User talk:Bradv

---

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

---

• Quick directory
• Department directory
• Community Portal
• Maintenance
• Requests
• Tips
• Tools

---

Need Help?

---

• The Teahouse
• Articles for Creation Help Desk

---

Policies and Guidelines

---

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)

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)

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)

Was

this requested by the arbitrators? ∯WBG^converse 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? ∯WBG^converse 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)

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. ∯WBG^converse 15:23, 4 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)

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

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

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

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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)

For the Beauty of the Earth (BarlowGirl cover)

• For the Beauty of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

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)