Jump to content

User talk:Bradv/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user is proudly Canadian.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Disruptive

Your reversion was disruptive. The content the new user account put on the talk page has absolutely nothing to do with the Carrie Fisher article or the subject being discussed. For the record, unless something new has been added recently re: collapsing off-topic discussions, there's no policy that supports your claim the other editor must agree with the collapse. This kind of collapse on article talk pages (and other discussion areas) are collapsed all the time without anyone's consent. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What is disruptive is you winkelvi trying to hide the fact that you have struck out against an editor who disagrees with you, and agreed with the third opinion editor who came to help the article. Xi371n (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xi371n: Simmer down. The jury's still out on whether you're a sock. Don't go around accusing other editors. Bradv 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Check out Template:Collapse and WP:Refactor. If you're rearranging a talk page or collapsing someone else's comments, they are allowed to object. Bradv 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently my crime was to agree with you.

Hi Brad,

Can you help me out with how to answer this false report at the spi noticeboard? I have been following the Carrie Fisher article since she died. I have edited it a couple times. What is the next step in the process here? Xi371n (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing you can do. They're going to do a checkuser, and if you are a sock you will be blocked. How did you find out about the investigation? Did someone leave a notice on your talk page? Bradv 23:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
At the top icon for notifications it lit up. When I clicked it it said winkevi mentioned my name at a spi report about some other editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xi371n (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Impossible. Your name was not pinged in that report. The only way you could know is if you were checking my edits. And now, I can only think of two successive reasons why you would be dishonest in your response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong again. The notification is still sitting up there. Calling an editor dishonest with no evidence is attacking. Please stop! Have some admin log in my account if you like. Xi371n (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A checkuser is fine with me. Xi371n (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that I've done a little digging, I am convinced your account is a sockpuppet. In the less than 50 edits in the past two weeks, you've welcomed new users, figured out how to thank people, figured out how to use Twinkle, are familiar with the term SPI and what it means, and you've managed to start a fight with an experienced editor. I'm endorsing the investigation. Bradv 00:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Beijing National Stadium

Hi, I have a question. Beijing National Stadium is same case of National Stadium (Tokyo). Offcially National Stadium. Can I move to National Stadium (Beijing)? or Can I move to Tokyo National Stadium? Footwiks (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is commonly known in English as National Stadium, the name should be National Stadium (Beijing). If it is commonly known in English as Beijing National Stadium, then this is the correct name for the article, regardless of the official name.
I would recommend starting a requested move discussion, especially if you think this might be controversial. Bradv 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
National Stadium is a general term. There are so many national stadiums in the world. In English speaking Countries, National Stadium possible as English common name. But I think Foreign National Stadiums can't commonly know as just National Stadium in English. If the created title-Beijing National Stadium in Wikepedia. Many press and people use title-Beijing National Stadium then we think that this stadium is commonly known as Beijing National Stadium in English
In my opinion, If the stadium name don't have city or country officially, We use mandatory title stly as National Stadium (XXX), Olympic Stadium (XXX)Footwiks (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
National Stadium, Warsaw, National Stadium, Singapore, Former National Stadium, Singapore, National Stadium (Tokyo)
What is the difference? I think that English wikipedia need stadium title style unification.
National Stadium (XXX) is better. Footwiks (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
By all means, open a requested move discussion for each of those if you like. Consistency is important, but we need to consider these one by one, as the common name may be different. Bradv 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What does that mean? This requested move is improperly filed. In this case, Don't we need request of moving? Footwiks (talk)
It means that you didn't properly follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM when creating the request. Please read the instructions carefully.
I should also add that you might want to provide a more extensive rationale when requesting these moves (and possibly create them one at a time in order to prevent them all from being summarily dismissed). I think you'll find that the consensus will be different at each article, and trying to do things purely for the sake of consistency usually doesn't work. Bradv 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for troubling you. Can I cancel request of moving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 16:27, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the requests that were improperly filed. Thank you. Bradv 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Blue1234m

The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is a heresy inspired by the devil himself claiming that God is three separate persons. It is invariably wrong and wholly contradicts the entirety of the Bible. 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)blueBlue1234m (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw when you wrote that the first time. That's not a helpful contribution to make to the Nicene Creed article. Please stop. Bradv 03:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect

Hi Bradv – just for the sake of clarity, I am okay with your close of the part of the requested move discussion that is found at Talk:Saraiki dialect#Discussion on validity of this move request. You wrote in your closing statement that There is no policy that requires a three-month waiting period.... While the closing instructions found at WP:NOTMOVED are not a part of a policy, they were still created and improved by the community consensus of administrators over several years. Only recently have we non-admins who have been granted the page-mover user right been exposed to this consensus, so we must try to adhere to those rules in the same manner as administrators would do. Thank your for listening.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad. Thank you. In that closing statement I was merely trying to summarize the consensus of the discussion (and reflect the tone at WP:AN), not trying to overrule anyone or cast a supervote. I hope that I'm not seen as trying to unduly influence the discussion, as I have no horse in this race.
By the way, I am entirely sincere when I say that the current discussion doesn't reflect on your closure of the last discussion. I've read that over, and you interpreted consensus correctly in my opinion. There's no need for you to be defensive or insecure about it at all. Bradv 05:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
My Wikipedia philosophy is just to have fun improving Wikipedia, so believe me when I say that my stance is neither defensive nor insecure. It wouldn't matter if Adam himself had closed that previous RM, I would still support the community consensus and page move instructions mentioned above.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 06:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that you want everyone to follow those guidelines, but those guidelines are somewhat poorly written and they should probably change (see above also at User talk:Bradv#Mary Anne MacLeod close). There shouldn't be any time limit for a new move discussion, as that gives power to a closer to prevent the consensus changing in the future. There also shouldn't be three outcomes — there's only moved and not moved. The closer's only responsibility is to summarize and execute the decision arrived at in the discussion - not to make any statements about future changes to the article. That said, if I were closing this discussion, I would carefully consider the comments and the closing statement from the previous discussion. Bradv 06:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting assessment regarding the closing instructions, Bradv. I certainly respect your opinion; however, if you were to bring this up on the talk page of the closing instructions, I would have to closely scrutinize your rationale for such changes before I would go along. Consensus can change – that is a most important, usually unspoken rule on Wikipedia; however, before that happens, we are generally obligated to go along with present community consensus whether or not we agree with it. This is not to say that it is wrong to WP:IAR, just to say that editors should have very, very good reasons if they should decide to break the rules. And by the way, Happy New Year!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 06:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. This will have to be part of a larger conversation. If I do bring it up, I'll be sure to let you know. Bradv 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Bradv!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 07:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Jack Greenberg (lawyer)

   No one deletes material from another editor's talk page, except at the request of that editor.
   I recommend you disqualify yourself from whatever it is you are trying to fix, and i will probably be willing to do it or supervise you.
--Jerzy•t 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's common practice to remove a template if it's been left in error. I'm sorry if that upset you. Bradv 06:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from 2602:306:36D5:5690:38DC:2091:B380:445

I'm explain that Azteca Deportes will be speedy deleted for no content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D5:5690:38DC:2091:B380:445 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a redirect. It points to Azteca (multimedia conglomerate). It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Why, in your own words, do you want this redirect deleted? Bradv 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Move Review

I am thinking about taking your closure here to move review. First, more people support the move. I know it isn't about a vote, but that is still a fact. Second, most of the oppose votes are opposing it for the same rationale as the current title, not that it is worse. With that, the title is more concise.Casprings (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion are you taking to move review, and what is your expected outcome? There are four separate discussions on that page, 3 of which are closed. Bradv 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Here. Casprings (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you're going to accomplish since the title is still under discussion, but go ahead. Bradv 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Can't hurt. Happy wikipedingCasprings (talk)

Move review for 2016 United States election interference by Russia

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Casprings (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviews

Noticed you had marked a few of the pages I had tagged for deletion as reviewed. No issue here--just wondering if they were still showing up in the feed as I reviewed. The shouldn't be since I have the NPR flag and the green circle appeared on the toolbar. Just want to know in case it's an issue for me to look for. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just been tagging what I see when going through Page Curation. Which one in particular? What do the logs show? Bradv 02:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Eric Manu, Unions (band), and the still-on-Wikipedia marvel Headsplitting. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on, but for all three of those I show up as the only reviewer. [1] [2] [3]. Bradv 03:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Your log has lots of reviews in it though, so is it possible you just missed these ones? Bradv 03:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Weird. Whatever, not an issue now, I just wanted to know so in the future I would double check if it's still in the feed. Could be a Twinkle setting problem. No reason to double the work when we have a 14k page backlog. Also, thanks for dealing with the pic on Headsplitting. The creator restored it when contesting my prod and I didn't want to edit war on it, especially since taking to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Subahan81

Hello Mr. Bradv

Thanks for reviewing the page Indian Abacus Private Limited. The page asks for sources that I have but I don't know how to add to the wiki page

Sources:


official source: www.indianabacus.com www.indianabacus.in www.facebook.com/indianabacus

News paper source:

http://www.dinamalar.com/news_detail.asp?id=1593305 http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/tamil/dinamani-epaper-dinamani/roo+7+50+kodiyil+129+minmarrikal+amaippu-newsid-45104363 http://www.vkalathur.in/2015/09/5-13.html


CAN YOU PLEASE ADD THESE TO THE PAGE AS REFERENCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subahan81 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Db-move removal of 2008 Thai political crisis

Hi. I responded to your query at Talk:2008 Thai political crisis. Hope that clears things up. Alternatively, as a page mover, would you consider facilitating the move? Thanks either way. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done now, never mind. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: pinging

I'm 99.999% certain that the CU request doesn't ping the account being reported. There is an option to check for notifying the user, I rarely choose that option and I know I did not in this case. Unless I hear otherwise from an SPI/CU admin, I maintain it's wholly impossible for the WordSeventeen sock to have been pinged without me pinging them. They got to the SPI by following my edits. It's what WS does, part of his modus operandi. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The template was actually just updated so that it uses the {{noping}} template rather than the {{user}} template. I spent some time looking at it last night, and figured it would ping. Sure enough, someone edited it today so it wouldn't. See this diff. Bradv 05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I knew it never had previously. Regardless, that account is another sock of WS - their claims of honesty and innocence are feigned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's a sock, and should not be unblocked. It's just that their claims of being pinged about the spi are plausible. Bradv 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Plausible? I suppose. WS may have been pinged but they are watching the edits of others for nefarious purposes. This has been a hallmark of WordSeventeen in his quest to disrupt. That quest is one of the reasons why he was being monitored by admins prior to blocking, one of the reasons why he was blocked originally before he decided to sock. Such behavior has been a hallmark of all his socks. He hounds editors he sees as enemies and then acts disruptively (all the while feigning innocence and fecklessness) in order to make life hell for those "enemy-editors". His socking is against policy, but so is his intentional hounding and disruption. WS says he just wants to edit (something all his socks have claimed, too), but his actions say differently. Always have. And, even if he does admit he's WS, this history isn't going to go away. He's continued the same behavior he was blocked for. Creating numerous sock accounts since that six-month block only puts more nails in his coffin. Even if unblocking due to divulging what sock account he's created isn't going to get him unblocked now. Policy states he must have not socked for at least six months in order for the WP:STANDARDOFFER to apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And now we have the reason for the CU results of the last WS SPI, the sock account has just given it to us. Now I'm more than positive this is just another WS sock. May it get lost in the wash. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Ruthra Jayabalan

in need if changing draft heading as LOTUS EYE HOSPITAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthra Jayabalan (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from LaFambe

Hi Bradv, I updated the page Hoshiko Yamane with as many [en] references as I could find. I suspect more material exists, possibly in German. Would you consider the page good enough now, and remove the notability|1=Music|date=January 2017 tag ? LaFambe (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)LaFambe

@LaFambe: The page WP:NM lists a number of criteria for inclusion. It's not immediately obvious to me — which one would you say this article meets? Bradv 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bradv: I would say criteria 4, 5 and 6, each at least to some extent, considering references 7, 8 (international tours, prominent instrumentalist) and 3, 4, 8 (composer and instrumentalist for apprently renouned Berlin scene dance projects, in particular Motimaru), plus she is one of the 3 in world famous Tangerine Dream as per ref. 1. Note: I am no fan or under cover promoter :) just discovered her and doing a page as other members have a page of their own ; turns out that digging up the web shows she has a wider spectrum than just Tangerine Dream. LaFambe (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)LaFambe
All right I've removed the tag. Happy editing! Bradv 22:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Llameadrpc

Please tell me what I need to do to the Issabel page to make it as notable or moreso than the Elastix page. If that is not possible, delete the Elastix page. Or explain your bias towards proprietary software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llameadrpc (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no bias towards proprietary software. There is a bias towards content that is supported by third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please find more sources that meet this criteria. Bradv 15:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Llameadrpc

Sorry about the tone of my last message. Proprietary software companies can pay an army of flacks to give glowing writeups in industry magazines and blogs. Makes them "notable". Open-source projects have to count on word-of-mouth and generous gifts of time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llameadrpc (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Gooseneck41 per the James V. Carmichael Notability tag

Hi Bradv, Thanks for checking out the page for James V. Carmichael. From what I understand, someone who is a member of a state legislature is considered to be notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians Carmichael was a member of the Georgia Legislature from 1935 to 1940. Is there another problem with the article? Thank you for your time. User:Gooseneck41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooseneck41 (talk • contribs) 15:20, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

@Gooseneck41: You are right, elected state legislators are notable. I missed that because it's nearly halfway down the page (if that's the prime claim of notability it should probably be readily apparent in the lede.) Regardless of whether or not this person is actually notable, it still needs better sources to verify the claims made in the article. Feel free to remove the tag as you add more sources. Bradv 15:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bradv: Will do. Thanks. Gooseneck41(talk) 22:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Kiranreddy9999

Hi, what is the destiny of the article about Natalia Ghilascu?!! It looks like it has many independent references at this moment. anything else to improve it?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranreddy9999 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup on the references. Now we wait and see what the consensus will be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Ghilascu (2nd nomination). Bradv 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from 109.155.83.19

Thanks for fixing the page mentioned @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_request 109.155.83.19 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you

Gwangju Sangmu

Hi, Can you conclude and close this merge case about Gwangju Sangmu. I seperated to 2 articles Gwangju Sangmu FC and Sangju Sangmu FC. Firstly I want to keep 2 articles. But I changed. One article is better. Please close merge discussion.Footwiks (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Footwiks: I don't know enough about the topic at hand to make an informed decision. Furthermore, the discussion is 3 years old, and it would be inappropriate to act on it at this point. I would suggest opening a new discussion with fresh arguments in order to establish consensus for this merge. Bradv 15:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Michaelberke

I don't believe it to be autobiography because someone took the time to re-edit everything and the story is published as such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelberke (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Michaelberke: It appears the autobiography tag has been removed as the article has been rewritten. Nevertheless, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself per WP:AUTO. If you have improvements you suggest, please bring them up on the talk page. Bradv 15:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary commonly known name

Per this edit, the docs say: "The commonly used name of the player. If this is omitted, it will be inferred from the title of the article." So same result, but different reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I realize it's a marginal case, but you did revert a brand new editor without a solid reason and with a very terse and unhelpful edit summary. It would be helpful if you took the time to explain yourself, especially to brand new users, as attracting new editors to Wikipedia and showing them the ropes is an important thing to do. Bradv 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from DemocraticSocialism

Hello, I'm DemocraticSocialism. Just wanted you to know that I think you're wrong for deleting my edit. The Russian Civil War did NOT end in 1922 with the defeat of Mikhail Diterikhs's government.The Yakut Revolt under A.N Pepepyayev was crushed on June 16, 1923, and Basmachi forces were only defeated in 1934, with unconfirmed reports of bandit raids ending in 1938! In conclusion, you, along with Evan Mawdsley, are wrong in putting the end date as 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Note about the last comment: I misspelled A.N. Pepelyayev as A.N. Pepepyayev. My bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@DemocraticSocialism: I presume you are talking about this edit of mine. I reverted you because you removed a reference, and didn't provide a new one. If you're having trouble correcting errors that you find on Wikipedia, I suggest bringing your concerns to the article talk page, together with sources to back up your positions. I hope that helps. Bradv 20:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

pizzagate

pizzagate has up to now not been credibly debunked, just writing this as Wikipedia is a source of credible information for millions of people, and considering there has been no legal investigation into the matter of pizzagate This article of pizzagate debunked is at the moment misinformation, i would thankyou kindly to alter your info thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.116.193 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been thoroughly debunked, and there are many references at the article which explain that. Conspiracy theories are not welcome here — you're looking for Voat. Bradv 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move and possible abuse of user right

I moved Donald Trump Russia dossier back to the original title before this bold move. There was no consensus for that move, so I moved it back. Your move to the non-consensus (and non-standard) title was unwarranted and not in the spirit of WP:BRD.

More concerning, it looks like you used your page mover rights to win a content dispute, which is forbidden. I request that you move the page back to the original title, otherwise I will be compelled to raise this issue of your abuse of this user right at the appropriate noticeboard. (see WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation).- MrX 17:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There was an active requested move discussion on the talk page of the article, which was specifically to review the previous move. The notice at the top of the article tells you not to move it yourself, but to take part in the discussion, which you had already done. If you need further input from a noticeboard on whether your or my move was appropriate, feel free to bring it up. Bradv 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Brad, although the tone of the above comment is unnecessarily confrontational, and you've certainly acted in good faith in this matter, I do however agree with MrX that you should not have re-instated reversion of a bold page move, especially since the bold move only took place yesterday. This applies even though there is an RM in progress, and it is much better to simply strike the "current title" from the top of the RM and insert the actual long term title, and prevents confusion amongst the RM participants who will otherwise assume that the title is the long term one. I suggest you revert back to the previous title accordingly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's review what happened:
  1. The original title was Donald Trump Russia dossier
  2. Four days later, an editor moved the tile to Donald Trump-Russia dossier without discussion or consensus
  3. A discussion occurred in which the use of an en-dash had virtually no support, including from the person who moved it.
  4. A new and different move request was started. It has nothing to do with the en-dash.
  5. I reverted the page title back to Donald Trump Russia dossier
  6. You reverted the page title back to Donald Trump-Russia dossier, suppressing a redirect with your page mover rights
I have no intention of edit warring over the page title, or anything else, but I am concerned that you used the user right to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. You seem to want to brush that off as OK or somehow justified. According to my reading of WP:Page mover#Page move disputes it is not. It is grounds for having the right revoked.- MrX 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
When you performed the move, you did so during a requested move discussion (which you had voted in), which is not allowed per the template on the page and needed to be reverted. I will concede that perhaps I should have asked an uninvolved administrator to fix this rather than doing it myself. However, moving it again now will only exacerbate the issue. Let's wait for the discussion to conclude. Bradv 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
But you also voted in the discussion, Brad, and your revert was to restore it to your preferred version. I'm not sure why you think the current version should have the advantage of incumbency in the move discussion, rather than the previous longer term version. The correct fix here is to move back to the long term version and edit the move request accordingly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Because when a page is moved during a requested move discussion, it invalidates all of the Oppose votes. This is why we are asked not to move pages until the discussion concludes—it makes it impossible to properly gauge consensus. Bradv 18:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Again Bradv, the requested move was to a title different from Donald Trump Russia dossier or Donald Trump-Russia dossier, so the note in the template is not binding. In other words, whether the title has a en-dash or not has no bearing whatsoever on the move request. The issue here is how you used your user right, and whether you will self-correct or not.- MrX 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the move request. Part 1 of the rationale states 1. The current em-dash title is an unlovely mouthful, whether or not it is clarifying. Moving the article now would invalidate that entire discussion and it would have to start over. Bradv 18:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Page mover user right conduct issue. - MrX 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sippenhaft_and_Donald_Trump

Here's the BLP discussion Nishidani started, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sippenhaft_and_Donald_Trump Sir Joseph (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sippenhaft

Hello
I notice you removed the OR tag I left on this article, with the edit summary "I can no longer find any examples of OR on this page." The original research I was referring to (as I explained here) is the way it conflates the German practice (sippenhaft) with the use of family punishments across the board, and which is still very much there.
As that hasn't been resolved, I am planning to put the tag back, unless you have any objection. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. I thought it was in reference to the Trump thing—didn't realize it was in reference to the other non-German examples as well. I'm in favour of reducing the article to only cover the German concept and German examples. Bradv 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

15:10:57, 20 January 2017 review of submission by Wofsylil


Hi, could you please explain what I did exactly wrong so I know how to edit this in order for it to be approved.

@Wofsylil: First of all, the article is poorly formatted. It should be edited to use proper Wiki markup to make it fit better into the encyclopedia. Secondly, the sources are not clear. They are given all in a row, most of them without links, and the claims in the article are not properly linked to the sources. This makes it difficult for a potential reviewer to verify the claims made in the article and determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Please see Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. Bradv 15:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Bradv. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, look at that! Nine years today. Thanks Lepricavark. Bradv 15:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect

Hi. You recently participated in the Requested move discussion for Saraiki dialect, which has now been closed. The close is under discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect, where you'll be welcome to comment. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A Friendly Caution

Please remember that 1RR is in effect on Milo Yiannopoulos. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten that. I have self-reverted. Bradv 23:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Feel free to take your disagreement to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: It's already there—you closed the discussion. Bradv 00:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless I misreading something this looks different. He is not claiming Milo is Jewish in the recent edit, merely that he is of Jewish decent, which I think is accurate. Whether or not that category needs to exist may be a legitimate subject for discussion, but I do not believe in this case that it is factually inaccurate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: It's the same edit as made twice before during the previous discussion, and it uses the same source as was initially used when adding the "British Jews" category. And your close says "Overwhelming consensus is against identifying Yiannopoulos as Jewish". If you see a significant difference between this edit and the consensus of the discussion you closed then you may want to clear that up. Bradv 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at the editing history and he seems to have dropped the straight claim to being Jewish in favor of the being of Jewish ancestry somewhere towards the end of the long debate. I've left a message on his talk page on this subject. In the meantime this category might be a good candidate for a CfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the category may have some value (there are lots of articles and subcategories in there already), but it should only be applied to articles where the subject's ethnicity is mentioned and sourced within the articles. In my opinion, WP:BLPCAT needs to be stronger here—categories should agree with the text and the references, and subjects like race, gender, and ethnicity should have to agree with how the subject of the article identifies themselves. Bradv 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: DT sexual misconduct allegations talk page notice about socks

Hello Bradv! On this talk page you wrote the following statement/comment/note: "If you have solid evidence of sockpuppetry, open a case. Making baseless accusations here accomplishes nothing." I don't know whom you are talking to here, me or Evergreen Fir, so I thought it would be proper of me to address this statement. First, as I explained on Evergreen's talk page, I never accused anyone of any socking, least of all the original IP, 2600:1:b11b… . It wasn't until later that I threatened the second IP, 66.87…, of socking because he answered for someone else, and brought up socking himself. Second, as for it being baseless, Evergreen brought up the 12 mile number, which seems to be a base. Lastly, just out of curiosity, why did you shut down the conversation so suddenly? I didn't even get a chance to review and fix my horrible spelling. WP:BITE PS Is there an appropriate way to warn someone who has installed a G10 when they ought not to have? And I find it interesting you wrote WP:BITE as the ES, seeing as the only thing 2600.1.B11b… did was vandalism. Thanks for your time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I took "probably some star struck version of user talk:DaddyDonnyTrump" as an accusation of being a sock, as did the IP who replied. Either way, it wasn't in accordance with WP:AGF, and the talk page really should be about the article, not editors. And you'll note that another user tried to PROD the some article shortly after this CSD, which I simply reverted. The conversation on the talk page really wasn't necessary, and wasn't going anywhere, so I closed it. If you feel strongly that you want to keep talking, open a new section. But unless you have a particular objective in mind, and can engage in the conversation without making personal attacks, there's really no point. Bradv 23:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing a deleted page

You sent me a message suggesting that I "edit the page"

Within minutes (seconds?) the page in question was deleted. Is there an easy or appropriate way to edit a deleted page?

I once made useful contributions to Wikipedia. Increasingly it is difficult to do so given the pretentious self-satisfied "custodians" here.Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I hope you don't tell me that you don't remember which page you posted the obnoxious message on a few minutes ago! ... Because you do that to so many pages? That would just confirm my view of your "style."Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that page was deleted, and it was done so quickly as an attack page (I know the warning left on your talk page was a little extreme—feel free to remove it). The page is also redundant with any number of other articles here, such as Monday Night massacre. And by the way, I am not a "pretentious self-satisfied custodian"—I am just like you, trying to improve the encyclopedia. Bradv 04:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Sdwolf264

Apologies, I missed the existing talk section on the editorializing of the S Yates entry, and was attempting to draw attention to it ASAP. Good catch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdwolf264 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sdwolf264: No problem. Stuff like "American hero" really doesn't belong at all—you were right to catch that. I may have misinterpreted the tone of your comment on the talk page as editorializing itself, rather than trying to point out a problem with the article. At any rate, it's gone now, until the next troll comes along. Bradv 04:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Sdwolf264

It's quite alright, I understand why it may have come across as such and it was perhaps a bit too snarky for a current issue, but it was Not intended to be editorializing, I just wanted to assist in reverting current event page vandalism so much I outright forgot my original Wikipedia account credentials and had to rush to recreate my account and notate the vandalism before the internet beat me to it. Alas, I was too slow. Carry on good sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdwolf264 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Quebec City mosque shooting

Are those two accounts the same person? It sure seems like it. Home Lander (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

They're both WP:NOTHERE, anyway. Bradv 17:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Reported the other one, and both are now blocked. Home Lander (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Good call. Cheers. Bradv 17:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your work on Monday Night Massacre. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is RudiLefkowitz. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Bradv,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Weija (now a defunct constituency) is not the same as Weija-Gbawe Constituency

Hi there Bradv, your recent redirect links two locations that are not the same geographical areas. Weija (Ghana Parliament constituency) is not the same as Weija-Gbawe (Ghana Parliament constituency) as your redirect makes it seem. The names create the confusion I know.

I raised the issue on the article's talk page. You can read the penultimate paragraph of this news article.

Weija Constituency is now defunct after being broken down into three constituencies of which Weija-Gbawe Constituency is included. The two are not interchangeable.

sandioosesTextMe 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Swann

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Swann. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Bradv,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Article

Righto, thanks for the message you left on my page, I'm assuming you're also falsely attributing t_d to White supremacy.

I added a part to the "talk" page on new nationalism. Discuss it there and post your facts/sources before making biased and untrue claims.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by SixMillionStrong (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abraham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Message from 24.11.156.240

Hello My name is Peter A Noble. My publication list is available at http://peteranoble.com

There are so many errors in this document that it should be removed. The English is poor and sentence structure is lacking. Moreover, there are several false statements.

1. The term 'thanatotranscriptome' was defined by Alex E. Pozhiktov in a talk he gave at Max-Planck-Institute in 2011 (I have the email that announcement). 2. I was mentoring Javan when she was a junior faculty member at Alabama State University. She was invited to participate in my research group that included Alex Pozhitkov, students and myself. In one telephone and follow-up email conversation, Alex and I discussed the thanatotranscriptome because we collected the data in 2009 but had not published it because it was several million records of data. Two months after that meeting Javan announced that she was going to "patent" the name. Unknown to my team, she did a small gene expression project using cadavers (that followed the exact experiment we conducted at Max-Planck). She was subsequently removed from my research team. 3. Her study could not be published in a real journal because it did not have enough subjects.

4. We published our article on postmortem gene expression in a real journal: Royal Society Open Biology. We did not use the word thanatotranscriptome because Javan stole it from us.

5. The rest of the article is poorly done and needs a lot of work. For example, the laboratory work was conducted at Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Biology. The statistical work was done at University of Washington and Alabama State University.

I suggest removing the article all together.

Peter A Noble, PhD Professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.156.240 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? You have made no other contributions to Wikipedia under this account. Bradv 13:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sheela Murthy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sheela Murthy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Bradv,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 806 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pharmacies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pharmacies. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv/Archive_6&oldid=1044670799"