Jump to content

User talk:Bradv/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user is proudly Canadian.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Francis T. McAndrew

Hi Bradv. A few days ago I started the page, Francis T. McAndrew as part of an effort to add notable Knox College faculty to Wikipedia. See also my other article on Robert Hellenga. I wrote the article with publicly available information and included several sources. You pointed out the the sources were insufficient, which I agree is a valid criticism. Around this time, Dr. McAndrew himself visited the page and added a bunch of sources (maybe too many?!). He did this under his own name without trying to hide behind an anonymous account. Other than adding sources, I don't believe he changed the article in any other way-- yet you then put an autobiographical label on it (and still insufficient sources!). Since I put together the original article, I would like to resolve this and make it a useful and valuable contribution to the website. I believe we are all acting in good faith. How can we work together to fix the issues you have identified? What would you like to add or remove or change in the article? I respectfully await your reply. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that have been added to the article, but they are almost all primary sources, articles written by the author himself. Are there any other sources that are independent of the subject that can be used? As this is a biography of a living person, Wikipedia has very strict rules about information being neutral, accurate, reliable, and backed up by credible sources. Once those issues are resolved the tags can be removed. Bradv 15:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Most of the relevant sources are either primary sources, as the author added, or potentially weak biographical/ web profile sources such as I was citing when I first made the article. In the absence of a published biography, which I don't think exists, I'm not sure what else could be used or how to proceed from here. As a published author and lately TV and radio personality, he is surely notable enough for a Wikipedia page. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Notability is not the relevant policy then, verifiability is. If there isn't enough information to write an article, despite appearing to meet the notability criteria, this content might not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. Bradv 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will see if I can find better, more verifiable sources. Thanks. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I revised the article today and removed everything that wasn't supported by a verifiable source. Let me know what you think and what, if anything (specifically) still needs to be changed. Thanks. --Jcbutler (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BarlowGirl

Your restoring of the WP:OR content is reprehensible. Wikipedia is no place for essays. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not original research. It's informative, well-sourced, and relevant to the topic. Exactly what we should be doing here. I put it back. Bradv 05:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. It's WP:SYNTH. The original editor gleaned information from various sources and put it together and is implying that this band is somehow lacking in righteousness for listening to and performing "secular music". At the very least it's WP:POINTy and a smear campaign. I looked at the "influences" content and thought it was pretty good, but then it quickly digressed. If you can clean it up, it would probably be OK. I'm concerned that it might encourage the editor. (Walter at work). 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the part of the paragraph that was WP:SYNTH. What I restored is the section that is well-sourced and relevant. You seem intent on getting rid of this information because you think it is critical of the subject, but the fact is it isn't critical at all. At any rate, the page is protected now, so you have some time to think about this. Bradv 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Not really critical of the subject, it's a specific fundamentalist understanding of life and how it should be applied to the Christian life. That has no place being passed off as fact. I saw that the page was protected and in re-reading what you restored, I think it's good. It's rest that I still have concerns about, and the other editor's approach to adding content using SYNTH that is a problem. Thanks. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand, more than you know. ;) I'm glad we've found a middle ground, and I'll continue to keep an eye on the article. Bradv 19:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And now you're stating some convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Morgan&oldid=prev&diff=751070759 ? US cities show states because they are federated. Canadian provinces do not. Also, your input on the talk page at BarlowGirl would be appreciated. I have already opened a discussion to seek clarification about the listing provinces. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm Canadian and I can tell you that the province is used in exactly the same way as the state is in the United States. Most other countries are different, including Europe, but Canada and the U.S. have this in common. It's also listed right here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#In_article_text. Saying that the U.S. is federated might be a distinction without a difference, as Canada is also a federation (See Canadian Confederation). What's important is the convention in use in those countries, which really is the same. And if it matters, I wasn't following you — I came to this from WP:3O.
Regarding BarlowGirl, I have been following the discussion and have nothing to add. I've offered a compromise, and it appears that the editors have accepted it. While it may require some minor tweaking, it appears that everyone agrees that intentionally removing this information isn't helpful, but neither is adding original research in order to disparage the subject.
On the other hand, it appears that talk page has degenerated into name-calling and beating each other over the head with out-of-context Bible verses, so maybe I will say something. Bradv 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The article in question is BarlowGirl. Take care. --LABcrabs (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, LABcrabs. I will keep an eye on that discussion and chime in if I can help. Bradv 05:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Bradv,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 803 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

About Puneet Dalmia

Dear Bradv could you please tell me how the content of article seems promotional to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda rajpurohit (talk • contribs) 17:35, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the page to draft space, so you can work on it without so much attention. When it is ready, submit it to WP:AFC for review. Bradv 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv But why cant i create article directly? i have created earlier, is there any process change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda rajpurohit (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You certainly are allowed to create articles directly in mainspace, but this article is not ready and is very likely to be deleted. The draft space lets you work on it in peace, and submit it via the WP:AFC process when you feel it is ready. Bradv 18:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bradv I think my draft is ready and could you please explain why you think article is not ready? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda rajpurohit (talk • contribs) 12:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Armenian Genocide Recognition

I saw you accepted the ip's edits. How is vugar-seidov.azeris.com a reliable source? Also Malaga did not undue the resolution. They voted but the vote failed. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/reversals-of-resolutions-on-1915-events.aspx?pageID=449&nID=106624&NewsCatID=396 I told the IP user that the site is not a reliable one, they can add other sites, like the one i posted here. Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just accepted the edit as not obvious vandalism, I don't necessarily endorse the content. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert it back and/or discuss on the talk page as usual. Bradv 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New Message

Sorry for the mistake. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for fixing it. Cheers. Bradv 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

King of prussia mall article

The items I removed had no citations. WP policy states unsourced material can be challenged and removed. Please don't restore these items until a citation is given--74.103.148.51 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@74.103.148.51: Challenged and removed. Not just removed. Please discuss the problems with those sections on the talk page before blanking large sections of the article again. Bradv 03:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

racist quote from Robin Morgan

How do we decide what is "constructive," as you say? I take it you mean that the inclusion of the quote is not flattering to the subject of that article, and so in your opinion the quote should not be included because you want the subject of that article to be portrayed in a favorable light. Is that what you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.104.52 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@50.51.104.52: I presume you're talking about this edit. Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, you will need a source for a quote like that. If you have a source, put it in the edit, or open a discussion on the talk page of the article. If you do not have a source, this addition is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, let me know. Bradv 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Bradv. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Ϫ 06:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Bradv 06:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Stan

Could you please revert your closure of Cyclone Stan? I offered an alternative literally one hour ago and I'd like to get feedback on it. Since discussion is still taking place, your closure is a bit premature. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done I will relist the debate instead. Bradv 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Page/history swap

Hi, you don't have to request speedy deletion of the redirect if it is stopping you from moving the page. Since you have page mover right, you can just swap the pages instead. Instructions on how to perform a page swap are here. You can use this user script to automatically perform a page swap. I hope this is helpful. :) Fuortu (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try that. I never considered that I could just move the target page out of the way - I thought I would need to have it deleted. Thank you very much for the help. Bradv 00:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem. By the way, when you are closing RM discussions, please remember to add {{RMNAC}} in your closing comment. Thank you for closing RM discussions and reducing the backlog. Fuortu (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the help. Bradv 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Laura Ingalls

Hi Bradv, I can't help but notice that you just closed the discussion at Laura Ingalls (now Laura Ingalls (disambiguation) less than 15 minutes after my last comment on the page, in which I requested the respones of other discussants and only on the second day of a relisting cycle. You state in your closure that Laura Ingalls that "is the name she went by in the books" however not one single shred of evidence has been shown to demonstrate this and a huge ammount has been provided to demonstrate the exact opposite. I humbly request that you revert your close and wait for other users to respond. Ebonelm (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I relisted the debate yesterday because the consensus wasn't clear. Since then, a clear consensus emerged, with you as the only remaining holdout. If you are familiar with the books or the TV show at all, you will know that she goes by Laura Ingalls, as that was her name until she married at the end of the series. This is referred to several times in the article - I'm not sure what other evidence you are looking for. Bradv 23:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Bradv 'Laura Ingalls' the character is known primarily as 'Laura Ingalls' yes, but ' Laura Ingalls Wilder' the writer is known as 'Laura Ingalls Wilder'. The evidence I am looking for and have provided is that the writer (ie the 'real person') is always known as 'Laura Ingalls Wilder', but nobody has provided any that the real person is known as 'Laura Ingalls'. Ebonelm (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The book series and TV series are autobiographical. They are specifically about Laura Ingalls' family. Either way, it's an established fact that Laura Ingalls Wilder was known as Laura Ingalls until she got married, at which point she changed her name. Even by her former name, she is still more notable than any other people named Laura Ingalls. Bradv 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ebonelm: it's been demonstrated that the author (and the character based on her) are known as simply "Laura Ingalls" in some contexts, to the point that she's the primary topic of the term. This was the right call.--Cúchullain t/c 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

List of political parties in the Republic of China

Please read the last split proposal. The consensus was to create a new article about Taiwan across history.--Coco977 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Republic_of_China#Split? Where two people opposed your request, and no one agreed with you? I don't see a consensus there. Bradv 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I proposed a split, and one person who opposed said that I should create a new article for Taiwan across history instead of spliting the article for ROC.Another simultaneous discussion was[1].Coco977 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's far from any sort of consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Try create a draft article, and see if you can get people on board. Check out WP:AFC or WP:YFA for help. The way you're going about things now is very disruptive. Bradv 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New British Union

Hi Brad I was just about to tag the NBU for speedy deletion but you beat me to it. I was going to tag it as "purely promotional" - are you sure you gave enough reason to get it deleted? MarkDask 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. You can tag it for speedy even while there's a prod. Bradv 06:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Medardo Flores

Please advise me as to why you moved this article into draft space. I didn't see a proper justification for this action and so I reverted your move. However, I would like to understand your rationale. Thank you so much for your interest in this article, Crtew (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article had previously been part of the articles for creation process, and would benefit from another review. I encourage you to continue to use AFC, and not to move it to mainspace yourself. Bradv 14:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

DeAndre Brackensick

Hi - I'm the editor who restored the DeAndre Brackensick article. The reason why I didn't take the matter to WP:Deletion Review is because that forum is specifically for instances in which an editor feels that the consensus of a deletion review was incorrectly interpreted by the closing administrator. I don't have any issue with how the administrator handled things, because (as I stated on Brackensick's talk page) the consensus was quite clearly in favor of a redirect, based on the conversation that took place. Rather, I disagree with the consensus itself, as I feel that it was based on faulty information. WP:DRVPURPOSE states that Deletion Review "should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment", so I wasn't exactly sure how to best proceed. According to WP:Redirects for Discussion, editors who "want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article" should just Be Bold and do it. I wasn't exactly sure whether that applied to articles that had been redirected after an AfD, but I didn't see any further policies or guidelines on the matter. So I thought that leaving a message on Talk:DeAndre Brackensick would suffice. If anyone was watching the article and opposed the decision, they could then contact me. I can see though, how at least notifying the closing administrator would be a good idea. I'll go ahead and do that now. --Jpcase (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, please take a look at the notability guidelines for musicians. The only notability here is tied to American Idol, which isn't enough on its own. Signed to a record label and releasing a single also doesn't pass the guidelines. The editors at AFD made the right call. Bradv 15:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with WP:NMUSIC. And I understand how many editors feel about reality show contestants. There's an opinion out there, although certainly not a consensus, that significant news coverage received in relation to reality show appearances are insufficient for conferring notability on a subject - this opinion seems to be largely based on interpretations of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. I disagree with these interpretations. But I understand and am willing to respect how others feel about the matter. If Brackensick had yet to receive any significant news coverage, beyond his appearances on American Idol, then I wouldn't press the matter too hard - however, that's simply not the case. Brackensick has received significant news coverage for his music career from Yahoo! [2], SFGate [3], the York Dispatch [4] [5], and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.[6] If a musical artist who had never appeared on Idol released a single that received coverage in all of these publications, then that would be a clear sign of notability. I'm not sure why we would hold former-Idol contestants to a higher standard. --Jpcase (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dave Cooley

Hi Bradv, Thanks for the message. I'm trying to create an article about American Mastering Engineer Dave Cooley, and was trying to adhere to guidelines but I think I may be missing some details. I've gathered a few external links to outside sources now and was going to attempt to create the article anew. Is there anything else I should make sure to do? I've read over the guidelines a few times and believe myself to be adhering to them, but I didn't know if you knew any other reason that the previous article I created was taken down. Thanks JJolliff (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@JJolliff: My advice would be to create a new draft article, maybe called Draft:Dave Cooley. You can work on it there at your leisure, and when you feel it is ready you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and get feedback from the Articles for Creation team. If it satisfies the guidelines at that point, it will get moved to mainspace and go live. If not, you will have useful feedback on what to change. Bradv 17:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

TimeSplitters (series)

Hi, could you add some details to your RM close at TimeSplitters (series)? I don't understand what you mean with the line "This is a borderline case per WP:NCVG". I think at least there was consensus to move TimeSplitters to TimeSplitters (video game). The one oppose vote actually specifically agreed with that.--Cúchullain t/c 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted my close and relisted the debate instead. Bradv 21:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks Bradv.--Cúchullain t/c 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
For what its worth, I've now replied with an oppose, as WP:NCVG is being misapplied. The article should not be moved to a disambiguation. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Drafts acceptance

Hello, Bradv. I noticed you've been accepting drafts into namespace. Several of those drafts fail WP:Verifiability, that's why I re-moved them back to their drafts. Please acknowledge and let me know, thanks. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Which ones? Bradv 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fram. He used to create all these articles directly in mainspace, and he had autopatrolled status so no one ever had to review them. Now some people want these all to go through AFC, which just gums up the works for everyone else. Bradv 18:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
As indicated on your talk page, I've moved the articles back to mainspace. These are all notable as per WP:NOLYMPICS. If you're spending time at AfC, you should know that already. Bradv 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Oehler

You better take a look at Henry Oehler. Where Sander.van.Ginkel is hammered for being inaccurate, it is extremely unfortunate that the editor approving the article for mainspace introduces mistakes himself. The Banner talk 19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why these shouldn't go through AFC. The AFC tool can't handle it when the categories and defaultsort information are already present in the article, and it results in duplicates. Rather than taking the time to come here and accuse me, you could help out and fix it. Bradv 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fram. If you guys can not handle that, start shouting there. The Banner talk 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I already have. Bradv 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WeDoTDD.com

Brad Stated: I don't believe this link adds anything to the quality of the article, and therefore should be avoided. Generally, if the addition of a link improves the article it can be added. If it instead improves the reputation of the external website, or attempts to drive traffic to that site, it should not be added. See WP:REFSPAM for more information on external links. Bradv 21:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, very interesting. Did you open any of the links to read the content? Explain to me how this does not provide value around the subject of TDD. There has been significant support around the site since it launched as you can see on twitter.com/WeDoTDD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso1000 (talk • contribs) 21:42, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

I did follow the link and read the content, and it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Bradv 21:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, please explain which sentences specifically. I do not see it. The content on that site stemmed from interviewing those who practice TDD in much detail around the practice. Reliable and valuable information that has not yet been shared in such a way throughout the XP community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso1000 (talk • contribs) 21:54, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
I think this sentence is relevant (from WP:RSSELF):

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

Also, there is a long list of what external links are not acceptable at WP:ELNO. In short, this link should not be added to the article without consensus among a number of editors. The place for that discussion is at the talk page of the article in question. Bradv 22:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The information on that site is data from individuals in the field. We don't claim to be experts. What is an expert anyway? That is relative. This is data from companies whose teams practice TDD and low-level details on how they practice it which compliments Wiki's generic information about TDD. It's insight into teams you don't normally get. I think your claims are biased, without specifics in backing up your claim, and too general to claim the site is not worthwhile publishing.
I'd like you to be specific when you say "I don't believe this link adds anything to the quality of the article". So the content is not based on real-world data? Can you prove that? The About page clearly states the purpose of the site, which is to help educate people on TDD based on real data from the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso1000 (talk • contribs) 22:30, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or are you here to promote your website? Bradv 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea why you keep referring to promoting and how you're coming up with the justification to assume as such for this site. And who is "you"? WeDoTDD.com is here to help people learn about TDD. It's not about promotion. At the least it could be listed as a useful link at the bottom..other real data life data related to TDD.
Done with the conversation, I wanted to make sure people understand the sites intention. And hope that editors can take more time rather than a 10 second look at such a site in the future rather than to easly try to discount, dismiss, or misrepresent its value or assume incorrect assumptions that it's somehow promotion for one person. This site is to help many learn about TDD, it's simple, and it's real data you can't get easily.
Whether the site is listed on Wiki or not, it is and will continue to be a valuable resource for developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso1000 (talk • contribs) 23:13, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask about your website, I asked about you. If you're just trying to promote your website, then your activities are against Wikipedia policies and you will soon be blocked. If you are here to help us build an encyclopedia, then you are most welcome. So far your activities seem to be towards the former. Bradv 23:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Espresso1000: I also left some useful reading material on your talk page. I invite you to read it to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and the way things work around here. Also, if you and Widimitry (talk · contribs) are the same person, you should be aware that is completely against policy to abuse multiple accounts. Bradv 23:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one who suggested my link be posted. I'm replying to a comment you made to someone else about the site which you made false assumptions. That it's purpose here is for promotion which is incorrect. Lets not get things mixed up here.
There you go again,"if you and Widimitry". No we are not the same person. This shows the lack of consideration you've given...by making random assumptions. Maybe Wiki Editors should do a little more research before disallowing content or suggesting the content is breaking rules such as "self promotion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso1000 (talk • contribs) 23:45, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
@Bradv:Espresso1000 (talk · contribs) and me are two different persons. We live on different continents and have never even met. You could find it out entering my name (Dimitry Polivaev) in Google search. I have written at my talk page more about how I found wedotdd.com and why I think it should be mentioned. Regards, Dimitry Polivaev (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove my last comment. I asked you why you're making assumptions like this. I said that guy is not me. And to stop making assumptions and bad conclusions on the site and myself. Maybe in the future you won't be so quick to stomp out updates, sites, or people...without doing research first. If you don't like the truth then maybe not comment like that in the future in regards to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.188.51 (talk) 21:49, December 9, 2016‎

I assume by your editing style that you are Espresso1000. I did not remove your comment. However, I have asked you several times to sign your posts using four tildes (like this: ~~~~). If you cannot follow this simple instruction, I am going to have to ask you not to edit my talk page any further.
You are accusing me of not doing research. I have spent a fair amount of time researching your contributions and your website, and I stand by my decision that links to your website do not belong on Wikipedia. I am not sure what you are expecting to accomplish by continuing this conversation. Bradv 21:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New Message

Thank you for the information! I'm fixing it:) Didn't really think about connections between the opened Wikipedia version and language of article I write. Thanks again! Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorkaP (talk • contribs) 22:40, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Have you checked to see if there is a version of Wikipedia in your language? Bradv 22:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New Message

Yep, there is (polish), even quite rich in articles :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorkaP (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Quba Educational Trust

Quba Educational Trust is a educational foundation for women and transgenders, I believe that only one organization working for educating transgenders in Kerala. Anas647 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Bradv 15:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Gillette

Well done on closing the Move request discussion, and doing the page move. We need editors who are prepared to be bold, and are ready to take on such tasks. As you have page mover rights there are some things you should now be doing. When moving a page there is a box marked "Move subpages (up to 100)", this should generally be ticked so that associated subpages, such as talkpage archives, are also moved, otherwise they get lost. Also, when moving an existing disambiguation page to an article page, a hatnote should be placed on the article to direct readers to the new location for the disambiguation pages. This is all part of the paperwork, and if left undone can cause problems. They are not tasks to be left for others to do, as others may not be aware they need to be done. If you're unsure how to do a hatnote (and they can be tricky), or any other editing function, you can ask someone via the Help page linked on the left of every page, or you can ask me. Keep up the good work! SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I meant to go back and make sure the hatnote was added. There were some comments on the discussion on whether to include the stadium, and I thought I would leave it for a few minutes and see what they wanted to do. (I see you chose to include the stadium). Regarding the subpages, I simply neglected to check the "move subpages" box. I will be more careful and check for orphaned talk page archives in the future. Thanks for your help. Bradv 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Bradv,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

User:Agrawalnitin000/sandbox/THAR PLASTO

Hello this is about my page thar plasto, which has been declined by u by saying it is an advertisement but truly it is not, it is about a brand name, Information of which people are searching and since it is a famous brand of north as well as south India including kolapur, Mumbai, Nasik etc. where people are already using it. I am not associated to this brand at all. I have written this article since people used to find about this brand on Wikipedia, and i think wikipedia is a place where u can get knowledge about everything of this world. i don't think it creates any problem for viewers on wiki. Please provide me the appropriate reason for decline, since many brands like Wipro, reliance, airtel etc. are also on wikipedia. or else provide me if any correction needed to my page.

Your's truly Nitin Agrawal nitinagrawal@rocketmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrawalnitin000 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Agrawalnitin000: I presume you are talking about User:Agrawalnitin000/sandbox/THAR PLASTO. This is a clear advertisement, as it is presented only from the vendor's point of view and seems to be very interested in promoting the product rather than giving a neutral point of view on the subject. Wikipedia requires independent coverage from multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. Please take the time and read your first article, as it will help you understand what topics are suitable for Wikipedia, and how those topics should be presented. I hope this helps. Bradv 06:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:10:38, 11 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ISB22


Why is one piece of science (the work of prof Belpomme) not acceptable? With a complete reference? There is other work which shows the same results. Why would a generally accessible resource such as an online dictionary not include something like this? It is five years old.

Statements in the official Wiki entry that the EHS "are like the hermits of ancient times, and only want to get away from modern society" are not scientific – and certainly no one claims that this is why they are living away from radiation. There is not even any psychological evidence; it lives in the imagination of the psychologist/s - in other words, they have made it up! This is not what I would call mainstream or conservative science, it is not even science, it is simply a very subjective 'idea' that is based on nothingISB22 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC) at all. Compared to the material I have offered it is way outside of your very own parameters.

I would like to see the paragraphs on EHS as a psychological illness deleted. The psychologists who have made such diagnoses have not done so based on mainstream science – this is not possible, as psychology itself is not a mainstream science.

The entry is generally much better, but it still has a way to go before it resembles a balanced picture of reality.

Sarah ISB22 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@ISB22: I declined the draft because the article already exists, and there is really no provision in Wikipedia for writing your own article because you don't like the one that's there. You will need to take your sources and information and head over to Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and present your case. You should be aware, however, that Wikipedia is very dependent on the principles of verifiability and neutral point of view, so please don't edit the article to insert your own views until you can gain consensus on the talk page. Bradv 18:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ISB22. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This draft is also up for deletion (MfD), here. A agree with the majority that is is not a suitable replacement for the existing article but I do accept that it may prove of value if the quality can be improved. May I suggest that it be moved into user space, for example User:ISB22/Physiological effects of electromagnetism, where it can be worked on with less fear of sudden deletion. I'll be happy to make the move myself, if that helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Penalty kick

I hope you do not mind that I complain about your move on Penalty kick. You maybe right with that, but the way you performed it is at least sloppy. For your info, you created about 10 000 links to disambiguation pages mostly through 70 (!) templates. I would be very happy when you fix Template:Football box collapsible, where you move created a link to a disambiguation pages in more than 9000 (nine thousand) articles. The Banner talk 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already fixed it. Thank you. Bradv 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

11:27:06, 12 December 2016 review of submission by FarmShopDalston


Re-Review: Independent and Reliable Sources on the subject of Mash Direct

Please can you advise on the feedback regarding the Mash Direct page. The review questions the notoriety of the subject in question (Mash Direct) however the sources supplied are from articles on the company from many of the most circulated publications in the UK and Ireland. Would it be possible to provide some additional feedback on why these sources are not regarded as notable as I am relatively new to Wikipedia.

Sources include:

The Irish Times The Sunday Times Deloitte The Grocer The Guardian The Daily Telegraph

Best regards

FarmShopDalston

@FarmShopDalston: I commented on the notability of the company because I didn't see any claim on the article as to why this particular farm is significant. Looking back on it, I could probably have tagged the article for advertising as well, as it is a clear attempt at promoting this business. Please take a look at WP:COI, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM.
I realize you are new to Wikipedia, but it looks like you are hear simply to promote this farm, and not actually to help build an encyclopedia. I hope I'm wrong about that. Bradv 13:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@BradV: Thank-you for the feedback on this. I am just trying to find my feet with this article and then was planning on moving onto other food-related pages as that is my background. I appreciate your concern but the Farm in question in my name is in London and Mash Direct is in Northern Ireland. Perhaps one day someone will make a page for my farm shop but that day isn't close! I will take a look at those pages that you suggested and make edits accordingly.

12:33:50, 12 December 2016 review of submission by Marthanewson

Hello, I've included reference to two published books and an academic journal article. These are verifiable sources. I have removed the first reference, which was a weak online source. Which other areas of text need references specifically?

@Marthanewson: Looking at it again, I have a few more comments. Can you include the publisher and/or ISBN number in the book cite? That would make it easier for someone reviewing the article to find the book to confirm the information. Also, are there any more article online, specifically about him and his work? The online references given are either to biographies (which are usually written by the subject or his publicist, and therefore not reliable), or are simply a list of works (which doesn't give enough information to confirm what's in the article). At present, this article does not meet the minimum standards set by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Bradv 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

New Message

Hello sir!

Chelsea Guy here. Just letting you know I've added more references (including New York Times Reviews and Live Art articles, as well as links to collaborators). Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me to strengthen the article.

Best,

James

Chelsea Guy (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 21:20:30, 13 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Chelsea Guy


Hello!

Not sure if my previous message sent - this is Chelsea Guy, thanking you for your help, and reporting on the addition of various external sources (including NYT, BAX and NYLA) in my Paul Langland page. Please let me know if you need anything else at all.

Best,

James

Chelsea Guy (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Chelsea Guy (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chelsea Guy: Please read referencing for beginners, especially about how to create inline citations. The individual sentences or paragraphs with should be tagged with references, not just a collection at the end. This is generally accepted practice for all articles in Wikipedia, but especially required for biographies of living persons. Bradv 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wayne Judd

Bradv - My father is a retired celebrity chef (CookItUp with Chef Wayne! television and the subsequent DVD series, 1986 World's Largest Cake, etc.) that lived in Sanford, NC over 25 years, and still resides 15 minutes outside there. He decided to retire there. Many have suggested that he belongs in Wikipedia, so I go in and add him to the Sanford, NC list of notable persons. I suppose I need to learn more about Wikipedia, get approved to create a page for him, and then list him elsewhere. We will be seeing him this Christmas, so I am going to add him to the list again and show him while the family is together. This will make his day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.216.198 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@75.138.216.198: Only people that have Wikipedia articles are generally included in lists of notable people, such as the list at Sanford, North Carolina. Your addition was removed again, as the Wayne Judd you linked to is not your father, and it doesn't appear that we have an entry for your father. I would recommend not adding this again. Bradv 00:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

13:18:30, 21 December 2016 review of submission by Hishamabdelkhalek


Hi, can you please review our draft again, we have placed more radio interviews and journals interview with Hisham Abdel Khalek, which his film was selected in Cairo International Film Festival among other International festivals in Russia, Serbia, USA, Bangladesh. Also been radio interviewed with BBC Arabic Radio and Monte Carlo El Dowalya radio. All links are in the reference section. Hope you can allow publish this article on wikipedia. As his information was there for years and someone removed it when a journalist was updating his filmography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hisham_Abdel_Khalek , Please feel free to adjust anything if you need and we will be so happy to help in the information. All my best regards Hisham Abdel Khalek (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hishamabdelkhalek: I would strongly recommend not attempting to create an autobiography on Wikipedia, especially one that has been previously been deleted. As I have already reviewed this and rejected it, I will leave it for other editors to review. Bradv 00:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Le Mage - le réseau Mage (Marché du travail et genre)

Hello Bradv, On December 10, after reviewing the submission of the article for the French international research association MAGE you left a comment, noting that "the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." The list of references includes:

  • An interview with the president of this research association published in "Syndicat national de l'enseignement supérieur", which is the National union of higher education in France.
  • Two volumes published by the association on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and dispersed internationally.
  • The complete footage of the last international conference the association organised.

Could you, please, be more specific about the issue with these references? English Wikipedia has pages for similar research associations which sometimes have only one reference, and for some of them the link does not work. See, for example, International Society for Comparative Adult Education. There are also pages, for example, Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship, where besides two volumes, the three other references are direct links to associated websites; or Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women which has similar image for the references.

If you can, please, give us a more specific explanation. This will permit us to better review and submit an article that corresponds the standards and expectations of Wikipedia and its readers. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magetgs (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magetgs:
  • First of all, the list of references provided is not nearly enough for this article. Most of the statements in the article do not have a source, which makes it difficult for a reviewer (or a reader) to verify the information being presented to ensure that it is accurate.
  • Secondly, chunks of the article appear to be taken directly from the website. While short bits like this do not necessarily constitute a copyright violation, it is poor practice to take information from the organization's website.
  • Thirdly, I'm not sure this subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We need multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover the subject enough that we can create an unbiased, neutral article.
In short, we need a lot more sources before this article can be approved. If sources can not be found, this article is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. Bradv 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Prahlad Bhagvanrao Shinde

Hello Bradv,

This is regarding article Prahlad Bhagvanrao Shinde which is tagged with Notability (music). I think it meets at least one of the notability criteria below. Can you confirm the same?

Notability criteria:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saregama http://www.saregama.com/artist/pralhad-shinde_26021/songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rushikesh.tilak: I still don't see how it meets the notability requirements for music. You've linked Saregama as proof, but that article has no sources at all and has the same problem. Neither that article, nor that label's website, prove that it meets the requirements as a "major record label." Bradv 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

16:28:44, 1 August 2016 review of submission by 98.10.45.226


I am just wondering why this was rejected as I believe it satisfies the first criteria for notability. Is it a problem with the reliability of the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.45.226 (talk) 16:28, August 1, 2016‎

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

your screwup with Dial Mill

You butted in inappropriately on Dial Mill article, by your moving it to Draft:Dial Mill. It is an NRHP listed place and is notable. Your move interrupted my development of the article. It also left an invalid redirect from mainspace to draftspace (that's not allowed). I have requested the current Dial Mill be deleted, to make room for re-move of Draft:Dial Mill to there. Please don't interfere further. --doncram 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram: Why not just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article, and allow the articles for creation process to handle it? That is the recommended way to move articles from draftspace. Bradv 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
For one thing, no one is required to use the AFC process. Any brand new user is entitled to move a draft article to mainspace. It can be a matter of concern if they don't know what they're doing, but if they do it you should be polite and address them properly (e.g. contact them at their Talk page, and depending on how things go, help them develop it or wp:PROD it). It is absolutely wrong to simply move it back to Draft space. I already pointed out that leaves an invalid redirect from mainspace to draftspace, which is not allowed. More important, it is butting in without helping. Are you watching new pages as a part of New Page Patrol, is that how you found this? Don't screw up new editors' contributions by moving them. Don't PROD them either, unless and until you have made some decent contact and tried to sort out what's going on. Or don't do New Page Patrol at all, please, seriously.
But what is going on with me is not like that. I am systematically working to restore a large number of articles created by another user in mainspace which were (inappropriately in my view) moved out of mainspace previously. The Dial Mill one and a number more that are currently in Draft space are indexed at User:Doncram/Batch-Georgia-plus#GA articles that were created by editor Candleabracadabra. There are more within User:Candleabracadabra's userspace. I am not moving my own draft articles, i am improving and moving (or moving and improving) articles created by someone else. AFC review is not needed and would not be helpful; it would just impose unnecessary work on the AFC process. I do approve of the AFC process and its editors in general, but it is not helpful here to involve them. I hope this helps clarify the situation for you. --doncram 20:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: I am active at both New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation, and am familiar with conventions at both. I regularly patrol NPP starting at the oldest, and I often run across pages that were moved from Draft space in order to bypass the AFC process. In this case, I checked the history and saw that it had been userfied and then moved to draftspace, and didn't appear to have any substantial improvements since the last time it was in mainspace. This is very typical of many of these articles that are moved from draftspace without being ready. I did not, however, check your contributions to see that you were an experienced editor with a history of doing this sort of work, which I see now I should have done.
Regarding leaving the redirect - I could have moved it without leaving a redirect, but often times that just results in two duplicate articles, as it gets promptly recreated with a copy of the original. Instead, I usually tag the redirect for deletion so it gets removed within the next 24 hours. I also then leave a message for the editor explaining how to properly submit an article to WP:AFC, and asking them to please not move articles themselves.
And by the way, I would never move war on this - if the editor moves the article back to mainspace I might send it to AfD, but I wouldn't move it back again. If there are no edits to the redirect it is trivial to overwrite it with a move.
So, if you were a newer editor creating drafts and moving them to avoid the AFC process I'm sure you would agree this is the right course of action. In this case, I failed to notice that you were an established editor experienced in rescuing old drafts, and for that I apologize.
I hope this helps. Bradv 20:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your explanation. I'll add: I don't usually "move then improve" those articles; I usually "improve then move" them. In this case while editing at the draft, I realized I was uncertain whether a mainspace article had already been created by someone else's (incorrectly) having copy-pasted the draft, as has happened sometimes. Instead of checking, I just moved the article to test that (the move would have failed) and at the same time "make progress" by accomplishing the move. So this won't often happen.
But, I actually have further concern about the regular approach that you use when newbies move draft articles. Perhaps this is regular practice among NPP and/or AFC editors, or there is not clarity in what regular approach should be. I think it is absolutely wrong to move the page, because it is confrontational and confusing and disruptive and teaches the wrong lessons. You say you would not move war, and the editor could re-make the move, but the editor is not going to understand that. What they see is an example of move-warring (on your part), and if they're combative they can be reinforced then in their inclination to move-war themselves, or they can be dismayed and disrupted and discouraged. In this case it caused an edit conflict, and the only reasonable thing for me to do was to re-paste my page over the redirect you created, else I would lose my edit contents. As you suggest that often happens, and then the edit history is screwed up (the new edit is in a different article from the old ones), and i think it will NOT be possible for the editor to make the move (a non-admin can't move over a redirect that has been edited). In my case I went through multiple steps (many of which you can't see) to get the situation corrected that required a lot of knowledge how wikipedia works. Would you mind discussing this kind of situation centrally, at wt:AFC say, together with me, if I bring it up for discussion there? Then others could weigh in with other considerations. I probably don't have the complete picture yet but I do think this is important.
Also, I am sorry at this point for my own combative discussion section title and maybe an edit summary or two; I was trying to express something like the fact that I experienced your edit to be combative, itself, but it was perhaps not the best way. Sincerely, --doncram 22:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks doncram. I don't think there is only one way to handle articles that are moved from draftspace to articlespace without using the AFC process. I don't handle every one the same way - I was just explaining why I did what I did with your article (which turns out to have been a mistake). The main point is to communicate and not to bite the newcomers, which is why I try to explain on their talk page as soon as I can.
It's also worth noting that in the case of error or conflict I can easily reverse my action. (I could easily have swapped the two articles for you, for example, and would have done so had you not asked me to "not interfere further".)
I'm not sure a wide discussion on this is going to provide any value, as this is more about how one approaches these situations rather than what one does. I have learned a lot from our interaction today, and will bear this discussion in mind when reviewing other similar cases. Bradv 22:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? I did check your userpage about whether you could fix it, before saying what i did and putting in a {{db}} for any administrator's help. It is my impression that administrators' user pages are in Category:Wikipedia administrators. --doncram 23:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Not an admin, but I have the page mover right, which allows me to move pages without leaving a redirect and swap two pages using a round-robin move. Bradv 23:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RM of Transcaucasia

Hello Bradv, I do not agree with your evaluation, in the talk page we provided enough sources to prove that rename is really needed (according to wiki policies). There where few opponents whose argument were answered with contra arguments, and some of them claimed about Georgian Government politics without any proof. Majority of the users - 7 of them (including me) have supported rename against 4 opposers. So your words the data presented has been insufficient to convince the majority of editors are wrong.--g. balaxaZe★ 01:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: I spent a lot of time figuring this out, and it certainly wasn't easy. While it is true that there were more people that supported the move than opposed, I also had to consider the strength of their arguments. The opposers noted the ngram numbers, which show that the name Transcaucasia is overwhelmingly in use in literature, and the supporters noted the web hits, which basically show a tie.
I completely disregarded any claims about what the Georgian government prefers, as that is completely irrelevant. But I also had to disregard !votes that said "per WP:COMMONNAME", as they didn't present any solid evidence that this was, in fact, the common name.
While the word "majority" may not have been technically accurate, I do not see a strong enough consensus to make this change. If you disagree, you are very welcome to open a second RM discussion — especially if you can drum up some better evidence that South Caucasus is the more common name. Bradv 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to do my best.--g. balaxaZe★ 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Move to Yim Si-wan

Im Si-wan → Yim Si-wan - He is using 'Yim' as his surname. (evidence:Airline ticket) --Lawinc82 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lawinc82: An photograph of an airline ticket is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. The content, and name, of the article is based entirely on what other people write about the subject, not on what the subject themself says. Nevertheless, the correct place for this information is at Talk:Im Si-wan, and I see you have already brought it there. Bradv 01:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:J.R. Quiñahan

Nothing personal, but can you relist it? The only person who participated was IIO, and... I'm not sure whether IIO made a valid point on the title. Look at his arguments, especially at Talk:Rebel Heart. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

In the last three months this article has been listed twice for a move, by the same nominator, without any support. What is relisting the debate going to accomplish? Where did I make a mistake? Bradv 21:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh... Still, the same nominator and the same participant. Is the consensus enough as is? If so, maybe the title can be revisited some later time. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I have reviewed the relevant policy and read through the comments. I hope you understand I can't start reversing my closures because someone else wants to vote — although you're always welcome to take it to WP:MRV if you are convinced I erred. Bradv 21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
After doing some research on the title, I want to vote on the RM. Would that do? George Ho (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any provision for reopening a debate because someone else wants to vote. I had to determine consensus based on the arguments presented at the time. As I mentioned, this debate had been open for 10 days, and it had been open for ~17 days previously, both times with very little participation. Furthermore, it doesn't look like move review applies here unless you have a specific issue with the way I closed it.
Perhaps the best thing for you to do, silly as it sounds, is to open a new discussion. Bradv 21:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

...In any case, per WP:RMCI#Three possible outcomes, this looks like a "no consensus" to me. Can you change the results from "not moved" to "no consensus" and explain the RMs involving same nominator and same participant? George Ho (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think my rationale and closure is fairly self explanatory as it is. Bradv 21:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

12:59:57, 2 January 2017 review of submission by Joergen Dragesaet



On the issue of the notability of Jill Martin:

Jill Martin's name is mentioned in the following literary sources:

West End Broadway: The Golden Age of American Musical in London, by Adrian Wright

Broadway Musicals, 1943-2004, by John Stewart

The Oxford Handbook of Sondheim Studies, edited by Robert Gordon

Obscure Recordings: Music for Pleasure, article by Ken Mandelbaum, 7 October 2005

Jill Martin was, in the Music for Pleasure article, referred to as an West End regular.

Jill Martin played one of the main roles in the first West End Production of My Fair Lady and West Side Story alongside David Holliday and Robert Jeffrey. Her West End career spanned more than 40 years. Her name is referred to in many of the uk wikipedia articles on David Holliday, Robert Jeffrey, West Side Story, and she is in some instances confused with the much younger american TV personality of the same name. Jill Martin's notability is due to her contributions to the West End musical theatre productions since 1958, when she was casted by Hugh Binkie Beaumont who was the powerful chief executive of HM Tennent production company.

@Joergen Dragesaet: That could be, but I cannot accept an article that has no sources listed. Please see Referencing for Beginners. Bradv 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move Closure request

Saraiki, This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Saraiki which are; Saraiki dialect, Saraiki people, Saraiki culture, Saraiki dialect (Sindhi), Saraiki literature, Saraiki music, Saraiki diaspora, Saraikistan Movement and List of Saraiki tribes. Move to Saraiki from Saraiki dialect will be a very silly decision.

Majority of verifiable Sources are saying Saraiki is a dialect. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], [22], [23] [24] Every language study put Saraiki under Lahnda (Western Punjabi). The Indo-Aryan Languages By Colin P. Masica 1993 Page 289. Lahnda dialects (including Siraiki)[25] ,Page 343. Saraiki and other Lahnda dialects, Page 247. Lahnda (Siraiki) which lacks a Layer 1 instrumental [26] , Page 23. In Pakistan several erstwhile dialects (Siraiki & Dogri) are said to be agitating for language status[27] Page 518. Lahnda/Lahndi (see also Siraiki) [28]

Linguistic survey of India by George Abraham Grierson 1903-1928, Volume 8. Lahnda or Westren Punjabi [29] , The Indo-Aryan Languages By Danesh Jain, George Cardona Panjabi section written by Christopher Shackle in 2007. Page 588, All these structural features of MSP ( Modern Standard Punjabi)...occur in western varieties...in Saraiki and other western dialects. [30] . Page 603. The MSP (Modern Standard Punjabi) declension ....Other varieties have similar pattern...Dogri...Shahpuri...Pothohari...Hindko and Saraiki ... [31], Page 584. Map 16.1 Punjabi area map.............Saraiki ........ [32]

Move to Saraiki Language from Saraiki dialect will be even worse decision . If you analyse LanguageXpert sock file and IP sock series 39..... Apparently uninvolved users Kautilya3 and Kashmiri are actually involved users. Both see Saraiki dialect as a revenge plate forum against LX. They had verbal abuses with each other at some point in time. so Biased voting without reading the sources have zero weight. Only sources should decide the title. Sources say it is a dialect/variant. 182.188.99.212 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment here. The correct place for this discussion is at Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested move 23 December 2016. Bradv 17:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I request you for closure of third move request (Forum Shopping) in a raw. 182.188.99.212 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you specifically requesting that I close the discussion? Bradv 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel u r bit nutrolo intelligent kind a USER. I have already given U so many sources. I hope you will do an excellent closure. 182.188.99.212 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Page swap

I have redone the swap you have reverted, of Talk:Seraiki people and Talk:Saraiki people. Thank you for telling me! GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I went to swap it at the same time you did, resulting in a conflict. I didn't revert you. I would have fixed it myself, but I didn't want it to happen again. Cheers. Bradv 18:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary Anne MacLeod close

Hi, regarding the close at Talk:Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump#Requested_move_26_November_2016, that looks like a good judicious close, given that not much evidence was available to back up the support case, so well done. One thing I would say though, it looks like it was a "no consensus", wherease your bold text says "not moved". This may seem a technicality, as the outcome is the same, but per WP:RMCI#Three possible outcomes, it's usually best to explicitly state in the bold text that it is a no consensus close, rather than "not moved", which usually means "consensus not to move". Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've clarified the closure. For the record, I consider the difference between the first two outcomes to be very minor. If someone is going to propose another move shortly after the first one, they should read the entire move request, and propose new reasons for the move, regardless whether the result was not moved or no consensus. RMCI appears to state that if something closes as no consensus it can be renominated in 3 months, whereas if it closes as not moved it can never be renominated. This is nonsense. Bradv 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, yes, I agree with you there. I had never read the wording that closely. Generally, I think no consensus closes could be renominated immediately if someone really wanted to (although if no new arguments are presented, people might figure there's not much point rediscussing), and it's the "not moved" that should have a longer timeframe attached to them. But none of that should be set it stone. Also, the example presented for "not moved" (Bob Dylan -> Squeezy Joe) is not a sensible one at all. I think if someone proposed that, the result would be a WP:SNOW close. Sometimes, there's a "not moved" even when the proposed target was reasonable, just that the consensus went actively against it. If I have some spare time I may look to rephrase some of that. Personally I do find the distinction useful, though, and it certainly helps when considering the status in the future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are only two outcomes: moved and not moved. Whenever a discussion is reopened, the entire text of the previous discussion should be considered, not just the part in bold. It is not on me, as closer, to make a definitive statement on whether or not a subsequent discussion should be allowed to occur. A new discussion, with better arguments, may result in a different consensus, and we need to make room for that. Bradv 17:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv/Archive_5&oldid=1142902981"