User talk:Bradv
- 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.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~). - View or search the archives for old messages.
Editor of the Week
Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.
|
|
|
| Bradv |
| Improves the encyclopedia |
| Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 8, 2016 |
| 10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors. |
| Recognized for |
| Fighting Vandalism |
| Nomination page |
Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Congrats! Welcome back, thank you for your help and hope you stay around. - NQ (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Congrats! Nice job. (And thank you for reviewing my AfC Draft:Maryland Psychiatric Society. I will improve the sources.) Drdaviss (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation
|
Thank You | |
| Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria
- Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think you closed this discussion way too fast. There is I think no doubt that the current article name is wrong, and the discussion is simply slow. (There was only one response, which was not fully in disagreement.) We will never be able to complete a discussion this fast on a subject like this. Please advise whether we now need to restart? (But at this rate discussions will need to be restarted every week for several months before we get a decision!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: The discussion had been open for over a week since the last relist without further comment, and there was no indication that another relist would invite further participation. There were two people involved in the discussion who were on different sides of the issue, so I couldn't close it as anything other than no consensus. This is not the same as keep, it simply indicates that there is no consensus and the tie goes to the status quo. If there is a consensus one way or another it should be possible to make that determination within two weeks. If there had been no opposition at all, it would have been treated as uncontroversial and moved accordingly. Bradv 15:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv, On such articles the old idea of "no deadline" is still important for basic practical reasons. There is no urgency to close such a discussion? What would have been the damage to wait longer than one week, or even 2 months? How on earth have you decided that all such discussions are finished within 2 weeks? But even if it were true, this reasoning is not logical because closing a discussion quickly brings WP no value, whereas closing it too early can really make things more difficult. By the way I understand why it might look that way at first but there were not two people with opposing positions. You read that wrong because you were in a rush I think. Discussion had just started, and funnily enough I notice that the other editor now simply moved the article to the name you say they opposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is consensus that relisting should generally only happen once, unless there is an active discussion. Since this discussion was stale, it needed to be closed. And the substance of the other person's argument was that the proposal wasn't an improvement, and the article should probably be deleted instead. Now that editor has moved it to a different title entirely (which you seem to agree with), so it would be fair to say that a consensus has been reached. In this case I have no opinion either way — I am simply following the procedures listed at WP:RMCI and WP:RM. Bradv 19:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv, On such articles the old idea of "no deadline" is still important for basic practical reasons. There is no urgency to close such a discussion? What would have been the damage to wait longer than one week, or even 2 months? How on earth have you decided that all such discussions are finished within 2 weeks? But even if it were true, this reasoning is not logical because closing a discussion quickly brings WP no value, whereas closing it too early can really make things more difficult. By the way I understand why it might look that way at first but there were not two people with opposing positions. You read that wrong because you were in a rush I think. Discussion had just started, and funnily enough I notice that the other editor now simply moved the article to the name you say they opposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
Administrator changes
None
Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
- Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
- A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Message from Writewords44
Hello Bradv,
I see you recently voted to delete my wiki entry "Brian Cliette" for lack on nobility ,I think this was a mistake as he has over 7 media mentions and interviews in top online outlets ( entrepreneur.com, The Huffington Post, Business.com, Influencive.com..etc) you can see the following google news results for "Brian Cliette" in the link below https://www.google.com/search?biw=2560&bih=1366&tbm=nws&ei=oLN2WoTDHbDs5gLmvpSIBA&q=%22brian+cliette%22
Please advise.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Carla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewords44 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The subject fails Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, known as notability. The community discussed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Cliette. If at some point there is sufficient third-party sources to write an article, this will be revisited. Bradv 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
08:40:55, 13 February 2018 review of submission by 199.111.219.110