User talk:Bradv/Archive 4

Draft:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball
This is so frustrating, and I'm NOT saying that it's you Bradv because I know that you're only doing what you can do.

My name is ShelbyLH and I've been doing volleyball (both indoor and beach) wiki's and stubs.

The latest one was the Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball, which was again declined. To answer the question, though, as it's been coming from a couple of ends if you will, I'm certainly including 3rd party sources. I say "coming from a couple of ends" because I believe that you as a editor/approver of articles (along with One|5969 and TwisterSister) you guys aren't the only individuals who've been assisting.

I some how got into the CreationsDesk group and have been helped, yes, as I've always been but WorldBruce had asked that I include citations from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser..and I did.

I'm kind of really into the sport of volleyball. The University of Hawai'i is a national power (USA) and the only Honolulu daily is the SA--which covers local sports extensively.

Bradv, could you please reconsider this stub? NCAA Beach VB is a brand new sport this season (2015-16) and it's the fastest growing to boot. I followed suit in what Georgia State University Beach VB did and I'm pretty certain that they'll be more collegiate Beach VB stubs which will be asking for notability also.

Thank you! ShelbyLH (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I understand that it can be frustrating getting all the references together to write an article, but I really do appreciate the effort. In this case, there are several statements that are not supported by the references given. The most reliable reference is the ESPN article, and it makes no reference to Jeff Hall. I'm not sure about the Staradvertiser reference as the link appears to be dead. I think the subject is probably notable enough, given the coverage in ESPN, but I'd like to see coverage from some other similar sources as well. Make sense? Bradv  01:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Impostor
Thanks for reporting the impostor. How did you spot him so quickly? Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * His signature linked to your user page. I opened up both the talk and the contribs page in separate windows (because I wanted to know what he was referring to) and I noticed they didn't match. He had only a handful of contributions, but had a full talk page. I checked the logs to see if someone had screwed up renaming a user, but couldn't see anything obvious. So I reported it to WP:UAA, and cleaned it all up. All in a day's work, I suppose. ;)  Bradv  01:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, what was he referring to? I just saw him spamming barnstars all over the place. The first I knew of it was when I saw an edit that appeared to have been made by me that I hadn't made. Then I noticed everything. I suppose I should be thankful that he screwed up; he could have simply redirected his user and talk pages to mine, then it would have seemed much more authentic, and it may have actually worked (I hope he's not reading this :)). Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been working on AFC all day, so probably some grumpy user that I interacted with. He appeared to be a somewhat editor judging by his contributions - targeting AIV, reverting people, etc. Bradv  02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm worried they might try it again, and if they do, that someone might actually fall for it and block me for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Thank god that didn't happen this time. Adam9007 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one's going to fall for that. It took me 4 minutes to report him (and someone else reported him to WP:ANI before I did), and it took another 5 minutes to block him and revert all his edits. You have nothing to worry about.  Bradv  02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, I can never be too careful, can I? Adam9007 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. You can be paranoid about some jerk vandalizing Wikipedia. That happens every minute of every day. We've got a system to deal with that, so there's nothing to worry about. ;) Bradv  02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not paranoid about some prat vandalising Wikipedia, but I am about them making it look like I'm doing it. However, as no-one fell for it this time, maybe you're right and I'm fretting over nothing? Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's what I think. Bradv  02:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball
Here's the one and only other article: Georgia_State_Panthers_beach_volleyball

What do you think?!

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has a paywall to get around also. I read the paper daily. I live in Seattle, another hot bed for volleyball. Volleyblog Seattle is another GREAT resource..very professionally done! ShelbyLH (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That article is probably a good template, although the references could be improved there too. I suggest keeping the conversation together at Draft talk:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball so that others can see it, rather than spreading the conversation out over multiple pages. Bradv  02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Bradv, Are you still on your computer?? ShelbyLH (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv. You rock, fierce jungle king--you!! ShelbyLH (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Pulse (rock)
Why would you recommend deletion of the pulse(rock) band page they are a touring band on pandora and national fm radio including xm satellite radio. Signed to a record label darkstar records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiverz26 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe if you review the notability guidelines you will understand what is wrong with the article. We need to find multiple independent third-party reliable sources to confirm the accuracy of the information. If that cannot be done, the article needs to be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. If you have such sources, please add them to the article. Bradv  04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Learning about Wikipedia rules
Hello!

Thank you for the message.

I hope now, after lerning the rules, I did well the references for the page i intended to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca design (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Research Data Alliance
Hi Bradv,

You've just declined the article "Research Data Alliance" citing "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" however I have included references to 6 institution's information about the RDA in addition to the RDA's own website for all the imformation I ave presented in this article. What more can I do to show subject notability? Please note that some of the references are to major institutions such as the European Commission, the Australian National Data Service and Rensselear Polytechnic University.

Please let me know, thanks,

Provenator (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the references formats using the "cite news" template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provenator (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvements you made to the article. I have approved it at Research Data Alliance. Bradv  17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:04:37, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dilamm
Hello Brad and Happy Sunday, I have received an email that my adjusted article was denied as well. In addition there is now a note that the person is not notable enough. Members of the Art Directors Club and BFF only become members if they make an impact in the photographer industry. Please also not that cite 25 (Galerie Manfred Rieker) is regarding a different Manfred Rieker, they just share the same name. I have adjusted the article again, deleted all adjectives that could make it sound like an advertisement, and added several newspaper articles as preferences as well supporting my research. It is legit, I saw this in plenty other Wikipedia articles to use the person's website as a reference i.e. when it comes to date of birth.) If there is anything specific that needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you so much in advance. Diana Dilamm (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements you made to the article. I will let another reviewer take a look. Bradv  17:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:26:35, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gottsij
Hi, I saw that my article was rejected again because "previous issues were not addressed", and I thought I had corrected everything. I unbolded the artists names, deleted the "unofficial origins" section which was described as weak, and most importantly I referenced every artist I claim as calligraffiti artists. When I found multiple artists in the same source (like the Iranian artists), I referenced the section (ei I put the reference after "Iran" and before citing the artists). I am not sure what the issue still is... Gottsij (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work on this article. I performed some cleanup and accepted it. See Calligraffiti. Bradv  17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

14:56:41, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Acalipeach
Can you tell me am I citing incorrectly? What is the definition of "notable" references? Is there a minimum number? Seems to be subjective to me as this guy has several citations that I would deem notable. Additional direction would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 14:56, April 10, 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Please review the standards on biographies of living persons. Every single statement must be attributed to a reliable third-party source. Large sections of this article have no sources whatsoever. If it is not possible to gather enough sources, this subject is deemed not to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Bradv  17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Biancamaria Frabotta
Thank you for your review Bradv! I am about to re-submit the draft on Biancamaria Frabotta, I hope there will be enough references and external links this time to prove the notability an verifiability of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giammei (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you made some improvements to the article, but there are still some statements that don't have any citations. Do you have any sources for the Selected Works section? Bradv  23:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * happening to drop by, I took care of that--it's a relatively trivial matter to source  DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Bradv  04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Justin Matthew
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew7878 in connection to the AFD you started. Thanks. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Archaeo optics
Hey, thanks for the comments. I am submitting this entry on behalf of a friend involved in this research. I've alerted him to your criticism.

Regarding the term "archaeo-optics," would changing it to "archaeological optics" be acceptable? This is a very new branch of archaeology, so I suppose "archaeo-optics" is only common among researchers in the field. Here's a ref for archaeological optics https://books.google.com/books?id=MMfV-jwRRHkC&pg=PA629&lpg=PA629&dq=archaeo-optics&source=bl&ots=vzvaim0NBA&sig=V-QEPJyli0bes4v1r_AscqJSJes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjopLmE1oDMAhXD2BoKHQZqBlUQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=archaeo-optics&f=false

If you search for the longer term, there will be sufficient journal references to justify renaming the article.

As for the content, we erred on the side of completeness. I did, however, tell my friend that the article he gave me was overly detailed and not entirely suitable for a lay audience. I've asked him to make it more concise and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.wheaton (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review of the archaeo-optics submission. A word of explanation: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Light, which brings together contributions from over twenty researchers, has been in process since 2011. The wheels of academia turn slowly, and sometimes it can take even more time for information to filter out from behind the ivy walls into a Googleable form. In terms of academic bona fides, Oxford University Press is among the most rigorous academic presses in the English-speaking world. The Wiki article itself has more than 140 citations to explain the long-term development of archaeo-optics, the core concept of which was broadcast to the world on the equally well-vetted Cosmos: A space/time odyssey. Aaron Watson PhD, a trained archaeoastronomer and the credited founder of the field of archaeoacoustics, is a leading proponent, and namer, of archaeo-optics.Paleo-camera (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

15:04:51, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Mwmconnelly
Hello, I wondered, as this is my first time of doing a Wikpedia page if you could help with our draft. I wondered whether it is more likely to be accepted if I remove the Impact Reports which have been created using Researchfish data. The publications are external publications written and refer to Researchfish so are neutral and not influenced by us.

Thanks Lisa Mwmconnelly (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa. It sounds like you may have a substantial conflict of interest when it comes to creating this article. Wikipedia actively discourages people from working on things when they have such a conflict. If this organization truly is notable, someone else will create it soon enough. Bradv  15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

17:01:04, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Sekyaw
Hi there and thanks for reviewing my draft. I noticed that you mentioned how there is already a page for the subject of my draft, yet it is a redirect. Would I have to copy my draft over onto the redirect page, or is there something else that you would recommend that I do? Thanks.  Sekyaw  (talk)  17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LemonLDAP::NG proposal
Hello, I'd like to understand what sort of "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" do you want for this article ? The proposed article just described what is implemented by this free software. It is used by many french organizations, and all French government departments in their internal networks. Google reports 624 public sites authentication portal that contains the string "service provided by lemonldap::NG", but I've no other evidence that the source code... --Guimard (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are four references given in the article. Two of them are links to the project website, which is a primary source. Two other sources  only mention the project in passing. Unfortunately, none of these sources provide the verification that Wikipedia requires. What we need is articles or books written elsewhere about this project, that we can cite on Wikipedia. If no such articles or books exist, then this project is not notable enough to be included at this time.  Bradv  20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pages
Your not an admin, how can you block me? Also, stop flagging my pages please, nothing bad happened until today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxmanwar (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Hi,

I have been informed that this article has elements of being written like an advertisement; could you please show me quotations from the article to which this applies? All that is written in the article is factual and neutral, so I do not understand how this could be deemed to be like an advertisement. Orlagh Davies (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WiBrugherio: Santa Maria degli Angeli
I have added more references to the article Santa Maria degli Angeli. For what concernes the notability of it, the church is important due to the fact that it is annexed to Cascina Guzzina, that is one of the most important farmhouse in Brugherio for municipality's history.FrOsmetti (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that you have resubmitted the article for review. I will let someone else take a look at it. Bradv  12:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * What article are you referring to? Bradv  12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:22:45, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 3fivesix
Hi Bradv,

Thanks much for your help with the wikipedia entry I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janice_Marturano). It's my first wikipedia submission so I definitely need help figuring out how to best write these to conform to wikipedia standards.

At the moment, I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not sure how to accommodate your last round of suggestions. In your note, it was recommend that I make all the changes recommended by the previous reviewer, which I did (as far as I can tell) point-by-point as they had requested. Note that they wanted me to remove references, not add to them to improve the article.

Also, I'm not sure which of the language is promotional. I'm more than happy to make the changes but I honestly don't know what sentences or parts of the entry read like a advertisement. Let me know what you think.

Thanks in advance!

3fivesix (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous reviewer asked you to remove references to some sources as they only mentioned the subject in passing and didn't give any further weight to the substance of the article. However, they did ask for you to provide additional references as well, and suggested some places you might look.


 * My primary concern, and the main reason I sent the article back, was the first paragraph. [a]n organization that educates business and organizational employees on strengthening the fundamentals of leadership excellence through mindfulness meditation, contemplative leadership practices and their practical applications in the workplace reads like advertising. I would clean up this paragraph, and language such as this in the rest of the article, and continue to establish notability by referring to solid independent sources. Once you've done that, submit it for review again and another reviewer will take a look. Bradv  17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

12:35:11, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Rouken
Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review my article submission. I am however confused as to specifically which elements of the page you deem are more like an advertisement than Wikipedia entry - I took a great deal of time and effort to write the article as neutrally as I possibly could, so any additional help regarding particular lines, words and tone would be greatly appreciated so I can edit the entry for resubmission. Thanks in advance for your time.
 * It looks like a lot of the references from the article are going to websites that are just quoting a press release, so much of the article (and its sources) have a promotional tone. However, perhaps my initial assessment was unfair, and the article should actually be approved. Please submit it for review again and I'll let another editor take a look. Bradv  17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New Message
In regard to notability, Fisher House UK is the place where military patients and their families can stay while receiving treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, which is the centre for military medicine in the UK; this, therefore, makes Fisher House UK more than worthy of an article.

As well as this, Fisher House UK is a registered charity, which adds to it being of note. Orlagh Davies (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the subject is probably notable enough, but the article doesn't have sufficient references to support that. The best thing to do is to find more sources and cite them in the article. If you need help doing that, bring it up at Talk:Fisher House UK where more people will see it. Bradv  17:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse notifications
Hi there. Thanks for answering some questions at the Teahouse. Can I ask that when you do so, you notify the editor who asked the question that it has been responded to by either pinging them as part of the answer or by using Teahouse/Teahouse talkback? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I can do that. I'll track down the people I replied to. Thanks. Bradv  19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm just mindful that new users might not find their way back to the page easily, and need all the help they can get. I posted about this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse the other day, so rest assured I'm not picking (only) on you! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New Message
re: Pattie Santos

Thank you Bradv. I modified to redirect to the band Pattie was in, It's a Beautiful Day.

I am researching this further about this artist and maybe in the future I will have the required and proper info for an individual article.

Thank you for your advice! April 12, Timle53 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I think. Thanks! Bradv  20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

20:15:58, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Marysdogs
Hi, and please excuse me if this is redundant. I've cleaned up some obvious stylistic errata, but since I'm not sure what the real trouble was, I'm checking back. If something's still not right, please let me know and I'll get right on it. Thanks so much. Marysdogs (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been working on cleaning up the article as well, and I think it is almost ready to submit. I also noted on the talk page that it needs a new name before it can be approved. Bradv  20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bradv, awesome, thank you. As I said in another thread: this particular Michael Goldberg is not the same as any existing-on-Wikipedia Michael Goldbergs. For this reason, I followed the lead of the page of my pal David Gans the musician, who is not David Gans the 17th century rabbi, and included parenthetical descriptors in the title. Since the man's never used a middle initial or other distinguishing info professionally, it would probably add MORE confusion to force the introduction of one at this late date. So if you've got an elegant way to deal with this, I'm all ears. Thanks so much! Marysdogs (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My reply is on the talk page. Bradv  20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

08:21:40, 13 April 2016 review of submission by FishKat
Hi Bradv Thanks for your feedback on the page. I went to the wikipedia live chat to get some advice on improving the page to solve the issues you identified. I've implemented their suggestions. I'm hoping it reads appropriately now. Please can you let me know if there are any other specific changes you think I need to make? Thank you FishKat (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks greatly improved. If you don't have any other changes you want to make at this time, go ahead and submit it again and another editor will take a look. Bradv  13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In Reference to Draft Derrick May
I think I'm confusing people with my intention for creating this Derrick May Sandbox... I do not want to replace his existing Wikipedia page.

I was creating this as a rough draft to see what are the good moves to edit. I spoke with the founder the other day Jimmy Wales. He said it was a good thing to draft articles in Sandboxes and he was surprised that I did this because so many people just start editing pages and get into trouble. So I'm learning, and I really apologize for making it look like I want to replace the article. Thank-you for taking the time to check out what I've been doing and giving me advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's totally fine - you are allowed to use draft space for that. However, you submitted it as an article for creation, which I cannot approve as the article already exists. If you're just playing around, the AFC templates at the top of the page should be removed. I will update it for you. Bradv  19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See my changes here. Does this make sense? Bradv  19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Alexander
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bradv, I think you've done an admirable job mediating, but I think this situation needs outside eyes. WormTT(talk) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

GovLab fixes
Hi Bradv, I noticed the proposed GovLab has some issues that your rightly flagged. I tried to go in there and fix them with more notable sources, and neutral language. If you don't mind, please review and let me know what you think. I'll resubmit (or you can) if you think the issues of concern are resolved? Draft:The_GovLab Stevemidgley (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You
I'd just like to thank you for reviewing Articles for creation: Kirby Allan. This is a biography that took me quite a while to write and cite correctly, so I appreciate the time and effort that it took to confirm the subjects notability. Thank you most kindly for your review! -- Curley Wolf (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Greetings Bradv!! How do I translate articles. My AMinocaproic article is in spanish but I did not know how to translate an article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucardias (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:53:08, 22 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Filaphilippines
Hello Bradv! I already added sources from websites and news source online.

Filaphilippines (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Hello @Bradv ,

I added sources to my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stowage_plan_for_container_ships Thanks to approve it now, or give me more advises if my article still needs more amendments. Sayed_Barakat 22:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siko55 (talk • contribs)

19:44:20, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Robert Kluijver
You have declined the submission by one of my students, Rewaa Al Hassani, on abovementioned contemporary art foundation, on the basis that not enough external, independently verifiable sources have been used. However, she does use external sources, such as e-flux journal of contemporary art - a highly established source in the contemporary art world, the also well-established universes-in-universe.org, transartists.org, as well as Art Asia Pacific and other well-known sources. So I don't understand what more you are expecting. Furthermore the article seems to obey to most criteria of wikipedia; she is objective as she has no relation to the place, etc etc. So please review your refusal to publish this article, on one of the main Palestinian contemporary art foundations.

Robert Kluijver (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

02:09:28, 3 May 2016 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU
I have added 2 new sources on Draft:Alex Gilbert. Really is this article still not notable? See https://www.facebook.com/imadoptedOrg/videos/1721864794759785/. This was taken from https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/ondemand/shows/b/breakfast/s2016/e72.html which his clip is at 49:00. This talks ideally about his I'm Adopted project. With the source to expire in 6 days, how can I reference this? --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have actually found a proper link here https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/alex-gilbert.html?autoPlay=4875661619001. Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

08:42:51, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Alexander Bray
Hello, I have updated the references - by adding page numbers - as requested as part of the rejection of the previous submission of my article, and corrected the formatting of the references.

As to notability: I have included the published references that I know about, but I have not included sources that simply repeat press release materials. The subject of the article has been mentioned on some forums (eg RMWeb) but I have not included those, even where the product has been used as the basis for a published picture.

The notability of the subject is at least as wide as the Wikipedia entries on individual steam locomotives.

Alexander Bray (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm JWNoctis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Global Reach Education Counselling Services, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. JWNoctistalk 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Editor  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.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

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


 * Congrats! Welcome back, thank you for your help and hope you stay around. - NQ  (talk)  21:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

12:50:27, 11 April 2016 review of submission by SaaSy2016
Hi Bradv,

I'm trying to submit the Draft:Cloudreach article but you've rejected this because the article seemed too much like an advertisement. There are multiple secondary sources in the article which show why the company is notable, including two major UK newspapers, and a prestigious national award. Can you please read over the article again and suggest any changes that could be made to make it more acceptable? Thanks!"


 * Hey,
 * I've been asked to take a look at this (disclaimer: I work for the company, though in a different role). From my perspective this looks relatively well-sourced. Is this as case of needing things tweaked, or are bigger changes needed? If the former, do you mind putting it into articlespace for this to be worked on? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

18:44:33, 23 May 2016 review of submission by Suegates
I would like this article titled " Amanda Gates" to be reviewed again as I have made some changes as have been suggested. There are still have some references that I have to cite. One comment made was that a notable curler should have at least 2 Scotties appearances. I have noted many curlers whose articles have been accepted by Wikipedia that only have one Scotties appearance ( in some cases that is their only notability) so certainly this cannot be the case. Of course this is not relevant to the article in question since Amanda Gates does have 2 Scotties appearances. I will continue to correct missing references and have corrected information in the attached infobxSuegates (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 22, 2009‎ (UTC)

Third Opinion on Wilson's Syndrome article
Hi Bradv!

Thanks for your willingness to offer a third opinion on this article, I have left my viewpoint on the talk page.

Best :) MedBoard2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedBoard2 (talk • contribs) 22:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

07:28:06, 10 April 2016 review of submission by 2001:569:78B8:B500:E502:62E:3890:1663
The other Sangar articles found on Wikipedia are about the towns and military term. This article is about the surname.

04:42:17, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Dmacfady
Dear Bradv Thanks for looking at the article. Could I please ask what constitutes peacock terms in the article? I have no professional connection to the artist in question and remain very uncertain of which terms are not proper. Without a list of them, I'll be guessing forever. Thanks very much for your expert insight. Once again, I would really appreciate a list, otherwise I'll remove the text from Wikipedia, since it doesn't seem proper in this context.I've already been trying for two months to submit two paragraphs. If we're talking about the "stature" of the newspapers quoted, the paper-based publication industry in Ukraine, Georgia, etc was decimated after the end of the Soviet system––and all publication subsidies ended. All news is therefore online and in venues we might in the West take to be "fleeting." I'm presuming the reviewers know the languages and social issues at hand, so that, I hope, is not the matter. I take, as suggested, the key issue to be inappropriate language, hence my initial query. I would be extremely grateful for detailed help.

11:16:44, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Dmacfady
I also forgot to mention that in the post-Soviet context, centralized or state-run media sources, which––say, in the UK––would be a source of *objective* journalism/notability, are in fact the opposite, i.e, dubious in their bias. Russia would be a fine example: objective information regarding a cultural phenomenon would not come from major press outlets, which are fiscally bound to their governmental sponsors. Truth instead is more likely to be found in minor, peripheral publications. Those same lesser outlets are obliged to fund themselves, of course, and will have more ad copy surrounding them (as banners, pre-roll video, etc), giving the *visual* impression of ephemeral and less trustworthy information! Sadly, the juxtaposition in Eastern Europe between state-run and "underground"journalism, for want of a less dramatic phrase, has not changed much.

The singers and songwriters on state TV/radio are only aired because they pay for their airtime. They are, therefore, not actually famous in the true sense, but merely able to pay for airtime and therefore cultivate an air of artistic impact and/or import. Hence the need to document, explain, and foreground other performers.

One could draw a parallel here with the teaching of Soviet literature in US schools for the last 60/70 years. We never read the works celebrated on Russian/Ukrainian/Georgian state channels, but instead those authors or poets, who–in purportedly minor quarters––played a more significant and notable cultural role. Most were ignored their entire lives.

I should also note that the Villy articles in Russian, Georgian, and Ukrainian––with which I have zero connection!––have long met the notability criteria. My problem, I'm guessing, is doing the same within an English-language context. In summary, therefore, I'm totally at loss after 4/5 edits to see either any peacock terms or notability issues. Hopefully I can be proven and fix the offending lines at once. Thanks!

12:24:01, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Ross De Leith
Hi Bradv I'm a bit lost on why you have asked me to remove the links that act as citations and references on the article? The Wikipedia are links and are not intended to be citations.

Best Wishes

Ross

22:42:08, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Suegates
I have made some changes to my article "Amanda Gates, a Canadian curler" and I have added references where I thought they might have been missing. I would like to re-submit my article but wondered if you would have a chance to take a look at it. I have a final reference that I need to source for some points at the end. I will continue looking for that. I also submitted an article entitled "Jennifer Gates, a Canadian curler" but have not had any feed back on it. I am trying to use something called an "info box" but cannot seem to get it to edit properly. Any help with that would also be appreciated.

New Message
Have re-submitted ( at least I think I have submitted them) two articles titled Amanda Gates, curler and Jennifer Gates, curler. I have fixed the text as per the suggestions that were sent to me by other reviewers. I have reviewed the criteria for "notable curlers" as set up by Wikipedia and these curlers meet 7 out of the 10 criteria. I have made an attempt to fix references. I would like your assistance in having these curlers included in Wikipedia. Thanking you in advance for your help and suggestions. Suegates (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * please feel free to submit the article for review again and another editor will review it. Thanks. Bradv  18:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hope I am doing this right! Not sure how to re-submit as I wasn't sure how I submitted it in the first place! I see you are a very busy editor and have your hands full. If you have time to help it would be much appreciated. Thanks again Suegates (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New Message Request for creating my page
hi Bradv please submit my drat page to the wikipedia for wikipedia page or edit yourself for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbtweet (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New Message Request for creating my page
Hi Bradv iam new user in wikipedia so iam quite unexperienced in making article i submit my draft article but the Submission was declined on 25 July 2016 so kindly i request you to edit my draft yourself and create it for me my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rauf_Chandio_-_The_News_Director_Of_Mehran_Tv

New Message
Hi Bradv. Hope this message finds you well. You recently declined request to post article about Draft:Viddyad. The reason is it was too promotional. My purpose wasn't to write a promotional article and i tried to do my best to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Can you help me and tell what i did wrong and how can i improve it? Also there is a mentioning about Viddyad company in Silicon Docks article and I could link Viddyad article with Silicon Docks article. Thanks a lot. Tatiana.frantsuzenko (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is enough information in reliable sources to write an article about Viddyad, but at this point the article in question reads like an ad. Try relying more heavily on independent sources such as newspapers or magazines to write an objective article. When you are happy with it, submit it for review and another editor will take a look. Thanks. Bradv  15:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:50:35, 28 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaitlynnemoody
Hi there,

Would this be approved if I take out the reference of rewardstyle.com? This is my first Wiipedia page submission and after reading all of your links I am having a hard time understanding why it isn't approved.

Thank you. Kaitlynnemoody (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think removing one link is going to change the feel of the article, but it would definitely help. Right now the article reads like an ad rather than an encyclopedia article. We need more articles about this person from newspapers, magazines and books. If we cannot find those sources, then perhaps there isn't enough information available to write an article at this time. Please read the guidelines on biographies of living persons. Bradv  15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

14:40:45, 28 July 2016 review of submission by 38.124.250.3
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I would like to engage with you on your rejection of the draft Appian Corporation page. You rejected based on a lack of notability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) and added the following comment:

"Please fix the style of references to conform to guidelines, and remove unreliable sources, such as LinkedIn. Also, be sure that every single statement listed in the article has a source (including the InfoBox). Also, if one of the editors is really a paid editor, I am reticent to ever approve this article without substantial review by other editors to make sure that all bias is removed. Bradv 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)"

(1) References can be conformed to guidelines. In lieu of the reference to LinkedIn for Appian's employee population, there are alternative sources like CrunchBase, and WashingtonPost (Midsize company). Other than LinkedIn, do you consider any of the other sources unreliable? The InfoBox contains information that is already in the text and cited (the name of the company, identity of founders, employee size, product categories)

(2) With respect to notability, I note that previous reviewer Tseung Kwan O "had no doubt about the notability of the company"; DGG stated that the company "may possibly" be notable. DGG believed that the numerous references to Appian's software in the independent press were advertising in nature. However, the removal of those references probably has an adverse impact on notability. The language removed was :

{{blockquote|text=The software is used as a platform to develop a variety of applications: Ryder Systems uses Appian to automate paper contracts, log an analyze equipment breakdowns and combine record keeping systems, Vitamin World uses Appian for applications related to store closures and remodeling, the Defense Information Systems Agency uses Appian for contract writing and acquisition applications , Crawford & Company uses Appian to crowdsource insurance adjustments. }}

Those are references to coverage of usage by Appian by fairly significant national sources: Wall Street Journal, CIO.com, FedScoop. In response to DGG's comments that it was "advertising", the references were removed. If notability is in question, I think those sources should be considered. In addition, please note the additional reference cited in the Tseung Kwan O talk page. I would imagine that source would have been convincing as to notability.

(3) With respect to your comment about one of the editors (including myself) being a paid editor, and your reticence to approve the article in light of that, I refer you to the statement made to DGG:

You also mention WP:NPOV. As you likely well know, there are third parties out there who you can pay to create pages for you. Appian didn't do that - it acted honestly and put in a reference to the fact that the original writer (a lower level marketing person) was paid by the company. In response to two rejections, the article was significantly changed and now reads a very straightforward description of the company and its product. By taking the position that you do, you are encouraging companies to hide their identities or engage third parties to create articles for them. WP:COI is not a prohibition on creating or editing content.

If you question the neutrality of a statement, please provide comment and the draft can be revised. If there are the "usual faults of this manner of writing" please highlight them.

I reiterate that WP:COI is not a prohibition on content and that the review process has a significant impact on the neutrality of articles. I have worked now with other editors to revise the content substantially such that it is a neutral representation of the company. In this regard, working with these editors should qualify as "substantial review by other editors."

I have also moved copies of the discussions with other reviewers to the Talk page of the Draft for ease of further reference. 38.124.250.3 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

sorry - the post I created was one of the auto-generation posts you make when you have a rejection. It looks like it messed up the formatting on your talk page. I apologize, but I won't touch because I don't know enough about formatting to fix it.38.124.250.3 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * {{ping|38.124.250.3}} Thank you for your comprehensive reply. The two things I am most concerned about are that the references are not properly formatted, and LinkedIn is being used as a source (see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.)
 * For the rest, I have to defer to {{u|DGG}} on whether paid editing is a problem here - I'm just saying that for myself I'm unlikely to endorse it unless no evidence of paid editing can be found in the article, and the article is completely neutral. Bradv  15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}} I am not sure where that leaves us. Where do you come out on notability? Would you endorse notability if the substantial references to usage were put back in or is this discussion enough to convince you of notability?

I don't want to re-submit for review unless I know your thoughts on this and can respond to any concerns (the references are an easy fix if I can figure out the guidelines). What do you mean by "no evidence of paid editing"? Do you mean that as a re-statement of WP:NPOV? Do you have any thoughts about the neutrality of the text at this point? As discussed with DGG, the text is drawn from the third party sources. If you mean that to pass your test, none of the text was entered by a paid editor, then I think you are saying the WP:COI is a complete bar on paid editing. Is there a way to submit the text of an article to another reviewer who doesn't know the editor has declared a COI to determine whether a reviewer not knowing of the COI would conclude it's neutral?

Once you post your response, I will post this colloquy on the talk page of the draft for further reviewers. Thank you for your time.38.124.250.3 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Except for things like copyvio, the basic reason for rejecting a AfC is that it is not likely to pass WP:AFD. It is not correct to decline due to reference format, or any other error that is fixable in mainspace. For such problems, there are 2 ways to proceed: fix it yourself, before or just after accepting, or tag it and advise the editor what to do about it. (Most reviewers do also decline if the basic article formatting is really awful, on the basis that it is more likely to pass AfD if it looks like a Wikipedia article.)
 * Judging whether it will pass AfD is often tricky. AfD is not all that consistent, and for anything that is at all borderline, there's really no way of telling. Most reviewers don't want to have a record of having AfCs they accept subsequently rejected at AfD, and are therefore quite conservative. Myself, I want at least a 2/3 probability, and that seems to be the usual level -- tho it has to be taken as a loose way of thinking about it, because giving a definite number is  a little absurd for something that variable.
 * Nowadays, promotional articles with borderline notability are often, but not always, rejected, and this aspect must be taken into account also. Certainly articles with a suspicion of undeclared paid editing are very often rejected, and I for one would be very willing to use that as a sole reason at AfD. Of course, declared editing like here is another matter. It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism  and notability.  But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being  COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references.  The real advantage of declaring is that you're safe against a block  for violating the TOU, & you won't set off a sock puppet investigation.
 * In this case, many of the references are not sound. Of the ones in the paragraph I mentioned:
 * 5. is a WSJ blog, not WSJ. the article reads like a combined advertorial for the company using the product and the company making it, but it is the only potentially usable reference of the group.
 * 6. is a similar advertorial for NBTY, but it merely mentions Appian in part of one sentence,-- 99% of the article is about other commercial and custom software it uses.
 * 7. was written by the VP of government sales for Appian, and is therefore worthless to show notability. But it's a rather subtle advertisement: it praises a system presumably making use of Appian cloud software without ever mentioning the company's name or any of its products. What it explicitly praises is using the cloud, which is the aspect where his company's software is relevant.
 * 8. is an article on another company written by that company's own CIO. It mentions Appian in one parenthetical clause
 * I want to ask {{U|38.124.250.3}} -- did you know that ref 7 came from the company itself until I just pointed it out?
 * I am not going to review this article again.  Of course, any other reviewer can (though not Tseung Kwan O --after complaints from multiple experienced people here, he's agreed to stop AfC and NPP, because of ill-informed reckless reviewing) . If the article is accepted and holds up under the inevitable AfD, I'd be surprised , but such things do happen.   DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I grabbed a username to respond from a different IP, but I am the same editor from 38.124.250.3. I have not created a username before because my use of Wikipedia to this point has been reading articles over lunch and correcting typos and out of fear that it would become an addiction. I want to thank you again for your time as volunteer and wanted to respond to your question and comments. I am cognizant of WP:PAYTALK and don't want to take up too much of your time (I have a job, which is not editing Wikipedia, this is a side project and I am definitively not paid by the page or word); we may quickly be entering the realm of theory rather than specific comments on the draft.

First, those references you cite (6,7,8) were removed from the draft altogether per your comment on your talk page that references to usage by customers seemed like an advertisement to you. Bradv reviewed it without those links. I only referenced them here with respect to Bradv's rejection because he raised notability concerns and I wanted to show him that there were additional third party sources supporting notability outside the draft.

Second, I disagree with your position on the WSJ blog. Blogs published by news outlets specifically meet the guidelines. Blogs like DealBook at the NYTimes, etc. often break news themselves.

Third, on #6, I think the upshot of the article in CIO is the value of BPM technology and that Appian was the BPM technology selected by NBTY. Again, it was part of a prior draft that was specifically removed pursuant to your comment on advertising.

Fourth, in response to your question on 7, I didn't know it was written by that person before you pointed it out because, like an idiot, I linked to the wrong FedScoop link out of the list of links I had. This article is the link that should have been included. Obviously, that was a much better article in the first place, more recent, and by an independent author discussing the USAF's adoption of the same software used by DISA. It was the link I wanted included but I didn't re-check it after I linked it. In other words, "Ignorance, Sir. Ignorance!"

Fifth, on #8 yes, it's a story about Crawford's use of BPM software. The citation supports the text that Crawford uses Appian for crowdsourced insurance adjusting as an example of how customers use Appian's BPM software. In fact, the article is discussing Crawford's use of BPM software, which is Appian. If it said Appian every place it said BPM, wouldn't that itself look more like advertising?

Sixth, the heart of your comment is this, which gets us into theoretical territory and risks hijacking Bradv's talk page (I will copy all this to the draft's talk page), but I wanted to keep the discussion in-line, as you did:

{{blockquote|text=It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism and notability. But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references. }}

I wholeheartedly agree that WP:COI means that reviewers should have skepticism about what a declared paid editor writes, and I agree with it as a principle. But WP:COI by its terms is not a bar on editing. It is recommended that an editor with a COI suggest any edits on a talk page and allow others to make them. For a new draft article that is submitted for review, is that not a reasonable equivalent? The draft is not published here until a neutral reviewer agrees to its publication. Here, through multiple rejections, we've had 3 substantive reviews and I've tried to make good faith edits for neutrality. If I fail, I intend to try again until there is no doubt about neutrality.

I disagree that someone can never objectively write about themselves. It's not difficult to recite simple encyclopedic facts about yourself, your family, or your company on a neutral basis (I was born XX/XX/XXXX, parents were X and Y, went to this school, that school, had this job, that job). Those facts about myself are neutral and encyclopedic, raising the question of notability. It appears that there is a tension for a declared COI editor between writing something to show its notability based on third party sources vs. what could be considered advertising. For example, is it advertising to cite a third party article noting that DISA uses Appian for writing procurement contracts and that the USAF has adopted it as well, or is it a demonstration of notability? My intent was to show the latter and to exemplify how BPM software like Appian's is used (I don't think that the concept of BPM software or application platform as a service is self-explanatory to a reader, even leaning on the Business Process Management page).

Given your argument ("we have now learned that every draft....about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing"), isn't what I'm doing here - declaring my COI and trying write to neutrality while also showing notability - exactly the right prescription for that ailment, assuming the goal is that Wikipedia should have a page for every notable company? I could go on here and would be willing to get into a theoretical discussion but I am cognizant of your time. Thanks for contribution here and at wikipedia generally.WSCW (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}}

12:08:44, 29 July 2016 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:51D1:7600:A9BD:939F:50A0:A7BE
Dear reviewer, I would like to request a re-review for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TravelStaytion as the content was carefully created in order to not to contain any advertising or marketing words or hidden meaning. However it was still declined for this reason. Please advise at least on which parts exactly seem to be an advertisement? as I do not understand, and think that the page should be re-reviewed, may be changed where necessary. because I want it eventually to be published ideally. Thank you for your attention!


 * It really looks like the article is being written in order to promote the company. You should know that using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is against policy. Bradv  13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Hi, I am just wondering why the page for David Schipper I have submitted has been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.137.36 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As mentioned on Draft:David Schipper, it fails the notability standards for soccer players. It does not appear that this is a suitable subject for Wikipedia at this time. Bradv  21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

03:27:51, 30 July 2016 review of submission by Spinetingler
Hello. Can you offer any tips on sources? I cited FCC documents - are those not acceptable? Thanks. Spinetingler (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are fine sources I think, but they only support one sentence of the article. Where's the source for all the information in the first paragraph? Where's the source for the name of the current station manager? Are there other articles or books published somewhere about this station? Bradv  03:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I though that there was a problem with those sources. I had blanked on there being some newspaper articles, but I've added them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler (talk • contribs) 04:18, July 30, 2016‎

Silverwood
Hi, is there something controversial that you think is in need of a link to support? I had a look there is nothing controversial or wrong either, what benefit is the template? TA Govindaharihari (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As a biography of a living person, every statement and statistic needs to have a proper source. When I checked it earlier today, there wasn't a single reference. I see now that you've added some, which is great, but we need a lot more before the article is up to snuff. I'll work on it as well when I get a chance. Bradv  03:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Close to everything is cited, most of the uncited is ib the Rugby link as well, there is nothing worthy of a fat template now imho. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I did some work and removed the template, have a look back and feel free to replace it you still feel it is required and please let me know and I will try to address your feedback, ta Govindaharihari (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is considerably improved. Thanks for doing that. When I was looking at it earlier I found a bunch of sources which I listed on the talk page, some of which discussed his suspension and subsequent retirement. We should probably add some of that information to the article as well. Nevertheless, the article is many times better than it was a few hours ago. Thank you. Bradv  05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. I agree a mention of his suspensions is required also - I am off to bed, next edit I will add detail about the suspensions - best wishes Govindaharihari (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

re User:Prisencolin/MonteCristo
The second AfD was closed early without concensus, and it also passed through AFC one time.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless, if I accepted it someone would surely send it straight back to AfD, where it will fail again. The subject matter is just not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Someone made the decision to let it stay in userspace, and that is where it needs to stay. Bradv  23:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't know that it would fail AFD again, in fact immediately after the second AFD, an editor who was unconnected to the dispute voted for keep, whereas the delete votes were from voters of the first AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Hi Bradv. I hope you are doing well. You recently declined a request to post an article about Draft:Bryan Reuss. The reason was it did not have enough sources. I had previously sourced all his publications and many of his research projects but a person named user:LaMona removed all these sources on July 14th. Would it be possible to restore it to what I previously had and see if the numerous sources would allow you to approve it? I had previously reviewed other orthopedic surgeons and this is how they did it, so I was confused when LaMona removed all of the sources. If you have any other advice, I would love to hear how I can improve this article. Thanks. Medexp99 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you so interested in having an encyclopedia article about this person, and where are you getting your information? Bradv  13:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Reuss operated on my daughter's arm last year. It was a very complicated surgery that turned out great. Before and after the surgery my husband and I researched Dr. Reuss and were very impressed by his experience, research and publications. We were surprised with his experience, work with so many teams in Orlando and being a top surgeon in Florida, that he wasn't on Wikipedia. So, we started to find info for Wikipedia on the Internet, from the Orlando Orthopedic website and some by contacting the firm directly. Thanks for helping us try to move this forward. Medexp99 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Article on Kelly Riddle
Brady I am a little confused as to why you think my article on Kelly Riddle does not appropriately show his notability? If you look at "private investigators" in Wikipedia there are 6 real life PI's. For Crouch there are only 6 sentences regarding his being a PI (2) Field lived from 1805-1874 (3) Parco has 2 small paragraphs about his TV show (4) Pellicano went to jail for illegal activity (5) Ribacoff had a few TV appearances and (6) Weber is primarily an attorney with a small paragraph about being a PI. My article on Kelly Riddle shows where he was quoted 17 times in different trade publications as an expert, he has more than 58 articles published, he is the author of 10 books, was chosen the #1 PI in the U.S., the PI of the Year, etc. These are only an example as there are more. If this does not demonstrate he is an notable expert in the PI field than no one is. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpatton (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ravensbourne Morris Men AfC
I would very much appreciate your input to improve this article to achieve the correct standard.

The initial draft was rejected partly on the grounds of notability, and this was addressed and a second reviewer accepted that the subject is notable. The first reviewer also commented that too much reliance was made on a single source, and so this has been drastically changed, with a wider range of different verifiable secondary sources being introduced in order to comply with the requirements, and this is reflected in the cited references.

I have removed the offending sections, added references where applicable and generally tidied up.

Is there anything else you feel I could do now ?

Many thanks

CPBearfoot (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Submission for Ali Dibadj
I am requesting a re-review for the biographical entry "Ali Dibadj". Reviewer said he does not meet "notability". Wikipedia guidelines for "notability" say the person must be "worthy of notice" or "note" or "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention to be recorded." I respectfully submit that he does fit those criteria very well. Over the past 10 years, he has transformed companies in the generally entrenched consumer packaged goods industry with his objective, irreverent, bold analysis and writing (for instance, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Energizer, etc.)--that is truly "remarkable" to push against the grain. "Worthy of note", being ranked the top analyst for 8 times in Institutional Investor is very "significant and unusual", especially from an underdog position of supporting shareholders versus large incumbent companies. The first Baron's article cited is about him and his views. Please reconsider the submission; he deserves to be recorded in your wonderful encyclopedia. Indeed, his track record stands much for what Wikipedia stands for--open, objective, accurate information dissemination. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmcsanchez (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

IAmMatthewian Project
Hi, I'd like to ask why my article on the IAmMatthewian Project was rejected. The project is somewhat famous in Canada amongst fans of the Japanese anime series Hetalia: Axis Powers who complain about the character Canada's 'invisibility'. --NovaBrunswick 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft Ghatam Suresh
Hello Bradv

I have added additional references from third party coverage citing from reliable sources to my draft on Ghatam Suresh. Appreciate if you could review the draft and hopefully the submission references are adequate enough to show the draft's notability.

Thank you :) Rago vaid (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

11:48:11, 1 September 2016 review of submission by Jur Schuurman
Dear Bradv, I am not (yet) requesting a re-review. I just followed the link 'ask the reviewer' in the phrase 'If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission,...', since I would like to have some additional advice on my submission before entering it again. In particular, I was wondering why you wrote our comment 'This reads more like an essay or a chapter of a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Are you sure we need a separate article on this? Where does this fit in to the rest of the project?', since I am not sure what project you refer to. Can you specify this?

With kind regards,

Jur Schuurman (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:50:34, 6 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jur Schuurman
Dear Bradv,

On September 1st I sent a message on your talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bradv), since you reviewed (and declined the submission of) my draft page on Land Governance. However, I do not seem to have received any reply by you. Or am I missing something? I would appreciate your reply, maybe also to my email, just to make sure: schuurman.j@chello.nl.

Yours,

Jur Schuurman (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Jur Schuurman (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Michael Hudson article
Bradv- Ms. Tayler Wilson a Communication student and summer intern at Marian University was given the task of creating an article providing information on Sydney Michael Hudson for the University where he is on the Board of Trustees. She did not complete the task and reported to him that it was due to her lack of credible references. She contacted him and he dug out references from the public domain for the brief biographical description she had provided. He resubmitted the draft, but was informed by Editor David.moreno72 that it could not be submitted it as an autobiography. He asked me to submit it. How do I do that at this point? K.I. Forline Sept. 16, 2016 kiforline@ipoweres.com SMHud (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

New Message
Any instructions on how I should proceed? Thanks. K.I. Forline 9/19/16 2602:304:CDBA:4400:5984:F2FF:FD7A:63D3 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You have not provided any context for your question, and this appears to be your only edit. If this is in reference to a recent AFC review, please use the talk page of the article so that other reviewers and editors can see it. Thank you. Bradv  17:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Huang Jiang Nan
So I took an Chinese Baidu biography about Jiangnan Huang, His Bloomberg Profile, and a recent interview on a Chinese Finance blog and summarized it. I am new to this. Can you help me out and explain how to make the article not promotional. It is not my intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz320 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You created two identical pages, both of which read like autobiographies rather than encyclopedia articles. You may want to take a look at WP:YFA for some advice. If you are the subject of the article, or you are hired by the subject to write this article, please refrain. Bradv  17:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Amistad memorial (New Haven)
Hey there. Thanks for the initial suggestions on the page Amistad Memorial (New Haven). I'm a high school teacher and a few of my students have been working on the content for the page in class. This is just a bare bones template, but they will be adding to it over the next week. We'd love it if you can suggestion further improvements when we've advanced the page a bit further. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawenz (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is great, but please teach your students to gather their sources before writing an article. There is a lot of information on the page, but no indication where the information comes from. It is easiest to do this right from the beginning, rather than trying to add all the sources later. It also protects your work from being deleted while it is still being written. Bradv  20:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Message
To hell with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot Gorkhali (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Calm down. If you're trying to educate people about a Hindu festival, that's wonderful, and is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Please help by adding some sources to Bhadra Sukla Purnima. Bradv  15:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Bradv. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux  Talk 03:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

01:59:36, 17 November 2016 review of submission by MerlinPatt
What makes the Venture for America article read more like an advertisement?

This line of the reason for decline states "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I have 5 independent sources for this article from the New York Times, Inc.com, bigthink.com, Brown University, and FastCompany.com. How does this not meet the range of independent, reliable, and published, sources criteria?
 * Yes, there are some independent sources listed. But there are also large sections of the article which are sourced only to the company's website (e.g. the lede), and the History section has no sources at all. Furthermore, the article is full of promotional language, such as the mission statement in the lede, and the "credo" in the Approach section. The whole article looks like it is trying to recruit customers, which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Bradv  02:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The lede, and the article itself, was modeled off of the Teach for America page. The TFA page has the mission stated right in the lede, which while it is cited from an independent source, it's also a direct copy from the TFA's actual mission page (https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-us/our-mission).

What is the allowance for using quotes and statistics from the organization's site vs an independent one? In some cases, it seems like the organization's site would be a better source for information.

In regards to actual fixes to make it seem less like an advertisement, would these be sufficient?


 * Remove the credo (would a link to it be okay or is that still too much)
 * Find an independent source for the mission
 * Find an independent source or sources for the history section User_talk:MerlinPatt 02:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything needs an independent source, and the content must be written from a neutral point of view. I wouldn't use the corporation's website as a resource for anything in the article at all. If you can do that, and still come up with a decent article, it might get approved despite a potential conflict of interest. Bradv  03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contradictory when I say this, just trying to understand how this works better. Going back to the TFA example, that page has a citation straight from the TFA website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_For_America#cite_ref-10). Additionally, the entire Geographical Reach section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_For_America#Geographical_reach) has no citation. MerlinPatt (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally submitted that comment early. I meant to ask, shouldn't both of those things I mentioned above have independent citations or be removed? MerlinPatt (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the credo, found an independent source for the mission, and found independent sources for the history section. The only source left from the website is the statistics section. Is this sufficient?

Also, related question, is there any limit on how many times a draft can be re-submitted for a review? MerlinPatt (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no limit to how many times a draft can be submitted. The only limitation is that if it goes abandoned for six months it may be deleted. Once you are happy with the draft, submit it for review again and another reviewer will take a look. Thanks. Bradv  15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)