User talk:Bradv/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bradv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
- Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
- Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Administrator changes
Nakon • Scott
Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
Guideline and policy news
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
Arbitration
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
- On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
- Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
Administrator changes
- Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
- Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box
Guideline and policy news
- Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
- Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
Technical news
- You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
Arbitration
- Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
- A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
- Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
- The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
Administrator changes
- Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
- Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
- A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
- Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.
Obituaries
- The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Bradv. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I intend to have "Yee" reviewed. GermanGamer77 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Really? You think this is up to Wikipedia's standards? Bradv 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Message from Dirkworld
hello Bradv,
So this page exists on other countries wikipedia pages. Why is this being rejected for the usa when it has credible sources, links to publications and international album release reviews, the all music guide, Kerrang, metal hammer,etc.
What needs to be done to finally get this up for good? This is a group who have sold well, toured and had major album releases since 1988. Any help would be so appreciated. Dirkworld (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are listed here. There are a set of 12 criteria that help identify whether bands are worth writing articles about. If it doesn't meet any or all of those criteria, perhaps it is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. I hope that helps. Bradv 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Message from AntonSamuel regarding move from cantons to regions
Hi! Why did you reverse the Rojava-related articles that I moved? I thought I had followed the guidelines, I waited a week and there was pretty much consensus on the talk pages. The only one who opposed misunderstood the sources, which I explained to him but he didn't respond much to that. So I thought that according to the regulations regarding moves ("Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly..") that it would be valid for me to move them. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Requested move discussions are to be closed by an uninvolved editor (see WP:RM#Closing instructions). The discussions are now relisted for another week in order to get a broader consensus. Once the consensus is clear someone else will close the discussion. It's very well possible that the discussions will go your way, but we need to allow the process to continue. Bradv 14:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Message from umairsy
Dear Bradv,
As suggested by you, changes has been made in the reference section. The blog references has been replaced with authentic book references.
This article is very important piece of history, which is missing now. Please check Wikipedia page on Battle of Chinhat for more reference on Barkat Ahmad.
Umair (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2017 (IST)
- Thank you for that. Can you also remove the link to Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia also is not a reliable source. Bradv 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For the selfiess service towards making Wikipedia articles authentic and complete. Great at providing guidance to make Articles better and publishable. Umairsy 18:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
According to the current draft of Wikipedia:Names of articles on recent events, first sentence, "There is no consensus" on article naming. We are keeping track of the results of RMs like this one to help establish consensus over time. Thus having a closure for or against based on the arguments would be helpful. Even if the close is "no consensus -> default to current name with date". -- GreenC 02:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did find consensus not to move the page, the main arguments being that the current title is clearer and more precise, even if it's less concise. However, I tried to leave it open to the possibility that, with broader participation, consensus with respect to these kinds of articles changes. If it does (or is clarified one way or another), then I would expect that the next discussion for this specific case would take a different tack. So no, I would not close this as "no consensus" but as "not moved". (But consensus can change.) I hope that helps. Bradv 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Message from Enycez99
Hi Bradv,
Sorry to interrupt you but I found that my article was declined for the reason of liking an advertisement. However， I refer to some independent, reliable, published sources to write this. It's really confused. Would you mind to help me?
Thanks Enyce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enycez99 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see that this is your first Wikipedia article. If you're interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I would recommend starting out by editing existing articles, participating in talk pages, and finding areas that you can contribute to. If you're not here to help build an encyclopedia, but you're trying to promote your company or your products, then I suggest you read the guidelines at WP:PROMOTION. Bradv 02:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
06:28:01, 21 February 2017 review of submission by Brutesin
Have submitted the link where it defines notability and reason why award was given. Please see newly added link with details. As its been awarded in 2011 there are few archives available at this point and this is one of them, which defines notability. I also chatted on wiki and got it confirmed. Please recheck. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutesin (talk • contribs) 06:28, February 21, 2017 (UTC)
References
Message from Ead345
Hi Bradv- I would love some assistance with the Liposarcoma Genome Project page. Liposarcoma is a rare cancer and thus not a great deal has been published about it. But how can people learn about rare cancers if the wikipedia page is denied due to insufficient sources. When the Director of the National Institute of Health posts an article about the lead liposarcoma genome project researcher at MGH/Harvard/Broad Institute, Bradley Bernstein,well what more evidence is needed to give this cancer credibility? I would like help please. Thank you. Ead345 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)EAD345
- I get what you're trying to do, but Wikipedia requires "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (as indicated in my note on the draft). Of the references provided in the draft, only the New York Times article meets that criteria. The rest are either primary sources or not independent of the subject. Are there any other independent sources available? Bradv 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 01:19:59, 9 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ead345
Hi Bradv- I am unclear why the liposarcoma genome project was denied. The articles listed were incredibly notable- the Director of the National Institute of Health just wrote an article about the project's lead researcher. The human genome project was new at one point in time before it became notable- so why wouldnt the liposarcoma genome project be credible? It is the same exact premise- basic research and an understanding of the epigentics of liposarcoma, an incredibly rare soft tissue cancer. It is an incredible shame that the wiki page was denied because how else are people going to be able to learn about this lifesaving research that is currently happening by some of the most brilliant minds in cancer research at MGH/Harvard/MIT/Broad Institute. How can we fix this?
Ead345 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Answered just above. Bradv 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 20:57:49, 7 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Antonzaitsev
- Antonzaitsev (talk · contribs)
Hi. First of all, thanks for the review. It seems there is a huge pile of submissions and you do a great job reading all these drafts.
Secondly, thanks for understanding. It's frustrating indeed to have a draft declined.
You said I should find sources and provided some links to start with. As I know from communication with another reviewer it's okay if the sources belong to the same country as the subject of an article. So if the subject has the good coverage in Russian sources, it's enough. Is it correct?
- Here is an article on Vedomosti (Alexa rank 5,432, one of the most authoritative Russian media): https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/news/2014/06/26/topface-hochet-kupit-u-rbk-sajt-znakomstv-loveplanet (independent secondary source).
- Here are articles on vc.ru (Alexa rank 11,085), a Russian website covering internet startups:
- https://vc.ru/1619-topface (independent source)
- https://vc.ru/4239-topface-loveplanet (independent secondary source)
- https://vc.ru/22275-topface-and-appodeal (I believe it's a secondary source since it's a case study, but it's dependent)
- Here is an article on republic.ru (Alexa rank 28,406): https://republic.ru/business/tolko_my_znaem_kto_krasivyy_a_kto_net-840476.xhtml (independent source)
- Here is a paper magazine issue: http://www.sobaka.ru/magazine/137 with an article about Topface founder Dmitry Filatov: http://www.sobaka.ru/oldmagazine/glavnoe/11912/ (independent source)
- And here is another article about Topface from this source: http://www.sobaka.ru/fashion/stuff/65583 (independent source)
- Featured in the list of the most innovative companies of 2013: https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2013 (Alexa rank 3,117, independent secondary source)
- Mentioned as one of the biggest Russian dating services: https://www.rbc.ru/business/17/07/2015/55a6a0f99a79470fd3a73471 (Alexa rank 695, one of the biggest Russian media; independent secondary source)
- Featured in the top 10 of Russian Internet companies of 2012: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/top-10-russian-internet-companies-in-2012-20345 (Alexa rank 51,419; independent secondary source)
Please comment on these sources.
Antonzaitsev (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't read Russian, and neither do the majority of users on the English Wikipedia, so I can't evaluate the Russian-language sources to verify the information in this article. I can only evaluate based on the English-language sources given, of which there are two:
- https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2013, which says in its entirety:
"Topface: For championing a local, online dating scene."
- https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/top-10-russian-internet-companies-in-2012-20345, which only has three sentences on the subject.
- https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2013, which says in its entirety:
- As you can see, I simply don't have enough information to be able to accept this submission. Perhaps you can find some more English-language sources, or find an experienced editor who can speak Russian. Just out of curiosity, where are you getting the information to write this article? Are you translating all of this from these sources, or do you have another source that's not listed here? Bradv 21:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I want to find an experienced editor who can speak Russian, what should I do first? It's all translated of course. If there was another independent source, I would cite it. Antonzaitsev (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
- Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
- A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.
Miscellaneous
- Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
14:13:28, 10 December 2017 review of submission by Abmnn
Thanks for reviewing my article on Nimble Commander! You rejected it for notability reasons. I respectfully disagree and here is my argumentation that I hope you find reasonable:
Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that "a computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field [...]".
Of the four sources I used, the first two (Softpedia and MacTech) are well-known websites/journals in the Mac software domain that both have their own Wikipedia articles. The third is a well-known tech blog (lifehacker.ru). The fourth is a recommendation by the author of the golden standard file manager of the last two decades (Total Commander).
Objectively, the quality of these sources is at least equivalent to the ones used in the acticles of Nimble Commander's direct competitors, all dual-pane file managers for macOS:
Please take 2 minutes and see for yourself. Take Fman for example: In its Reception section, it cites three sources. The first is Softpedia, like I did in my article. The only difference is that Fman was rated 3/5 and Nimble Commander received a 5/5 rating. The second source is a journal, comparable to MacTech which I cited. The third is ProductHunt, a product launch website where everybody can post their product without any peer-review.
Please help me understand in detail why you rejected the article - and please don't be like the last reviewer who ignored and deleted my post twice without an answer. Help me add a good article for a popular piece of software - thanks! :)
Abmnn (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abmnn: Are there any other sources available? This is probably right on the edge. Those other articles are also right on the edge (one is tagged as possibly non-notable, and one barely survived a deletion discussion). Nevertheless, any improvements you can make to the sources for your article will help the next time it gets reviewed. Bradv 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 00:40:05, 11 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by T4mb4y 22
Hi! Why did you delete Angola at major beauty pageants? You know what delete also countries at major beauty pageants.
T4mb4y 22 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- @T4mb4y 22: I didn't delete anything. I pointed out in my comment that this topic is already covered at Miss Angola. Bradv 01:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
- Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
- If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with:
{{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
- A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
- Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
- ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
- The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could please close the move discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria and move the page per WP:SNOWBALL? Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree there is a good chance the outcome of this discussion can be predicted, I think it should run the full 7 days, just as with any other requested move discussion. I am not convinced of any pressing need to abbreviate this process. Bradv 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I can wait 3 more days. Thanks for your help! Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
SMILE!! 12 DECEMBER 2017
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your close of RM for Victoria (TV series)
I'm not sure how you got a "no consensus" from Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 28 November 2017. There is clear consensus to move, with a couple of editors thinking that the discussion should be put on hold. However, they are in the minority. --woodensuperman 13:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, I should have provided more information in my closing statement. There are three possible outcomes for a move discussion: consensus to move, consensus not to move, or no consensus. As there were two people supporting the proposed move, one opposing the move, and two suggesting it would be better to hold off until a relevant RfC is complete, there is no consensus. As the outcome of the RfC may affect this discussion, it would be disruptive to move the article and then move it back. Please note that as this is a "no consensus" move, there is no requirement to wait before nominating it again, although I would recommend waiting until the RfC is complete in order to satisfy those objections. Bradv 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again, There are five people supporting the move, not two as you mention. --woodensuperman 09:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have you had another look at this yet, or do you need me to submit a move review? --woodensuperman 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I recommend you open another requested move discussion once this RFC closes. If for some reason you cannot wait that long, you are welcome to open a move review. Bradv 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Close
I have to come by and say that your recent RM close at Cheryl (singer) is one of, if not the, finest and best written, well analyzed, and carefully explained closer statements I've seen here. Thank you. And you actually used a reading of the article itself in your consideration, which in my opinion should be done in most if not all RMs. I wish you had closed some of the ones I thought were incorrect, because a couple of crucial times the closer studied the issues involved, became familiar with the long statements and analysis offered up for evidentially purposes and then carefully debated in different styles by opposing good-faith editors, read some of the article itself, and then wrote and posted the close, all in less than two minutes. I will save and point to the wording of your Cheryl (singer) close as an example. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Move review for Victoria (TV series)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Victoria (TV series). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --woodensuperman 15:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
About Topface draft
If I want to find an experienced editor who can speak Russian, what should I do first? Answering your question: it's all translated of course. If there was another independent source, I would cite it.Antonzaitsev (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Antonzaitsev: I would try to find sources in English. If the subject is notable enough for an article in the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be available. Bradv 14:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
14:34:01, 15 December 2017 review of submission by Nurgul B
Hi Bradv,
Thank you for your review time. I was not sure whether I should have added any more information about Scandinavian Development Services (SDS) without sounding too subjective. However, in terms of notability, SDS is a leading scandinavian consultancy within life science industry in Scandinavia. SDS featured in "Dagens Industri"[1]. Dagens Industri is a financial newspaper in tabloid format published in Stockholm, Sweden[2]. Would this be enough source for notability?
Kind regards,
Nurgul B (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Nurgul B
- @Nurgul B: The article in question does not have a single reliable source listed. Reliable source are what we use to build our articles, and specifically what we use to establish whether a topic is notable. Please carefully read the explanation given at the top of the article. Bradv 15:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Message from T4mb4y 22
Hi there! Why did you delete my article for Angola at major beauty pageants? Well if that is the case delete all the Countries at major beauty pageant then...
Please comment on Talk:Reba McEntire
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reba McEntire. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
19:14:33, 18 December 2017 review of submission by Abrobo819
Hi there,
I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review just yet, but I am getting ready to edit this further so I can submit again. Can you further elaborate on why the submission was denied in regard to the following, "...and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The sources I list do not come from the subject or the subject's company. All those I have listed are external sources. Do you have recommendations on how I could make this better? I apologize if I haven't used the talk page correctly. I've only created a couple articles and never really used the talk page before.
Thank you!
Abrobo819 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abrobo819: I went through the sources listed in the article, and here is what I found:
- issuu.com Contains the best coverage of the subject, but may not be considered a reliable source.
- staffingindustry.com links are about the company, not the subject of the article. These also look like press releases, and may not be considered reliable.
- insideindianabusiness.com is about the company, not the subject.
- si100.staffingindustry.com doesn't even mention the subject, or his company.
- missionandvision.org has a little bit of information about the subject, but not much.
- indyelevensoccerfoundation.com is a biography, most likely written by the subject himself, and therefore certainly not reliable.
- None of these sources are really good enough to establish notability, and certainly do not meet the standards for biographies of living persons. Also, where does the information in the article come from? I can't find his birthdate in any of these sources, or the names of his parents and siblings. Does that come from a reliable source? If so, it must be referenced. If not, this information doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Bradv 03:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
11:39:27, 19 December 2017 review of submission by Shouston17
- Shouston17 (talk · contribs)
Hi Bradv,
Thank you for reviewing my article. I would really like some suggestions as to how to make this article better as I have been trying for a long time to find new references and improve it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
- @Shouston17: I went through the references listed in the article in detail to find out what is missing:
- https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=JSRAH74 is hosted by the director's company, meaning that this is not a reliable source as the subject of the article has control over the content.
- http://www.ulverscroft-foundation.org.uk/what-we-do/ophthalmic-research/ same as above.
- https://www.ucl.ac.uk/uvrg/about_us again.
- https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/policydb_download.php?doc=365 is a work written by the subject, and therefore not a reliable source.
- https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=sjcorw0AAAAJ&hl=en&cstart=20&pagesize=20 mentions citations of the subject, but a Google search isn't considered a reliable source.
- https://www.visionuk.org.uk/standing-committees/eye-research-uk-group/ mentions her name only.
- http://www.ukbiobankeyeconsortium.org.uk/people mentions her name only.
- Per our policy on biographies of living persons, all statements about a living person must be attributed to a reliable source. None of these sources meet that criteria, and the article consists almost exclusively of unsourced statements. (For example, how do you know where she went to school?) If you have any other sources, please share them. If that cannot be done, this subject is most likely not suitable for Wikipedia. Bradv 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Unexplained move of "Annaea gens" without consensus
Please revert your page move of "Annaea gens" to "Annaea". There was clearly no consensus in favour of this move. The proposal was to move the page to "Annaea (gens)", and there was no consensus for that. The proposal to move to a different title, "Annaea", was made less than three hours before the page was moved there. Nobody else agreed to that move; the only reply to it objected to that move. The move makes the page inconsistent with every other article about a Roman gens; since 2009 all new or updated articles on Roman gentes have used the same title format, with the only difference being whether "gens" is in parentheses. And as stated, had the issue of some editors moving pages to remove what they considered "unnecessary disambiguation" been known when the project began, none of them would have had parentheses; parentheses are unnecessary. However, "gens" is.
The reason is because all Roman women shared their names with the gentes to which they belonged. Every woman in the Julia gens was named "Julia", every woman in the Manlia gens was named "Manlia". Added to which, many gentes also shared their names with Roman tribes, wards, or towns. While not all of these currently have their own articles, the fact that every gens shares its name with at least one of these creates a distinct need for specificity and consistency. To say nothing of the fact that naturalists since the 18th century have borrowed the names of Roman gentes to describe spiders, butterflies, lizards, mushrooms, etc. The move was proposed by someone who is not a member of or apparently familiar with the conventions of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and who did not obtain anything approaching consensus for the move. Therefore, I respectfully request that the page be returned to its previous title, or at least the original proposed title (which is where it was created in the first place). P Aculeius (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see two votes, one supporting the move, and the other also supporting, but suggesting a name that is more in line with general Wikipedia usage. Your comments on the discussion appear to be neutral, so I'm surprised to see this response. I will revert and relist. Bradv 05:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- There are four votes, by my count, for three different options. The nominator plus one in favour of reverting to the original title; mine, preferring to leave it where it is, since it's logical and still fairly consistent with or without parentheses, and less likely to be targeted as an example of "unnecessary disambiguation"; and one vote for a third title. It's not a question of there being "consensus to move", and then picking whichever suggested title seems most appropriate; rather it's whether there's consensus for any one of three options. I should add that some standard reference works on this topic routinely title most gens articles "Aemilia gens, Caecilia gens," etc. treating "gens" as part of the name, presumably because otherwise the natural assumption would be that the name refers to an individual. But thank you for relisting this. Believe me, I've put a great deal of thought into these articles since starting to write them in 2009, and the most useful and consistent format has been one of the things that's always on my mind. P Aculeius (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- You may want to make your !vote more clear, perhaps by using
*'''Oppose'''. Also, from a consistency perspective, the disambiguation guidelines would suggest that this article should actually be at Annaea gens or Annaea, but not at Annaea (gens) as that is an unnecessary disambiguation. This would be more consistent with everything else on Wikipedia. Bradv 13:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- You may want to make your !vote more clear, perhaps by using
- There are four votes, by my count, for three different options. The nominator plus one in favour of reverting to the original title; mine, preferring to leave it where it is, since it's logical and still fairly consistent with or without parentheses, and less likely to be targeted as an example of "unnecessary disambiguation"; and one vote for a third title. It's not a question of there being "consensus to move", and then picking whichever suggested title seems most appropriate; rather it's whether there's consensus for any one of three options. I should add that some standard reference works on this topic routinely title most gens articles "Aemilia gens, Caecilia gens," etc. treating "gens" as part of the name, presumably because otherwise the natural assumption would be that the name refers to an individual. But thank you for relisting this. Believe me, I've put a great deal of thought into these articles since starting to write them in 2009, and the most useful and consistent format has been one of the things that's always on my mind. P Aculeius (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Message from Sludj re: Wrongworld
Hi there,
Thanks for the quick review - I was expecting to have to wait a couple of months before hearing anything back :)
I can see the page was declined, I think due to lack of citations, correct? There are many other articles about Wrongworld that exist, but I checked through the list of gaming press websites that Wikipedia classes as important/usable, and I couldn't find the websites in question listed, so I left them out of the article.
Do I just need to wait until the game is noticed by some of the larger press sites, then add those citations to the article? Just want to make sure there isn't anything else that's causing a problem, and it's just the lack of coverage from large press sites that's the issue.
Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sludj (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- It looks to me that there's a fair bit of material that is sourced to non-third-party sites (i.e. Steam). Coverage by larger press sites, independent of the project, would be good. If you can find some, add them and resubmit the article. Bradv 05:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for letting me know. Based on the other indie game pages I researched to get a feel for what was required, I thought Steam was classed as a reliable source. If I remember correctly, the page for Darkwood (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Darkwood) seemed to only cite the Steam store page for a lot of the paragraphs on that page, but they do also have a few other citations from various larger press sites too, so I assume that tipped it over into the acceptable realm. There are quite a lot of press articles about Wrongworld, but at the moment there aren't so many from the list of important gaming press sites mentioned in the help articles. Is there any point citing various press sites that AREN'T listed as important and reliable on Wikipedia, or do they literally count for nothing and I'd simply be wasting my time? Just wanted to double-check before I make any more edits, so I know whether or not to crack on or simply wait until the bigger sites start to cover it. Sludj (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Prince Michael of Sealand
Hello Bradv!
Prince Michael of Sealand has received a lot more attention and individual press since 2010. Not trying to be contrary or difficult. I also didn't realize there was an old AFD performed. But with the press he's gotten and the multiple times he's mentioned and written about on WP, I think rather than keeping a redirect the best way to go about getting rid of the article is an AFD if you don't agree with it. Interested to hear your thoughts. Hope you're well. --Kbabej (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I've sent it to AfD, as the subject is not independently notable, per WP:BLP1E. Bradv 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree, but thank you for taking it to AFD. Appreciate that (no sarcasm intended) rather than just reverting the article to a redirect. --Kbabej (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Cruz del Campo article
Hi, how do I see the article reviewed by a group of Wikipedians?--ILoveCaracas (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ILoveCaracas: You can add
{{subst:submit}}to the top of the article to submit it for review. Before you do that though, can you please explain the difference between this article and Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo? Why not contribute to that article instead? Bradv 04:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Are two different articles, one is about a stations of the cross I mean a pilgrimage route "that ends in the building of that article that I am creating", and the other article of the building itself, do you understand me?--ILoveCaracas (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
it's as if you were saying that the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela should not have an article because the Camino de Santiago already exists--ILoveCaracas (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
sorry, but now I have to wait more than 2 months for such an obvious thing, good thanks--ILoveCaracas (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Grand prix of literary associations
Hello Bradv. Thanks for reviewing the article quoted on headline. The template you left calls for more sources; Could you please tell me what exactly needs to be sourced in the text? Thanks in advance. --Morgoko (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Move review for UAE Arabian Gulf League
An editor has asked for a Move review of UAE Arabian Gulf League. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bijanii (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
Administrator changes
- Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned- None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Technical news
- The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.
Arbitration
- Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.
Please comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Message from T patrick VA UiPath
Hi Bradv,
I joined UiPath Inc., several months ago and I have tried to submit our company for a page on Wikipedia. We are a $50 million revenue company with 600+ customers including GE, Pepsi, HP, Wells Fargo, the UK Home Office, NASA and so on. I have tried to simplify the submission but it sounds like there may be a history here where UiPath is "blacklisted" of sorts. Can you please help guide me?
Thank you. Bobby.patrick@uipath.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by T patrick VA (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @T patrick VA: It's not a "blacklist", it's that Wikipedia has standards for notability and importance that your company does not meet, and a discussion among editors led to the article's deletion. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not for advertising. Bradv 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Grand prix of literary associations (New edits)
Hello Bradv. As recommended in your template, I've added several sources in the article quoted on headline, with more up-to-date info; if ok, please remove the template, otherwise kindly tell me what to do next to improve the content. Thanks in advance. --Morgoko (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Equal application of notability criterion for biographies
Hello Bradv. I am writing about the draft biography on Jugnoo Rahi. Publication was declined because of inadequate notability of the subject. I understand that strict application of the guidelines might make the subject borderline for eligibility. However, I am very worried that these standards are being applied unevenly across the piece. There are many pages that show far less "significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Wikipedia appears unequal in its treatment of women compared to men. There are 29 women and 590 men in the category of Ophthalmologists. I do not believe that less than 5% of the notable ophthalmologists are women. The unfortunate effect of the current situation is that Wikipedia appears institutionally biassed against women, even though I am sure this is unintended. Timlev37 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Timlev37: If such a bias exists it would be entirely unintentional. Wikipedia has the same standards for all articles, regardless of the gender of the subject. In a previous discussion I went through each of the sources available to evaluate whether they satisfied the notability criteria, and I see those sources are still unchanged. If you have something to add to the article, please do so and resubmit the article for review, and another editor will take a look. Bradv 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is aware of gender bias. In terms of the unequal female involvement in wikipedia editing: "The Wikimedia Foundation has officially held, since at least 2011 … , that gender bias exists in the project." Gender bias on Wikipedia#Reaction. By their nature, we cannot be aware of our unconscious biasses. But the statistics (590:29) clearly indicate bias. I wonder what proportion of the 590 pages currently included meet the standards you applied. Timlev37 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
02:34:00, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Seriouskind
- Seriouskind (talk · contribs)
Hi, Bradv. Thanks for reviewing my page. Can you tell me what you think I need to add in order to make the page publishable?
Thanks!
Seriouskind (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hertz
The cite you restored is a gossip column, with a probable COI pesence on Wiki. Anmccaff (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- There were three references removed, and now I've added the same content back with some different references. If you still object, please explain yourself at Talk:John D. Hertz. Bradv 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Grand Prix of Literary Associations (More sources and fresh info in the second section)
Hello Bradv! Still related to your recommendations, the second section of the article mentioned on headline has been improved ("Other GPLA Prizes"), with new sources and more fresh info, in addition to the changes I've done in my last edit (see my previous post on this page). Hope this will be enough to get your template removed, otherwise, kindly tell me what is still to be done to improve that page. Thanks in advance. --Morgoko (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pink tide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pink tide. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ten years of editing, today.
|
Hey, Bradv. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
19:25:32, 24 January 2018 review of submission by MrVanDigital
- MrVanDigital (talk · contribs)
Hi Bradv. I want to ask in what areas I should improve this article draft? I've read the notability guidelines and am convinced this person fits the criteria. Nikolas is Canada's most in-demand futurist, which is a very in-vogue profession that is helping businesses, thought leaders and politicians get to grips with technology and its future impact on society, work and culture. If it is citations where the submission is weak, I will attempt to redo and link to more respected links. Nikolas has appeared on many news stations recently (TV and radio) throughout Canada and I could link to these. He also created a '2018 Trends Report' that is being mentioned a lot in the media. I could also delete some of the history of Nikolas if this is less important? Before starting the rewrite, I would like a few more guidelines to help me. MrVanDigital (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MrVanDigital: I would suggest seeking sources that are not written by the subject, i.e. his LinkedIn account. Also avoid biographies written by the subject, interviews with the subject, and blog posts written by the subject. This eliminates most of the sources currently used in the article, which would need to be replaced by reliable sources. Articles usually aren't rejected or deleted based on the content of the article, but rather based on the quality of the sources used. Bradv 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Of the sources currently referenced in the article, these are likely considered reliable:
- A few more like that and we should be good to go. Content in the article that is not ascribed to one of these sources would have to be removed as well, per policy. Bradv 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Message from Joergen Dragesaet
Hi!
About a year ago I submitted a draft on the West End actress Jill Martin (1938-2016).
The draft was not accepted for a number of reasons and I did not make any furter efforts to get it published on Wikipedia. But I was able to get her obituary published both at The Telegraph and The Times.
I today noticed that on the Italian Wikipedia there is actually a piece on Jill Martin, written in italian language. Would it be possible to get this piece published in english on the english wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joergen Dragesaet (talk • contribs) 16:21, January 29, 2018 (UTC)
- @Joergen Dragesaet: Regardless of whether an article is published on the Italian Wikipedia, we would need reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. The current article, Draft:Jill Martin, would not be accepted in its current form. I hope that helps. Bradv 19:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Message from MrVanDigital
Thanks for your help with editing the article on Futurist, Nikolas Badminton. I've resubmitted after fixing issues you mentioned. I also had a question about citations I can't seem to find the answer for. Can you use websites like Meetup and Eventbrite as sources? Or does it depend on who organizes the meetup/event? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVanDigital (talk • contribs) 18:48, January 29, 2018 (UTC)
- @MrVanDigital: Thanks for resubmitting Draft:Nikolas Badminton. I will leave it to another reviewer to take a look. I would not depend on sites like Meetup or Eventbrite, as anyone can submit information to these sites. Newspapers, magazines, and books are considered reliable sources and are usually trusted to be factual. Bradv 19:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation
|
Thank You | |
| Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria
- Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think you closed this discussion way too fast. There is I think no doubt that the current article name is wrong, and the discussion is simply slow. (There was only one response, which was not fully in disagreement.) We will never be able to complete a discussion this fast on a subject like this. Please advise whether we now need to restart? (But at this rate discussions will need to be restarted every week for several months before we get a decision!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: The discussion had been open for over a week since the last relist without further comment, and there was no indication that another relist would invite further participation. There were two people involved in the discussion who were on different sides of the issue, so I couldn't close it as anything other than no consensus. This is not the same as keep, it simply indicates that there is no consensus and the tie goes to the status quo. If there is a consensus one way or another it should be possible to make that determination within two weeks. If there had been no opposition at all, it would have been treated as uncontroversial and moved accordingly. Bradv 15:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv, On such articles the old idea of "no deadline" is still important for basic practical reasons. There is no urgency to close such a discussion? What would have been the damage to wait longer than one week, or even 2 months? How on earth have you decided that all such discussions are finished within 2 weeks? But even if it were true, this reasoning is not logical because closing a discussion quickly brings WP no value, whereas closing it too early can really make things more difficult. By the way I understand why it might look that way at first but there were not two people with opposing positions. You read that wrong because you were in a rush I think. Discussion had just started, and funnily enough I notice that the other editor now simply moved the article to the name you say they opposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is consensus that relisting should generally only happen once, unless there is an active discussion. Since this discussion was stale, it needed to be closed. And the substance of the other person's argument was that the proposal wasn't an improvement, and the article should probably be deleted instead. Now that editor has moved it to a different title entirely (which you seem to agree with), so it would be fair to say that a consensus has been reached. In this case I have no opinion either way — I am simply following the procedures listed at WP:RMCI and WP:RM. Bradv 19:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv, On such articles the old idea of "no deadline" is still important for basic practical reasons. There is no urgency to close such a discussion? What would have been the damage to wait longer than one week, or even 2 months? How on earth have you decided that all such discussions are finished within 2 weeks? But even if it were true, this reasoning is not logical because closing a discussion quickly brings WP no value, whereas closing it too early can really make things more difficult. By the way I understand why it might look that way at first but there were not two people with opposing positions. You read that wrong because you were in a rush I think. Discussion had just started, and funnily enough I notice that the other editor now simply moved the article to the name you say they opposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
Administrator changes
- None
- Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
- Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
- A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Message from Writewords44
Hello Bradv,
I see you recently voted to delete my wiki entry "Brian Cliette" for lack on nobility ,I think this was a mistake as he has over 7 media mentions and interviews in top online outlets ( entrepreneur.com, The Huffington Post, Business.com, Influencive.com..etc) you can see the following google news results for "Brian Cliette" in the link below https://www.google.com/search?biw=2560&bih=1366&tbm=nws&ei=oLN2WoTDHbDs5gLmvpSIBA&q=%22brian+cliette%22
Please advise.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Carla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewords44 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The subject fails Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, known as notability. The community discussed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Cliette. If at some point there is sufficient third-party sources to write an article, this will be revisited. Bradv 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
08:40:55, 13 February 2018 review of submission by 199.111.219.110
199.111.219.110 (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Message from Shipyardworker
Hello Bradv,
I've changed the first part of the "Michael Tojner"-Draft and would be glad if you could check it once more. Best whishes, Shipyardworker.18:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Shipyardworker (talk)
Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
Administrator changes
- Lourdes†
- AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
- † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.
Guideline and policy news
- The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
- Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
- A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
- A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
- CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
- The edit filter has a new feature
contains_allthat edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.
Obituaries
- Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.