User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:07, 4 January 2018

Messages

Please help keep discussions together.

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

Click here to begin a new topic

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

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

Links

Need Help?

Policies and Guidelines

Editor of the Week

Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.

Bradv

Improves the encyclopedia

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 8, 2016

10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors.

Recognized for

Fighting Vandalism

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Welcome back, thank you for your help and hope you stay around. - NQ (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Nice job. (And thank you for reviewing my AfC Draft:Maryland Psychiatric Society. I will improve the sources.) Drdaviss (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Sludj re: Wrongworld

Draft:Wrongworld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

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. Brad v 05:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

Unexplained move of "Annaea gens" without consensus

Annaea gens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)[reply]

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. Brad v 05:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Brad v 13:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Bradv, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

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 1^st and run until January 29^th. 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) [reply]

Prince Michael of Sealand

Prince Michael of Sealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've sent it to AfD, as the subject is not independently notable, per WP:BLP1E. Brad v 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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? Brad v 04:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Worm That Turned

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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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