User talk:BrechtBro

23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

12:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi BrechtBro. Thank you for your work on Joel DeMott. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

On 28 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aya Ogawa (playwright), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a bad review inspired Aya Ogawa to create an Obie Award–winning play? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aya Ogawa (playwright). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aya Ogawa (playwright)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The AfD for Lorin Morgan-Richards (3rd nomination) and the other bundled articles reached consensus and was closed as a delete, with an added helping of salt. I'm going to bring up a new AfD for the related articles that were discovered too late to add in, namely Jason Shepherd and Peter Anthony Freeman. Have you seen any other related articles to bundle into a new AfD? I searched and didn't find any, but I wanted to double check with you.

Also, I can't figure out if we have to bring the template Template:Lorin Morgan-Richards up for it's own template deletion discussion or if the template speedy delete criteria T5 now applies since all the links in the template go to dead links. Any thoughts on this? --SouthernNights (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Never mind on the template question. The admin who closed the AfD said in the closing that the template should be listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion as unused. I missed that until now. SouthernNights (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes it looks like T5 only applies to template subpages. There's several other low quality pages that link to Morgan-Richards and Celtic Family Magazine, but seem none as closely related as those two, except for Nichola and Sarah Hope, who there are actually a couple brief news stories on and may call for a more thorough BEFORE than the others. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

After doing some digging and research, I decided to simply bundle Jason Shepherd and Peter Anthony Freeman into a new AfD. Here's the link to the AfD. The other articles have enough reliable sources that bundling them with these two no-brainers may turn the AfD into a trainwreck. SouthernNights (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, netstars22 created a TFD for the template: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_11#Template:Lorin_Morgan-Richards. SouthernNights (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

Could I ask why you removed the piece about Connor Storrie in the modern clowning article? That article could use a fair bit of work, but CS is himself notable and frequently performs as a clown. That would fit the "Notable performers" section.

He described his non-acting work by saying that “I’m making music or I’m doing clown" and said that clowning informed his performance. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Not much to add besides what I said in the edit summary: it's trivia and unrelated to the topic of the page. There would need to be an independent source discussing his clowning work for it to belong on a clowning page alongside people notable for their clowning. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The section is "notable performers" of modern clowning. I included one such performer, with proper independent sourcing from Vulture/NYmag. The article also describes his work with Palamides (who rightfully features heavily in the article). There are multiple reputable sources that cover him prominently as a clown and contextualize his work with his clowning performances.

There is no reason (it is relevant to the topic of notable performers of clown, it is properly sourced, it is clearly good faith, etc.) besides personal preference. And I'm not keen to get in another back-and-forth with you, after our disagreements over Sara Holdren and Jesse Green (theater critic), but since you made the deletions 15 minutes after I added them, I do feel I should note that history. Idk whether you have clowning on a watchlist (after one edit more than a week ago) or my user, but it's not particularly comfy. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have had the page on my watchlist for some time. This is not personal preference, it's not relevant to the clowning page unless there's sourcing that demonstrates it is, see MOS:MISC. The sourcing that had been cited is an interview where Storrie discusses himself as a clown, not an independent discussion of his clowning practice. Suitable content for the article on him, but not for this one. —BrechtBro (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is, due respect, tedious. You think its trivial, but that doesn't mean that the MOS says it would be.

Yes, there is reference in the MOS to the best sources to use to cite a piece of information (an article with trivia about bananas in a video game should cite an article about bananas over an article about the video game), but that example is very different from this one. There are a ton of possible citations for cultural depictions of banana, so of course a trivial mention or a proportionally small example is irrelevant. Even with the Cultural depictions of Mars article—which is held up as an exemplar—there are plenty of sources that are not explicitly about Mars (but are about Venus or space or a piece of media that culturally depicts Mars). These examples are also "In Popular Culture" sections, which is not the same thing as this section here. So no, the MOS doesn't support your deletion.

Then you have this article, which is not particularly built out or even properly assessed (but which you apparently watch keenly enough to "fix" within 15 minutes). The "Notable Performers" section would be more like a notable alumni section for a school, which rarely if ever sets the bar for sourcing at "articles that are primarily about the school." Here, I provided a nugget of information about a modern clown performer, who is notable, in the section custom-built for that purpose. The Vulture profile has significantly more than a passing mention of clown, with multiple paragraphs describing it and Storrie's connection to it, including mention of Palamides and Pauroso. It's a valid addition.

Regardless, this is not being bold, this is not fixing a clear sourcing/copyvio/BLP/whatever else urgent. This is an article that you weren't actively editing (and had only made one edit on, as far as I can tell). I made a good faith edit after someone made the link on CS's talk page. And then you come in and immediately delete it based on a very narrow interpretation of the general style guide. It's not exactly WP: Preserve minded.

Also I really genuinely don't mind, but I feel I should note that your Aya Ogawa DYK is from a factoid I added to an article that you then copy and pasted into a separate draft and seemingly passed off as your own DYK add (there's a section to credit other contributors). It's not something I feel I need credit for—it was a factoid freely included and I'm glad you and others found it interesting—but feels like maybe a bit of a glass house situation Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources do not support that Storrie is a notable clown. He is an actor notable for his television and film work who did some clown training, which is true of many actors. An anecdote about him seeing a clown show and taking a clown class adds no useful information for readers of an article on clown, it is WP:NOT encyclopedic. The information continues to exist on Storrie's page, where it is appropriate. —BrechtBro (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

He identifies himself as someone who does clown in the present, in front of audiences (aside from his acting work) in the same milieu as other performers currently cited in the clowning article. It is in the source (that you seemingly did not read before deleting), which says he has done clown work from at least 2024 on in LA.

I don't know why you feel Wikipedia is made better by backtracking a valid addition like this one, but` this article is not worth dealing with your (expected) recalcitrance again. As I mentioned multiple times in previous discussion, consensus and WP:Cautious/WP: Preserve are at least as valuable as your own specific interpretation of the written policy (and, I see, after I challenge your one "cited" policy, you switch to "citing" a different policy) in non-urgent editing cases.

Please consider this in the future. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"He identifies himself" yes, that is the problem, he is not an independent source, which is needed to demonstrate his notability as a clown. The article is not a list of participants in the LA clown scene. I have cited multiple policies/guidelines because multiple policies guidelines apply, it's also undue weight, etc. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply, as the content is A) not appropriate for this page and B) is duplicated on another page. No one likes to be badgered, thanks. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building."

It's a two person discussion where we have each responded one at a time. Nobody's badgering anybody and you should definitely be careful about the implication.

Anyway, this has unfortunately gone nowhere. You cite one policy, I challenge that and try to offer a different interpretation, so you cite a completely different policy, and then return to the first without even meaningfully addressing my response. First it's MOS: MISC, then it's WP:NOT, and now it's that a profile of somebody by a journalist in a reputable magazine is somehow non-independent (even though the page you cite doesn't weigh in either way).

WP: ROWN and WP:Cautious and, frankly, WP:GAME are worth a read (or reread). I see you do some good constructive editing, but I also see that you've been active in this account for only a few months and this is the third time where you've made editing that's been (at least to me) disruptive and then refused to meaningfully engage with the Discuss part of the BRD cycle. Even with the 3O process, I engaged and talked to the reviewer, but you left it and then tried to get an admin involved in what was a content dispute. I have no interest in further dispute, content-based or otherwise. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You may find WP:Interviews helpful for interpreting the policy regarding independent sources. I have restated this because the argument does not change the basic facts and policy. A person talking about themselves in an interview is not an independent source. See WP:PRIMARY: Storrie says he is a clown and it's published in a reputable source, that's fine for inclusion on the article about him. Asserting that he is a notable clown is an interpretation of what he said, and thus original research. There needs to be an independent source, such as a review that discusses his work as a clown, in order for it to be included on a page about clowning.

I have made nothing more than a repeated polite, good faith effort here to explain the justification for my edits simply, plainly, and to the relevant policies and guidelines.

I haven't exactly accused you of badgering, but I do feel badgered. I don't see how long or not I've been editing here is relevant, but if you have looked at my contribution history and userpage, you may have noticed that this page is well within my areas of interest and expertise. I would appreciate it if you would strike your comments that describe my editing as disruptive, as well as the implications that I have plagiarized and have acted in bad faith. Thanks. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so when I read WP: Interviews and it is an essay (not policy) that doesn't deal with the type of article this is (a profile (rather than a Q&A), where much of the clown talk is done by the writer (aka secondary, independent source), not by Storrie), what am I supposed to take away? Did you not read WP:Interviews? Did you not read the source in question? You are, in general, obliged to do neither, but when you act like an authority on both, it does cause me to characterize your response as I have. It's a profile where the secondary source describes him as a part of the experimental clown scene in LA and discusses it. That is a valid source both for CS's page and for this one.

So in that context, where you keep providing different justifications for your stance, which do not say what you say they say about the question at hand, yes I stand by my feeling of your approach being deleterious. I suppose the word "disruptive" is a bit fraught, so I'm happy to strike that—I'm not accusing you of a specific violation of policy there. But your approach makes me feel like any interaction or disagreement will proceed the way I discussed earlier. And that if I reverted your deletion in the article in question, we'd tumble toward an edit war. So that's why I commented that. Make of it what you will.

I don't see any reason to strike my commentary on the DYK. I explicitly did not accuse you of plagiarism as you can't plagiarize what is freely given. But it's not untrue what I described. You copy and pasted a piece I added to the Shaw article to the Ogawa article and then structured the Ogawa DYK around that piece. There is a place in DYK for additional authors, expressly for this purpose. Again, that doesn't mean you did anything particularly wrong, but it's a data-point that I felt belonged in the discussion.

Either way, this is circular and going nowhere so I don't plan to respond here any further. Like I mentioned, you clearly do some good work as an editor and are clearly enthusiastic about the subjects you're interested in, but I would encourage reading the posts I cited above. Restraint and consensus-building are as worth considering in non-urgent cases like this as a given MOS or policy essay. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The source simply does not support the claim. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On 9 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Complications in Sue, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the opera Complications in Sue was written by ten different composers, each writing without knowledge of what the others were doing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Complications in Sue. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Complications in Sue), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for the interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday I watched Written on Skin, quite a treat! - Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 Iran war, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)