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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This is so frustrating, and I'm NOT saying that it's you Bradv because I know that you're only doing what you can do.
My name is ShelbyLH and I've been doing volleyball (both indoor and beach) wiki's and stubs.
The latest one was the Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball, which was again declined. To answer the question, though, as it's been coming from a couple of ends if you will, I'm certainly including 3rd party sources. I say "coming from a couple of ends" because I believe that you as a editor/approver of articles (along with One|5969 and TwisterSister) you guys aren't the only individuals who've been assisting.
I some how got into the CreationsDesk group and have been helped, yes, as I've always been but WorldBruce had asked that I include citations from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser..and I did.
I'm kind of really into the sport of volleyball. The University of Hawai'i is a national power (USA) and the only Honolulu daily is the SA--which covers local sports extensively.
Bradv, could you please reconsider this stub? NCAA Beach VB is a brand new sport this season (2015-16) and it's the fastest growing to boot. I followed suit in what Georgia State University Beach VB did and I'm pretty certain that they'll be more collegiate Beach VB stubs which will be asking for notability also.
Thank you! ShelbyLH ( talk) 01:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting the impostor. How did you spot him so quickly? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's the one and only other article: Georgia_State_Panthers_beach_volleyball
What do you think?!
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has a paywall to get around also. I read the paper daily. I live in Seattle, another hot bed for volleyball. Volleyblog Seattle is another GREAT resource..very professionally done! ShelbyLH ( talk) 02:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Bradv, Are you still on your computer?? ShelbyLH ( talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv. You rock, fierce jungle king--you!! ShelbyLH ( talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would you recommend deletion of the pulse(rock) band page they are a touring band on pandora and national fm radio including xm satellite radio. Signed to a record label darkstar records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiverz26 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Bradv.
You recently commented on a page i am creating. Please guide me so that i can finish. I want to create many pages from Nigeria. This is my first. I will improve from this one. Thank you Dantunkuran ( talk) 12:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hello!
Thank you for the message.
I hope now, after lerning the rules, I did well the references for the page i intended to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca design ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
You've just declined the article "Research Data Alliance" citing "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" however I have included references to 6 institution's information about the RDA in addition to the RDA's own website for all the imformation I ave presented in this article. What more can I do to show subject notability? Please note that some of the references are to major institutions such as the European Commission, the Australian National Data Service and Rensselear Polytechnic University.
Please let me know, thanks,
Provenator ( talk) 04:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the references formats using the "cite news" template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provenator ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Brad and Happy Sunday, I have received an email that my adjusted article was denied as well. In addition there is now a note that the person is not notable enough. Members of the Art Directors Club and BFF only become members if they make an impact in the photographer industry. Please also not that cite 25 (Galerie Manfred Rieker) is regarding a different Manfred Rieker, they just share the same name. I have adjusted the article again, deleted all adjectives that could make it sound like an advertisement, and added several newspaper articles as preferences as well supporting my research. It is legit, I saw this in plenty other Wikipedia articles to use the person's website as a reference i.e. when it comes to date of birth.) If there is anything specific that needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you so much in advance. Diana Dilamm ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that my article was rejected again because "previous issues were not addressed", and I thought I had corrected everything. I unbolded the artists names, deleted the "unofficial origins" section which was described as weak, and most importantly I referenced every artist I claim as calligraffiti artists. When I found multiple artists in the same source (like the Iranian artists), I referenced the section (ei I put the reference after "Iran" and before citing the artists). I am not sure what the issue still is... Gottsij ( talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me am I citing incorrectly? What is the definition of "notable" references? Is there a minimum number? Seems to be subjective to me as this guy has several citations that I would deem notable. Additional direction would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach ( talk • contribs) 14:56, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your review Bradv! I am about to re-submit the draft on Biancamaria Frabotta, I hope there will be enough references and external links this time to prove the notability an verifiability of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giammei ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew7878 in connection to the AFD you started. Thanks. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments. I am submitting this entry on behalf of a friend involved in this research. I've alerted him to your criticism.
Regarding the term "archaeo-optics," would changing it to "archaeological optics" be acceptable? This is a very new branch of archaeology, so I suppose "archaeo-optics" is only common among researchers in the field. Here's a ref for archaeological optics https://books.google.com/books?id=MMfV-jwRRHkC&pg=PA629&lpg=PA629&dq=archaeo-optics&source=bl&ots=vzvaim0NBA&sig=V-QEPJyli0bes4v1r_AscqJSJes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjopLmE1oDMAhXD2BoKHQZqBlUQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=archaeo-optics&f=false
If you search for the longer term, there will be sufficient journal references to justify renaming the article.
As for the content, we erred on the side of completeness. I did, however, tell my friend that the article he gave me was overly detailed and not entirely suitable for a lay audience. I've asked him to make it more concise and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.wheaton ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the review of the archaeo-optics submission. A word of explanation: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Light, which brings together contributions from over twenty researchers, has been in process since 2011. The wheels of academia turn slowly, and sometimes it can take even more time for information to filter out from behind the ivy walls into a Googleable form. In terms of academic bona fides, Oxford University Press is among the most rigorous academic presses in the English-speaking world. The Wiki article itself has more than 140 citations to explain the long-term development of archaeo-optics, the core concept of which was broadcast to the world on the equally well-vetted Cosmos: A space/time odyssey. Aaron Watson PhD, a trained archaeoastronomer and the credited founder of the field of archaeoacoustics, is a leading proponent, and namer, of archaeo-optics. Paleo-camera ( talk) 12:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I wondered, as this is my first time of doing a Wikpedia page if you could help with our draft. I wondered whether it is more likely to be accepted if I remove the Impact Reports which have been created using Researchfish data. The publications are external publications written and refer to Researchfish so are neutral and not influenced by us.
Thanks Lisa Mwmconnelly ( talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there and thanks for reviewing my draft. I noticed that you mentioned how there is already a page for the subject of my draft, yet it is a redirect. Would I have to copy my draft over onto the redirect page, or is there something else that you would recommend that I do? Thanks.
Sekyaw
(talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to understand what sort of "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" do you want for this article ? The proposed article just described what is implemented by this free software. It is used by many french organizations, and all French government departments in their internal networks. Google reports 624 public sites authentication portal that contains the string "service provided by lemonldap::NG", but I've no other evidence that the source code... -- Guimard ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Your not an admin, how can you block me? Also, stop flagging my pages please, nothing bad happened until today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxmanwar ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been informed that this article has elements of being written like an advertisement; could you please show me quotations from the article to which this applies? All that is written in the article is factual and neutral, so I do not understand how this could be deemed to be like an advertisement. Orlagh Davies ( talk) 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added more references to the article Santa Maria degli Angeli. For what concernes the notability of it, the church is important due to the fact that it is annexed to Cascina Guzzina, that is one of the most important farmhouse in Brugherio for municipality's history. FrOsmetti ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Bradv
Citations added from BBC. Please pin point the exact errors for me to correct. Thank you Dantunkuran ( talk) 09:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Bradv,
Thanks much for your help with the wikipedia entry I submitted for review ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Janice_Marturano). It's my first wikipedia submission so I definitely need help figuring out how to best write these to conform to wikipedia standards.
At the moment, I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not sure how to accommodate your last round of suggestions. In your note, it was recommend that I make all the changes recommended by the previous reviewer, which I did (as far as I can tell) point-by-point as they had requested. Note that they wanted me to remove references, not add to them to improve the article.
Also, I'm not sure which of the language is promotional. I'm more than happy to make the changes but I honestly don't know what sentences or parts of the entry read like a advertisement. Let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance!
3fivesix ( talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
[a]n organization that educates business and organizational employees on strengthening the fundamentals of leadership excellence through mindfulness meditation, contemplative leadership practices and their practical applications in the workplacereads like advertising. I would clean up this paragraph, and language such as this in the rest of the article, and continue to establish notability by referring to solid independent sources. Once you've done that, submit it for review again and another reviewer will take a look. Bradv 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review my article submission. I am however confused as to specifically which elements of the page you deem are more like an advertisement than Wikipedia entry - I took a great deal of time and effort to write the article as neutrally as I possibly could, so any additional help regarding particular lines, words and tone would be greatly appreciated so I can edit the entry for resubmission. Thanks in advance for your time.
In regard to notability, Fisher House UK is the place where military patients and their families can stay while receiving treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, which is the centre for military medicine in the UK; this, therefore, makes Fisher House UK more than worthy of an article.
As well as this, Fisher House UK is a registered charity, which adds to it being of note. Orlagh Davies ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for answering some questions at the Teahouse. Can I ask that when you do so, you notify the editor who asked the question that it has been responded to by either pinging them as part of the answer or by using Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
re: Pattie Santos
Thank you Bradv. I modified to redirect to the band Pattie was in, It's a Beautiful Day.
I am researching this further about this artist and maybe in the future I will have the required and proper info for an individual article.
Thank you for your advice! April 12, Timle53 ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and please excuse me if this is redundant. I've cleaned up some obvious stylistic errata, but since I'm not sure what the real trouble was, I'm checking back. If something's still not right, please let me know and I'll get right on it. Thanks so much.
Marysdogs (
talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bradv, awesome, thank you. As I said in another thread: this particular Michael Goldberg is not the same as any existing-on-Wikipedia Michael Goldbergs. For this reason, I followed the lead of the page of my pal David Gans the musician, who is not David Gans the 17th century rabbi, and included parenthetical descriptors in the title. Since the man's never used a middle initial or other distinguishing info professionally, it would probably add MORE confusion to force the introduction of one at this late date. So if you've got an elegant way to deal with this, I'm all ears. Thanks so much! Marysdogs ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv Thanks for your feedback on the page. I went to the wikipedia live chat to get some advice on improving the page to solve the issues you identified. I've implemented their suggestions. I'm hoping it reads appropriately now. Please can you let me know if there are any other specific changes you think I need to make? Thank you FishKat ( talk) 08:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm confusing people with my intention for creating this Derrick May Sandbox... I do not want to replace his existing Wikipedia page.
I was creating this as a rough draft to see what are the good moves to edit. I spoke with the founder the other day Jimmy Wales. He said it was a good thing to draft articles in Sandboxes and he was surprised that I did this because so many people just start editing pages and get into trouble.
So I'm learning, and I really apologize for making it look like I want to replace the article. Thank-you for taking the time to check out what I've been doing and giving me advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bradv, I think you've done an admirable job mediating, but I think this situation needs outside eyes. WormTT( talk) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, I noticed the proposed GovLab has some issues that your rightly flagged. I tried to go in there and fix them with more notable sources, and neutral language. If you don't mind, please review and let me know what you think. I'll resubmit (or you can) if you think the issues of concern are resolved? Draft:The_GovLab Stevemidgley ( talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you for reviewing Articles for creation: Kirby Allan. This is a biography that took me quite a while to write and cite correctly, so I appreciate the time and effort that it took to confirm the subjects notability. Thank you most kindly for your review! -- Curley Wolf ( talk) 00:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Bradv!! How do I translate articles. My AMinocaproic article is in spanish but I did not know how to translate an article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucardias ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bradv! I already added sources from websites and news source online.
Filaphilippines ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Bradv ,
I added sources to my article /info/en/?search=Draft:Stowage_plan_for_container_ships Thanks to approve it now, or give me more advises if my article still needs more amendments. Sayed_Barakat 22:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siko55 ( talk • contribs)
You have declined the submission by one of my students, Rewaa Al Hassani, on abovementioned contemporary art foundation, on the basis that not enough external, independently verifiable sources have been used. However, she does use external sources, such as e-flux journal of contemporary art - a highly established source in the contemporary art world, the also well-established universes-in-universe.org, transartists.org, as well as Art Asia Pacific and other well-known sources. So I don't understand what more you are expecting. Furthermore the article seems to obey to most criteria of wikipedia; she is objective as she has no relation to the place, etc etc. So please review your refusal to publish this article, on one of the main Palestinian contemporary art foundations.
Robert Kluijver ( talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have added 2 new sources on
Draft:Alex Gilbert. Really is this article still not notable?
See
https://www.facebook.com/imadoptedOrg/videos/1721864794759785/ . This was taken from
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/ondemand/shows/b/breakfast/s2016/e72.html which his clip is at 49:00. This talks ideally about his I'm Adopted project. With the source to expire in 6 days, how can I reference this? --
DmitryPopovRU (
talk) 02:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have updated the references - by adding page numbers - as requested as part of the rejection of the previous submission of my article, and corrected the formatting of the references.
As to notability: I have included the published references that I know about, but I have not included sources that simply repeat press release materials. The subject of the article has been mentioned on some forums (eg RMWeb) but I have not included those, even where the product has been used as the basis for a published picture.
The notability of the subject is at least as wide as the Wikipedia entries on individual steam locomotives.
Alexander Bray ( talk) 08:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm JWNoctis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Global Reach Education Counselling Services, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. JWNoctis talk 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Bradv |
Improves the encyclopedia |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 8, 2016 |
10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors. |
Recognized for |
Fighting Vandalism |
Nomination page |
Thanks again for your efforts!
Buster Seven
Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
I'm trying to submit the Draft:Cloudreach article but you've rejected this because the article seemed too much like an advertisement. There are multiple secondary sources in the article which show why the company is notable, including two major UK newspapers, and a prestigious national award. Can you please read over the article again and suggest any changes that could be made to make it more acceptable? Thanks!"
I would like this article titled " Amanda Gates" to be reviewed again as I have made some changes as have been suggested. There are still have some references that I have to cite. One comment made was that a notable curler should have at least 2 Scotties appearances. I have noted many curlers whose articles have been accepted by Wikipedia that only have one Scotties appearance ( in some cases that is their only notability) so certainly this cannot be the case. Of course this is not relevant to the article in question since Amanda Gates does have 2 Scotties appearances. I will continue to correct missing references and have corrected information in the attached infobx
Suegates (
talk) 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Bradv!
Thanks for your willingness to offer a third opinion on this article, I have left my viewpoint on the talk page.
Best :) MedBoard2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedBoard2 ( talk • contribs) 22:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for the work that you do maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Adam9007 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
The other Sangar articles found on Wikipedia are about the towns and military term. This article is about the surname.
Dear Bradv
Thanks for looking at the article. Could I please ask what constitutes peacock terms in the article? I have no professional connection to the artist in question and remain very uncertain of which terms are not proper. Without a list of them, I'll be guessing forever. Thanks very much for your expert insight.
Once again, I would really appreciate a list, otherwise I'll remove the text from Wikipedia, since it doesn't seem proper in this context.I've already been trying for two months to submit two paragraphs.
If we're talking about the "stature" of the newspapers quoted, the paper-based publication industry in Ukraine, Georgia, etc was decimated after the end of the Soviet system––and all publication subsidies ended. All news is therefore online and in venues we might in the West take to be "fleeting." I'm presuming the reviewers know the languages and social issues at hand, so that, I hope, is not the matter. I take, as suggested, the key issue to be inappropriate language, hence my initial query. I would be extremely grateful for detailed help.
I also forgot to mention that in the post-Soviet context, centralized or state-run media sources, which––say, in the UK––would be a source of *objective* journalism/notability, are in fact the opposite, i.e, dubious in their bias. Russia would be a fine example: objective information regarding a cultural phenomenon would not come from major press outlets, which are fiscally bound to their governmental sponsors. Truth instead is more likely to be found in minor, peripheral publications. Those same lesser outlets are obliged to fund themselves, of course, and will have more ad copy surrounding them (as banners, pre-roll video, etc), giving the *visual* impression of ephemeral and less trustworthy information! Sadly, the juxtaposition in Eastern Europe between state-run and "underground"journalism, for want of a less dramatic phrase, has not changed much.
The singers and songwriters on state TV/radio are only aired because they pay for their airtime. They are, therefore, not actually famous in the true sense, but merely able to pay for airtime and therefore cultivate an air of artistic impact and/or import. Hence the need to document, explain, and foreground other performers.
One could draw a parallel here with the teaching of Soviet literature in US schools for the last 60/70 years. We never read the works celebrated on Russian/Ukrainian/Georgian state channels, but instead those authors or poets, who–in purportedly minor quarters––played a more significant and notable cultural role. Most were ignored their entire lives.
I should also note that the Villy articles in Russian, Georgian, and Ukrainian––with which I have zero connection!––have long met the notability criteria. My problem, I'm guessing, is doing the same within an English-language context. In summary, therefore, I'm totally at loss after 4/5 edits to see either any peacock terms or notability issues. Hopefully I can be proven and fix the offending lines at once. Thanks!
Hi Bradv I'm a bit lost on why you have asked me to remove the links that act as citations and references on the article? The Wikipedia are links and are not intended to be citations.
Best Wishes
Ross
I have made some changes to my article "Amanda Gates, a Canadian curler" and I have added references where I thought they might have been missing. I would like to re-submit my article but wondered if you would have a chance to take a look at it. I have a final reference that I need to source for some points at the end. I will continue looking for that. I also submitted an article entitled "Jennifer Gates, a Canadian curler" but have not had any feed back on it. I am trying to use something called an "info box" but cannot seem to get it to edit properly. Any help with that would also be appreciated.
Have re-submitted ( at least I think I have submitted them) two articles titled Amanda Gates, curler and Jennifer Gates, curler. I have fixed the text as per the suggestions that were sent to me by other reviewers. I have reviewed the criteria for "notable curlers" as set up by Wikipedia and these curlers meet 7 out of the 10 criteria. I have made an attempt to fix references. I would like your assistance in having these curlers included in Wikipedia. Thanking you in advance for your help and suggestions. Suegates ( talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hope I am doing this right! Not sure how to re-submit as I wasn't sure how I submitted it in the first place! I see you are a very busy editor and have your hands full. If you have time to help it would be much appreciated. Thanks again Suegates ( talk) 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
hi Bradv please submit my drat page to the wikipedia for wikipedia page or edit yourself for me /info/en/?search=Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbtweet ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv iam new user in wikipedia so iam quite unexperienced in making article i submit my draft article but the Submission was declined on 25 July 2016 so kindly i request you to edit my draft yourself and create it for me
my draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv
Hi Bradv. Hope this message finds you well. You recently declined request to post article about Draft:Viddyad. The reason is it was too promotional. My purpose wasn't to write a promotional article and i tried to do my best to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Can you help me and tell what i did wrong and how can i improve it? Also there is a mentioning about Viddyad company in Silicon Docks article and I could link Viddyad article with Silicon Docks article. Thanks a lot. Tatiana.frantsuzenko ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Would this be approved if I take out the reference of rewardstyle.com? This is my first Wiipedia page submission and after reading all of your links I am having a hard time understanding why it isn't approved.
Thank you. Kaitlynnemoody ( talk) 14:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
I would like to engage with you on your rejection of the draft Appian Corporation page. You rejected based on a lack of notability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) and added the following comment:
"Please fix the style of references to conform to guidelines, and remove unreliable sources, such as LinkedIn. Also, be sure that every single statement listed in the article has a source (including the InfoBox). Also, if one of the editors is really a paid editor, I am reticent to ever approve this article without substantial review by other editors to make sure that all bias is removed. Bradv 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)"
(1) References can be conformed to guidelines. In lieu of the reference to LinkedIn for Appian's employee population, there are alternative sources like CrunchBase [1], and WashingtonPost [2] (Midsize company). Other than LinkedIn, do you consider any of the other sources unreliable? The InfoBox contains information that is already in the text and cited (the name of the company, identity of founders, employee size, product categories)
(2) With respect to notability, I note that previous reviewer Tseung Kwan O [3] "had no doubt about the notability of the company"; DGG stated that the company "may possibly" be notable. DGG believed that the numerous references to Appian's software in the independent press were advertising in nature. However, the removal of those references probably has an adverse impact on notability. The language removed was [4]:
The software is used as a platform to develop a variety of applications: Ryder Systems uses Appian to automate paper contracts, log an analyze equipment breakdowns and combine record keeping systems, [5] Vitamin World uses Appian for applications related to store closures and remodeling [6], the Defense Information Systems Agency uses Appian for contract writing and acquisition applications [7], Crawford & Company uses Appian to crowdsource insurance adjustments. [8]
Those are references to coverage of usage by Appian by fairly significant national sources: Wall Street Journal, CIO.com, FedScoop. In response to DGG's comments that it was "advertising", the references were removed. If notability is in question, I think those sources should be considered. In addition, please note the additional reference cited in the Tseung Kwan O talk page. I would imagine that source would have been convincing as to notability.
(3) With respect to your comment about one of the editors (including myself) being a paid editor, and your reticence to approve the article in light of that, I refer you to the statement made to DGG:
You also mention WP:NPOV. As you likely well know, there are third parties out there who you can pay to create pages for you. Appian didn't do that - it acted honestly and put in a reference to the fact that the original writer (a lower level marketing person) was paid by the company. In response to two rejections, the article was significantly changed and now reads a very straightforward description of the company and its product. By taking the position that you do, you are encouraging companies to hide their identities or engage third parties to create articles for them. WP:COI is not a prohibition on creating or editing content. If you question the neutrality of a statement, please provide comment and the draft can be revised. If there are the "usual faults of this manner of writing" please highlight them.
I reiterate that WP:COI is not a prohibition on content and that the review process has a significant impact on the neutrality of articles. I have worked now with other editors to revise the content substantially such that it is a neutral representation of the company. In this regard, working with these editors should qualify as "substantial review by other editors."
I have also moved copies of the discussions with other reviewers to the Talk page of the Draft for ease of further reference. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
sorry - the post I created was one of the auto-generation posts you make when you have a rejection. It looks like it messed up the formatting on your talk page. I apologize, but I won't touch because I don't know enough about formatting to fix it. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
References
I am not sure where that leaves us. Where do you come out on notability? Would you endorse notability if the substantial references to usage were put back in or is this discussion enough to convince you of notability?
I don't want to re-submit for review unless I know your thoughts on this and can respond to any concerns (the references are an easy fix if I can figure out the guidelines). What do you mean by "no evidence of paid editing"? Do you mean that as a re-statement of WP:NPOV? Do you have any thoughts about the neutrality of the text at this point? As discussed with DGG, the text is drawn from the third party sources. If you mean that to pass your test, none of the text was entered by a paid editor, then I think you are saying the WP:COI is a complete bar on paid editing. Is there a way to submit the text of an article to another reviewer who doesn't know the editor has declared a COI to determine whether a reviewer not knowing of the COI would conclude it's neutral?
Once you post your response, I will post this colloquy on the talk page of the draft for further reviewers. Thank you for your time. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I grabbed a username to respond from a different IP, but I am the same editor from 38.124.250.3. I have not created a username before because my use of Wikipedia to this point has been reading articles over lunch and correcting typos and out of fear that it would become an addiction. I want to thank you again for your time as volunteer and wanted to respond to your question and comments. I am cognizant of WP:PAYTALK and don't want to take up too much of your time (I have a job, which is not editing Wikipedia, this is a side project and I am definitively not paid by the page or word); we may quickly be entering the realm of theory rather than specific comments on the draft.
First, those references you cite (6,7,8) were removed from the draft altogether per your comment on your talk page that references to usage by customers seemed like an advertisement to you. Bradv reviewed it without those links. I only referenced them here with respect to Bradv's rejection because he raised notability concerns and I wanted to show him that there were additional third party sources supporting notability outside the draft.
Second, I disagree with your position on the WSJ blog. Blogs published by news outlets specifically meet the guidelines. Blogs like DealBook at the NYTimes, etc. often break news themselves.
Third, on #6, I think the upshot of the article in CIO is the value of BPM technology and that Appian was the BPM technology selected by NBTY. Again, it was part of a prior draft that was specifically removed pursuant to your comment on advertising.
Fourth, in response to your question on 7, I didn't know it was written by that person before you pointed it out because, like an idiot, I linked to the wrong FedScoop link out of the list of links I had. This article [1] is the link that should have been included. Obviously, that was a much better article in the first place, more recent, and by an independent author discussing the USAF's adoption of the same software used by DISA. It was the link I wanted included but I didn't re-check it after I linked it. In other words, "Ignorance, Sir. Ignorance!" [2]
Fifth, on #8 yes, it's a story about Crawford's use of BPM software. The citation supports the text that Crawford uses Appian for crowdsourced insurance adjusting as an example of how customers use Appian's BPM software. In fact, the article is discussing Crawford's use of BPM software, which is Appian. If it said Appian every place it said BPM, wouldn't that itself look more like advertising?
Sixth, the heart of your comment is this, which gets us into theoretical territory and risks hijacking Bradv's talk page (I will copy all this to the draft's talk page), but I wanted to keep the discussion in-line, as you did:
It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism and notability. But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references.
I wholeheartedly agree that WP:COI means that reviewers should have skepticism about what a declared paid editor writes, and I agree with it as a principle. But WP:COI by its terms is not a bar on editing. It is recommended that an editor with a COI suggest any edits on a talk page and allow others to make them. For a new draft article that is submitted for review, is that not a reasonable equivalent? The draft is not published here until a neutral reviewer agrees to its publication. Here, through multiple rejections, we've had 3 substantive reviews and I've tried to make good faith edits for neutrality. If I fail, I intend to try again until there is no doubt about neutrality.
I disagree that someone can never objectively write about themselves. It's not difficult to recite simple encyclopedic facts about yourself, your family, or your company on a neutral basis (I was born XX/XX/XXXX, parents were X and Y, went to this school, that school, had this job, that job). Those facts about myself are neutral and encyclopedic, raising the question of notability. It appears that there is a tension for a declared COI editor between writing something to show its notability based on third party sources vs. what could be considered advertising. For example, is it advertising to cite a third party article noting that DISA uses Appian for writing procurement contracts and that the USAF has adopted it as well, or is it a demonstration of notability? My intent was to show the latter and to exemplify how BPM software like Appian's is used (I don't think that the concept of BPM software or application platform as a service is self-explanatory to a reader, even leaning on the Business Process Management page).
Given your argument ("we have now learned that every draft....about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing"), isn't what I'm doing here - declaring my COI and trying write to neutrality while also showing notability - exactly the right prescription for that ailment, assuming the goal is that Wikipedia should have a page for every notable company? I could go on here and would be willing to get into a theoretical discussion but I am cognizant of your time. Thanks for contribution here and at wikipedia generally. WSCW ( talk) 02:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Dear reviewer,
I would like to request a re-review for the page
/info/en/?search=Draft:TravelStaytion as the content was carefully created in order to not to contain any advertising or marketing words or hidden meaning. However it was still declined for this reason. Please advise at least on which parts exactly seem to be an advertisement? as I do not understand, and think that the page should be re-reviewed, may be changed where necessary. because I want it eventually to be published ideally.
Thank you for your attention!
Hi, I am just wondering why the page for David Schipper I have submitted has been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.137.36 ( talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Can you offer any tips on sources? I cited FCC documents - are those not acceptable? Thanks. Spinetingler ( talk) 03:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I though that there was a problem with those sources. I had blanked on there being some newspaper articles, but I've added them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler ( talk • contribs) 04:18, July 30, 2016
Hi, is there something controversial that you think is in need of a link to support? I had a look there is nothing controversial or wrong either, what benefit is the template? TA Govindaharihari ( talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The second AfD was closed early without concensus, and it also passed through AFC one time.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. I hope you are doing well. You recently declined a request to post an article about Draft:Bryan Reuss. The reason was it did not have enough sources. I had previously sourced all his publications and many of his research projects but a person named user:LaMona removed all these sources on July 14th. Would it be possible to restore it to what I previously had and see if the numerous sources would allow you to approve it? I had previously reviewed other orthopedic surgeons and this is how they did it, so I was confused when LaMona removed all of the sources. If you have any other advice, I would love to hear how I can improve this article. Thanks. Medexp99 ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Reuss operated on my daughter's arm last year. It was a very complicated surgery that turned out great. Before and after the surgery my husband and I researched Dr. Reuss and were very impressed by his experience, research and publications. We were surprised with his experience, work with so many teams in Orlando and being a top surgeon in Florida, that he wasn't on Wikipedia. So, we started to find info for Wikipedia on the Internet, from the Orlando Orthopedic website and some by contacting the firm directly. Thanks for helping us try to move this forward. Medexp99 ( talk) 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Brady I am a little confused as to why you think my article on Kelly Riddle does not appropriately show his notability? If you look at "private investigators" in Wikipedia there are 6 real life PI's. For Crouch there are only 6 sentences regarding his being a PI (2) Field lived from 1805-1874 (3) Parco has 2 small paragraphs about his TV show (4) Pellicano went to jail for illegal activity (5) Ribacoff had a few TV appearances and (6) Weber is primarily an attorney with a small paragraph about being a PI. My article on Kelly Riddle shows where he was quoted 17 times in different trade publications as an expert, he has more than 58 articles published, he is the author of 10 books, was chosen the #1 PI in the U.S., the PI of the Year, etc. These are only an example as there are more. If this does not demonstrate he is an notable expert in the PI field than no one is. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpatton ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your input to improve this article to achieve the correct standard.
The initial draft was rejected partly on the grounds of notability, and this was addressed and a second reviewer accepted that the subject is notable. The first reviewer also commented that too much reliance was made on a single source, and so this has been drastically changed, with a wider range of different verifiable secondary sources being introduced in order to comply with the requirements, and this is reflected in the cited references.
I have removed the offending sections, added references where applicable and generally tidied up.
Is there anything else you feel I could do now ?
Many thanks
CPBearfoot ( talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting a re-review for the biographical entry "Ali Dibadj". Reviewer said he does not meet "notability". Wikipedia guidelines for "notability" say the person must be "worthy of notice" or "note" or "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention to be recorded." I respectfully submit that he does fit those criteria very well. Over the past 10 years, he has transformed companies in the generally entrenched consumer packaged goods industry with his objective, irreverent, bold analysis and writing (for instance, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Energizer, etc.)--that is truly "remarkable" to push against the grain. "Worthy of note", being ranked the top analyst for 8 times in Institutional Investor is very "significant and unusual", especially from an underdog position of supporting shareholders versus large incumbent companies. The first Baron's article cited is about him and his views. Please reconsider the submission; he deserves to be recorded in your wonderful encyclopedia. Indeed, his track record stands much for what Wikipedia stands for--open, objective, accurate information dissemination. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmcsanchez ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask why my article on the IAmMatthewian Project was rejected. The project is somewhat famous in Canada amongst fans of the Japanese anime series Hetalia: Axis Powers who complain about the character Canada's 'invisibility'. -- NovaBrunswick 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bradv
I have added additional references from third party coverage citing from reliable sources to my draft on Ghatam Suresh. Appreciate if you could review the draft and hopefully the submission references are adequate enough to show the draft's notability.
Thank you :) Rago vaid ( talk) 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
I am not (yet) requesting a re-review. I just followed the link 'ask the reviewer' in the phrase 'If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission,...', since I would like to have some additional advice on my submission before entering it again. In particular, I was wondering why you wrote our comment 'This reads more like an essay or a chapter of a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Are you sure we need a separate article on this? Where does this fit in to the rest of the project?', since I am not sure what project you refer to. Can you specify this?
With kind regards,
Jur Schuurman ( talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
On September 1st I sent a message on your talk page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Bradv), since you reviewed (and declined the submission of) my draft page on Land Governance. However, I do not seem to have received any reply by you. Or am I missing something? I would appreciate your reply, maybe also to my email, just to make sure: schuurman.j@chello.nl.
Yours,
Jur Schuurman ( talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Jur Schuurman ( talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Bradv- Ms. Tayler Wilson a Communication student and summer intern at Marian University was given the task of creating an article providing information on Sydney Michael Hudson for the University where he is on the Board of Trustees. She did not complete the task and reported to him that it was due to her lack of credible references. She contacted him and he dug out references from the public domain for the brief biographical description she had provided. He resubmitted the draft, but was informed by Editor David.moreno72 that it could not be submitted it as an autobiography. He asked me to submit it. How do I do that at this point?
K.I. Forline Sept. 16, 2016
kiforline@ipoweres.com SMHud ( talk) 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Any instructions on how I should proceed? Thanks. K.I. Forline 9/19/16 2602:304:CDBA:4400:5984:F2FF:FD7A:63D3 ( talk) 03:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So I took an Chinese Baidu biography about Jiangnan Huang, His Bloomberg Profile, and a recent interview on a Chinese Finance blog and summarized it. I am new to this. Can you help me out and explain how to make the article not promotional. It is not my intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz320 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for the initial suggestions on the page Amistad Memorial (New Haven). I'm a high school teacher and a few of my students have been working on the content for the page in class. This is just a bare bones template, but they will be adding to it over the next week. We'd love it if you can suggestion further improvements when we've advanced the page a bit further. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawenz ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To hell with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot Gorkhali ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
What makes the
Venture for America article read more like an advertisement?
This line of the reason for decline states "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."
I have 5 independent sources for this article from the New York Times, Inc.com, bigthink.com, Brown University, and FastCompany.com. How does this not meet the range of independent, reliable, and published, sources criteria?
The lede, and the article itself, was modeled off of the Teach for America page. The TFA page has the mission stated right in the lede, which while it is cited from an independent source, it's also a direct copy from the TFA's actual mission page ( https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-mission).
What is the allowance for using quotes and statistics from the organization's site vs an independent one? In some cases, it seems like the organization's site would be a better source for information.
In regards to actual fixes to make it seem less like an advertisement, would these be sufficient?
I'm not trying to be contradictory when I say this, just trying to understand how this works better. Going back to the TFA example, that page has a citation straight from the TFA website ( /info/en/?search=Teach_For_America#cite_ref-10). Additionally, the entire Geographical Reach section ( /info/en/?search=Teach_For_America#Geographical_reach) has no citation. MerlinPatt ( talk) 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally submitted that comment early. I meant to ask, shouldn't both of those things I mentioned above have independent citations or be removed? MerlinPatt ( talk) 03:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the credo, found an independent source for the mission, and found independent sources for the history section. The only source left from the website is the statistics section. Is this sufficient?
Also, related question, is there any limit on how many times a draft can be re-submitted for a review? MerlinPatt ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bradv. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This is so frustrating, and I'm NOT saying that it's you Bradv because I know that you're only doing what you can do.
My name is ShelbyLH and I've been doing volleyball (both indoor and beach) wiki's and stubs.
The latest one was the Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball, which was again declined. To answer the question, though, as it's been coming from a couple of ends if you will, I'm certainly including 3rd party sources. I say "coming from a couple of ends" because I believe that you as a editor/approver of articles (along with One|5969 and TwisterSister) you guys aren't the only individuals who've been assisting.
I some how got into the CreationsDesk group and have been helped, yes, as I've always been but WorldBruce had asked that I include citations from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser..and I did.
I'm kind of really into the sport of volleyball. The University of Hawai'i is a national power (USA) and the only Honolulu daily is the SA--which covers local sports extensively.
Bradv, could you please reconsider this stub? NCAA Beach VB is a brand new sport this season (2015-16) and it's the fastest growing to boot. I followed suit in what Georgia State University Beach VB did and I'm pretty certain that they'll be more collegiate Beach VB stubs which will be asking for notability also.
Thank you! ShelbyLH ( talk) 01:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting the impostor. How did you spot him so quickly? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's the one and only other article: Georgia_State_Panthers_beach_volleyball
What do you think?!
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has a paywall to get around also. I read the paper daily. I live in Seattle, another hot bed for volleyball. Volleyblog Seattle is another GREAT resource..very professionally done! ShelbyLH ( talk) 02:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Bradv, Are you still on your computer?? ShelbyLH ( talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv. You rock, fierce jungle king--you!! ShelbyLH ( talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would you recommend deletion of the pulse(rock) band page they are a touring band on pandora and national fm radio including xm satellite radio. Signed to a record label darkstar records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiverz26 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Bradv.
You recently commented on a page i am creating. Please guide me so that i can finish. I want to create many pages from Nigeria. This is my first. I will improve from this one. Thank you Dantunkuran ( talk) 12:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hello!
Thank you for the message.
I hope now, after lerning the rules, I did well the references for the page i intended to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca design ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
You've just declined the article "Research Data Alliance" citing "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" however I have included references to 6 institution's information about the RDA in addition to the RDA's own website for all the imformation I ave presented in this article. What more can I do to show subject notability? Please note that some of the references are to major institutions such as the European Commission, the Australian National Data Service and Rensselear Polytechnic University.
Please let me know, thanks,
Provenator ( talk) 04:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the references formats using the "cite news" template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provenator ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Brad and Happy Sunday, I have received an email that my adjusted article was denied as well. In addition there is now a note that the person is not notable enough. Members of the Art Directors Club and BFF only become members if they make an impact in the photographer industry. Please also not that cite 25 (Galerie Manfred Rieker) is regarding a different Manfred Rieker, they just share the same name. I have adjusted the article again, deleted all adjectives that could make it sound like an advertisement, and added several newspaper articles as preferences as well supporting my research. It is legit, I saw this in plenty other Wikipedia articles to use the person's website as a reference i.e. when it comes to date of birth.) If there is anything specific that needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you so much in advance. Diana Dilamm ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that my article was rejected again because "previous issues were not addressed", and I thought I had corrected everything. I unbolded the artists names, deleted the "unofficial origins" section which was described as weak, and most importantly I referenced every artist I claim as calligraffiti artists. When I found multiple artists in the same source (like the Iranian artists), I referenced the section (ei I put the reference after "Iran" and before citing the artists). I am not sure what the issue still is... Gottsij ( talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me am I citing incorrectly? What is the definition of "notable" references? Is there a minimum number? Seems to be subjective to me as this guy has several citations that I would deem notable. Additional direction would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach ( talk • contribs) 14:56, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your review Bradv! I am about to re-submit the draft on Biancamaria Frabotta, I hope there will be enough references and external links this time to prove the notability an verifiability of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giammei ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew7878 in connection to the AFD you started. Thanks. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments. I am submitting this entry on behalf of a friend involved in this research. I've alerted him to your criticism.
Regarding the term "archaeo-optics," would changing it to "archaeological optics" be acceptable? This is a very new branch of archaeology, so I suppose "archaeo-optics" is only common among researchers in the field. Here's a ref for archaeological optics https://books.google.com/books?id=MMfV-jwRRHkC&pg=PA629&lpg=PA629&dq=archaeo-optics&source=bl&ots=vzvaim0NBA&sig=V-QEPJyli0bes4v1r_AscqJSJes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjopLmE1oDMAhXD2BoKHQZqBlUQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=archaeo-optics&f=false
If you search for the longer term, there will be sufficient journal references to justify renaming the article.
As for the content, we erred on the side of completeness. I did, however, tell my friend that the article he gave me was overly detailed and not entirely suitable for a lay audience. I've asked him to make it more concise and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.wheaton ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the review of the archaeo-optics submission. A word of explanation: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Light, which brings together contributions from over twenty researchers, has been in process since 2011. The wheels of academia turn slowly, and sometimes it can take even more time for information to filter out from behind the ivy walls into a Googleable form. In terms of academic bona fides, Oxford University Press is among the most rigorous academic presses in the English-speaking world. The Wiki article itself has more than 140 citations to explain the long-term development of archaeo-optics, the core concept of which was broadcast to the world on the equally well-vetted Cosmos: A space/time odyssey. Aaron Watson PhD, a trained archaeoastronomer and the credited founder of the field of archaeoacoustics, is a leading proponent, and namer, of archaeo-optics. Paleo-camera ( talk) 12:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I wondered, as this is my first time of doing a Wikpedia page if you could help with our draft. I wondered whether it is more likely to be accepted if I remove the Impact Reports which have been created using Researchfish data. The publications are external publications written and refer to Researchfish so are neutral and not influenced by us.
Thanks Lisa Mwmconnelly ( talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there and thanks for reviewing my draft. I noticed that you mentioned how there is already a page for the subject of my draft, yet it is a redirect. Would I have to copy my draft over onto the redirect page, or is there something else that you would recommend that I do? Thanks.
Sekyaw
(talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to understand what sort of "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" do you want for this article ? The proposed article just described what is implemented by this free software. It is used by many french organizations, and all French government departments in their internal networks. Google reports 624 public sites authentication portal that contains the string "service provided by lemonldap::NG", but I've no other evidence that the source code... -- Guimard ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Your not an admin, how can you block me? Also, stop flagging my pages please, nothing bad happened until today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxmanwar ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been informed that this article has elements of being written like an advertisement; could you please show me quotations from the article to which this applies? All that is written in the article is factual and neutral, so I do not understand how this could be deemed to be like an advertisement. Orlagh Davies ( talk) 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added more references to the article Santa Maria degli Angeli. For what concernes the notability of it, the church is important due to the fact that it is annexed to Cascina Guzzina, that is one of the most important farmhouse in Brugherio for municipality's history. FrOsmetti ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Bradv
Citations added from BBC. Please pin point the exact errors for me to correct. Thank you Dantunkuran ( talk) 09:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Bradv,
Thanks much for your help with the wikipedia entry I submitted for review ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Janice_Marturano). It's my first wikipedia submission so I definitely need help figuring out how to best write these to conform to wikipedia standards.
At the moment, I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not sure how to accommodate your last round of suggestions. In your note, it was recommend that I make all the changes recommended by the previous reviewer, which I did (as far as I can tell) point-by-point as they had requested. Note that they wanted me to remove references, not add to them to improve the article.
Also, I'm not sure which of the language is promotional. I'm more than happy to make the changes but I honestly don't know what sentences or parts of the entry read like a advertisement. Let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance!
3fivesix ( talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
[a]n organization that educates business and organizational employees on strengthening the fundamentals of leadership excellence through mindfulness meditation, contemplative leadership practices and their practical applications in the workplacereads like advertising. I would clean up this paragraph, and language such as this in the rest of the article, and continue to establish notability by referring to solid independent sources. Once you've done that, submit it for review again and another reviewer will take a look. Bradv 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review my article submission. I am however confused as to specifically which elements of the page you deem are more like an advertisement than Wikipedia entry - I took a great deal of time and effort to write the article as neutrally as I possibly could, so any additional help regarding particular lines, words and tone would be greatly appreciated so I can edit the entry for resubmission. Thanks in advance for your time.
In regard to notability, Fisher House UK is the place where military patients and their families can stay while receiving treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, which is the centre for military medicine in the UK; this, therefore, makes Fisher House UK more than worthy of an article.
As well as this, Fisher House UK is a registered charity, which adds to it being of note. Orlagh Davies ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for answering some questions at the Teahouse. Can I ask that when you do so, you notify the editor who asked the question that it has been responded to by either pinging them as part of the answer or by using Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
re: Pattie Santos
Thank you Bradv. I modified to redirect to the band Pattie was in, It's a Beautiful Day.
I am researching this further about this artist and maybe in the future I will have the required and proper info for an individual article.
Thank you for your advice! April 12, Timle53 ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and please excuse me if this is redundant. I've cleaned up some obvious stylistic errata, but since I'm not sure what the real trouble was, I'm checking back. If something's still not right, please let me know and I'll get right on it. Thanks so much.
Marysdogs (
talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bradv, awesome, thank you. As I said in another thread: this particular Michael Goldberg is not the same as any existing-on-Wikipedia Michael Goldbergs. For this reason, I followed the lead of the page of my pal David Gans the musician, who is not David Gans the 17th century rabbi, and included parenthetical descriptors in the title. Since the man's never used a middle initial or other distinguishing info professionally, it would probably add MORE confusion to force the introduction of one at this late date. So if you've got an elegant way to deal with this, I'm all ears. Thanks so much! Marysdogs ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv Thanks for your feedback on the page. I went to the wikipedia live chat to get some advice on improving the page to solve the issues you identified. I've implemented their suggestions. I'm hoping it reads appropriately now. Please can you let me know if there are any other specific changes you think I need to make? Thank you FishKat ( talk) 08:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm confusing people with my intention for creating this Derrick May Sandbox... I do not want to replace his existing Wikipedia page.
I was creating this as a rough draft to see what are the good moves to edit. I spoke with the founder the other day Jimmy Wales. He said it was a good thing to draft articles in Sandboxes and he was surprised that I did this because so many people just start editing pages and get into trouble.
So I'm learning, and I really apologize for making it look like I want to replace the article. Thank-you for taking the time to check out what I've been doing and giving me advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bradv, I think you've done an admirable job mediating, but I think this situation needs outside eyes. WormTT( talk) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, I noticed the proposed GovLab has some issues that your rightly flagged. I tried to go in there and fix them with more notable sources, and neutral language. If you don't mind, please review and let me know what you think. I'll resubmit (or you can) if you think the issues of concern are resolved? Draft:The_GovLab Stevemidgley ( talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you for reviewing Articles for creation: Kirby Allan. This is a biography that took me quite a while to write and cite correctly, so I appreciate the time and effort that it took to confirm the subjects notability. Thank you most kindly for your review! -- Curley Wolf ( talk) 00:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Bradv!! How do I translate articles. My AMinocaproic article is in spanish but I did not know how to translate an article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucardias ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bradv! I already added sources from websites and news source online.
Filaphilippines ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Bradv ,
I added sources to my article /info/en/?search=Draft:Stowage_plan_for_container_ships Thanks to approve it now, or give me more advises if my article still needs more amendments. Sayed_Barakat 22:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siko55 ( talk • contribs)
You have declined the submission by one of my students, Rewaa Al Hassani, on abovementioned contemporary art foundation, on the basis that not enough external, independently verifiable sources have been used. However, she does use external sources, such as e-flux journal of contemporary art - a highly established source in the contemporary art world, the also well-established universes-in-universe.org, transartists.org, as well as Art Asia Pacific and other well-known sources. So I don't understand what more you are expecting. Furthermore the article seems to obey to most criteria of wikipedia; she is objective as she has no relation to the place, etc etc. So please review your refusal to publish this article, on one of the main Palestinian contemporary art foundations.
Robert Kluijver ( talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have added 2 new sources on
Draft:Alex Gilbert. Really is this article still not notable?
See
https://www.facebook.com/imadoptedOrg/videos/1721864794759785/ . This was taken from
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/ondemand/shows/b/breakfast/s2016/e72.html which his clip is at 49:00. This talks ideally about his I'm Adopted project. With the source to expire in 6 days, how can I reference this? --
DmitryPopovRU (
talk) 02:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have updated the references - by adding page numbers - as requested as part of the rejection of the previous submission of my article, and corrected the formatting of the references.
As to notability: I have included the published references that I know about, but I have not included sources that simply repeat press release materials. The subject of the article has been mentioned on some forums (eg RMWeb) but I have not included those, even where the product has been used as the basis for a published picture.
The notability of the subject is at least as wide as the Wikipedia entries on individual steam locomotives.
Alexander Bray ( talk) 08:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm JWNoctis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Global Reach Education Counselling Services, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. JWNoctis talk 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Bradv |
Improves the encyclopedia |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 8, 2016 |
10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors. |
Recognized for |
Fighting Vandalism |
Nomination page |
Thanks again for your efforts!
Buster Seven
Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
I'm trying to submit the Draft:Cloudreach article but you've rejected this because the article seemed too much like an advertisement. There are multiple secondary sources in the article which show why the company is notable, including two major UK newspapers, and a prestigious national award. Can you please read over the article again and suggest any changes that could be made to make it more acceptable? Thanks!"
I would like this article titled " Amanda Gates" to be reviewed again as I have made some changes as have been suggested. There are still have some references that I have to cite. One comment made was that a notable curler should have at least 2 Scotties appearances. I have noted many curlers whose articles have been accepted by Wikipedia that only have one Scotties appearance ( in some cases that is their only notability) so certainly this cannot be the case. Of course this is not relevant to the article in question since Amanda Gates does have 2 Scotties appearances. I will continue to correct missing references and have corrected information in the attached infobx
Suegates (
talk) 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Bradv!
Thanks for your willingness to offer a third opinion on this article, I have left my viewpoint on the talk page.
Best :) MedBoard2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedBoard2 ( talk • contribs) 22:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for the work that you do maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Adam9007 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
The other Sangar articles found on Wikipedia are about the towns and military term. This article is about the surname.
Dear Bradv
Thanks for looking at the article. Could I please ask what constitutes peacock terms in the article? I have no professional connection to the artist in question and remain very uncertain of which terms are not proper. Without a list of them, I'll be guessing forever. Thanks very much for your expert insight.
Once again, I would really appreciate a list, otherwise I'll remove the text from Wikipedia, since it doesn't seem proper in this context.I've already been trying for two months to submit two paragraphs.
If we're talking about the "stature" of the newspapers quoted, the paper-based publication industry in Ukraine, Georgia, etc was decimated after the end of the Soviet system––and all publication subsidies ended. All news is therefore online and in venues we might in the West take to be "fleeting." I'm presuming the reviewers know the languages and social issues at hand, so that, I hope, is not the matter. I take, as suggested, the key issue to be inappropriate language, hence my initial query. I would be extremely grateful for detailed help.
I also forgot to mention that in the post-Soviet context, centralized or state-run media sources, which––say, in the UK––would be a source of *objective* journalism/notability, are in fact the opposite, i.e, dubious in their bias. Russia would be a fine example: objective information regarding a cultural phenomenon would not come from major press outlets, which are fiscally bound to their governmental sponsors. Truth instead is more likely to be found in minor, peripheral publications. Those same lesser outlets are obliged to fund themselves, of course, and will have more ad copy surrounding them (as banners, pre-roll video, etc), giving the *visual* impression of ephemeral and less trustworthy information! Sadly, the juxtaposition in Eastern Europe between state-run and "underground"journalism, for want of a less dramatic phrase, has not changed much.
The singers and songwriters on state TV/radio are only aired because they pay for their airtime. They are, therefore, not actually famous in the true sense, but merely able to pay for airtime and therefore cultivate an air of artistic impact and/or import. Hence the need to document, explain, and foreground other performers.
One could draw a parallel here with the teaching of Soviet literature in US schools for the last 60/70 years. We never read the works celebrated on Russian/Ukrainian/Georgian state channels, but instead those authors or poets, who–in purportedly minor quarters––played a more significant and notable cultural role. Most were ignored their entire lives.
I should also note that the Villy articles in Russian, Georgian, and Ukrainian––with which I have zero connection!––have long met the notability criteria. My problem, I'm guessing, is doing the same within an English-language context. In summary, therefore, I'm totally at loss after 4/5 edits to see either any peacock terms or notability issues. Hopefully I can be proven and fix the offending lines at once. Thanks!
Hi Bradv I'm a bit lost on why you have asked me to remove the links that act as citations and references on the article? The Wikipedia are links and are not intended to be citations.
Best Wishes
Ross
I have made some changes to my article "Amanda Gates, a Canadian curler" and I have added references where I thought they might have been missing. I would like to re-submit my article but wondered if you would have a chance to take a look at it. I have a final reference that I need to source for some points at the end. I will continue looking for that. I also submitted an article entitled "Jennifer Gates, a Canadian curler" but have not had any feed back on it. I am trying to use something called an "info box" but cannot seem to get it to edit properly. Any help with that would also be appreciated.
Have re-submitted ( at least I think I have submitted them) two articles titled Amanda Gates, curler and Jennifer Gates, curler. I have fixed the text as per the suggestions that were sent to me by other reviewers. I have reviewed the criteria for "notable curlers" as set up by Wikipedia and these curlers meet 7 out of the 10 criteria. I have made an attempt to fix references. I would like your assistance in having these curlers included in Wikipedia. Thanking you in advance for your help and suggestions. Suegates ( talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hope I am doing this right! Not sure how to re-submit as I wasn't sure how I submitted it in the first place! I see you are a very busy editor and have your hands full. If you have time to help it would be much appreciated. Thanks again Suegates ( talk) 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
hi Bradv please submit my drat page to the wikipedia for wikipedia page or edit yourself for me /info/en/?search=Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbtweet ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv iam new user in wikipedia so iam quite unexperienced in making article i submit my draft article but the Submission was declined on 25 July 2016 so kindly i request you to edit my draft yourself and create it for me
my draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv
Hi Bradv. Hope this message finds you well. You recently declined request to post article about Draft:Viddyad. The reason is it was too promotional. My purpose wasn't to write a promotional article and i tried to do my best to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Can you help me and tell what i did wrong and how can i improve it? Also there is a mentioning about Viddyad company in Silicon Docks article and I could link Viddyad article with Silicon Docks article. Thanks a lot. Tatiana.frantsuzenko ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Would this be approved if I take out the reference of rewardstyle.com? This is my first Wiipedia page submission and after reading all of your links I am having a hard time understanding why it isn't approved.
Thank you. Kaitlynnemoody ( talk) 14:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
I would like to engage with you on your rejection of the draft Appian Corporation page. You rejected based on a lack of notability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) and added the following comment:
"Please fix the style of references to conform to guidelines, and remove unreliable sources, such as LinkedIn. Also, be sure that every single statement listed in the article has a source (including the InfoBox). Also, if one of the editors is really a paid editor, I am reticent to ever approve this article without substantial review by other editors to make sure that all bias is removed. Bradv 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)"
(1) References can be conformed to guidelines. In lieu of the reference to LinkedIn for Appian's employee population, there are alternative sources like CrunchBase [1], and WashingtonPost [2] (Midsize company). Other than LinkedIn, do you consider any of the other sources unreliable? The InfoBox contains information that is already in the text and cited (the name of the company, identity of founders, employee size, product categories)
(2) With respect to notability, I note that previous reviewer Tseung Kwan O [3] "had no doubt about the notability of the company"; DGG stated that the company "may possibly" be notable. DGG believed that the numerous references to Appian's software in the independent press were advertising in nature. However, the removal of those references probably has an adverse impact on notability. The language removed was [4]:
The software is used as a platform to develop a variety of applications: Ryder Systems uses Appian to automate paper contracts, log an analyze equipment breakdowns and combine record keeping systems, [5] Vitamin World uses Appian for applications related to store closures and remodeling [6], the Defense Information Systems Agency uses Appian for contract writing and acquisition applications [7], Crawford & Company uses Appian to crowdsource insurance adjustments. [8]
Those are references to coverage of usage by Appian by fairly significant national sources: Wall Street Journal, CIO.com, FedScoop. In response to DGG's comments that it was "advertising", the references were removed. If notability is in question, I think those sources should be considered. In addition, please note the additional reference cited in the Tseung Kwan O talk page. I would imagine that source would have been convincing as to notability.
(3) With respect to your comment about one of the editors (including myself) being a paid editor, and your reticence to approve the article in light of that, I refer you to the statement made to DGG:
You also mention WP:NPOV. As you likely well know, there are third parties out there who you can pay to create pages for you. Appian didn't do that - it acted honestly and put in a reference to the fact that the original writer (a lower level marketing person) was paid by the company. In response to two rejections, the article was significantly changed and now reads a very straightforward description of the company and its product. By taking the position that you do, you are encouraging companies to hide their identities or engage third parties to create articles for them. WP:COI is not a prohibition on creating or editing content. If you question the neutrality of a statement, please provide comment and the draft can be revised. If there are the "usual faults of this manner of writing" please highlight them.
I reiterate that WP:COI is not a prohibition on content and that the review process has a significant impact on the neutrality of articles. I have worked now with other editors to revise the content substantially such that it is a neutral representation of the company. In this regard, working with these editors should qualify as "substantial review by other editors."
I have also moved copies of the discussions with other reviewers to the Talk page of the Draft for ease of further reference. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
sorry - the post I created was one of the auto-generation posts you make when you have a rejection. It looks like it messed up the formatting on your talk page. I apologize, but I won't touch because I don't know enough about formatting to fix it. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
References
I am not sure where that leaves us. Where do you come out on notability? Would you endorse notability if the substantial references to usage were put back in or is this discussion enough to convince you of notability?
I don't want to re-submit for review unless I know your thoughts on this and can respond to any concerns (the references are an easy fix if I can figure out the guidelines). What do you mean by "no evidence of paid editing"? Do you mean that as a re-statement of WP:NPOV? Do you have any thoughts about the neutrality of the text at this point? As discussed with DGG, the text is drawn from the third party sources. If you mean that to pass your test, none of the text was entered by a paid editor, then I think you are saying the WP:COI is a complete bar on paid editing. Is there a way to submit the text of an article to another reviewer who doesn't know the editor has declared a COI to determine whether a reviewer not knowing of the COI would conclude it's neutral?
Once you post your response, I will post this colloquy on the talk page of the draft for further reviewers. Thank you for your time. 38.124.250.3 ( talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I grabbed a username to respond from a different IP, but I am the same editor from 38.124.250.3. I have not created a username before because my use of Wikipedia to this point has been reading articles over lunch and correcting typos and out of fear that it would become an addiction. I want to thank you again for your time as volunteer and wanted to respond to your question and comments. I am cognizant of WP:PAYTALK and don't want to take up too much of your time (I have a job, which is not editing Wikipedia, this is a side project and I am definitively not paid by the page or word); we may quickly be entering the realm of theory rather than specific comments on the draft.
First, those references you cite (6,7,8) were removed from the draft altogether per your comment on your talk page that references to usage by customers seemed like an advertisement to you. Bradv reviewed it without those links. I only referenced them here with respect to Bradv's rejection because he raised notability concerns and I wanted to show him that there were additional third party sources supporting notability outside the draft.
Second, I disagree with your position on the WSJ blog. Blogs published by news outlets specifically meet the guidelines. Blogs like DealBook at the NYTimes, etc. often break news themselves.
Third, on #6, I think the upshot of the article in CIO is the value of BPM technology and that Appian was the BPM technology selected by NBTY. Again, it was part of a prior draft that was specifically removed pursuant to your comment on advertising.
Fourth, in response to your question on 7, I didn't know it was written by that person before you pointed it out because, like an idiot, I linked to the wrong FedScoop link out of the list of links I had. This article [1] is the link that should have been included. Obviously, that was a much better article in the first place, more recent, and by an independent author discussing the USAF's adoption of the same software used by DISA. It was the link I wanted included but I didn't re-check it after I linked it. In other words, "Ignorance, Sir. Ignorance!" [2]
Fifth, on #8 yes, it's a story about Crawford's use of BPM software. The citation supports the text that Crawford uses Appian for crowdsourced insurance adjusting as an example of how customers use Appian's BPM software. In fact, the article is discussing Crawford's use of BPM software, which is Appian. If it said Appian every place it said BPM, wouldn't that itself look more like advertising?
Sixth, the heart of your comment is this, which gets us into theoretical territory and risks hijacking Bradv's talk page (I will copy all this to the draft's talk page), but I wanted to keep the discussion in-line, as you did:
It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism and notability. But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references.
I wholeheartedly agree that WP:COI means that reviewers should have skepticism about what a declared paid editor writes, and I agree with it as a principle. But WP:COI by its terms is not a bar on editing. It is recommended that an editor with a COI suggest any edits on a talk page and allow others to make them. For a new draft article that is submitted for review, is that not a reasonable equivalent? The draft is not published here until a neutral reviewer agrees to its publication. Here, through multiple rejections, we've had 3 substantive reviews and I've tried to make good faith edits for neutrality. If I fail, I intend to try again until there is no doubt about neutrality.
I disagree that someone can never objectively write about themselves. It's not difficult to recite simple encyclopedic facts about yourself, your family, or your company on a neutral basis (I was born XX/XX/XXXX, parents were X and Y, went to this school, that school, had this job, that job). Those facts about myself are neutral and encyclopedic, raising the question of notability. It appears that there is a tension for a declared COI editor between writing something to show its notability based on third party sources vs. what could be considered advertising. For example, is it advertising to cite a third party article noting that DISA uses Appian for writing procurement contracts and that the USAF has adopted it as well, or is it a demonstration of notability? My intent was to show the latter and to exemplify how BPM software like Appian's is used (I don't think that the concept of BPM software or application platform as a service is self-explanatory to a reader, even leaning on the Business Process Management page).
Given your argument ("we have now learned that every draft....about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing"), isn't what I'm doing here - declaring my COI and trying write to neutrality while also showing notability - exactly the right prescription for that ailment, assuming the goal is that Wikipedia should have a page for every notable company? I could go on here and would be willing to get into a theoretical discussion but I am cognizant of your time. Thanks for contribution here and at wikipedia generally. WSCW ( talk) 02:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Dear reviewer,
I would like to request a re-review for the page
/info/en/?search=Draft:TravelStaytion as the content was carefully created in order to not to contain any advertising or marketing words or hidden meaning. However it was still declined for this reason. Please advise at least on which parts exactly seem to be an advertisement? as I do not understand, and think that the page should be re-reviewed, may be changed where necessary. because I want it eventually to be published ideally.
Thank you for your attention!
Hi, I am just wondering why the page for David Schipper I have submitted has been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.137.36 ( talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Can you offer any tips on sources? I cited FCC documents - are those not acceptable? Thanks. Spinetingler ( talk) 03:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I though that there was a problem with those sources. I had blanked on there being some newspaper articles, but I've added them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler ( talk • contribs) 04:18, July 30, 2016
Hi, is there something controversial that you think is in need of a link to support? I had a look there is nothing controversial or wrong either, what benefit is the template? TA Govindaharihari ( talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The second AfD was closed early without concensus, and it also passed through AFC one time.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. I hope you are doing well. You recently declined a request to post an article about Draft:Bryan Reuss. The reason was it did not have enough sources. I had previously sourced all his publications and many of his research projects but a person named user:LaMona removed all these sources on July 14th. Would it be possible to restore it to what I previously had and see if the numerous sources would allow you to approve it? I had previously reviewed other orthopedic surgeons and this is how they did it, so I was confused when LaMona removed all of the sources. If you have any other advice, I would love to hear how I can improve this article. Thanks. Medexp99 ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Reuss operated on my daughter's arm last year. It was a very complicated surgery that turned out great. Before and after the surgery my husband and I researched Dr. Reuss and were very impressed by his experience, research and publications. We were surprised with his experience, work with so many teams in Orlando and being a top surgeon in Florida, that he wasn't on Wikipedia. So, we started to find info for Wikipedia on the Internet, from the Orlando Orthopedic website and some by contacting the firm directly. Thanks for helping us try to move this forward. Medexp99 ( talk) 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Brady I am a little confused as to why you think my article on Kelly Riddle does not appropriately show his notability? If you look at "private investigators" in Wikipedia there are 6 real life PI's. For Crouch there are only 6 sentences regarding his being a PI (2) Field lived from 1805-1874 (3) Parco has 2 small paragraphs about his TV show (4) Pellicano went to jail for illegal activity (5) Ribacoff had a few TV appearances and (6) Weber is primarily an attorney with a small paragraph about being a PI. My article on Kelly Riddle shows where he was quoted 17 times in different trade publications as an expert, he has more than 58 articles published, he is the author of 10 books, was chosen the #1 PI in the U.S., the PI of the Year, etc. These are only an example as there are more. If this does not demonstrate he is an notable expert in the PI field than no one is. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpatton ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your input to improve this article to achieve the correct standard.
The initial draft was rejected partly on the grounds of notability, and this was addressed and a second reviewer accepted that the subject is notable. The first reviewer also commented that too much reliance was made on a single source, and so this has been drastically changed, with a wider range of different verifiable secondary sources being introduced in order to comply with the requirements, and this is reflected in the cited references.
I have removed the offending sections, added references where applicable and generally tidied up.
Is there anything else you feel I could do now ?
Many thanks
CPBearfoot ( talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting a re-review for the biographical entry "Ali Dibadj". Reviewer said he does not meet "notability". Wikipedia guidelines for "notability" say the person must be "worthy of notice" or "note" or "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention to be recorded." I respectfully submit that he does fit those criteria very well. Over the past 10 years, he has transformed companies in the generally entrenched consumer packaged goods industry with his objective, irreverent, bold analysis and writing (for instance, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Energizer, etc.)--that is truly "remarkable" to push against the grain. "Worthy of note", being ranked the top analyst for 8 times in Institutional Investor is very "significant and unusual", especially from an underdog position of supporting shareholders versus large incumbent companies. The first Baron's article cited is about him and his views. Please reconsider the submission; he deserves to be recorded in your wonderful encyclopedia. Indeed, his track record stands much for what Wikipedia stands for--open, objective, accurate information dissemination. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmcsanchez ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask why my article on the IAmMatthewian Project was rejected. The project is somewhat famous in Canada amongst fans of the Japanese anime series Hetalia: Axis Powers who complain about the character Canada's 'invisibility'. -- NovaBrunswick 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bradv
I have added additional references from third party coverage citing from reliable sources to my draft on Ghatam Suresh. Appreciate if you could review the draft and hopefully the submission references are adequate enough to show the draft's notability.
Thank you :) Rago vaid ( talk) 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
I am not (yet) requesting a re-review. I just followed the link 'ask the reviewer' in the phrase 'If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission,...', since I would like to have some additional advice on my submission before entering it again. In particular, I was wondering why you wrote our comment 'This reads more like an essay or a chapter of a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Are you sure we need a separate article on this? Where does this fit in to the rest of the project?', since I am not sure what project you refer to. Can you specify this?
With kind regards,
Jur Schuurman ( talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
On September 1st I sent a message on your talk page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Bradv), since you reviewed (and declined the submission of) my draft page on Land Governance. However, I do not seem to have received any reply by you. Or am I missing something? I would appreciate your reply, maybe also to my email, just to make sure: schuurman.j@chello.nl.
Yours,
Jur Schuurman ( talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Jur Schuurman ( talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Bradv- Ms. Tayler Wilson a Communication student and summer intern at Marian University was given the task of creating an article providing information on Sydney Michael Hudson for the University where he is on the Board of Trustees. She did not complete the task and reported to him that it was due to her lack of credible references. She contacted him and he dug out references from the public domain for the brief biographical description she had provided. He resubmitted the draft, but was informed by Editor David.moreno72 that it could not be submitted it as an autobiography. He asked me to submit it. How do I do that at this point?
K.I. Forline Sept. 16, 2016
kiforline@ipoweres.com SMHud ( talk) 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Any instructions on how I should proceed? Thanks. K.I. Forline 9/19/16 2602:304:CDBA:4400:5984:F2FF:FD7A:63D3 ( talk) 03:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So I took an Chinese Baidu biography about Jiangnan Huang, His Bloomberg Profile, and a recent interview on a Chinese Finance blog and summarized it. I am new to this. Can you help me out and explain how to make the article not promotional. It is not my intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz320 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for the initial suggestions on the page Amistad Memorial (New Haven). I'm a high school teacher and a few of my students have been working on the content for the page in class. This is just a bare bones template, but they will be adding to it over the next week. We'd love it if you can suggestion further improvements when we've advanced the page a bit further. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawenz ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
To hell with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot Gorkhali ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
What makes the
Venture for America article read more like an advertisement?
This line of the reason for decline states "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."
I have 5 independent sources for this article from the New York Times, Inc.com, bigthink.com, Brown University, and FastCompany.com. How does this not meet the range of independent, reliable, and published, sources criteria?
The lede, and the article itself, was modeled off of the Teach for America page. The TFA page has the mission stated right in the lede, which while it is cited from an independent source, it's also a direct copy from the TFA's actual mission page ( https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-mission).
What is the allowance for using quotes and statistics from the organization's site vs an independent one? In some cases, it seems like the organization's site would be a better source for information.
In regards to actual fixes to make it seem less like an advertisement, would these be sufficient?
I'm not trying to be contradictory when I say this, just trying to understand how this works better. Going back to the TFA example, that page has a citation straight from the TFA website ( /info/en/?search=Teach_For_America#cite_ref-10). Additionally, the entire Geographical Reach section ( /info/en/?search=Teach_For_America#Geographical_reach) has no citation. MerlinPatt ( talk) 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally submitted that comment early. I meant to ask, shouldn't both of those things I mentioned above have independent citations or be removed? MerlinPatt ( talk) 03:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the credo, found an independent source for the mission, and found independent sources for the history section. The only source left from the website is the statistics section. Is this sufficient?
Also, related question, is there any limit on how many times a draft can be re-submitted for a review? MerlinPatt ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bradv. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)