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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Bradv, thank you for your efforts and helpful annotations, though the submission was rejected again. Please read my comment.
1. German Wikipedia: the contribution about Vera King was accepted without any objections. Maybe that contribution was easier to assess because Ms. King is a globally renowned social scientist, as such she is well known in Germany. I wonder about the different assessments.
2. To your assessment whereas the references ".... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics)." please allow me a personal comment: This is exactly why I reworked the submission diligently. Please consider your recommendations: "Find sources: "Vera King" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources" which is what is exactly done. Please look e.g. at reference Nr. 10: ‘Lost in Perfection.‘ Impacts of Optimisation on Culture and Psyche. London: Routledge. The reference goes to https://www.google.de/search?q=books%20details%209781138894365 which is a correct citation due to the requirements of citation for Wikipedia. The same is correct for the citations 11 to 19 which are all related to independent sources (University of Frankfurt, Volkswagen Foundation etc.).
3. The relevant sources-pools you cite yourself like Google books or Google scholar are taken into account wherever helpful and necessary: Please check https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Vera+King%22+-wikipedia and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Vera+King%22. Both source-pools show the relevance of Vera King in the international scientific community with many citations.
4. Due to your recommendation, I put two new sources into the submission: (14) Lost in Perfection: Impacts of Optimization on Culture and Psyche, source: https://soziopolis.de/vernetzen/veranstaltungsberichte/artikel/lost-in-perfection-impacts-of-optimization-on-culture-and-psyche/. (15) "ALLES ODER NICHTS" VERA KING, DIREKTORIN DES FRANKFURTER SIGMUND FREUD INSTITUTS, ÜBER SCHONUNGSLOSE SELBSTOFFENBARUNG, TRÄUME UND DESTRUKTIVE MOMENTE IM WERK DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN KÜNSTLERS RICHARD GERSTL. https://www.schirn.de/magazin/interviews/interview_prof_vera_king_sigmund_freud_institut_frankfurt_richard_gerstl/ (please translate this interview with Google).
Hopefully, these pieces of evidence are sufficient and helpful for a new review. Please let me know if the changes meet your objections and if you have additional recommendations which help to improve this contribution to the Wikipedia for the sake of its users.
Rudyguy21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
Why do you take away the sources that shows the adding I made to William Rodriguez page true? William himself says that American media has suppressed his words about explosions. What evidence Wiki needs if William's own words were not enough?
BR Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The same editor has made edits like this one to change the name - I don't read Chinese so can't check whether the three sources support the change. Pam D 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bradv! Just dropping by to let you know that I have made a correction to one of your comments, here. I thought it was obvious that "ALT1 or ALT2" meant "option 1 or 2", but now that an actual "ALT2" (i.e. option 3) has been proposed, I've changed it to "ALT0 or ALT1" to avoid confusion (the "option 1" proposal is being referred to as both "ALT0" and "original"). Feel free to review my edit to ensure that it is correct, or revert or modify my change in any way you see fit. Swarm ♠ 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brad,
Can you please re-review the page: /info/en/?search=Draft:Sam_Abbas
I have included more sources and believe it is ready for approval. Thanks!
Also the account is not being used by a company, when I said we I meant my partner and I were discussing notability. This page is only run by me, sorry for the confusion.
Jakoobcherry ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Jakoob Cherry 08/29/18
With respect to notability of the above page, you mention the requirememt to cite newpapars, books etc that that mention his work. He work has been often cited in other books, would that be sufficient? He is a scientist so it's less likely he'll be in newspapers Rhodydog ( talk) 16:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I found this passage in the notability page of Wikipedia:
"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
As for the text on the current page, it is my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog ( talk • contribs) 16:19, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
The relationship is irrelevant, what is important is the notability of the person. To calm your fears, I am not him. He lives in the UK, I live in the USA.
I came across this page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and I believe that creating a page for David Fell is worthwhile, these are the criteria that Wikipedia itself requires, and as it states only one is required:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
True, with over 12000 citations plus a highly cited textbook I believe this is true.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
He was Professor of Systems Biology at Oxford Brooke University
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
He was also chairman of the Policy Committee of the Biochemical Society as well as committees of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
But I see now that the page has been deleted, please advise how to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice it was in draft, I just saw a deleted page. Where did I get the information from? From the website at Oxford Brookes University, plus my own personal knowledge of the person. Are you ok with me building up the page over the next few weeks and then submit to you for review? Rhodydog ( talk) 16:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Rhodydog ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with Talk:Donets Coal Basin#Requested move 12 August 2018. At present we are having a discussion over the fate of the redirects left behind (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 29#Donetsian Coal Basin).
I have noticed an odd thing. If you understand the reason for it, please could you explain.
My understanding is that the term Donetsian Coal Basin was created by a move on 22:37, 20 July 2018. One of the weird leftovers following the article rename to Donets Coal Basin is that it acquired a revision history that includes two edits in 2016 and one in 2015. Do you know where these earlier bits of edit history came from?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wenzu Mintoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Alternative ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.Bradv,
thank you for your answer to the Vera King draft and sorry for my very late response.
Honestly, I feel somewhat depressed after having improved the article several times. According to the notability guidelines /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability, I do not see an essential reason disputing the sources of the article. These are verifiable sources, independent from the subject, third-party sources (Google Scholar etc.), there is no self-promotion. The notion "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." is fulfilled too. Furthermore, the subject, as a renowned member of the international scientific community, has been covered manifold outside of Wikipedia which is documented in diverse sources in the article.
Compared with articles like /info/en/?search=Jennifer_Aaker or /info/en/?search=Howard_Gardner, colleagues of Vera King, I recognize no substantial, systemic difference. I agree, the first submission was admittedly insufficient according to the Wikipedia guidelines and that is why I was asked to improve the article which I do ever since. Now I feel somewhat clueless about what could be done else.
To avoid a never-ending-story trap, where every improvement is not enough, I would like you to advise me what should be improved in particular so that the next submission will satisfactory for you and successful for me.
rudyguy21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In you're close of Talk:Meon, Hampshire#Requested move 17 August 2018 you pointed out that there was consensus that River Meon is primary for Meon but you didn't move the hamlet (also in Hampshire) to Meon (hamlet) as the alternative proposal (like Talk:Corfe Castle (village)#Requested move 12 April 2014), which quite clearly needed to happen if the river in Hampshire is primary for "Meon". Anyway no one had indicated that they opposed to that move and 1 (Amakuru) expressly supported that. I personally weakly agree that the river is primary for "Meon" anyway. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Brad,
Give SPECIFICS of why you are removing most of the language for Vistage. It's all public and it all information that is extremely relevant to the Public. Sources are court filings and San Diego Business Journal.
Text is as follows:
Extended content
|
---|
Vistage Worldwide, Inc. is a Peer-to-peer membership organization for CEOs, business owners and executives of small- to mid-size businesses. Founded in 1957 and headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Vistage has more than 23,000 members in 20 countries. LocationsVistage Worldwide, Inc. is based in San Diego, California. Vistage is also active in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. HistoryThe company was founded in 1957 by a Wisconsin businessman named Robert Nourse, [1] who wished to connect with other CEOs and key executives to discuss ways to improve and advance his business while helping others do the same. He brought together executives from similarly-sized companies in non-competing industries for the sole purpose of learning from each other. The meetings were so successful and engaging that Nourse turned the model into a business, called The Executive Committee (TEC), which then became Vistage Worldwide. Nourse expanded TEC by creating additional groups. As TEC grew, it began to include the following elements in its monthly meetings: professional development coaching, business-practice sharing, confidential help with critical business issues, and debates on factors impacting small and mid-sized businesses. TEC later added a facilitator (known as a “Chair”) to lead each group meeting and serve as confidential, personal coach to each member. Since 2003, [2] the company has conducted quarterly economic surveys of its CEO members. The results of this survey, known as the Vistage CEO Confidence Index, offers a barometer of CEO confidence in U.S. 2006 - Company Name Changed from The Executive Committee (TEC) to VistageIn 2006, Vistage underwent a name change, prior they were known as TEC (The Executive Committee). During the name change, however, not all of the company’s licensees adopted the new name. Currently the company operates under the name "Vistage", (a portmanteau of vista and advantage) and several of its licensees operate under the name TEC, but both provide identical services. 2012 - TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners acquire majority interest from Michael MilkenIn approximately November of 2012 Vistage was acquired by TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners. The previous majority owner had been Michael Milken. [3] 2014 - Vistage Sued by Former COO for Wrongful TerminationIn May of 2014, a wrongful Termination lawsuit was filed against Vistage by Ruby Randall, who was the former President and COO of Vistage. [4] 2018 - Providence Equity Partners Acquires Vistage for $500MM+In approximately February of 2018 Vistage was acquired by Providence Equity Partners for over $500mm in a highly leveraged transaction. [5] 2018 - Federal Court Jury Delivers $2mm++ Verdict against Vistage Chair for Stealing Vistage Member's BusinessAfter 3 years of litigation, Direct List LLC, has won a $2mm + costs and legal fees trial verdict against former Vistage Chair Phil Kessler. A Federal Court jury unanimously found Kessler responsible for [6]:
2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 3) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 4) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; and 5) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data and Fraud Act.
--- Phil Kessler was Eran Salu's Vistage Chair at the time the Fraud occurred. 2018 - Vistage Sues Multiple Vistage Chairs who decide to Quit VistageIn early 2018, Vistage sued 3 Vistage Chairs in Wisconsin who allegedly left Vistage with their Group Members. [7]
ReferencesReferences
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 03:11, September 10, 2018 (UTC)
Brad,
1) San Diego Business Journal article references Kessler as a Chair and the lawsuit. It also explains that many people have good experiences with Vistage and is a neutral article. 2) San Diego Business Journal a news organization that has been around for many years and is highly respected. 3) There is nothing more neutral than a jury verdict, which is also sourced 4) There is nothing libelous in displaying a jury verdict (its public information)
Please disclose any affiliation or commercial relationship you have with Vistage. If none, why don't you propose edits to the language rather than removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
OK - I see the issue with the pay wall. I will fix sourcing. If you feel there is editorializing, please feel free to edit out editorializing. I have read the article in the San Diego Business Journal and believe the multiple lawsuits are part of Vistage story (just as, for example, there is a controversies section in the Wells Fargo page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
How does an 8 to 6 straw poll, with varying rationales on both sides equate to "consensus"? I'm aware consensus isn't a simple vote, but there was clearly not an agreement on that move in anyway that consensus would be arguable. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Can you help me with publishng page of Ukrainian Member of Parlament Vitalii Kuprii ( https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%92%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). What's wrong with draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banderslav ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
hi brad im not good at understanding this new article process is there a quicker way? You been on wikipedia awhile just thought i would ask. Harwn733 ( talk) 04:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
http://politrada.com/dossier/Vitalij-Nikolaevich-Kuprij/ https://skelet-info.org/vitalij-kuprij-shavka-kolomojskogo-poluchil-zakaz-na-ustranenie-poroshenko/ https://112.ua/profiles/vitaliy-kupriy-211.html https://declarations.com.ua/declaration/nacp_30564d6c-dbe1-442c-a68f-cb868677c63f http://politrada.com/dossier/Vitalij-Nikolaevich-Kuprij/
Are this sources reliable and independent?
Banderslav ( talk) 14:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Banderslav
Hi Bradv,
I have been editing on Wikipedia for sometime but this is my 2nd attempt to create an article. You can find my submission about The/Nudge Foundation here: /info/en/?search=Draft:The/Nudge_Foundation
However, it has been more than 8 weeks and the review has not taken place. I have attempted to put multiple credible sources including Indian and international outlets to verify the notability of the subject. Additionally, I am in no way associated with the subject matter involved, and this is an attempt to increase my submissions and contributions on Wikipedia.
Please let me know in case this article is good enough to be accepted according to Wiki guidelines. In case I need to make any improvements, I would appreciate support from your end.
Thanks a lot, in advance. ParadiseStark ( talk) 11:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to display one's ISP, because of the fact that such can be used as a malicious attack vector. It was therefore removed for security considerations as per my ISPs formal policies regarding abuse procedures. This was done in lieu of taking up the issue between the two ISPs, which could potentially result in domain name suspension. 71.91.178.54 ( talk) 03:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I am Daniel. As mentioned to you before, the kid (Rishav Kumar) has done significant work in the technology industry and deserves a Wikipedia page. It is very great and kind of you to accept the page for your Wikipedia articles. Thanking You, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriterpro ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bradv, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kingdamian1 clearly NOTHERE. funplussmart ( talk) 00:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the pejorative term pseudoscientific. Neither Creationism nor Evolution are scientifically verifiable theories. 75.0.196.50 ( talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)John Tudder
I have an issues with user The Smart Mind ( talk), I feel like his edits do not follow Wikipedia guidelines and his edits are coming of as Disruptive editing. I feel like that he ignores my suggestion to come to the talk page and make his arguements and is acting in [[ Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|bad faith]]. Also, a spokeperson should not be in the Ottawa11 ( talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018
If your mission is to document all human knowledge and your filter is academic you will fail to reach your goal. To profess is only foolish. If my culture's highest form of expression is Saami Joik and you expect to communicate the wisdom of ages to you through the farce of peer review, you will be lost to history. Some things do not translate. Like the lyrics said: "What do you mean I'm not kind? I'm just not your kind."
The walls of ancient Rome were littered with graffiti. Who are you to chisel it away, like 404s, lost like tears in the rain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.33.2.102 ( talk) 18:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you undid the restore of František Smotlacha that I made. I suppose that you did not read the talk-page. So, I paste here what I wrote there:
Here is an entry for František Smotlacha on Databazeknih ("knih" is Czech for "fungus"). Here is the entry on Miroslav Smotlacha. Etiher the page on František Smotlacha should be about František Smotlacha or it should be erased. It should not redirect to his son Miroslav, because they are different persons. And here is another reason why: If you check Imperator rhodopurpureus you can find the auctor abbreviation Smotl. and if you click on that link you might end up in believing that "Smotl." means Miroslav Smotlacha (because it is where the link sends you) and that he described this species: But he did not! His father did! Episcophagus ( talk) 06:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. Could you take another look at your edit because it did not place it back in the condition it was in just prior to opening RfC. The article was substantially edited by Volunteer Marek prior to closure of the RfC [5]. Thanks! Bennycat ( talk) 02:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey I'm sure you know this already and I'm quite sure you removed a comment of mine on accident, but just letting you know you removed something I wrote on the talk page. Also, if you'd like to discuss my collapsing of various threads on the AFD discussion for readability, please let me know what issues you have with it. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
HI Bradv - you declined my biography on composer Dalia Raudonikyte With. This composer was featured in the Lithuanian encyclopedia of Music - why is that not enough of a reliable source for Wikipedia? Please advise.
Thank you. @nordervalk ( talk) 03:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
HI again, thanks for letting me know about the dead link. It was changed because of Dalia Raudonikyte With´s sudden death on September 7th. I have repaired that now. I will continue to search for ways to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordervalk ( talk • contribs) 18:33, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bradv,
This is my first article so please bear with me.
You wrote you rejected the article because it was unsources.
1st Section: This is coming from the Artist himself and the articles and blogs I read about him.
2nd Section: This also comes from the Artist. What people have Wrote and the stats I have seen from his sales. i.e. on eBay in the sold section of art sculptures he is the #1 artist. in sections Art-Sculptures-Artists: He is listed as an artist and they recognize him. Saatchi Art did a whole Artist of the day article for him on their social Sites. When I asked, It is because he is one of the highest paid artist on their site, but they only put it on a social site so I cannot use it.
3rd Section. Now I did add something that shows each location, but it is kind of hard to show these specific places. They are on Their Google Business pages? I will be going to the Garland Hotel in west where he has 14 pieces and making a video of it, if that helps?
In the News Section.
I did add more reference as of today he was asked to be in a Huge art Awards Ceremony on the 6th of October and had to send them a sculpture they asked for directly. After the 6th. I will be updating this reference to state what awards he has won, but I cannot announce them at this point as I do not know what they are.
As for Corey he is a Professional Artist who makes over $100,00 a year and receives 1-4 commissions a month which will change after the ceremony. A lot of his High End Clients do not wish to be known and that is completely understandable. So it is pretty difficult to prove that he is indeed a well known Professional Sculpture Artist.
This page is to give Corey Ellis notoriety and not customers.
How many times can I resubmit before it is completely rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for getting back to me so soon. I did not know how to answer the original message.
I have a freelancer who is doing the page for me. I am just helping here and there. He suggested I answer the issues you had. I did resubmit the article as suggested by him.
But I do agree. He asks Corey Ellis the questions and filled out the original page. then when it was declined we did work on it together. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The Articles for Creation barnstar | ||
Are Barnstars still a thing? I have not been editing for a while. If so, thanks for your tireless work on AfC submissions. Ebikeguy ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
Just thought a cute kitten might be needed this day.
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
20:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, you are referenced (but not named) in this article [7], and possibly in several others.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 21:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"review you process for dealing with draft articles, and especially welcoming and supporting new good-faith editors". Please do so; and then you will have something to write up. You may find some useful inspiration (albeit on page about AfD, not AfC) at WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
For any interested parties and talk page stalkers, I have documented the events of the last few days at User:Bradv/Strickland incident. This essay is intended as a personal reflection and review, with the hope that we as a community may learn from this going forward. Comments and constructive advice are more than welcome. Brad v 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
I'm sure you expected that this would come your way sooner or later. After reading many of the aggressive comments that you have been subjected to, I thought it would perhaps not be a bad idea to start a discussion in a more civil way. So first, I will say that I truly appreciate your efforts and contributions to Wikipedia. Reviewing many of your edits I felt that in many cases you are aiming for equipoise and objectivity, two qualities that are essential to an encyclopaedia. You also seem to be a seasoned Wikipedia editor, very knowledgable, able to navigate the jungle of policies and guidelines.
All this makes it all the more surprising that you seemed to have reached a rushed and erroneous decision regarding Donna Strickland. Of course, that may seem unfair of me to come after you now, because her notability was made so obvious that it is easy to be outraged, retrospectively, by her page delete. But in May, she didn't have the Nobel Prize, so let's forget about it for a moment. No, instead, her notability was guaranteed, if nothing else, by her being a fellow, and later the president, of The Optical Society [8]. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware, item 3 of the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines is referring to exactly this. What I find troubling is that your rejection seems to be based on the general guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people) rather than the ones for academics. I feel that you should perhaps have started a discussion instead of simply axing the page. Granted, the original contributor could have argued back and it's a pity they didn't. But seeing how many contributions they have (none apart from this one), it seems clear that they can be entitled to a more naive attitude than a seasoned editor like yourself.
Now, experienced or not, everyone can make mistakes. In the face of public scrutiny, what seemed a negligible event in the past can grow to significant importance. In a context where there is increased scrutiny in discrimination against female scientists, many people will want to know if your decision was guided by a conscious or unconscious personal bias against women. Seeing your contributions, my opinion is that this was an earnest mistake. But I am wondering if you have anything to answer to this before the press or social media unleash a storm upon you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaudrain ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Without addressing the merits of declining the draft, I'd like to offer a statistical aside. Since Wikipedia's Jan. 2001 launch:
I think that even if an article had issues, if you are here to build an encyclopedia you should push for the improvement in some way, so the point is IMHO if all the ways have been actually tried. If enwikipedia "works" in a way that if a draft like this is simply left abandoned, if this is recurring it does not really "work" on this issue. User talk:Campbpt0 has enough information but it looks too "cold". I don't do this job but I work with newbies, in your shoes with this CV I would have picked an expert users to help them directly. I know there are not enough of them for all the articles but part of the job should be to dig further to recognize which drafts are worth an extra effort. In general, they should be linked to the wikiprojects not just to "random" users. The article was left there for two months, but like unlinked from many other pages. It's not you, really. I am sure you did your best, but this sytem maybe can be improved.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid).
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The whole thing has reached Germany [10]. -- Stone ( talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is this: Right now, the Wikipedia attitude is that we can delete an article without any fact-checking process, but we can not create an article without being hit on the head about reliable references. Let me give you one example: I went through Template:Monospaced_fonts either removing red links or replacing the red links with stub articles. Pretty soon, other editors started putting up “notability” templates on some of the articles I wrote. The entire experience was very frustrating; I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by getting rid of red links; I was then having to deal with people complaining the articles were not “notable” enough.
This whole process lead me to say the following:
The problem is that the deletionists drive away editors like Campbpt0. Wikipedia shouldn’t be deciding that some random professor (woman or no) is not notable until she wins the Nobel prize. Samboy ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletionism has driven away many of us past editors who now refuse to "sign up" any more - having articles in a Project deleted entirely by someone with no connection to that project WHILE ACTUALLY TYPING/UPLOADING CONTENT!!!! with the then existing flag that the article was under construction! is more than merely "discouraging" it is blatantly rude and antisocial arrogant behavior (easily called bullying!) which clearly informs people that they do not fit in and are not wanted, as well as showing that the trigger happy "speedy deleter" has no knowledge or experience of the topic. Further, someone who is a newbie can easily believe that the complicated "Rules" for inclusion are bizarre and inconsistent. Allegedly, entries can not have "original/personal research", yet there are numerous entire plots of whole TV Series and Movies often only published a VERY short time before (main thing my friends and I only use WP for now) with zero linked external written referenced documentation of the plots, so can only have been created by a watcher of the content. Also entire pages of eg unknown (not notable) local minor bands over years of a minor arts/music festival "must not be deleted" - anyone questioning whether the content should be retained is attacked as a "troll". Bluntly, there are large areas of "crap that does not meet the alleged rules" - but heavily protected, yet other new material is rejected far too rapidly. I remember stumbling across something internationally acclaimed, being rejected as not notable because some ignorant fool deemed that because he was ignorant of it because it was not something of his local national culture, that it must be a rip off of something previous by the same production and govt funding body doing an also widely acclaimed follow up work on the same theme.
And people wonder why many do not wish to waste their time helping to sort out backlogs. 220.245.214.185 ( talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
The templates you found for me at IRC will save me lots of time. Thank you!!!!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:07, 9 October 2018 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Bradv, thank you for your efforts and helpful annotations, though the submission was rejected again. Please read my comment.
1. German Wikipedia: the contribution about Vera King was accepted without any objections. Maybe that contribution was easier to assess because Ms. King is a globally renowned social scientist, as such she is well known in Germany. I wonder about the different assessments.
2. To your assessment whereas the references ".... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics)." please allow me a personal comment: This is exactly why I reworked the submission diligently. Please consider your recommendations: "Find sources: "Vera King" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources" which is what is exactly done. Please look e.g. at reference Nr. 10: ‘Lost in Perfection.‘ Impacts of Optimisation on Culture and Psyche. London: Routledge. The reference goes to https://www.google.de/search?q=books%20details%209781138894365 which is a correct citation due to the requirements of citation for Wikipedia. The same is correct for the citations 11 to 19 which are all related to independent sources (University of Frankfurt, Volkswagen Foundation etc.).
3. The relevant sources-pools you cite yourself like Google books or Google scholar are taken into account wherever helpful and necessary: Please check https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Vera+King%22+-wikipedia and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Vera+King%22. Both source-pools show the relevance of Vera King in the international scientific community with many citations.
4. Due to your recommendation, I put two new sources into the submission: (14) Lost in Perfection: Impacts of Optimization on Culture and Psyche, source: https://soziopolis.de/vernetzen/veranstaltungsberichte/artikel/lost-in-perfection-impacts-of-optimization-on-culture-and-psyche/. (15) "ALLES ODER NICHTS" VERA KING, DIREKTORIN DES FRANKFURTER SIGMUND FREUD INSTITUTS, ÜBER SCHONUNGSLOSE SELBSTOFFENBARUNG, TRÄUME UND DESTRUKTIVE MOMENTE IM WERK DES ÖSTERREICHISCHEN KÜNSTLERS RICHARD GERSTL. https://www.schirn.de/magazin/interviews/interview_prof_vera_king_sigmund_freud_institut_frankfurt_richard_gerstl/ (please translate this interview with Google).
Hopefully, these pieces of evidence are sufficient and helpful for a new review. Please let me know if the changes meet your objections and if you have additional recommendations which help to improve this contribution to the Wikipedia for the sake of its users.
Rudyguy21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
Why do you take away the sources that shows the adding I made to William Rodriguez page true? William himself says that American media has suppressed his words about explosions. What evidence Wiki needs if William's own words were not enough?
BR Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The same editor has made edits like this one to change the name - I don't read Chinese so can't check whether the three sources support the change. Pam D 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bradv! Just dropping by to let you know that I have made a correction to one of your comments, here. I thought it was obvious that "ALT1 or ALT2" meant "option 1 or 2", but now that an actual "ALT2" (i.e. option 3) has been proposed, I've changed it to "ALT0 or ALT1" to avoid confusion (the "option 1" proposal is being referred to as both "ALT0" and "original"). Feel free to review my edit to ensure that it is correct, or revert or modify my change in any way you see fit. Swarm ♠ 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brad,
Can you please re-review the page: /info/en/?search=Draft:Sam_Abbas
I have included more sources and believe it is ready for approval. Thanks!
Also the account is not being used by a company, when I said we I meant my partner and I were discussing notability. This page is only run by me, sorry for the confusion.
Jakoobcherry ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Jakoob Cherry 08/29/18
With respect to notability of the above page, you mention the requirememt to cite newpapars, books etc that that mention his work. He work has been often cited in other books, would that be sufficient? He is a scientist so it's less likely he'll be in newspapers Rhodydog ( talk) 16:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I found this passage in the notability page of Wikipedia:
"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
As for the text on the current page, it is my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog ( talk • contribs) 16:19, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
The relationship is irrelevant, what is important is the notability of the person. To calm your fears, I am not him. He lives in the UK, I live in the USA.
I came across this page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and I believe that creating a page for David Fell is worthwhile, these are the criteria that Wikipedia itself requires, and as it states only one is required:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
True, with over 12000 citations plus a highly cited textbook I believe this is true.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
He was Professor of Systems Biology at Oxford Brooke University
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
He was also chairman of the Policy Committee of the Biochemical Society as well as committees of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
But I see now that the page has been deleted, please advise how to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice it was in draft, I just saw a deleted page. Where did I get the information from? From the website at Oxford Brookes University, plus my own personal knowledge of the person. Are you ok with me building up the page over the next few weeks and then submit to you for review? Rhodydog ( talk) 16:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Rhodydog ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with Talk:Donets Coal Basin#Requested move 12 August 2018. At present we are having a discussion over the fate of the redirects left behind (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 29#Donetsian Coal Basin).
I have noticed an odd thing. If you understand the reason for it, please could you explain.
My understanding is that the term Donetsian Coal Basin was created by a move on 22:37, 20 July 2018. One of the weird leftovers following the article rename to Donets Coal Basin is that it acquired a revision history that includes two edits in 2016 and one in 2015. Do you know where these earlier bits of edit history came from?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wenzu Mintoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Alternative ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.Bradv,
thank you for your answer to the Vera King draft and sorry for my very late response.
Honestly, I feel somewhat depressed after having improved the article several times. According to the notability guidelines /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability, I do not see an essential reason disputing the sources of the article. These are verifiable sources, independent from the subject, third-party sources (Google Scholar etc.), there is no self-promotion. The notion "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." is fulfilled too. Furthermore, the subject, as a renowned member of the international scientific community, has been covered manifold outside of Wikipedia which is documented in diverse sources in the article.
Compared with articles like /info/en/?search=Jennifer_Aaker or /info/en/?search=Howard_Gardner, colleagues of Vera King, I recognize no substantial, systemic difference. I agree, the first submission was admittedly insufficient according to the Wikipedia guidelines and that is why I was asked to improve the article which I do ever since. Now I feel somewhat clueless about what could be done else.
To avoid a never-ending-story trap, where every improvement is not enough, I would like you to advise me what should be improved in particular so that the next submission will satisfactory for you and successful for me.
rudyguy21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In you're close of Talk:Meon, Hampshire#Requested move 17 August 2018 you pointed out that there was consensus that River Meon is primary for Meon but you didn't move the hamlet (also in Hampshire) to Meon (hamlet) as the alternative proposal (like Talk:Corfe Castle (village)#Requested move 12 April 2014), which quite clearly needed to happen if the river in Hampshire is primary for "Meon". Anyway no one had indicated that they opposed to that move and 1 (Amakuru) expressly supported that. I personally weakly agree that the river is primary for "Meon" anyway. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Brad,
Give SPECIFICS of why you are removing most of the language for Vistage. It's all public and it all information that is extremely relevant to the Public. Sources are court filings and San Diego Business Journal.
Text is as follows:
Extended content
|
---|
Vistage Worldwide, Inc. is a Peer-to-peer membership organization for CEOs, business owners and executives of small- to mid-size businesses. Founded in 1957 and headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Vistage has more than 23,000 members in 20 countries. LocationsVistage Worldwide, Inc. is based in San Diego, California. Vistage is also active in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. HistoryThe company was founded in 1957 by a Wisconsin businessman named Robert Nourse, [1] who wished to connect with other CEOs and key executives to discuss ways to improve and advance his business while helping others do the same. He brought together executives from similarly-sized companies in non-competing industries for the sole purpose of learning from each other. The meetings were so successful and engaging that Nourse turned the model into a business, called The Executive Committee (TEC), which then became Vistage Worldwide. Nourse expanded TEC by creating additional groups. As TEC grew, it began to include the following elements in its monthly meetings: professional development coaching, business-practice sharing, confidential help with critical business issues, and debates on factors impacting small and mid-sized businesses. TEC later added a facilitator (known as a “Chair”) to lead each group meeting and serve as confidential, personal coach to each member. Since 2003, [2] the company has conducted quarterly economic surveys of its CEO members. The results of this survey, known as the Vistage CEO Confidence Index, offers a barometer of CEO confidence in U.S. 2006 - Company Name Changed from The Executive Committee (TEC) to VistageIn 2006, Vistage underwent a name change, prior they were known as TEC (The Executive Committee). During the name change, however, not all of the company’s licensees adopted the new name. Currently the company operates under the name "Vistage", (a portmanteau of vista and advantage) and several of its licensees operate under the name TEC, but both provide identical services. 2012 - TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners acquire majority interest from Michael MilkenIn approximately November of 2012 Vistage was acquired by TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners. The previous majority owner had been Michael Milken. [3] 2014 - Vistage Sued by Former COO for Wrongful TerminationIn May of 2014, a wrongful Termination lawsuit was filed against Vistage by Ruby Randall, who was the former President and COO of Vistage. [4] 2018 - Providence Equity Partners Acquires Vistage for $500MM+In approximately February of 2018 Vistage was acquired by Providence Equity Partners for over $500mm in a highly leveraged transaction. [5] 2018 - Federal Court Jury Delivers $2mm++ Verdict against Vistage Chair for Stealing Vistage Member's BusinessAfter 3 years of litigation, Direct List LLC, has won a $2mm + costs and legal fees trial verdict against former Vistage Chair Phil Kessler. A Federal Court jury unanimously found Kessler responsible for [6]:
2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 3) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 4) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; and 5) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data and Fraud Act.
--- Phil Kessler was Eran Salu's Vistage Chair at the time the Fraud occurred. 2018 - Vistage Sues Multiple Vistage Chairs who decide to Quit VistageIn early 2018, Vistage sued 3 Vistage Chairs in Wisconsin who allegedly left Vistage with their Group Members. [7]
ReferencesReferences
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 03:11, September 10, 2018 (UTC)
Brad,
1) San Diego Business Journal article references Kessler as a Chair and the lawsuit. It also explains that many people have good experiences with Vistage and is a neutral article. 2) San Diego Business Journal a news organization that has been around for many years and is highly respected. 3) There is nothing more neutral than a jury verdict, which is also sourced 4) There is nothing libelous in displaying a jury verdict (its public information)
Please disclose any affiliation or commercial relationship you have with Vistage. If none, why don't you propose edits to the language rather than removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
OK - I see the issue with the pay wall. I will fix sourcing. If you feel there is editorializing, please feel free to edit out editorializing. I have read the article in the San Diego Business Journal and believe the multiple lawsuits are part of Vistage story (just as, for example, there is a controversies section in the Wells Fargo page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
How does an 8 to 6 straw poll, with varying rationales on both sides equate to "consensus"? I'm aware consensus isn't a simple vote, but there was clearly not an agreement on that move in anyway that consensus would be arguable. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Can you help me with publishng page of Ukrainian Member of Parlament Vitalii Kuprii ( https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%92%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). What's wrong with draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banderslav ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
hi brad im not good at understanding this new article process is there a quicker way? You been on wikipedia awhile just thought i would ask. Harwn733 ( talk) 04:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
http://politrada.com/dossier/Vitalij-Nikolaevich-Kuprij/ https://skelet-info.org/vitalij-kuprij-shavka-kolomojskogo-poluchil-zakaz-na-ustranenie-poroshenko/ https://112.ua/profiles/vitaliy-kupriy-211.html https://declarations.com.ua/declaration/nacp_30564d6c-dbe1-442c-a68f-cb868677c63f http://politrada.com/dossier/Vitalij-Nikolaevich-Kuprij/
Are this sources reliable and independent?
Banderslav ( talk) 14:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Banderslav
Hi Bradv,
I have been editing on Wikipedia for sometime but this is my 2nd attempt to create an article. You can find my submission about The/Nudge Foundation here: /info/en/?search=Draft:The/Nudge_Foundation
However, it has been more than 8 weeks and the review has not taken place. I have attempted to put multiple credible sources including Indian and international outlets to verify the notability of the subject. Additionally, I am in no way associated with the subject matter involved, and this is an attempt to increase my submissions and contributions on Wikipedia.
Please let me know in case this article is good enough to be accepted according to Wiki guidelines. In case I need to make any improvements, I would appreciate support from your end.
Thanks a lot, in advance. ParadiseStark ( talk) 11:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to display one's ISP, because of the fact that such can be used as a malicious attack vector. It was therefore removed for security considerations as per my ISPs formal policies regarding abuse procedures. This was done in lieu of taking up the issue between the two ISPs, which could potentially result in domain name suspension. 71.91.178.54 ( talk) 03:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I am Daniel. As mentioned to you before, the kid (Rishav Kumar) has done significant work in the technology industry and deserves a Wikipedia page. It is very great and kind of you to accept the page for your Wikipedia articles. Thanking You, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriterpro ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bradv, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kingdamian1 clearly NOTHERE. funplussmart ( talk) 00:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the pejorative term pseudoscientific. Neither Creationism nor Evolution are scientifically verifiable theories. 75.0.196.50 ( talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)John Tudder
I have an issues with user The Smart Mind ( talk), I feel like his edits do not follow Wikipedia guidelines and his edits are coming of as Disruptive editing. I feel like that he ignores my suggestion to come to the talk page and make his arguements and is acting in [[ Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|bad faith]]. Also, a spokeperson should not be in the Ottawa11 ( talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018
If your mission is to document all human knowledge and your filter is academic you will fail to reach your goal. To profess is only foolish. If my culture's highest form of expression is Saami Joik and you expect to communicate the wisdom of ages to you through the farce of peer review, you will be lost to history. Some things do not translate. Like the lyrics said: "What do you mean I'm not kind? I'm just not your kind."
The walls of ancient Rome were littered with graffiti. Who are you to chisel it away, like 404s, lost like tears in the rain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.33.2.102 ( talk) 18:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you undid the restore of František Smotlacha that I made. I suppose that you did not read the talk-page. So, I paste here what I wrote there:
Here is an entry for František Smotlacha on Databazeknih ("knih" is Czech for "fungus"). Here is the entry on Miroslav Smotlacha. Etiher the page on František Smotlacha should be about František Smotlacha or it should be erased. It should not redirect to his son Miroslav, because they are different persons. And here is another reason why: If you check Imperator rhodopurpureus you can find the auctor abbreviation Smotl. and if you click on that link you might end up in believing that "Smotl." means Miroslav Smotlacha (because it is where the link sends you) and that he described this species: But he did not! His father did! Episcophagus ( talk) 06:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. Could you take another look at your edit because it did not place it back in the condition it was in just prior to opening RfC. The article was substantially edited by Volunteer Marek prior to closure of the RfC [5]. Thanks! Bennycat ( talk) 02:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey I'm sure you know this already and I'm quite sure you removed a comment of mine on accident, but just letting you know you removed something I wrote on the talk page. Also, if you'd like to discuss my collapsing of various threads on the AFD discussion for readability, please let me know what issues you have with it. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
HI Bradv - you declined my biography on composer Dalia Raudonikyte With. This composer was featured in the Lithuanian encyclopedia of Music - why is that not enough of a reliable source for Wikipedia? Please advise.
Thank you. @nordervalk ( talk) 03:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
HI again, thanks for letting me know about the dead link. It was changed because of Dalia Raudonikyte With´s sudden death on September 7th. I have repaired that now. I will continue to search for ways to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordervalk ( talk • contribs) 18:33, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bradv,
This is my first article so please bear with me.
You wrote you rejected the article because it was unsources.
1st Section: This is coming from the Artist himself and the articles and blogs I read about him.
2nd Section: This also comes from the Artist. What people have Wrote and the stats I have seen from his sales. i.e. on eBay in the sold section of art sculptures he is the #1 artist. in sections Art-Sculptures-Artists: He is listed as an artist and they recognize him. Saatchi Art did a whole Artist of the day article for him on their social Sites. When I asked, It is because he is one of the highest paid artist on their site, but they only put it on a social site so I cannot use it.
3rd Section. Now I did add something that shows each location, but it is kind of hard to show these specific places. They are on Their Google Business pages? I will be going to the Garland Hotel in west where he has 14 pieces and making a video of it, if that helps?
In the News Section.
I did add more reference as of today he was asked to be in a Huge art Awards Ceremony on the 6th of October and had to send them a sculpture they asked for directly. After the 6th. I will be updating this reference to state what awards he has won, but I cannot announce them at this point as I do not know what they are.
As for Corey he is a Professional Artist who makes over $100,00 a year and receives 1-4 commissions a month which will change after the ceremony. A lot of his High End Clients do not wish to be known and that is completely understandable. So it is pretty difficult to prove that he is indeed a well known Professional Sculpture Artist.
This page is to give Corey Ellis notoriety and not customers.
How many times can I resubmit before it is completely rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for getting back to me so soon. I did not know how to answer the original message.
I have a freelancer who is doing the page for me. I am just helping here and there. He suggested I answer the issues you had. I did resubmit the article as suggested by him.
But I do agree. He asks Corey Ellis the questions and filled out the original page. then when it was declined we did work on it together. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The Articles for Creation barnstar | ||
Are Barnstars still a thing? I have not been editing for a while. If so, thanks for your tireless work on AfC submissions. Ebikeguy ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
Just thought a cute kitten might be needed this day.
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
20:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, you are referenced (but not named) in this article [7], and possibly in several others.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 21:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"review you process for dealing with draft articles, and especially welcoming and supporting new good-faith editors". Please do so; and then you will have something to write up. You may find some useful inspiration (albeit on page about AfD, not AfC) at WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
For any interested parties and talk page stalkers, I have documented the events of the last few days at User:Bradv/Strickland incident. This essay is intended as a personal reflection and review, with the hope that we as a community may learn from this going forward. Comments and constructive advice are more than welcome. Brad v 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Bradv,
I'm sure you expected that this would come your way sooner or later. After reading many of the aggressive comments that you have been subjected to, I thought it would perhaps not be a bad idea to start a discussion in a more civil way. So first, I will say that I truly appreciate your efforts and contributions to Wikipedia. Reviewing many of your edits I felt that in many cases you are aiming for equipoise and objectivity, two qualities that are essential to an encyclopaedia. You also seem to be a seasoned Wikipedia editor, very knowledgable, able to navigate the jungle of policies and guidelines.
All this makes it all the more surprising that you seemed to have reached a rushed and erroneous decision regarding Donna Strickland. Of course, that may seem unfair of me to come after you now, because her notability was made so obvious that it is easy to be outraged, retrospectively, by her page delete. But in May, she didn't have the Nobel Prize, so let's forget about it for a moment. No, instead, her notability was guaranteed, if nothing else, by her being a fellow, and later the president, of The Optical Society [8]. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware, item 3 of the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines is referring to exactly this. What I find troubling is that your rejection seems to be based on the general guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people) rather than the ones for academics. I feel that you should perhaps have started a discussion instead of simply axing the page. Granted, the original contributor could have argued back and it's a pity they didn't. But seeing how many contributions they have (none apart from this one), it seems clear that they can be entitled to a more naive attitude than a seasoned editor like yourself.
Now, experienced or not, everyone can make mistakes. In the face of public scrutiny, what seemed a negligible event in the past can grow to significant importance. In a context where there is increased scrutiny in discrimination against female scientists, many people will want to know if your decision was guided by a conscious or unconscious personal bias against women. Seeing your contributions, my opinion is that this was an earnest mistake. But I am wondering if you have anything to answer to this before the press or social media unleash a storm upon you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaudrain ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Without addressing the merits of declining the draft, I'd like to offer a statistical aside. Since Wikipedia's Jan. 2001 launch:
I think that even if an article had issues, if you are here to build an encyclopedia you should push for the improvement in some way, so the point is IMHO if all the ways have been actually tried. If enwikipedia "works" in a way that if a draft like this is simply left abandoned, if this is recurring it does not really "work" on this issue. User talk:Campbpt0 has enough information but it looks too "cold". I don't do this job but I work with newbies, in your shoes with this CV I would have picked an expert users to help them directly. I know there are not enough of them for all the articles but part of the job should be to dig further to recognize which drafts are worth an extra effort. In general, they should be linked to the wikiprojects not just to "random" users. The article was left there for two months, but like unlinked from many other pages. It's not you, really. I am sure you did your best, but this sytem maybe can be improved.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid).
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The whole thing has reached Germany [10]. -- Stone ( talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is this: Right now, the Wikipedia attitude is that we can delete an article without any fact-checking process, but we can not create an article without being hit on the head about reliable references. Let me give you one example: I went through Template:Monospaced_fonts either removing red links or replacing the red links with stub articles. Pretty soon, other editors started putting up “notability” templates on some of the articles I wrote. The entire experience was very frustrating; I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by getting rid of red links; I was then having to deal with people complaining the articles were not “notable” enough.
This whole process lead me to say the following:
The problem is that the deletionists drive away editors like Campbpt0. Wikipedia shouldn’t be deciding that some random professor (woman or no) is not notable until she wins the Nobel prize. Samboy ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletionism has driven away many of us past editors who now refuse to "sign up" any more - having articles in a Project deleted entirely by someone with no connection to that project WHILE ACTUALLY TYPING/UPLOADING CONTENT!!!! with the then existing flag that the article was under construction! is more than merely "discouraging" it is blatantly rude and antisocial arrogant behavior (easily called bullying!) which clearly informs people that they do not fit in and are not wanted, as well as showing that the trigger happy "speedy deleter" has no knowledge or experience of the topic. Further, someone who is a newbie can easily believe that the complicated "Rules" for inclusion are bizarre and inconsistent. Allegedly, entries can not have "original/personal research", yet there are numerous entire plots of whole TV Series and Movies often only published a VERY short time before (main thing my friends and I only use WP for now) with zero linked external written referenced documentation of the plots, so can only have been created by a watcher of the content. Also entire pages of eg unknown (not notable) local minor bands over years of a minor arts/music festival "must not be deleted" - anyone questioning whether the content should be retained is attacked as a "troll". Bluntly, there are large areas of "crap that does not meet the alleged rules" - but heavily protected, yet other new material is rejected far too rapidly. I remember stumbling across something internationally acclaimed, being rejected as not notable because some ignorant fool deemed that because he was ignorant of it because it was not something of his local national culture, that it must be a rip off of something previous by the same production and govt funding body doing an also widely acclaimed follow up work on the same theme.
And people wonder why many do not wish to waste their time helping to sort out backlogs. 220.245.214.185 ( talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
The templates you found for me at IRC will save me lots of time. Thank you!!!!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) |