Jump to content

User talk:Bradv/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

(Zero issues with your edits. I am just hitting everyone on the Jenny McCarthy page that hasn't received a ps ds alert in the last year) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

CMTBard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Alt name?

I assume you didn't create this "Alt" name?" as it's not in the log as tied to your account? I've blocked for now pending confirmation. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 19:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

NJA, that's not me. Good catch. – bradv🍁 19:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abd al-Masih Haddad

If you would like to review Draft:Abd al-Masih Haddad, sources have been added inside. 92.184.102.192 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement - thanks for all your hard work! I'll let another reviewer look at it through the AfC process. – bradv🍁 00:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Block 120.29.73.66

I'm not vandalized because everything in the article is true and i read it and monitor. I watch on tv or full episodes i just based on the tv network whats all important. This user has reverted has not released by the network or full episodes or reliable sources. Barneysss (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of "If They Only Knew"

If They Only Knew (Trip Lee album) was deleted per PROD. I was not aware that it had been tagged with that, or I would have rescued it. Could you un-delete and tag me so that I can rescue the article with some sources?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

3family6,  Done. I've restored the article as-is, but I think it may be best off as a redirect to Trip Lee unless suitable sourcing can be found per WP:NALBUM. Cheers. – bradv🍁 00:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what I can do, it might indeed need to be a redirect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135


Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion issue

Hey Bradv, is it possible you could please temporarily recover my personal sandbox you speedily deleted? That way I can copy stuff over to somewhere else. I get that my sandbox was in violation of U5, and I apologize for that, but I’ve spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours maintaining it, and I do not appreciate that you deleted it without giving me any sort of heads up or warning. I have maintained it since 2014, and it seems odd that you just now decided it was causing a problem and should be deleted. I have some stuff backed up, but I was not expecting it to be randomly deleted, so I didn’t bother backing everything up. I can definitely store that stuff elsewhere in the future, but I feel like it would be nicer if you could give people a few days notice before deleting their stuff. I had not even heard of U5 before you mentioned it, and I would imagine that most Wikipedians are not familiar with all the intricacies of Wikipedia rules. Also, I don't get the hoax accusation, as I'm pretty sure I made it clear that all the fake weatherboxes were fictional (but I do get that you don't want me to use my sandbox as a sort of web host). So if you could please temporarily reactivate my sandbox so I can copy the data to a different site, that would be much appreciated. I’m sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thanks for reading. Sfoske70 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sfoske70, I've emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 20:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much!Sfoske70 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Baba Wethu

For the same reason as Sfoske70 above me I'd appreciate it if you could email me the contents of my sandbox. I didn't realize that I was breaking any rules, but now that I know, I'd be very thankful to be able to save my sandbox that I'd invested so much time into, so that I could instead store it somewhere else that isn't on or affecting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Wethu (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Baba Wethu, sure. Can you please associate an email address with your account? You can do that by clicking Preferences at the top of your screen, and selecting "Allow other users to email me". Once you've done that let me know and I'll email you the deleted contents. – bradv🍁 00:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done what you asked.

Thank you Baba Wethu (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Baba Wethu, I've emailed you the contents of the latest revision of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 01:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Dmehus

Hi again, Bradv,

I was attempting to revert the iHeartRadio Canada page name to its pre-May 2019 page name of Bell Media Radio prior to a WP:BRD move made by ViperSnake151 which, while encouraged, I reverted in early August 2019. I guess I misunderstood a portion of Wikipedia:Page_mover as I thought either all auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed users, of which I see that I am, had page mover privileges and/or by moving it to the Draft namespace, redirects weren't left. Thus, if you navigate to Draft:Move/Bell Media Radio, you'll see my draft. You can see I understand the process, but my misunderstanding was in terms of what is required not to leave a redirect in place. Nonetheless, I've issued an RfC to gather community feedback on whether to change the page name as ViperSnake151 has attempted to do.

I don't have an issue with ViperSnake151 making bold moves, but when they're in dispute, he should not be undoing page moves a second time, no?

And secondly, can you kindly complete my round-robin page swap that I'm not permissioned to do?

Cheers,
Doug Mehus (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, it looks your move was already reverted, but I did manage to clean up the double redirect. I recommend opening a WP:RM on this topic so that others have an opportunity to weigh in, as this is going to be contentious. Please see the instructions at WP:RM#CM. – bradv🍁 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Bradv, for the quick reply. Yeah, I saw you fixed the double redirects. Thanks. I still see Draft:Bell Media Radio and Draft:Move/Bell Media Radio, though. Any way you can speedily delete those redirect pages I created in error (due to lacking permissions)? Also, I can open an WP:RM as well, and thought about doing that but wasn't sure if I had to wait for the RfC to conclude, except I wanted to revert the name as BarrelProof did to one of my edits when I had moved Canadian Tire Financial Services to Canadian Tire Services boldly prior to initiating an WP:RM. Any way you can kindly revert it to Bell Media Radio (that's what it was before ViperSnake151 initiated his first bold edit) before I initiate an WP:RM? Doug Mehus (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, he moved it in May though. While it was undiscussed, it also was not recent enough to justify overturning, and it certainly can wait another week for an RM to run its course. – bradv🍁 02:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, aww, drats. He must have page mover privileges to be able to have reverted my page move without leaving a redirect, correct? Is there a parallel process I should be moving with the administrators vis-a-vis potential abuse of such privileges by reverting my early August 2019 reversion (in dispute) of his May 2019 bold move?
Separately, what's the best process for me to delete those draft redirects I created in error? Doug Mehus (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, I've deleted the leftover redirects. Next time something like this comes up, you can make a request at WP:RM#TR for help from an admin or page mover. – bradv🍁 02:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, thanks for doing that, and for clarifying this is an example of when to use the uncontroversial technical requests. Doug Mehus (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Skytrax needs a template fix

Hi Bradv. At the head of the Skytrax page, the {{Disputed}} template isn't closed correctly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Skytrax

There is no content dispute. There is persistent removal of sourced content by a single-purpose account and its sockpuppets. FPP is way OTT. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Especially now that the vandal/sockpuppeteer has been blocked. The page should at least be returned to the unvandalised version. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Lard Almighty, point taken. I didn't realize they were sockpuppets, as they were blocked just after I applied protection. I saw multiple users trying to delete poorly sourced criticism from the lead, and experienced users reverting without explanation or discussion on the talk page. Now that I've checked more of the sources on the page, it looks more like an attempt at corporate whitewashing. I'll release the protection. – bradv🍁 14:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv. This happens from time to time on this article. I agree that there are issues about the criticism, but questions have been raised about Skytrax' methodology and practices and that should be reflected in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Dmehus

Hi Brad,

I just noticed that, surprisingly, there was no pending move or merger proposal on National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency especially since the combined agency Canadian Environmental Regulator came into force, so consistent with Wikipedia:Merging, I proposed to move the latter into the former, with the resulting page renamed Canadian Environmental Regulator. It seems like I did that the correct way, but I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile for you to move protect those three pages, or at least the proposed as yet non-existent page to prevent inadvertent moving in advance of consensus? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, you may want to consider using the preview button before saving your edits. ;) It looks like you've done the merger proposal correctly from what I can see. But we don't protect pages preemptively, so unless there's actual disruption or move-warring there's no need for administrator action. – bradv🍁 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, thanks for clarifying that. I'll watch the pages for now and try testing out the Preview function (couldn't get it to work before). Doug Mehus (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, looks I jumped the gun, so I closed the merger discussion and initiated the first page move but didn't realize I was in Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency instead of National Energy Board. Can you rollback the change? I won't make any further edits till I hear back and then I can move Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Impact Assessment Agency (Canada) (would that be consistent with the naming conventions, since it's likely that name will be used by other jurisdictions?) and National Energy Board to Canadian Energy Regulator? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, I have reverted the move. I would recommend using the RM process for these. We base our article titles on WP:COMMONNAME rather than WP:OFFICIALNAME, so just because something has changed names doesn't mean that's what Wikipedia will use. There's plenty of time for discussion. – bradv🍁 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, thanks a lot. I was trying to be proactive, but realized there's going to be a lot to update when you consider the new regulator is now based in Calgary, Alberta. Then, I'm wondering, maybe the existing articles are worthy of keeping and coding as defunct, with successor agency links? Better to propose a move discussion, which I'll do. Plus, it lets me off the hook on doing the move. ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, okay, got that all fixed up, so the community can discuss what they want to do (i.e., create new article, or rename, in the case of the National Energy Board, and decide on what name to use in the case of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I noticed the #redirect page for my inadvertently created Canadian Energy Regulator still exists, though. Would you mind speedily deleting that for me, so that when the community decides to make the move or create a new page, it's available? I doubt anyone besides yourself and me has visited that redirect page. ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, I wouldn't delete the leftover page, I would turn it into a redirect. It's a plausible search term. – bradv🍁 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, True, but then the link is blue, which may discourage or scare people away from using that name. It was my bad for not checking the URL of the page I was on when I initially made that premature page move. If I hadn't done that, it wouldn't have existed. Would certainly appreciate re-consideration to deleting it. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion of Sandbox

Likewise Baba Wethu and Sfoske70 not far-preceding me, may I receive the contents of my deleted sandbox via email? I have spent myriads of hours on that particular page, and cannot lose it so lightly. However, I shall not re-establish the aforementioned content on Wikipedia; I merely wish for it to remain within my personal grasp, nothing more. — Jovial regards

Please send the content to this particular email address: (Redacted) Frey Locksley (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Frey Locksley, please associate an email address with your account rather than posting it here. You can do that by clicking Preferences at the top of your screen, and selecting "Allow other users to email me". Once you've done that let me know and email you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Frey Locksley, I've emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi Bradv,

Could you please email me the contents of my recently deleted page (Candle421)? I've had that since 2011 or 2012 and spent much time creating the contents of it and wasn't expecting a deletion without warning.

Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candle421 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Candle421, done. – bradv🍁 02:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Why every edit i made in Wikipedia since becoming active again has been reverted? (Akmaie Ajam)

Hello, Bradv. Why you revert my edits? All my edits have been reverted by various users. Why? Why Bradv? (Forwarded to every user that reverted my edits since becoming active again) Please help me on editing so my edits don't get reverted.

This is Akmaie Ajam. Please answer this. Thanks. Akmaie Ajam (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Akmaie Ajam, you made one edit to an article in the last 2 months, where you tried to change Indian Ocean to use American spelling. This was explained in the subsequent edit summary. What else do you need help with? – bradv🍁 15:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I need help with editing so i can edit pages without getting the edits reverted. Akmaie Ajam (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

So sorry I missed your RfA! Glad you got bullied into finally joined the team, a very welcome addition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, thanks! Always good to see you on my talk page. – bradv🍁 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE appeal by Icewhiz

Hello, Icewhiz has appealed your WP:AE decision. I helped them copy the request. This is to notify you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions on Iran-Israel conflict

Hi Bradv, i'm assuming you are acting in good faith but less familiar with the Middle East modern history - please note that Iranian-Israeli conflict is different than Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact Israel is in alliance with major Arab League nations against Iran. The Iran-Israel proxy conflict articles may be tagged under Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions (if related with Iran-Israel standoff during Syrian conflict) or as WP:GS/78IRP (non-Syrian locations of standoff between Israel and Iran - such as in Lebanon and Iraq). Iran is not an Arab country, though does have several proxy Shia militias which act against Arab powers in the Gulf and against Israel and this has been specifically excluded from Arab-Israeli conflict topic in 2013 and several times since. This is relevant to 2019 Beirut drone attack and 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq.GreyShark (dibra) 14:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Greyshark09, I'm aware that Iran is not considered one of the Arab countries. But Lebanon and Iraq are both members of the Arab League, and therefore these articles are clearly covered under this DS topic area. – bradv🍁 17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The incidents in Lebanon and Iraq didn't include neither Lebanese nor Iraqi Army, but Iranian proxy militias. It had no confirmation from Israel either; in Lebanese case the blame was for "Israeli agents in Lebanon", who would be... Arab...GreyShark (dibra) 18:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Greyshark09, Lebanon is a Arab country and Hezbollah is Arab Shiite terrorist organisation hence its clearly part of the conflict Shrike (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Just putting it here Bahrain unsurprisingly supports Israeli aggression. Things changed. The Arab-Israeli conflict is long over. Arab League main Sunni members went into Alliance with Israel against Iran. Hezbollah doesn't represent the Arab League, it is abbreviated terrorist by Arab League leaders [1]. GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear to me that an article about an attack allegedly perpetrated by Israel, in an Arab country, falls within "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions". – bradv🍁 19:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of sandbox

Hello Bradv,

I have recently become aware that the contents of my Wikipedia sandbox were speedily deleted, along with many others. I was sadly not familiar with the portion of the rules that I was violating, and I have logged a lot of useful data in my sandbox that I would like to get back. Is there any chance that the contents of my sandbox could be emailed back to me? It would be greatly appreciated. I will not put the contents of the sandbox back up on Wikipedia, but simply use them for myself. Thanks for reading. Omegaraptor (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Omegaraptor, I have emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

VM IBAN Violation

Hi, you seem to have missed it in the AE talk section of Francois, but VM also violated the IBAN, and more recently and from a more recent edit, not from a year ago. He reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([2][3][4] → [5]) since you blocked Icewhiz for something he supposedly did from an edit from a years past, I thought you would want to know about a more blatant IBAN violation. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I think an AE request for that would be in order. – bradv🍁 20:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Or you can just block him as you did Icewhiz. I don't like filing AE requests since admins take things out on me and if it's so egregious as per discretionary sanctions, you don't need an AE action, you can just block without it. DS does not requite an AE. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, you stated in the current AE request: "I do find it troubling that Bradv just swooped it and blocked, especially in this area". Which is it? I take feedback such as this seriously, and I'd like to see how the discussion plays out first. – bradv🍁 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, I do find it troubling. So if you're not going to block because you're taking feedback seriously, then perhaps you should open the AE request. I won't do so because it would come off poorly, especially since VM opened an AE request against me for a stupid reason awhile back. I think that would be fair. You see a violation in his edits, but you don't want to swoop in and block, so you'll bring it to other admins to get more input. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, do you really think I want more of this? I got called pathetic, and told to get a fucking life. No thanks. This is why the topic area doesn't get enough attention from administrators. – bradv🍁 21:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, that's why you're an admin and I'm not. You don't have to block VM then, you can file an AE action and let others deal with it. But right now, the only two times I've seen you at AE, were bringing me and blocking Icewhiz. Becoming an admin comes with challenges and dealing with people calling you names is one of them and dealing with challenges is one of those things and I have faith you can overcome this challenge and do the right thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I My block got called pathetic. ∯WBGconverse 15:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol this is funny and sad

Go check it out and do actual research on who Walter Russell was and who he influenced not only politically but scientifically, someones butt hurt lol WikipediansSweep (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Congrats! Lotje (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lotje, thanks! – bradv🍁 03:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Was

this requested by the arbitrators? ∯WBGconverse 15:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, is there a problem with it? – bradv🍁 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
How on Earth, is that an answer to my query? ∯WBGconverse 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there's a problem with posting messages like that. Was it your own folly or were you ordered to post it. Whoever's idea this was, they should be proud of their work and claim it. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, yes, I wrote it. What's the problem? – bradv🍁 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It is perhaps a bit undiplomatic. In the present circumstances where people are really upset about a perceived abuse of power, threatening them with arbitrary sanction if they speak out too much doesn't look good. Maybe you could edit the message to emphasize the need to be patient, civil and kind. If people don't get it then they can be given personal warnings. I'm not a fan of "cooling off" blocks. If somebody is upset it's better to ask why and listen than to block them and say they can come out of the naughty corner after they cool down. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, it's not about suppressing dissent, it's about enforcing our civility and anti-harassment policies. It is within the clerks' remit to maintain order on arbitration pages, and this notice is in line with what we already post on arbitration case pages. I'm glad people have noticed what I added, and I hope it has the desired effect. – bradv🍁 03:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not going to cause a problem for me. I can be irritating in the extreme, but thankfully that's not sanctionable. Thank you for answering so nicely. I really appreciate it. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Depends what your desired effect was. In my case, it has made me even more concerned that the current ArbCom is an incompetent kangaroo court with Stalinist tendencies. And the clerks are not much better - the original removal of my comment was (it turns out) a clerk action but the clerk didn't actually say so, their user pages doesn't mention them being a clerk etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I'm fully aware that there exists a small group of vocal editors who are convinced that ArbCom can't do anything right and this group of arbitrators is The Worst, and there is no end to the hyperbole they are willing to use to make that point. They're entitled to their opinion, but WT:ACN needs to be a place where the committee's announcements can be discussed productively and in compliance with our civility and anti-harassment policies. That is the desired effect of the talk page notice. – bradv🍁 13:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
So why was Sandstein allowed to gravedance at ACN? It is that to which I was responding in the thread and L235 has acknowledged on their talk page that Sandstein's comment was in poor taste. It is clear from what I said on Cthomas's talk page, when I first reverted their (Cthomas's) removal, that I was unaware of Cthomas even being an ArbCom clerk, let alone doing what they did as a clerk action. - I did look at the edit summary and their user page beforehand but could see nothing. The whole thing is nonsensical and it is these sort of confusing signals from the committee and the clerks that are causing a lot of the angst. Just like they screwed up the 2FA announcment. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I apologize for the angst caused on my part. I did not mark it as a clerk action and should have, and other than checking the actual clerk page there would be no way for you to know that. In the future I will be clearly identifying any clerk actions as well as identifying myself as such on my user page. Apologies again. CThomas3 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not noticed the message before. Now that I see it, I believe it could end right after "hostile", and should be signed. When people come grieving, the last thing they'd need is the threat of sanctions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Howdy hello Bradv! I see that you have been around WP:3O from time to time, and I have much respect for your opinion, and thus would like to ask for some advice. I recently responded to a third opinion request on Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion. From what I could see, the debate concerned WP:PSCI, and made some exceptional claims which weren't well backed up. One of the two editors in the original debate (User:WikipediansSweep) then responded by wall of texting me, and being pretty obstinate. So that's my question: how do I respond? Should I respond and keep trying to mediate the debate? Or have I said my piece and should simply leave? I don't want to waste my time arguing with a brick wall, but also don't want to abandon the discussion. Any advice would be much appreciated. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello fren, read the reply which dismantles your apt judgements and do full research rather than start with a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep, your hostility toward people who are trying to help improve the article is unappreciated. Please stop the battleground mentality, and comment on content, not contributors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, which you have yet to provide. – bradv🍁 04:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You never read his first response which spurred all of this. Maybe you should tell him to investigate rather than have a preordained conclusion at the ready to sling with no foresight. Also the degradation in using terms like kook or quack so liberally and carelessly, calling for major overhauls on a page with sources calling this man the "modern Leonardo". If "edits ho!" is not a form of naive ignorance rampaging on a false campaign of their beliefs or battleground mentality then I am sad to logically conclude a double standard is being applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Bradv,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For the Beauty of the Earth (BarlowGirl cover)

Hi. I saw the edit you did that removed BarlowGirl information from the hymn article. The song was featured in an "inspired by" album for The Nativity Story. It was also used for A Very Special Christmas: Bringing Peace on Earth (a fundraiser for the Special Olympics) and charted in the top 20 on Christian AC radio. For all of these reasons, I believe it is a notable cover. Why did you remove the information, and what do you believe is necessary to restore the information? Thank you for your time. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It looked to me like an article on a non-notable subject shoehorned into an article where it doesn't belong. Why is this particular cover more notable than all the other times people have sung this song? How does this information help the reader's understanding of the subject of the article? Also, it would be best if we were to discuss this at Talk:For the Beauty of the Earth where others can weigh in – feel free to start a section there and ping me. – bradv🍁 14:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Protect page

Please protect 2019 Hong Kong protests, it has been attacked relentlessly by pro-Chinese bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.240.143 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


ARBPIA notice on Israeli–Lebanese conflict

You recently closed my 1RR report regarding Israeli–Lebanese conflict claiming "no violation", because the page was supposedly not tagged with the template indicating it is subject to such a restriction. That is incorrect, as you can verify for your self here Here come the Suns (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, I applied that edit notice 20 minutes ago. – bradv🍁 21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you applied it to the talk page of the article The article itself carries a notice of the restriction. Click the link I provided, above. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, come on. You'd think I'd remember. I literally created that page a few minutes ago. – bradv🍁 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Which page ddi you literally create a few minutes ago? The talk page for that article exists since 2006. You tagged the talk page a few minutes ago, yes, but you did not edit the article page. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Here come the Suns, I linked it above, and at WP:ANEW. But since you still don't believe me, here's the page creation log. – bradv🍁 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boris Johnson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Thank you for fully protecting Nicki Minaj for now. Is there a way to make sure semi-protection automatically returns when it’s over? Otherwise the disruption and vandalism will get exponentially worse if the page is completely unprotected automatically (I saw it first hand with Drake, that’s why I’m taking caution). Trillfendi (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, there's no way to do this automatically. We'll have to just keep an eye on it when the protection expires. – bradv🍁 12:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ghyuw5 back at it again

User:Ghyuw5 is again spamming talk pages. I noticed that you were the admin that previously blocked him so I figured I would let you know. Thanks and have a wonderful day. Casseb (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Casseb, thanks for letting me know. – bradv🍁 02:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Message removed

Hello Bradv, I just got a message that you removed a message from my talk page ("rv disruption"). I'm just curious as to why. Thanks. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Al Leluia81, see Special:Contributions/Ghyuw5. – bradv🍁 02:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Okay - thank you. Al Leluia81 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed

Hi Brad. Sorry for the trouble, but I'm not sure if you noticed this report at AIV about me by AlbusTheWhite, copying and pasting, (including non-working links for the article of Greece), the same comments I had made at 3RRN about him five minutes earlier. Not sure, if this is CIR, BATTLE, or all of the above, but this doesn't look good, at least to me. By the way, over the past year and a half, many of this account's edits concern edit-warring the dumping of large-scale image changes in articles. Dr. K. 22:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K., I did see that retaliatory filing, but it looks like it's been removed from the page now. I'm really hoping that their willingness to work with other editors will improve after this block expires. – bradv🍁 23:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I actually saw the report at AIV yesterday, but I didn't check it because I assumed it was a regular report. Only when I double-checked it today I saw what transpired. Good work, however. I think you caught the report earlier than I did. Dr. K. 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Hey Bradv, hope all is well. Would it be possible to re-instate the indef semi-protection on Nicki Minaj? Looks like it was protected indefinitely due to BLP violations before your full protection. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

LuK3, done. – bradv🍁 22:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Truth hurts...

...doesn't it. CassiantoTalk 16:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto, if it's worth saying it's worth saying nicely. But regardless, clerk actions may be appealed to Arbcom, but they may not be reverted. – bradv🍁 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, sometimes the truth hurts. Allow ArbCom to go and suckle on their comfort blankets in their safe spaces if you wish, but do not suppress people's views as it comes across as rather dictatorial. But then this current useless committee are just that. CassiantoTalk 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, so here's a good example. Surely you could find a polite way of criticizing the committee's decisions. – bradv🍁 17:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No, as they'll be some snowflake who'll take offence to it. Sometimes, a spade needs to be called a spade. CassiantoTalk 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, By "snowflake", do you mean people who care about our civility policy? – bradv🍁 17:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Not all, just those who melt when the truth is told, and then cite your guideline to justify their view that the truth was "uncivil". I'm sure you know the kind. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, not at all. I know there are a number of people who push the limits of incivility at every opportunity, including insulting those who stand up for other people. I try very hard not to be one of those people, and I will stand up to them every chance I get. My mother taught me that if I didn't have anything nice to say I shouldn't say anything at all, and I think the reverse is also true - if something does need to be said, it must be said kindly. – bradv🍁 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Would calling a 30 stone person "fat" be uncivil? CassiantoTalk 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, does it need to be said? If so, you could say it nicely. Are you seriously struggling with this concept, or are you just trolling me? – bradv🍁 17:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely there's a nice way of calling me a troll? Maybe I'm discussing some truths with you (that you don't like)? CassiantoTalk 17:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, regarding an appeal. Where is that best done and in what format? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Carcharoth, Typically by emailing arbcom. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. SQLQuery me! 17:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to have this discussed on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Our esteemed clerk rambled about what all her mother said but is yet to clarify, as to how clerk-actions might be challenged in an on-wiki format. ∯WBGconverse 18:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, That was my bad. I'm new at clerking, and didn't think about opening a thread at the clerks noticeboard as an on-wiki option. I apologize for that oversight - the only appeal avenue I've seen thusfar was via email. SQLQuery me! 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth, appealing a clerk action may be done by email to ArbCom, or you may request an opinion from other clerks at the clerks noticeboard. – bradv🍁 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have raised a new section at the clerks' noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
For your great contribution to civility on Wikipedia, which was much improved by your actions. Jehochman Talk 02:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
lol CassiantoTalk 12:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your actions

Your actions with regards to the Fram affair—whether you're deleting people's perfectly fair comments or censoring the name of Laura Hale—have only served to inflame the situation.—Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you warning me that people are going to be even more uncivil and that they're going to blame me? If so, thanks for the heads-up. – bradv🍁 02:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Weird how incivility seems to be certain people's only concern around here. Personally, I think we should be focusing more on abuse of power. But yes, by your rather eccentric definition of "uncivil", there probably is going to be more of it.—Chowbok ☠ 12:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Exposing the abuse of power is a good thing. Please do it civilly to be most effective. The clerks have a hard job and they do it methodically without regard to ideology. This is proper. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Four reverts in four hours wasn't proper, it was an explicit violation of our Edit Warring Policy (WP:3RR)- [6], [7], [8], [9]. Thankfully you stopped after your fourth revert, only one revert too late ("just following orders" "acting as a clerk" is not one of the seven allowed exceptions to 3RR.)--Noren (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Super Audio CD Dispute

Can you please either weigh in with a third opinion on the dispute at the Super Audio CD page and/or extend the edit lock for another week until we can get more comments on it? Thanks. Dharmabumstead (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Assange page

Hi Brad, is this Julian Assange page the subject of any type of discretionary sanctions, such as 1RR? Seems a lot of edit warring going on today by Jack. Please ping me in your response, since I dont follow you talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140


Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lodhi Rajput (Lodh-Lodha Kshatriya)

Hi, please can you explain the move to Draft:Lodhi Rajput (Lodh-Lodha Kshatriya). It is an out-and-out POV fork, as the CSD tag said. That was supported by two people experienced in the subject matter, by the indefinite protection placed by RegentsPark (another contributor experienced in matters India) on the main article, by the prior history of that main article and the almost-certain socking. Draftifying makes no sense to me and I don't think it is the usual procedure. A read of the notes at User:Sitush/CasteSources and the Sanskritisation article might assist but I can pretty much guarantee that if you took this discussion to WT:INB the consensus would be to delete. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, the article was tagged as a WP:G6 and WP:A10, but it doesn't qualify as either, and being a POV fork is not one of the valid speedy deletion criteria. If it is as you say, it should probably go to AfD, but I figured we could give the creator a chance in draftspace before going that route. Does that make sense? – bradv🍁 02:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
!! It does duplicate an existing topic (A10). The fact that it says something very different about that topic is irrelevant. That is how POV forks have been treated as long as I have been editing here, with the only other option being a redirect (which would be implausible in this circumstance because the very title is a nonsense). - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, did you check the talk page? - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I did see the talk page, but there's no compelling case there that this qualifies as a speedy deletion. I have never seen A10 used to delete a POV fork. Either way, it definitely wasn't a G6 and should not have been tagged as such. – bradv🍁 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
So because someone mistagged as G6, you think you can ignore A10? Ridiculous, sorry, and you're just wasting everyone's time. I'm AfDing it (if that is possible with a draft): it's a pov-forked essay based on synthesis of primary sources that has no connection to verifiable reality. - Sitush (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, no, I'm saying it didn't qualify as either, at least from my understanding of the speedy deletion criteria. You're more than welcome to get another perspective. – bradv🍁 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lodhi Rajput (Lodh-Lodha Kshatriya) - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Message from 7sintern1

Brent Cowles (Musical Artist)

Hey brad! I noticed that you flagged and deleted the wikipedia page that I was working on for Brent Cowles. Would i be able to retrieve this material and continue working on the page for improvement? Had to leave off at an awkward spot the other day, and i understand the reasons why you might have flagged it. However, I think it was taken down a little prematurely. I am a new editor and would love more time to work on it before submitting it for review.

Thank you, talk soon, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7sintern1 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kate Dover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kate Dover. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User script

Hi Bradv,

I have a problem with your user script User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks. It doesn't show the flowchart button on the links. Can you fix that please? I'm using Firefox and Windows 10.

Thank you,

Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity, the developers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to change the capitalization of one of the config variables. Please let me know if it works for you now. – bradv🍁 17:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, Thanks for your help. It works. Interstellarity (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DS alert template

Hey, in this edit you made the DS template produce a list of DS topics, which is good, but I've just noticed it looks...incomplete compared to what's contained in the template. The September 11 attacks are listed in the template code, for example, but aren't showing up in the list. E-cigs is another one that is in the code but not on the list (and I can't see that either is rescinded). I don't want to go mucking about in there trying to fix it; could you have a look at it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, it looks like the list of topics for display is out of sync with the actual template code. I can work on cleaning this up in the next day or two. – bradv🍁 05:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, no rush or anything, I just don't know how to fix it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Premeditated Chaos, oh I didn't do anything fancy. I just made the template transclude itself so you can see what it would display without having to set up a sandbox. The displayed list of topics is maintained separately from the actual list of parameters in the code. But yes, I can go through the active DS areas and make sure that both lists are up to date and in sync with each other. – bradv🍁 05:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That's awesome, thank you for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! Just seen your anti-vandalism activities (recent changes). Given that I am not familiar with the procedures here, would you mind having a look here? Most of them are live edits as of now. Thank you in advance, UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

UnaToFiAN-1, those edits are a few weeks old. I wouldn't block as the disruption is not ongoing, and chances are that IP is no longer being used by the same person. Vandalism in progress should be reported to AIV. – bradv🍁 05:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your advice. AIV is the place to go for such cases then. For the time being I am simply going to remove these edits. Cheers -- UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Message about Fictional Climates

Why are you deleting sandboxes and userpages, or even removing the tables of talkpages that have climate data? Its been since the awful day of August 27, And also, Why are you continuing to delete those climate data tables, They make you creative. MVN1717 (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything of yours, so I'm not sure why you're asking. But Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for content unrelated to writing an encyclopedia. – bradv🍁 15:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Im just wondering. But i know Wikipedia is not a web host, But these fictional climate stuff are allowed on a different website such as Excel, Google Sheets, a different wiki with the wikibox . MVN1717 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
MVN1717, sure, there are plenty of websites that do allow information like this. You could even go to https://miraheze.org/ and set up your own wiki specifically for storing fictional climate data. – bradv🍁 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you! MVN1717 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 9

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (August and September, 2019).

User: Prospectorminerals/sandbox deletetion

I was wondering why User: Prospectorminerals/sandbox page was deleted. It was clearly not with "malicious" intentions nor a "hoax", but rather experimentation. Prospectorminerals (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Prospectorminerals, the information in that sandbox was fictional and provided no benefit to the encyclopedia. I'd be happy to email it to you if you like, provided you find another website to host it. – bradv🍁 05:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to experiment in their user Sandbox to gain experience in editing templates. It does benefit the encyclopedia because I can use my experience gained from editing sandbox towards real climate graphs on articles. Also, it is unlikely that visitors would mistake this for legitimate information. Prospectorminerals (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Can you please intervene here? The same behavior is ongoing in spite of an open RfC that was called for this exact issue. The other editor in question refuses to engage via the community discussion or abide by WP:BRD, so I'm at a loss here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Koavf, I presume you're talking about Talk:Wanted For Life? You mention an RfC about these talk page redirects - where is it? – bradv🍁 20:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walking_Along_The_River&action=history. The conversation that was posted as an RfC grew from the 3RR discussion that Rich himself wanted me to start a few weeks ago, you can see it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#RfC_about_tagging_redirects. I've solicited his feedback multiple times and he has yet to give it. I've asked him to refrain from editing like this until the RfC is closed but he also refuses. See my talk page archives for more background. I don't see a lot of value in edit-warring and I'd like for the RfC to close with some clear consensus before this goes on any further but I'm really stuck here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, I am of the opinion that talk pages of redirects serve no use, and should be redirected to the talk page of the target. I'm not sure what the point is of these tags, and I really don't understand why people are edit warring about them. I may weigh in on the RfC, but I think we may need something broader - this isn't just about WikiProjects. – bradv🍁 20:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, That's fine--if others don't see value in my edits or don't agree with my preferences, that doesn't hurt my feelings. The problem is just the edit-warring and the frankly abusive language, if you see my talk archive. This is not an appropriate way to act and nothing constructive is coming from this, so something needs to happen (other than a war of attrition). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, so since I've never come across this before, let me ask you: What is the encyclopedic purpose of these tagged redirects? Was there a discussion somewhere that led to people doing this? – bradv🍁 20:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, I personally find it useful for knowing what the contents of the encyclopedia are. I don't know of any imperative to tag redirects, just that hundreds of thousands of them are (Category:Redirect-Class articles). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, I think that category should have precisely zero pages in it. It already has zero articles in it. It's pointless. – bradv🍁 04:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, That category is empty, of course but its subcategories have hundreds of thousands of things tagged. If you think those shouldn't be tagged, that's a fine thing to bring to comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, yes, they're also pointless. – bradv🍁 04:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, Sounds like you have a valuable perspective to give at the RfC. If the community at large decides to stop tagging redirects, then I will too. Otherwise, it's the wild west and some weird battle of wills to remove talk page tags and blank them is not accomplishing anything positive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Koavf, FYI, adding |class=redirect gets undone by EnterpriseyBot Task 10. Here's the bot request from 2017. – Levivich 02:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Brad, as this whole discussion is about me I thought I should poke my nose in. I am only going to show one edit, after you closed the edit warring report by Koavf with your advice of This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation. I then followed your advice and redirected to a relevant page, Koafv immediately readded the project tags, this proves he wasn't prepared to listen to you, he doesn't listen or discuss with me (and this has been going on for several years over various subjects) and thinks he is above WP. If you can be bothered, I have re-opened the discussion at Koavf's user page, his response is telling.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Message from Toandanel49

I am working to improve the article on Dr. Rafael Rebolo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Rebolo_L%C3%B3pez ) I am bilingual English/Spanish so I plan to add the same references in Spanish Wikipedia. Can you take a look at it? Toandael49 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Message from JayasuryaTech

Can you please create the article for Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayasuryaTech (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am being harassed

Please see User_talk:Koavf#Talk:7″_single. Can you intervene here? I do not deserve this abuse and have told him repeatedly to stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You're not being harassed. You're being told that your habit of adding WikiProject tags to redirects does not have consensus. – bradv🍁 13:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv/Archive_14&oldid=1048403524"