Jump to content

User talk:Bradv/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 27

Jorge Soler close

Hey, I realize my !vote was way outnumbered in that AfD but I do think my argument could've been considered by others for a bit longer so I think a relist would also have been appropriate. The NPSORT guidelines, which supersede individual SSGs like NOLY, do explicitly require GNG sourcing be demonstrated and none of the keeps had rebutted this or provided sources. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, I hear your concern, but the the WP:NSPORT guideline does say in the opening paragraph that the article should meet either it or the GNG. And clearly the other contributors to the AfD felt that it met this guideline and therefore did not need to meet the GNG as well (or perhaps more accurately, that it met the NSPORT guideline and therefore we can presume that sources exist sufficient for it to meet the GNG, even if they can't be found). Regardless of your interpretation of these subject-specific guidelines, at the end of the day it's up to the discussion at AfD whether the article gets deleted, and in this particular case you were outnumbered. I don't believe that would change if the discussion were relisted, but you're welcome to take this to DRV if you disagree. – bradv🍁 23:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that paragraph regularly trips people up (although I'll point out that the first sentence does mention a sport-specific guideline serves only as a predictor of GNG and implies an article is only warranted if GNG is met). However, the FAQs for NSPORT (collapsed at the top of the page) clarify the "GNG or SNG" sentence is solely in regards to proving there is a claim to notability to prevent quick deletion/rejection from AfC, but that the presumption of notability is still rebuttable:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

I think Randykitty explains it well in this close. Some of this stems from a 2017 RfC that established a strong consensus that GNG supersedes NSPORT, but there have been a lot of AfDs in the last year or so where this has been specifically reiterated by the closer. Since I participated in the recent discussions for tightening up the NCRIC guideline most of the examples that come to mind are of cricketers, but the following closers all essentially affirm that NSPORT in general is not sufficient if GNG isn't met: Dennis Brown at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shahid_Ilyas, Nosebagbear at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qaiser_Iqbal, Sandstein at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tariq_Hafeez and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prateek_Sinha, Barkeep49 at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Laeeq, Randykitty at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salman_Saeed_(2nd_nomination), Black Kite at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obaidullah_Sarwar; see also the discussions here, here (particularly PMC's comment), and here on footballers.
I wouldn't take this to DRV since I think the close was correct given the !votes—and while I feel a relist would have been acceptable as well I don't actually expect you to reopen it. But given your reasonable closes on a lot of other AfDs I wondered if maybe you just hadn't come across the FAQs before. Regards! JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoelleJay, what do you think of Eastmain's !vote asserting that there must be coverage in Argentinian newspapers from this period? If someone were to locate this coverage, that would satisfy the GNG, right? – bradv🍁 00:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh absolutely, even just a very strong indication that Argentine gymnasts at that level in that time period are covered significantly I think that would be sufficient (for the time being -- it's reasonable to give editors a chance to find difficult sources, but per Q5 it shouldn't be indefinite). But no one in the AfD actually demonstrated this was the case or even provided the names of inaccessible newspapers etc. that might have such coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wet market reverts

You can go to google maps and check where is: 中国疾病预防控制中心 (Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention) and where is 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market) https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Then remove the reverts you did in articles related to Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Cambr5 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits to 20 July plot by above editor

Point of clarification for Bradv: Did the above user's edit to 20 July plot ([1]) violate the 500/30 rule of the Antisemitism in Poland ArbCom decision? I was unsure. I also thought the edit was an improvement. And of course, if the restriction did apply, I would expect only a warning to be in order. Thanks for any help. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Actions of editor: Shibbolethink

Interesting: the editor above is very dedicated to deleting any mention that the Wuhan wet-market is very close to the Chinese CDC building. Since I did not want to change the actual article text, I made a comment on the talk page. In the talk page, they demanded that I add a primary and secondary source - so I mentioned how Google maps could be a primary source and the article in WSJ ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996 ) a secondary source -> and did not receive any response about primary source. Instead the user went to my user page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cambr5 ) and tried to make an impression that they are a Wikipedia administrator - isn't it against Wikipedia rules to try to give an "administrative ruling" when someone is not an administrator? But this is not all, the user is dedicated so hard to "guarding" the Wuhan article that they seem to have gone through every edit I made, trying to find some sort of "dirt" on me. Then they provide some generic comments that some of my other edits are "perhaps" breaking rules without pointing anything out - what looks like some sort of an intimidation tactic. Is the user above trying to bully me by impersonating an administrator? Of course, if they did, I would expect to all their other roles to be removed. Who can judge that? Arbitration Committee? For me it is quite clear that they will go at any length to delete any mention of the proximity of those two places - what sounds like some sort of a bias. Consequently I request help of an actual administrator. Can you please can point me to the proper place who can investigate the actions of user Shibbolethink? Cambr5 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

to clarify, I have never asked you to use a primary source, I have told you that primary sources are not suitable for this type of statement [2]. The same is true of the WSJ article, which is an WP:OPINION piece and likewise not suitable for statements of fact [3]. These are not typically the types of sources we use on wikipedia. You do not need both a primary and secondary source, you only need a secondary source that is reliable. However, we also need to establish the content is WP:DUE. We already discuss the proximity of the wet market and the WIV in these articles, in sentences I have quoted to you already [4][5]. We simply do not state the exact distance, given discrepancies in how distances are measured, who is reporting it, and whether we are stating "as the crow flies" or "as the dog walks." Why should we also mention the Chinese CDC? We would need a reliable secondary source for that component of it. Why should we specifically mention the exact distance from that source? I am sorry if you took my Ds/alert to mean that I am an administrator. I am not, and it is not meant in this way. Many users of all kinds add these notices (not just administrators), and these notices do not indicate there is necessarily anything wrong with your edits. The alert simply communicates to you that enhanced rules apply to more contentious topic areas that have been brought to the arbitration committee, and the committee (on which Bradv sits) determines that these areas require the enhanced discretionary sanctions. — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Cambr5, Shibbolethink is not an administrator, and doesn't need to be to leave you this notice. And, as has already been explained to you, we do not use opinion pieces to support statements of fact. If you want to include certain information in an article, you need to properly source that information and be able to explain to other editors why you want to add this information, and how it fits in with proper encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Perhaps you might find it helpful to gain experience writing in less contentious topic areas while you learn how to contribute to this encyclopedia. Neither of the topics mentioned above are suitable for a beginner. – bradv🍁 17:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, I note you closed this AfD as "No Consensus". I'm still learning about how AfDs get closed and what I though I'd figured out (and how it was explained to me) doesn't quite match what I thought this close would be (hope that makes sense). Clearly I'm missing something else. Can you explain how you got to your decision? By way of background, it was explained that a closer takes a pass to reject !votes that were made in bad faith or nonsensical, etc, after that it essentially becomes a head count because anything else like "preferring one argument over another" is a supervote (I'm paraphrasing). Here it was 7-3 to Delete so I thought that should result in a Delete. Thanks. HighKing++ 20:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing, I'm rereading that discussion and I still don't see a consensus to delete the article. Of the four keep votes, three reference the existence of Norwegian sources that are difficult to obtain, and one references improvements in sourcing made during the course of the AfD. The six delete votes on the other hand (with the notable exception of yours) are more concerned with whether such sources are already in the article, and not whether additional sources to satisfy NCORP are available. However, if you think that a consensus to delete the article is possible with another relist, I'm willing to give it a try. But I suspect it's equally likely that consensus may develop the other way. Let me know what you think. – bradv🍁 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, thanks for that - I'll leave it to you, if your analysis is a "no consensus" that's fine by me. I'm grateful for your detailed response and a "look behind the curtain" so to speak, thank you. HighKing++ 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you make me New Page Reviewer

PureVegetarian

I have read all tutorial and ready to become New Page Reviewer. After gaining this access I will really 100% move pages to draft if the subject will not meet to notablty guidelines or not cited I will really help Wikipedia by preventing vandalism. Please can you make me New Page Reviewer please I have really read all guidelines that who can become reviewer and how to review a page. In Advance Thankyou PureVegetarian (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC) And please reply at my talk page User_talk:PureVegetarian

Request still needs help

Good day Bradv, please kindly go through Nick Moyes talk page to understand better. --Kikilap4 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kikilap4, you may add the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft to have it reviewed through the WP:AfC process. – bradv🍁 03:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Page move request

Good day Bradv,

Please can you help me out, I need to move/merge the page of Slimcase (musician) to Slimcase (singer)--Kikilap4 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

both pages should be merge with the name Slimcase (musician)--Kikilap4 (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Kikilap4: I checked out the edit history of both articles, and I'm afraid yours entered mainspace second. So I have made it into a redirect to Slimcase (singer), and you are now free to merge content that you created into that article. Once that's done, you can gain consensus to rename the article. But this way gives you more time, as I've rejected the request for speedy deletion, and your work can be found in the edit history. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes, thank you. I'm not sure why I was asked about this, but I agree with your approach. – bradv🍁 23:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
bradv good day! I represent A-navigation Promotion Centre MARINET RUT. We have placed the draft Autonomous and remote navigation trial project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autonomous_and_Remote_Navigation_Trial_Project) based at the information from the site of our organization - www.a-nav.org. Actually, we have send a permission letter. It was send on 24 August 2021 from alexander.pinskiy@a-nav.org (the e-mail of the Director of the a-Navigaton Promotion Centre MARINET RUT). May i ask you to check this information and recover the Draft, as you have deleted it? Actually, we are ready to correct anything in the article. Thank you in advance.Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Bradv,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.


To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ted Cadsby on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Justin Wilson (racing driver) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bradv. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BusterD (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Read and replied. – bradv🍁 13:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Filter 1,076

Another thing to check when the filter is hit:

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

why did you revert my section in the talk section of the 2021 Arbitration Committee? :(

just asking Esaïe Prickett (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment looked like trolling to me. If that was not your intent and you actually have something relevant to say, please reword it and try again. – bradv🍁 15:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration



I remembered I made some changes to a fork of your User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks.js script earlier in the year (diff). Effectively it just makes the "ds alerts" menu a bit neater; it only shows alerts in the past 1yr and it shows them in a neat list of topic areas rather than showing each alert box. If it can't parse the alert box (some old DS templates weren't standardised, so harder to parse), then it shows those ones in raw form below. (you can try "ds alerts" on me to see an example). I can't remember if I fully ironed it out for possible bugs but I haven't experienced anything day-to-day. Just wanted to let you know, in case you wanted to merge the changes into your script. Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, thanks. I am planning a bit of a rewrite of Superlinks when I have some free time, and I will see if I can incorporate some of these ideas. – bradv🍁 14:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will take this as a very subtle jab at me not writing an article in a while. Message received. – bradv🍁 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Contact with editors who have a bad history with the deceased and extrapolating that on to me

Hi. Back in August, you reverted a message posted to my talk page.[6] This led me to an admin forum page where I commented on the accusation made against me. I've no other defense than what I've said. Whatever resemblance I bear to the deceased, I'm not her. So how should I deal with things like that and this[7] going forward? I commented on it back in August,[8] saying, "Doing my own research, I now understand why the user who filed the ArbCom case against Flyer22 Frozen posted to my talk page and to Nowearskirts's talk page.[9][10] The people making these claims apparently held a grudge against the deceased party, and I think there's some cause for concern about bad-faith coordination between these parties. From what I glean from the brother's talk page and SMcCandlish's post in this discussion, Crossroads and SMcCandlish know things we don't." You said, "Those who persist in inappropriate speculation in order to defame another editor (or the memory of an editor) are in violation of our anti-harassment policies and should be dealt with accordingly."[11]

It's my understanding that even if I needed the standard notice this user placed on my talk page, it should not have been placed by this specific user when considering their history (accusations of harassment, etc.) with the deceased user. When, today, I looked into the editor who added the SPI tag to my talk page, I saw that they are continuing along these lines as well.[12][13]

I apologize if this is something best left to email discussion. GBFEE (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The parties in question have had way more than enough warnings about this in particular, and on top of that we already have a general principle that it's a WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL failure to go around accusing someone of being a sock or sockmaster without evidence. Either they have what it takes for a WP:SSP filing, or they need to drop the stick. Since they clearly won't drop the stick, it needs to be taken away from them firmly. Poisoning the ArbCom election well with this shit is right out of bounds, as Fæ learned the hard way last year when they tried the exact same crap, over the same trans-activism issue, in the same venue.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@GBFEE, that second notice is just an alert about discretionary sanctions, routinely issued to anyone who edits in affected topic areas. That shouldn't be interpreted as any sort of accusation or harassment (although I understand that it can come across that way, especially if you have a history). – bradv🍁 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, SMcCandlish; Bradv. I've read what the standard notice says and I've picked up on it being routinely issued to anyone who edits in affected topic areas. That's fine. My concern remains. Bradv, as I'm not the deceased party, I don't have a history with this user. I have reviewed the history between this user and the deceased editor. At the time this user supposedly welcomed me, they were welcoming users they suspected to be the deceased editor. It is observable with the example at User talk:Raining Parade.[14]. Sometime after I was accused, I was able to discuss the deceased user's history with a few editors, and they confirmed this was happening. This user was invasive to Raining Parade, asking the user to reveal their IP. When they supposedly welcomed me,[15] they wanted to know why I asked for a welcome template. I responded, finding their question very odd,[16] because all I did was ask for a welcome template and this user, who doesn't edit much at all currently or edit the subjects I edit, appeared just to ask me that. When they welcomed Raining Parade, Raining Parade had already been welcomed. And when they supposedly welcomed me, I'd already been welcomed. It appears, as I've discussed with others, they believe I was asking for a welcome template to avoid them posting to my talk page. If that's what they believe, then it says a lot that the user posted to my talk page anyway. They also posted a standard notice to Nowearskirts's talk page[17] for their very first edit in August after not editing for several days. Nowearskirts found it to have come out of the blue and wondered why the user hadn't also given the standard notice to Willibord.[18] It certainly seems that Willibord was more in need of the standard notice than Nowearskirts. A few days later, Nowearskirts and I were accused of being the deceased editor. Nowearskirts had Johnuniq and Liz to help them through that, but that editor hasn't returned to edit since.
I believe that because the user who added the standard notice to my talk page believes me to be the deceased user, and they hadn't edited much before adding it and could have added it much earlier, and they'd just commented on an IP address who accused them of additional accounts a few days earlier,[19] the standard notice was not a well-meaning notification. It was a misplaced retaliation for something that has nothing to do with me. So I feel harassed by this user because they seem to believe me to be the deceased editor they have a bad history with and are targeting me because of that. I don't edit the subjects this user edits, and I won't be editing those gender-heavy topics, and so I don't expect to interact with this user much, if at all. If contact with this user continues despite this, what was said here[20] might be in order. These attempts at intimidation to keep me from editing articles the deceased user edited only make me more interested in the work the deceased did, such as shepherding the gender differences in suicide article.
I have email enabled, but I have it set to where no one can email me because I'm concerned about receiving harassment. So if anything needs to be discussed by email, I want it known that I can be reached by email. I just have to initiate the email. Thanks. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@GBFEE, I'm certainly sorry you feel this way, but this was a routine message and I think you may be reading too much into it. If you continue to feel targeted please let me know (either here or by email), but at the moment I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. – bradv🍁 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@GBFEE: Wikipedia is part of the internet and that means it is inhabited by all kinds of people, good and bad. Please contribute to whatever articles you choose with the only provisos being to not edit war and to engage with discussions on talk pages. I'm less busy than Bradv so you might try contacting me first if problems arise. I might not respond immediately but I will investigate any issue. In particular, any further attempts to misuse the name of the deceased person will lead to blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability and BLP

o reason has been given why this highly-recognized industrial and academic scientist should not be considered notable. The references in many publications, including the Wall Street Journal are surely an indication. By itself, award of the Barbados Barbados Gold Crown of Merit award should be enough. --Zeamays (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Ken R. Harewood. – bradv🍁 22:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thriller Records

Hello, I had created a Wikipedia Page for Bob Beckers new label called Thriller Records - he is also the founder of Fearless Records. It was deleted and I'm not sure why or how we can bring this back online. I used similar coding and linked to press articles from very reputable media articles such as alternative press. If you could help that would be super appreciated. I know a lot of people use Wikipedia to keep up with the current roster of the label. Thank you! --Nickm0110 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was spam. Please don't use Wikipedia to advertise. – bradv🍁 00:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not spam? This is a very legitimate record label founded by notable people in the industry. Both of the founders have Wikipedia pages for their other labels so I'm confused why this would be considered spam? What was created was templated after their other record labels. Every artist on the label has a wikipedia page as well? What am I missing here? --Nickm0110 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sadhbh O'Neill

Related conversation: User talk:Tzq99#Managing a conflict of interest

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what you mean by the conflict of interest, none of those categories apply to me. I thought the material was well sourced from reliable sources, can you suggest what else is needed?Tzq99 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tzq99: It appears from your edits that you have some sort of relationship with Sadhbh O'Neill, which is why I left you that message. What is your connection? – bradv🍁 17:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bradv: I don't have any, though I'm interested in more obscure election results and details and am aware of her. I noticed that she is running in an upcoming election and has no page despite the fact that apparently less prominent candidates do. Tzq99 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bradv:I would point you to the pages for Tom Clonan and Hugo MacNeill (rugby union), who are other declared candidates in the same election. Unlike O'Neill, neither of them have ever been elected to any public office, neither have a more notable academic career than O'Neill, neither of them have been in the public eye to a greater extent than O'Neill and the only MacNeill has a modest amateur sporting record. It is well established that there is a huge imbalance in the number of males v females who have wiki biographies, and with candidates in this election, it is remarkable that the most notable of these three is a) the one who has no bio and b) the one who is female. I know that you are trying to keep wiki balanced, but I think that in this instance balance favours inclusion. Tzq99 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The relevant notability criteria is at WP:NPOLITICIAN. Candidates for office are not usually notable until they are elected, unless they are already notable for other reasons. – bradv🍁 17:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bradv: Brad, please have regard for what I wrote. She has been elected to public office previously, and male candidates in the current election who have not been elected and don't have any other notability criteria that she does not have, each have extensive wiki pages. This is really not a good look from a sexism point for wiki. Tzq99 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Bradv, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your support and great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Bradv!

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 22

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks

Hi Bradv! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Mail notice

Hello, Bradv. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Read and replied. – bradv🍁 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ishac Bertran

Hi Bradv! Will you restore the contents of the Ishac Bertran page to a draft? It was work a student did for my class through Wiki Education, and I haven't had a chance to review it. I apologize if it read as too promotional, I will clean it up in the draft as I review. Thanks -- AmeliaMN (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@AmeliaMN: I can email the deleted content to you if you like, but I would prefer not to restore spam. – bradv🍁 21:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Numelon

Merry Christmas, Bradv!
Could I please retrieve the deleted contents of Numelon which was marked as spam for "advertising"?
Thanks. --RDSRichy (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per Special:Permalink/1063592183#Numelon. – bradv🍁 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, thanks for writing this powerful gadget. I noticed when I expand a revision, the link/template will become clickable - that is really great but I found some problem that I failed to jump to that page the link provided. For example, in this history view when expanding the first revision, I found the link become something like User_talk:<del_class="diffchange_diffchange-inline">Example</del>. Could you please have a look and fix it? Thanks! Stang 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stang, yeah the clickable diffs part is not working 100% yet. This is on my todo list. – bradv🍁 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That's great, looking forward to seeing the repair soon. Stang 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Block Vandal

Hi, Bradv. We met a while ago back before the arbitrary elections of 2020 (or maybe 2019, I don't remember). But anyway, I came across some vandalism by IP 67.253.160.236 here: [21] [22] [23]. I don't know who to talk to about blocks, but I know you're an admin and there's a good amount of evidence here, probably enough to block. Anyway, I just wanted to bring this to someone's attention. I hope to hear from you soon, Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of KAT Hospital for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KAT Hospital is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAT Hospital until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

EBotsEleẞotstalks 03:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you. Dianejahoda (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Hi, Due to a change in the way the contributions html is structured User:Bradv/endlesscontribs.js is currently broken. I have created a patched version at User:Asartea/endlesscontribs.js; could you take a look if you see this message (I am cognizant of the fact you may currently not be active, and will ask the IA noticeboard if you don't respond in a few days). -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)