User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:30, 6 September 2018

Messages

Please help keep discussions together.

If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.

Click here to begin a new topic

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
View or search the archives for old messages.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Links

Need Help?

Policies and Guidelines

Message from Rudyguy21

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)[reply]

@Rudyguy21: One of the sources you added is an interview with the subject of the article, which is not considered a reliable source. Also, there are still a number of statements sourced only to the subject's own works (books, biographies, etc.), which do not contribute to the subject's notability. Please continue to improve the article, and resubmit when you feel it is ready for another reviewer to have a look. Brad v 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

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)[reply]

Notice

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)[reply]

@Swarm: Already done. I originally voted for ALT1, but was convinced by Tryptofish's arguments that this may be perceived as creating a new policy (and an editnotice is not the place for that). Brad v 00:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake! How foolish of me! I honestly thought I remembered your comment being that way before Tryptofish proposed ALT2, and that's why I didn't check the edit history, but I guess I was wrong. Swarm ♠ 00:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was entirely my mistake — I edited my comment without noting the change. It should not be necessary to check the history in order to understand a discussion. Brad v 00:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it worked out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Mik-kiss

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)[reply]

Because your edit referenced two Youtube videos and an advertisement, none of which are reliable sources. Brad v 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Wang

The same editor has made edits likethis one to change the name - I don't read Chinese so can't check whether the three sources support the change. PamD 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: That would be the Chinese name. English-language sources still predominantly refer to Darren Wang, which is what WP:COMMONNAME depends on. Chinese sources really aren't relevant in a move discussion. Brad v 15:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Jakoobcherry

Hi Brad,

Can you please re-review the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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[reply]

@Jakoobcherry: I've approved the article. Thanks for writing it! Brad v 00:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Fell (Academic) notability

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)[reply]

@Rhodydog: No, as I explained at User talk:RHaworth#David Fell (academic) Page and at Draft:David Fell (academic), we need sources that discuss him. The information you have added to the page — where did you get it? Brad v 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)

@Rhodydog: Please describe the nature of your relationship with David Fell. Brad v 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

Okay, so if you are not the subject, where did you get this information? Where is the source for "He was Professor of Systems Biology at Oxford Brooke University"? One of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, so we need to know that what you say is true. Brad v 16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhodydog: Also, the page has not been deleted, it is at Draft:David Fell (academic). Brad v 16:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure, there is no deadline for drafts. But you must include your sources or the draft will not be accepted. Your own personal knowledge of the subject is not a valid source, as it is not verifiable. Brad v 16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Rhodydog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about page histories and moves

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)[reply]

That's the history from when it was called Donets Coal Basin. I swapped the two pages around when closing the RM. The article was originally created at Donets Coal Basin as a redirect to Donbass. Later that redirect was moved to Donetsian Coal Basin and then expanded into a new article. The original redirect, Donets Coal Basin, stayed as a redirect to Donbass until I swapped the two pages around. Brad v 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Rudyguy21

Draft:Vera King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, I do not see an essential reason disputing the sources of the article. These are verifiable sources, independent from the subject, third-party sources (Google Scholar etc.), there is no self-promotion. The notion "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." is fulfilled too. Furthermore, the subject, as a renowned member of the international scientific community, has been covered manifold outside of Wikipedia which is documented in diverse sources in the article.

Compared with articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Aaker or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner, colleagues of Vera King, I recognize no substantial, systemic difference. I agree, the first submission was admittedly insufficient according to the Wikipedia guidelines and that is why I was asked to improve the article which I do ever since. Now I feel somewhat clueless about what could be done else.

To avoid a never-ending-story trap, where every improvement is not enough, I would like you to advise me what should be improved in particular so that the next submission will satisfactory for you and successful for me.

rudyguy21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudyguy21: I'll take another look. In the future, please provide a link to the article when discussing it, and remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Brad v 13:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudyguy21: There are a total of 21 references at Draft:Vera King as of the current version:

1: Doesn't work; looks like a self-published biography (faculty page).

2, 3: Books written by the subject

4: Not linked, but by the name is a faculty page of a university

5: Faculty page, possibly self-published

6: Doesn't work

7, 8, 9, 10: Written by the subject

11: Faculty page, possibly self-published

12: Doesn't mention the subject

13: Written by the subject

14: Mentions the subject in passing

15: Interview with the subject (not independent)

16, 17, 18: Don't mention the subject

19, 20, 21: Mentions the subject by name only

Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Without uncovering several additional reliable sources, I would have to say that this subject fails the notability criteria for biographies. Brad v 13:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meon

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)[reply]

I find it surprising that such an important town only deserves a one-liner with no references. Brad v 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Bradv. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Test, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. testing per convo CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 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. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Red">talk</span>]])  12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 :I find it surprising that such an important town only deserves a one-liner with no references. [[User_talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">Brad</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">v</span>]] 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
+== September 2018 ==
+[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Bradv|Bradv]]. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, [[:Test]], but you didn't provide a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|include a citation]] and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners]] tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Bradv|my talk page]]. ''testing per convo'' <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)