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]

Regarding Genode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Genode), sorry there are not many third party or reliable resources for Genode available. It has been around for ten years so. The article was not written by the core developers but by an independent person who was enthusiastic about it. The only independent resource I can provide is Wikipedia itself - for cases were Genode has been already mentioned/referenced by other people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODROID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Computer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PandaBoard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Labs

otherwise please have look at osnews.com and news.ycombinator.com or phoronix.com - just search for Genode.

Regards,

Sebastian from Genode Labs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampling (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't be used as a source as it doesn't meet our definition of a reliable source. The best course of action would probably be to put a list of those articles from osnews, ycombinator, and phoronix, and link those as sources in the article. Any content that can't be attributed to a source can then be removed. Bradv 12:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Thank you for your suggestions, since we (Genode Labs) are now involuntary involved in this article I gonna forward your recommendations and I hope the changes will be made accordingly, let me know if something goes wrong. Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampling (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 6 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5,097)‎ . . N Draft:Pratik Uppal ‎

Hi sir, I resubmitted this article and was rejected by you. Earlier the article was rejected by shadowowl saying that i just have to remove YouTube as reference as it is not considered as a reliable source and resubmit it and it will be accepted. Sir i am from India and a the reference i gave are pretty big deal here. I respect your knowledge and seek your help /advice to what i have to do to get the article published as it is very important for me and my family. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angadjjm (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other comments given at Draft:Pratik Uppal. The bottom line is that more references are required to third-party, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. News articles, books, magazines, etc. Self-published biographies are not sufficient. Bradv 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Charles Rudolf Legéndy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Bradv —

I do not understand which of my inline citations does not meet minimum standards, since all the scientific papers referenced are published in peer-reviewed journals.

The version of the Draft you reviewed contains 19 inline references; and while it is true that 9 of these have Legéndy as author or co-author, I maintain that this does not invalidate the contents. Since by definition the referees of the papers have judged their contents valid, there is third-party approval of the materials contained in them.

Please note that your colleague DGG, an editor of much seniority like yourself, already dealt with this draft (22 May, 18 May, 26 April). After I fixed the items listed in DGG’s rejection note (of 26 April), DGG made detailed corrections to the draft, moving a segment of it to the Wikipedia article on Helicons. The nature of the changes was such that they appeared to be steps preliminary to acceptance.

In my correspondence with DGG I listed three third-party references that explicitly affirm Legéndy’s contribution to Helicon theory, brain capacity estimation, and Neuronal spike train analysis.

OAKS222 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because articles are peer reviewed does not mean we can use them to write articles about their author. These are considered primary sources, rather than secondary sources. The difference between these is explained here. Bradv 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Trishhoffman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeff Fisher (American Author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a news journalist who interviews numerous people and I find Jeff Fisher's story to be extremely interesting and noteworthy as he's created an incredible independent high school sports media company that led to him being chosen by Skyhorse Publishing to author a Texas high school football book. My sources show why he is noteworthy and I don't understand why my submission was rejected. Trishhoffman (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trishhoffman: When I reviewed it there were many statements that did not cite a reliable source. Since then I see you have made some improvements, but there is still some room to grow before it fully meets the policy on biographies of living persons. Keep working on it and gathering more sources, but I'm going to leave it for another reviewer. Also, I would recommend you declare your conflict of interest on the talk page of the draft, per WP:DISCLOSE. Bradv 19:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - of course - Sorry!

Here are three secondary-source references to Legéndy’s contributions, two of them from the “Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy” and one from the Wikipedia article “Helicon (physics)” :

1. Hebb (1976) (Reference 16 in the Draft)

— Here Hebb, (who has the subject of two Wikipedia articles - “Donald O. Hebb” and “Hebbian theory”) cites the Legéndy (1967) paper (reference 13 in the Draft) in his Introduction.  Hebb writes, “Legéndy (1967) according to Alwyn Scott (1975), has made a conservative estimate of the number of basic ideas or ideational components the brain is capable of developing: one thousand million. A "conservative" estimate which means that these basic ideas must be formed at the rate of one per second for 30 years, sleep included, or one per second for 45 years of waking time.” 

2. Gourevich and Eggermont (2007) (Reference 9 in the Draft)

— These authors offer a critique of the “Poisson Surprise” test (of Legéndy and Salcman, reference 8 in the Draft), but put their critique in perspective in the Abstract, where they state: "the Poisson-surprise (PS) method [of Legéndy and Salcman, 1985] has been widely used for 20 years"; and in the "Discussion" section, which states: "The PS method ... has been the most widely used method of burst detection ..." 

3. Boswell (1970) (Reference 10 in the Wikipedia article “Helicon (physics)”)

— Here Boswell (in the "Preface to the internet edition" section, dated August 2004) includes the sentence: "Charles Legendy, one of the real pioneers of the helicon game, ..." 

OAKS222 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check Draft:Lu Yanzhi and consider moving it back to mainspace, please? Prisencolin is blocked and can't hit the request button, but I think I've done all I can there since it is not an area in which I have expertise and I can't read Chinese; however, I believe I've demonstrated notability and Wikidata still links the now-redlinked article with Chinese and French articles, so if it does look ok now, I don't think it should languish in draft space. Thanks in advance, Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted it for review on your behalf. Unfortunately I don't have time to look it over right now, but it is now in the queue. Bradv 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Yanzhi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zanhe (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Osita Chidoka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Progressive Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:InfoWars. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bradv, You declined my article for : This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I have added links to interviews and articles. Kindly let me know if the article suits now. Any advices or recommandations are more than welcome. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eleonora_Ottaviani_Moroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCG2017 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up on Kri Kri S.A.. I declined your no context speedy, because there was plenty of context in the info box -- clearly a Greek company in the dairy products industry[1]. However, since the user had also made a draft version with the same infobox, I deleted the article under A7, no importance asserted.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way works. It's better that it gets worked on in draftspace. Thanks. Bradv 21:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United States anti-abortion movement. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. This article is under discretionary sanctions, so I suggest you take this to the talk page fast. Bradv 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]