Jump to content

User talk:Bradv

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PluniaZ (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 10 December 2019 (→James Martin edit warring (again): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Messages
  • Please help keep discussions together.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
  • If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
  • If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.
Click here to begin a new topic
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • View or search the archives for old messages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Links
Need Help?
Policies and Guidelines
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories


WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award

The Red Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to Bradv for creating the article Blanket exercise and promoting it through DYK during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree

Hi Bradv,

Can you clarify how the soft redirects for Wiktionary and other Wikimedia properties work then? Sure, the term I created a soft redirect for didn't exist exactly, but had the term been modified first at Wiktionary, then it G8 would not have applied and we would've had to go through AfD to determine if the redirect was useful? Technically, should've gone through RfD, not AfD, I think.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 20:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, please explain how creating cunt hair as a redirect to nothing at all benefits the reader. – bradv🍁 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, It's a humourous term to refer to a very fine unit of measurement. I would like to be able to wikilink CH where appropriate (i.e., "to split CHs" over minute details) in deletion discussions. I guess I'll have to go ahead and just use CH as a piped link to Wiktionary? Doug Mehus T·C 20:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, Perhaps a better idea might be to add to an encyclopedic article, possibly a list, sourced by reputable sources of construction industry lingo (similar to the one on military lingo). Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, sorry, this is not Urban Dictionary. I don't think we need this at all. – bradv🍁 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, So, you're saying you're surprised it made it into Wiktionary? Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, If yes, I was as well. I hadn't thought of Wiktionary as an Urban Dictionary alternative. I don't even know what the requirements are for inclusion (i.e., sourcing) in Wiktionary. Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I don't edit Wiktionary, and have no thoughts as to what's appropriate for that website. But I'm positive that redirects to non-existent targets are grounds for speedy deletion here. I'm also positive that an article about cunt hair as a unit of measurement is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. – bradv🍁 20:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, Oh, this is interesting...apparently, Red cunt hair was on Wikipedia, but consensus was to transwiki it to Wiktionary (see the discussion). Surprisingly, there was little appetite to outright delete it; some favoured keep, some favoured merging or redirecting, but mostly people !voted to transwiki. (Friendly ping to Trialpears). Anyway, learn something new every day. No harm, no foul. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Britain First

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 11

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (November 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 11th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Enjoy your thanksgiving --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for helping out on my talk page against some trolls and vandals. Appreciate everything you do for the project. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

Please, I am contacting you as the most recent active admin on that board. I received "Alert" with message that I reported someone on some strange page, I have no idea what a hell is this, so I am copy/pasting entire link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#[[User%3A]]_reported_by_User%3ASantasa99_%28Result%3A_%29

Can you please check this, I have some ugly disputes with some editors over the past few weeks, and I would like to be certain there is no breach in security of the accounts.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santasa99, I don't really understand what you mean by "breach in security of the accounts", but I checked the article and you and Ceha are both edit warring. I've protected the page for 2 days - please work out your differences on the talk page and ping me if the protection can be lifted early. – bradv🍁 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, this is completely unrelated to editor Ceha and myself. I received alert with a message that I reported (at AN 3RR) someone (named A3 (?!)) for edit-warring on some page titled "IDAGIO" (?!). I clicked and followed the links on alert and couldn't find any such report. It's scary, and I am worrying, because it claims that I made a report there, with my name and all. Please check if it's some glitch - who could make such report on my part, with my name, or maybe from my account. I worry about this. please see what could have this be or at least refer me to someone who could know something about it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I could take a screen-shot of that alert - it's wicked - page name, name of the reported, with my account signature, and there is nothing on AN 3RR board.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, ah, you were probably pinged by this diff, which was fixed in the next edit. That looks to me like a simple copy-and-paste error - no-one was trying to impersonate you. – bradv🍁 16:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brad, very much. I was drilled, around these boards, for the last couple of weeks good, so please understand me if I was a bit paranoid - I couldn't even remember to check diffs myself :-) - sorry if I have caused any inconvenience, and I wish you have a pleasant rest of the day, cheers.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia

Why is Santasa version protected? He is constatly edit waring and removing wikipedia tags, withouth explanation on TP.... --Čeha (razgovor) 16:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha, I am not endorsing one version over another - I'm simply trying to stop the disruption caused by the edit war. If you can come to an agreement at Talk:Bosnia (early medieval polity) I will happily unprotect the article. I was going to go to your talk page to tell you this, but since you're here - please stop calling other people's edits vandalism when they're clearly not ([1] [2]). That is not helpful in resolving a dispute. – bradv🍁 16:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any need for that? In answer above I listed all of your edits. What parts of it can even be disputable? What parts do need any further explanation? Everything is sourced very well, and discussed in talk pages.
If you have anyting what is disputable, we can talk about that in talk pages, we can also rephrase something if better words would be more apropriate. You can see how that works in Usora pages, in my discussion with Mhare, the meaning of compromise. But I would like that in that time my version of article stays active (see the answer above, it's clearly why).... --Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)--Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not?
Santasa did the folowing:
erased the word vasal in the first paragraf (medival Bosnia was a vasal state, almost entire period of it's existance)
erased the reference to it's name and labels in DAI
erased the reference that it's medieval population is ancestor of todays 3 consitutive people; Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs
erased the mention of unreability to fine's book (by Croatian historiografy)
erased the mention that Martar was probable Konjic, as Mostar (and Blagaj) were in Zahumlje.
erased the mention that Bosnian Core (as today's Bosnia is much greater area, maybe 10 times), and not whole Bosnia was under Serbian rule
erased the mention of Croatian rule in 10th and 11th century, and sources about that.
without argumenting any of that changes in talk pages.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, these arguments should be made on the talk page of the article where other editors can weigh in. If there is consensus for an edit, ping me and I will implement it or lift the protection as appropriate. I am not going to weigh in on the substance of the dispute, either here or on the article. – bradv🍁 19:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy this discusion to article TP, no problem. But I would like you to protect the other version (the versions are equal, right?, and the other one was here before Santasa started erasing sourced data). Protected version should be that first, before Santasa edit-war, not after, right?
As for possible rephrasing, no problem, if anybody has better phrase to use, great.
Realy, I'd like to see why Santasa erased all that sourced data, I'ld like to hear his explanation for that. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say why, but editor Ceha simply refuses to accept that editors opinion is irrelevant. Editor Ceha doesn't understand or accept what WP:PRIMARY source are and what it means in context of wikipedia, and he obviously has no intention to read guidelines on primaries to learn, nor does he understand meaning of WP:SECONDARY sources either, Ceha doesn't understand or accept that these are two different categories. Ceha doesn't understand or accept that primary source can be acceptable on wikipedia only under very specific circumstances, but rarely if ever without reliable secondary source, he refuses to understand or accept that editors aren't allowed to build an article based on their interpretation of primary sources because that's WP:ORIGINAL research, he refuses to accept that he needs secondary sources, that is, trained historians to interpret historical primary sources - even this post of mine could suffice if Ceha has any intention of learning about sources and how wikipedia uses them. By the way, editor Ceha refuses to understand that I am absolutely allowed to remove unsourced claims, especially if I find them to be based on editor's opinion and wishful thinking. The curious thing is that editor Ceha has this habit to misleadingly explains situation as if no one is actually able or willing to go and check for themselves what is and what isn't the case, what's really happening, and who said what and who was doing what and why - that's pretty baffling attitude - I wouldn't dare to remove prose which is referenced with reliable sources, no matter how wrong and contestable that prose may seem to me! And last but not least, reverts will continue as soon as protection is lifted.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Santasa99 said he will prove his claims, and instead he is again commenting me? Is any need for personal atacks and unwikipedian behaviour?
Again User:Bradv can you return to the previous version of the article? User Santasa has gone back on his word, how can any discussion with him be possible after such behavior (and comments)? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth you are talking about? Where have I said that I will prove some claim, what claims; where and why am I gone back on my word, what word? And where do you see "personal attack", what is "personal" in above post?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me qote you Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the meaning of bold?
First, you behave as you were an owner of the article. Should I ask you for permission to edit the article? Are you a moderator here?
Secondly, your obligation is to argument your changes. I commented them, and you did promise in the bold part that you will respect the wiki-rules and argument changes, right? You are not doing that, you are commenthing me.
Those are beginer's mistakes, and you should've learn better by now.
And for personal atacks, let me quote you again; Editor Ceha doesn't understand or accept, how many times have you repeated that phrase? -
Basicly you are edit-waring, sticking your prefered sources dening any possibility of compromise and commenting any editor who tried to talk to you or had an opinion which is not similar to yours.
Once again User:Bradv, please help. How is discussion with this user possible? The guy doesn't want to explain his changes or discuss it. He lacks good faith, no matter how hard others try.-Čeha (razgovor) 21:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=928522471&oldid=928520541 User talk:Santasa99 is again commenting me, and not the article on TP. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And in what universe that bold text mean what you said above, namely that I have to prove some claims (Santasa99 said he will prove his claims)? I just hope you aren't doing this on purpose, in attempt to provoke some inappropriate reaction. You made false claim at Talk:Bosnia_(early_medieval_polity) too, saying that we "we agreed" here on Brad's TP that I "will try to explain" why I removed some lines of text from the article, although I already did exactly that, here on this TP above when I tried to explain to you reliable sources and how we use them with appropriate usage of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which paralel universe you did so? I counted them, from 1. to 7. and opened discussion about them. You did not comment any of them, you just gave your vague interpretation of wikipedia politics. For example where did you explain that meddieval Bosnia was not vasal for most of the time of it's existence? I really hope you aren't doing that on purpose.
Do you realy don't understand what a word discussion means? In bold part of the text you gave a promise that you will answer to changes which are made. Have you done so? The point of wikipedia is commenting of the article, not editors, and you are doing the opposite. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually understand everything about your project engagement - as above example testifies this is in reality your usual M.O. - you have inverted everything that I have said.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha, Santasa99, because I'm a little tired of this dispute playing out on my talk page, let me make several points and then hopefully we can all move on. They may not apply to both of you equally, so please wear what fits:

  • If you believe that I have protected m:The Wrong Version, get consensus for the Right Version on the talk page of the article, and then make use the {{edit fully-protected}} template to make an edit request (or just ping me).
  • Comment on content, not contributors. Don't call good faith edits vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless they're intentionally sabotaging the encyclopedia, their edits are not vandalism.
  • This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions. Both of you have received notices within the past year, so you should be aware of what this entails. I have also added a similar tag to the article.
  • Edit warring is counterproductive and extremely disruptive. Repeatedly reverting, especially in areas subject to discretionary sanctions, will result in blocks and topic bans.

Right now you should be gathering sources and presenting clear arguments for your point of view on the article talk page, rather than attacking each other or refusing to compromise. You both want to improve the article – that can happen, but only if you work together. – bradv🍁 21:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this one last thing before Brad gets angry and kick us out of his TP: at the beginning of this thread I told you to use page protection as an opportunity (not to see it only as an obstacle for your agenda) to file a formal edit-request, and that admin who protected article and myself will scrutinize your requested edits if they are valid per guidelines and policies, to which you responded by listing my own previous edits and started asking me to explain them - so you completely inverted entire situation, together with everything which I was saying all this time. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I apologize on my last post, I was unaware of your reply, although it was predictable, really sorry. Cheers. --౪ Santa ౪99° 21:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we already have a DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard on Donji Kraji topic, this is just escalation of the topic.
If you know someone who is willing to moderate those 7 points, please notify us. Or should we go to the DRN as on Donji Kraji topic?
Sorry for inconvinence. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification spam

Hi. I just got over a hundred notifications that you had patrolled my redirects - you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects (not trying to canvas, hopefully this was phrased neutrally enough). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, yeah, I saw that. Which is why I patrolled all your redirects, just to see what all the fuss was about. I suspect it doesn't need to be done at all. – bradv🍁 02:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: Ah, I see - the proposal isn't for me specifically (I'm not sure how that would look if I used my bot to patrol my creations)... DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help for a newish wikipedia user

Hi! I am not sure who to turn to so I thought you were someone I could ask for help. On the page of "Steve Chen", there is a user who is adding edits that were not agreed upon on the Talk page. I reverted a couple times and provided my answers as well as encouragement to the user to start Talk page sections, and when I found the user to be persistent, I started Talk sections on the topics he was concerned about so as to address them communally. He did not bother to participate in any of these Talk sections but continued to revert. I don't want to edit-war with this user. Please tell me what I should do. I would appreciate any advice and guidance you have. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Iyer, I've left a warning for the IP and reverted the article back to the stable version. Please don't revert again, as you are also at three reverts. The best thing to do is to start a talk page discussion about the edits, as you have done, and if they persist to report to WP:ANEW (for edit warring) or WP:RFPP (to ask for protection). I'll keep an eye on the article for now, and protect it if necessary. – bradv🍁 05:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that you should have reported to a noticeboard instead of telling me about it - you're certainly always welcome to ask me for help. But at times you will be able to get a quicker response at one of the noticeboards. – bradv🍁 05:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help and guidance. So for the future, the best avenue is that I approach a noticeboard? Also, another user has reverted again. Unsure whether it is truly another user or just the same user with another IP address. Unsure how to go about this entire process. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I am not sure whether this new reversion is the same user or a different one, what do I do next? Should I report to a noticeboard? I think protection maybe necessary until and unless the user(s) begin to engage on the talk page. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now semiprotected Steve Chen, but with the last IP edit still in place. Since that edit adds a citation to the Daily Mirror, and claims that Taiwan holds nuclear weapons (contrary to what Wikipedia says in Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction), my guess is that somebody should revert it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For a brilliant and hilarious response that made everyone around me wonder why I'm laughing so loud at my computer. Hats off to you, good sir! – Levivich 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please log...

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Enforcement_log, please add 2019_Israeli_airstrikes_in_Iraq to the current Arbitration enforcement log. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, already done, back when I protected it the first time. – bradv🍁 16:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry, I think I missed that. Why did it need to be reapplied? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the page was deleted and then undeleted and (I think) that clears protection. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what happened. I'm not sure why protection clears when the page gets deleted, but it does. – bradv🍁 02:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Bosnia, Bosnian Banate and 3RR/Edit-war

As I can see, I did not brake 3RR (the same number as user MHare). Also, my edits are more of the style, although user MHare deleted one of the references. No need to repeat the same word over and over. What do you suggest how can we fix that problem? Edits are this https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=929241904&oldid=929241045 --Čeha (razgovor) 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bosnian Banate, which consensus have I broken? Do look my changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Banate_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=929242193&oldid=929240822 I'm just trying to use better wording than MHare or Santasa. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you offer some solution? From my POV, those changes are for the betterment of the article, It's a little bit of if every second word is the same. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, you need to convince the other editors that your proposed changes are improvements, and this needs to happen on the talk page of the article. Please see WP:BRD. – bradv🍁 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Santasa is not willing to talk about anything (at the end I had to rewrote the whole Donji Kraji article), and Mhare has begun to qoute massivly Fine, although he saw all the arguments against him, and started discussion about his non reability.
I'm afraid that the process we had with Donji Kraji (it's last step, previous three were fruteless unfortunately) will have to be repeated with this topics also....
If there is a moderator who will be willing to moderate discussion.
Also, very large parts of disputed articles will be deemed unusable if the Fine is declared as unusefull source. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, this isn't about other editors, it's about your persistent edit warring and unwillingness to listen and work collaboratively with the other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedia - everyone needs to be able to work together to improve the content. – bradv🍁 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And while I was typing that, you reverted again. See User talk:Ceha#December 2019. – bradv🍁 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, sorry I didn't saw the last warning. Will you still try to help on those pages? I'll put the edit explanation on talk pages, but no one edited those back, Santasa reverted to his version, without any consensus, or explanation. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, I am willing to help moderate any disputes as an impartial editor, but you will need to work with the other editors on each page to form consensus. I recommend presenting sources along with your proposed changes, so that the other editors can help determine whether they are neutral and verifiable. – bradv🍁 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to do that. However with little succes. Look at the Bosnian medieval entity page. User Santasa puted data which doesn't belong to that article, and it's still there. I commented it on Talk pages, but no resonse have happened. If I would change the page, I bet that immediate revert would follow.
There was a discussion of 7 points. It's completly neglected now. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for fixing the edit log on Gable. I appreciate it! KNHaw (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U R CERTIFIABLE

Certified
YAY! Praxidicae (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajithkumar Thampan

I didn't create this. I happened across an article with a title inexplicably in all caps and moved it. It was created by User:Keralahri. - Sumanuil 05:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left them a message too, but then you created it again, I presume due to an edit conflict. Also, your signature doesn't contain a link to your talk page - please fix that. – bradv🍁 05:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an edit conflict, as I had started trying to clean up the mess pretty much automatically. Maybe I spend too much time here.- Sumanuil (talk)

Hey, no problem. I'll delete the redirect now - feel free to help out on the draft if you think it's worthwhile. – bradv🍁 05:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Act of 1891

A source is indeed listed in the previous sentence, as you observe. However, when I checked the source, I found that the source seemed to contradict the assertion. That's why it's nice that Wikipedia links sources: one can follow the link and check.

When you check the source, do you not find the source to contradict the assertion? If you do, then would you reverse your recent edit? Tbtkorg (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The content is verbatim from the source. – bradv🍁 00:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bit too verbatim. This needs to be looked at for copyright issues. – bradv🍁 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I remember. Thank you for reminding. You are right, the content is verbatim from the source as linked. Unfortunately, the source as linked is not even approximately a proper source. It appears to be just some random lecture notes someone jotted down. The comment I left a year ago on the talk page explains and, also, links proper sources including the actual legislation.
To forestall further confusion between you and me, let me observe that the paragraph you have restored refers not to the 1891 act but to the 1887 act. This is why I have linked the 1887 legislation rather than the 1891.
As you can see, when I made the edit a year ago, I was interested enough to research the matter, which is why I edited the article—though I had forgotten about the edit until your reversion this week. It is of course possible that I have misread the sources I have linked, but in any case Wikipedia's Payson Act paragraph remains unsourced by Wikipedia's usual standard. Even if the paragraph were not counterfactual (as I believe it to be), the paragraph should probably be struck for lack of a source.
Thanks for the review. Tbtkorg (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange

Hi

I noticed you informed Rebecca jones about the RfC on whether Assange was a journalist. For your information, just in case you don't realise, Rebecca was editing the page before, during, and the RfC on this very topic. I think it is clear she was aware of the RfC — which went for three months, as you might recall — even though she didn't take part.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, I agree it's likely they have seen that. But it does address their concerns with the article, so it's worth a re-read. – bradv🍁 04:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Do you think the edit will be appropriate if content in <ref></ref> is removed? Or they may be improved in another way?--GZWDer (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer, I do think it could use some clarification, but what you wrote isn't quite right. You're implying that arbcom cannot unblock without consultation with the community, which is not the policy. The community cannot overturn arbcom blocks, but in certain cases arbcom can overturn community bans (see this motion). However, in the current situation involving both an arbcom block and a community ban, the case will need to be reviewed by both. – bradv🍁 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it is proper to say "In this case, the Arbitration Committee will usually invite community to comment before unblocking"?--GZWDer (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GZWDer, what gives you that impression? – bradv🍁 19:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this means ArbCom can overturn a ban even if community does not want it to be overturned without community review?--GZWDer (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GZWDer, in cases where arbcom has issued the block, yes. But a community ban on top of an arbcom block makes that extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, the arbitration policy gives arbcom the mandate "to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", so they arguably do have that authority. – bradv🍁 20:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So is it good to say "Editors blocked or banned by the Arbitration Committee (including those who are also under community sanction) must appeal to the Committee (see below)."--GZWDer (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GZWDer, well yes, but that's already covered elsewhere on the page. – bradv🍁 20:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to emphasize "including those who are also under community sanction".--GZWDer (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GZWDer, the edit you made was within a section entitled "Appeals of bans imposed by the community". Is that not clear enough? The following section deals with arbcom blocks. – bradv🍁 20:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I commented on that users page, because that user was promoting A convicted pedophile, and he was insulting my religionGumshoe97 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97, it really doesn't matter why you felt the need to make a personal attack. Comment on content, not contributors. – bradv🍁 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it to be a personal attack, I was just madGumshoe97 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97, then maybe you should take a break for a bit? – bradv🍁 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Gumshoe97 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97, I mean, don't edit Wikipedia while you're angry. You may say something you regret and have to live with the consequences. If you can't be rational and reasonable, walk away and do something else. – bradv🍁 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin edit warring (again)

Thucyd made recent edits on James Martin (priest, born 1960). I objected on the talk page here and raised an RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960). Thucyd did not respond to my objections on the Talk Page and did not respond to the RfC. Instead, he made additional edits to the content under dispute, expanding it and adding more content. Thucyd has never once responded to my concerns on the talk page. Instead, he simply edits the article the way he thinks it should read. This has been going on for months. Can you please do something about this? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&oldid=930179888"