it shouldn't be exact. People contributing here should be able to receive advice given in different ways that represent our range of good faith disagreements.

I apologize if I said to much earlier or elsewhere; I apologize if I'm saying too much now. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@ DGG: thank you for your thoughtful reply. From what I've seen, the biggest discrepancy between different editors at AfC is between reviewers who habitually fix up drafts themselves and accept them into mainspace, and those who would rather provide feedback to new editors so that they can be brought up to a minimum standard before they are accepted. I believe I do a bit of both depending on my mood, but I would probably fit more into the latter category.

This strategy of providing feedback to submitters works best when they stick around to work on the draft, but due to the long backlog at AfC this doesn't always happen. Nevertheless, I believe this is what AfC is about — helping new editors contribute productively. I don't mind if an article takes a little longer to get right, but a new editor gains valuable experience. I also don't mind if I accept something that later gets deleted at AfD (in fact, if this never happens to me I'm probably being a little too picky in my reviews).

I don't really pick and choose categories of drafts to review. I usually work from the back of the queue — drafts that several reviewers may have looked at and done nothing with. I know these can be a little tougher to review, so I try to take the time to familiarize myself with the subject. When the authors come to my talk page to ask questions I spend a little more time on the subject, as this is ultimately why I help at AfC: to provide feedback to new editors and help them to be productive Wikipedians.

All of this is to say I enjoy working at AfC, and try my best to be consistent with other reviewers. I've been a little discouraged by recent events, but this experience has provided a valuable opportunity for self-reflection and review, and I believe I'm not the only that has learned from this. Even in the media, initial reports condemned Wikipedia for "rejecting" an article about a woman, but later articles showed a much better understanding of how the process works, and some of them even got introspective and realized that they don't write enough articles about women scientists.

In all the feedback I've gotten regarding my decline of the Strickland article, there has only been a handful of senior Wikipedians who said I did the wrong thing, and until two days ago that group consisted exclusively of people who don't contribute to AfC. However, the vast majority of feedback I've received, both on- and off-wiki, has been supportive and encouraging. For that, and for your feedback now, I am grateful. Thank you. Brad v 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@ Bradv: I see that you have reverted the page of Sara Ali Khan from a stub to a Redirect. This is the exact explanation you had given please read WP:NACTOR. More references don't make her more notable - wait until she meets the criteria.
Hence I went back and read the page this is what is within the first 100 words For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice[1] or note[2]—that is, remarkable[2] or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Notable in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
Well from the above Sara Ali Khan is very much "Notable in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant" she has two Movies coming this December. She is the youngest Indian Actress as lead in Two Movies in her debut month this is a historical event in Bollywood and Indian History. Her Very Instagram debut caused a massive out roar among Indian fans.
Moreover the citations are those of major media portals. If she wasn't notable personality why would she feature in so many articles. Hence I did not really understand your reason for the revert. Please let me know if I am going wrong anywhere

Hi ::@ Dlohcierekim: Just wanted to look you in this conversation. Thanks ( Purplecart ( talk) 10:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC))

Sounds to me like the redirect is overly optimistic. COverage not significant enough for independent article. The claims of significance are enough to not meet WP:CSD#A7, but separate article? Probably greater discussion on the talk page with participation from the relevant project would make things clearer.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 10:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Purplecart: By "notable" I am referring to Wikipedia's standard of inclusion, which are a particular set of criteria that need to be met in order for an article on the subject to exist on Wikipedia. The criteria for actors is WP:NACTOR, which this topic does not meet. For people in general, see WP:NBIO. Brad v 12:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and hope all is well. Lawrence J. Barkwell, I feel easily passes WP:NACADEMIC, so adding the COI tag is probably unfair to the subject to have in his page. I recommend removing. Meanwhile I tagged as reviewed, since my review is mostly on notability, which I think he passes. Let me know if you disagree, please. Highly value your contributions in wiki. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@ 1l2l3k: A COI tag merely informs readers that the coverage may not be neutral, as it was edited from the perspective of the subject. It implies no opinion on WP:NACADEMIC. I added the tag because the article was written by Lbarkwell and Easkala2, who claimed File:Lawrence J Barkwell.jpg as their own work. Once the information has been reviewed against reliable sources and checked for neutrality and accuracy, the tag can be removed. Brad v 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing 2019 in television, Bradv.

Unfortunately PRehse has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Are you sure about this - this is primarily a collection of redlinks - would have thought more blue links were required.

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

PRehse ( talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

PRehse, no I'm not sure at all. But 2018 in television and 2017 in television are full of red links too, so I figured there's consensus for this somewhere. If this needs cleanup, the others do too. Brad v 14:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - I see your point. PRehse ( talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Derrick Barnes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks L293D. Pinging @ Barkeep49: to see if there is anything to add to the article. Brad v 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes Sir Sputnik Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes Everyking • Jackmcbarn Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni Oversight changes Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93 Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

I'd appreciate any comments on User:Andrewa/Why they do not want you to use Wikipedia, either here or on its talk page. Andrewa ( talk) 13:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, interesting article. I agree that a symbiotic relationship has definitely developed between Wikipedia and mainstream journalism. We depend on good journalism to write good articles, and they depend on us to serve as a summary and an index of that journalism. This is not surprising at all, given the rise of social media, blogs, and promotional web sites, and the corresponding lack of money to allow the media to properly do its job. This is why we as Wikipedia editors must continue to insist on quality sources, so that the information we have is accurate and reliable. The media need us to do this well, and the public demands it. Brad v 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the media see their job quite as you do. Some journalists do, but they don't get rewarded for it.

The driving force of a conventional print newspaper is circulation. They do what best sells papers, or they go out of business. In some circumstances their reputation helps then to sell papers, and so as a secondary effect they try to protect this reputation. And what is a good reputation depends entirely on their target readership. And similarly for other media.

And always has. The most reputable of Australia's radio news services was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in most of the several decades my father was Chief Scientist and Managing Director of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. During those years there were many nuclear-related current affairs, and he was senior enough to be available for interview, and appeared regularly, but never on the ABC. And the reason for this was, they had a policy of re-recording the questions after the interview, and reserved the write to rephrase the question, and frequently did so in such a way as to misrepresent the answer. My father refused to agree to that, and so was simply never interviewed.

He was interviewed at length for Fortress Australia, and I attended the interviews just as an observer. None of that footage was used, but his name appeared in the credits as first published. He was allowed to take them to court, a rare thing for a career public servant, and as a result that credit was quietly removed. He had had no input whatsoever in the final product (a fortunate mistake by the producers in hindsight), and the program claimed that Australia had tried to develop a nuclear bomb. Had we done so, my father would have headed the project... he was not only the only Australian qualified to do so (some might say Sir Ernest Titterton, but he was mainly theoretical while my father was a materials expert and later of course a manager), he was one of the best qualified in the world, and had informally suggested to the government from time to time that a bomb program should be considered. So he knew that there had been no such program, and had said so (as had Titterton... they were good friends).

Electronic media are changing the details, but I see no evidence that they are changing the problem! Andrewa ( talk) 20:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sachsach ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shramik Bharti ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bradv,

This is regarding /info/en/?search=Draft:Shramik_Bharti

You have rightly mentioned that a few of the references were not so worthy of mention. So I have removed them. Also, I am not connected to the organization in any capacity. As a part of my work (in real world and wikipedia), I try to bring the most human-worthy and noticeable efforts to the notice of this increasingly empathy-devoid world. In this regard, I have known Shramik Bharti's work on-ground and have met many beneficiaries whose life has been positively affected by the organization's work. And hence I decided to make a wikipedia page for them.

Please do let me know if I need to further modify the page content to meet the notice-ability criterion.

Sachsach ( talk) 11:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sachsach, I've accepted the draft -- thank you for your improvements. Please continue to work on it in mainspace, as it could still use some additional sources, especially ones that cover the subject in depth. Brad v 17:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I have added references and submitted it with your help. I've also applied for the name change.

Next question: how do I add photos? I know they are careful about copywrited photos, but I have some of my own. I just don't know how to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauriMoore ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks so much for your feedback on the article I am working on ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Coleman_Research_Group) - it was very helpful. I was using /info/en/?search=Catalant as an example for a company that reaches notability criteria but is not Amazon/Google/Facebook status. It looks like the sources I used are quite similar to those used for this article (Crunchbase, a press release, small mentions in major outlets, and evidence of notability through mentions in articles such as Inc's best places to work and Crain's New York). I definitely understand that on its own, the Inc Best Places to Work is not notable, however, I thought that in conjunction with the other evidence it would be. Could you help me understand the discrepancy? Thanks for your help! Accessexpertise ( talk) 13:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessexpertise, it's usually not terribly helpful to argue for notability of one subject based on another article, as sometimes that article isn't terribly notable either. Please read WP:NCORP carefully, and compile some additional sources which cover the subject in depth. Most of those sources only mention the subject in passing, or are simple index sites which don't really count as coverage (e.g. Crunchbase, Bloomberg). Are there any news articles, magazines, or books about the subject? Also, if you have any affiliation with the company, you must declare it (apologies if you already have -- I haven't seen any). Brad v 14:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bradv

Got it, thanks a lot for that explanation. Would you say that the Commercial Observer article qualifies as a non "in passing" mention? And would this outlet qualify as notable enough for a source? Again, really appreciate your help as I'm fairly new.

I do not have any conflict of interest with any of the articles I've been writing - I just am interested in the expert network space, and found it odd that many of the largest players in the space do not have Wikipedias. Accessexpertise ( talk) 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessexpertise, I think the Commercial Observer article is a valid source, but it's not quite enough. This needs significant coverage to meet the notability guidelines for companies. I'm glad you don't have a conflict of interest though. As a new editor, you'll probably learn more from contributing to existing articles rather than trying to write new articles right out of the gate. Brad v 17:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• 46.37.144.163 ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:IKMF International Krav Maga Federation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there! This draft is awaiting review after pass of much times. Please re-consider review of AfC resubmission by Alex4ff. Thanks!

46.37.144.163 ( talk) 10:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Bradv,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bradv. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, that article you have proded was previously proded, in December 2016, by myself an it has never been substantially updated since then. As you know, per policy, you cant apply two prods to an article. I would suggest Afd. I will need to removed the prod at the moment. 17:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs) 17:30, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. I'll take it to AfD. Brad v 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist). Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bradv,

do you recall the article about Vera King? /info/en/?search=Vera_King Because your assessment was very helpful to correct the article according to the Wikipedia requirements as an encyclopedia, I ask you politely if you would have a look at the follow up too. The follow up is about the famous Sigmund-Freud-Institut, famous because of its exceptional history in regard to Nazi-Germany and the re-foundation after WW2. The English article is more precise than the one for the German Wiki. If this article meets the high requirements of the English Wiki, the German entry should be adapted.

I would be thankful to you for your assessment of this draft /info/en/?search=Draft:Sigmund-Freud-Institut before it goes to the submission process

Best, Ruediger (rudyguy21) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Rudyguy21, I'm reading through this now, and it seems like it's pretty decent but is lacking in sources. Can you point me to two or three good reliable sources, such as books, magazine articles, newspapers, that cover the subject in depth? Brad v 22:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello bradv, I recognized that you have had a look at the SFI entry. The correct German name is "Institut" though the anglicization "Institute" makes perfect sense to me. During the editing process, I realized that German which was once a major science language has lost much of its former influence. Proving sources might be difficult if they are published in German. I wonder if automated translation tools integrated into the Wiki system would be helpful for all and enhance the usability and acceptance of the Wikipedia as the global encyclopaedia. Since your notice, I added some 5 new references and replaced 2 existing references (refs 1 and 2) with better ones. Finally, I will add the source to ref. 12 or replace it with another source. I hope this will be helpful for the submission process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Rudyguy21:: German sources are fine. Please remember to keep conversations together where possible (you'll notice I moved this up as the previous section was still active), and sign your posts with 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~). Thanks. Brad v🍁 07:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just promoted your DYK hook to prep. You may wish to list your new Canada hook at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge/Recent additions. Yoninah ( talk) 00:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah! I've added it to the list. Brad v🍁 00:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bradv! this is Don.I've seen your Comment on my Draft page and I want to say thank you for support to let me improve my Article, I'm currently a new user and I've been work hard to make better Articles and more in Future. I've made a few changes according to your comment. I would like if you can Help me with more support to Improve my (Draft) Article I would appreciate it Thank You.-- DonJovanie ( talk) 05:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion ( permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Hi @ Bradv:,

Thanks for taking a look at the Evotec page.

You left a note saying "COI issues, resolve in draftspace." What do you recommend as next steps?

Thank you for your help, SciJournalistNZ ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S: Here is the COI message I included with the major changes I made. (COI: Hi Editors, I have been asked to take over the editing of this page. I am a freelance science journalist. I was contracted by an Evotec consultant, but have not spoken with Evotec directly. (You were correct in that they were trying to draft it themselves). I have rewritten the article with a neutral voice and increased both the quality and quantity of the references (from 7 to 29). I'm open to any additional suggestions you have. I look forward to working with you all, Juliet.)

@ SciJournalistNZ: I recommend finding more third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and cleaning the article of self-published sources and press releases. Once you're ready, you can submit the draft for review by clicking the blue button in the box at the top of the page. Since you have a declared COI, it's best if you do not move the article to mainspace yourself. Thanks. Brad v🍁 03:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Bradv: thanks for your advice, I'll work on the reference list now. SciJournalistNZ ( talk) 14:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

On 4 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blanket exercise, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that blankets are used to teach the history of indigenous peoples in Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanket exercise. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Blanket exercise), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ( talk) 12:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Any more anti-factual SJW agenda edits and you will be temp banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.112.151 ( talk) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rush922 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you can help me? I have had two warnings from another user (not an admin) for vandalising a Wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick). I am contesting these and, after a lot of toing and froing to establish what it is I have allegedly done, it transpires it is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick&diff=prev&oldid=872043666&diffmode=sourceI

This appears to show that I deleted the entire discussion and that you restored it, within a minute. Do you remember this? If so, can you remember if this was an editing conflict, or some such? I remember that it did not take my comment and sent an error message saying there was an 'editing conflict' (or words to that effect!) and that the page had "reverted". This was due to two people trying to post an edit at the same time. I thought nothing of it and simply reposted my comment. I did not at any time see a deleted page with only my comment; it was all present and correct.

You restored this page without mentioning this to me, and to my knowledge, you didn't report it or take any kind of action other than simply restoring it. This suggests it was no big deal; so I'm surmising it may have been a glitch of some kind. Can you throw any light on this? I am aware that we were on opposing sides in the Kendrick argument but I hope that you won't let this colour your judgement. There would be no earthly point to me deleting the page and I hope even if you disagreed with them, my arguments showed that I was rational and sane, not a lunatic troll who randomly deletes pages!

Many thanks for any insight you can give -- Pirate hamster ( talk) 00:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you removed the entire discussion and posted your own comment instead. I reverted that edit, and you reposted your comment. I understood that to be a simple mistake, which is why I never mentioned it, and I'm not sure why you are getting grief for it six days later. Brad v🍁 00:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! I have zero idea how I managed to do that (I'm guessing being flustered by the 'your entire 30 minutes-to-write comment has been lost in the ether' thing) but thank you for restoring the page and not making a fuss or making me look like a raging idiot. I shall pass this on to the user that is putting repeated warnings on my user page. Although whether it will make any difference or not, I do not know. Thanks again - much appreciated! Pirate hamster ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at [ [1]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Origin of the Romanians. Thank you. Iovaniorgovan ( talk) 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would like to understand the way we could apply your suggestion. Could you refer to an encyclopedia which repeats the same facts in the same article twice or three times, furthermore also repeats the same (or very similar) scholarly interpretations twice or three times? Borsoka ( talk) 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

On 13 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Barnes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Derrick Barnes, author of the award-winning children's book Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut, began his career as the first black male copywriter for Hallmark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Barnes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Derrick Barnes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox family. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for probing so directly. I thought you were one of the SPI admin clerks, not just a mere mortal. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@ SmokeyJoe: I'm not sure the SPI folks are immortal, but I do trust their judgement on issues like this. If someone like Praxidicae says an LTA page is causing problems and we'd be better off without it, I don't see any reason to dispute that. Brad v🍁 04:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone like Praxidicae? I don't think I have ever met Praxidicae before. I took her for an enthusiastic newcomer getting into things she maybe shouldn't. Checking now [2] I see she has fair experience with troubled editors. I probably should have noted the Category:Wikipedia_OTRS_volunteers membership, which implies clue. Sorry Praxidicae, I'll trust you more next time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Bradv ( talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Bradv appointed trainee clerk

Welcome message

Hi Bradv. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate ( on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Proud Boys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You reverted my edit saying "explain why Proud Boys is a "men's group". Well, did you read the edit summary I left when I made the change? It said

phrasing is tortured and not in line with given sources which describe them respectively as "mens club", "mens group", and "mens-only group"

Is there something unclear about that? If not please undo your revert. D.Creish ( talk) 00:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There may be better ways of phrasing the lede, but it needs to be discussed. Describing this as simply a "men's group" completely diminishes the nature of the organization, and is by no means a neutral edit. There have been over 20 edits to that page since the last talk page post, and you've just picked up the edits of an editor blocked for edit warring. If you want to pursue this change after it has been challenged, please make your case on the talk page. Brad v🍁 01:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you haven't reviewed my edit or read my talk page post. My edit changed "organization that admits only men as members" which is terrible writing to "men's group", to match the sources. I didn't change "far right" or "promotes violence", so I'm not simply describing them as a men's group I'm describing them as a far right men's group that promotes violence. Will you please revert or respond on the talk page with specific complaints? I'd also like to know why you restored unreliable sources like "blogtown" and "Media Matters" ? D.Creish ( talk) 01:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Draft:Delaware Shore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have updated the section with references based on beginners guide. Kindly request you to review it. Thanks!  /info/en/?search=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. Brad v🍁 05:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sigmund Freud Institute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 /info/en/?search=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. Brad v🍁 20:40, 16 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 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! Brad v🍁 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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.