User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:11, 1 May 2020

Template:X1/style.css

Could you please delete this as G2 as well? (I can't tag the page due to a technical glitch, so I originally put the CSD tag on the talk page) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, done. – bradv🍁 02:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I want to learn how to add image to the page

I want to learn how to edit the page and how to add image to the page. All the coding and citing and how to secure the page. Fizzaabbas05 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what page do you need help with? – bradv🍁 15:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bradv!

Hello bradv, the person you were talking to on kiwi, yeah that's me. Just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasA04 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LucasA04, welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on creating your first article. Please feel free to reach out any time you need help. – bradv🍁 03:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, Always LucasA04 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the accusation

No question about it, I was trolling, so I guess you did feed me. Although, to the extent I had anything specific in mind with that foolish prank (other than blowing off steam), it was to explicitly point out the fantastic ridiculousness of the suggestion, and invite some sober reminders for the overly credulous out there, which you did very nicely. (While it lasted.) Anyway, have a nice day (and I mean that sincerely, not in the trolling sense). —Steve Summit (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scs, your post caused me to wade onto the reference desk for the first time in about 10 years, which I immediately regretted. Honestly I don't see the difference between that thread and much of the nonsense that gets posted there, but raising awareness of the buffoonery and incompetence at the highest levels during this crisis seems to me a laudable activity. Stay safe. – bradv🍁 17:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion consensus.

Hey there, hope you're going good. recently you had relisted the deleted nomination for the page that has been nominated for deletion since 19 days

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camila_Guiribitey

Could you please help me by suggesting ways to fasten the deletion process review? (Sorry for bad English) Thanks 2019KB (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019KB, what's the rush? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and we need to make sure that the decision to keep or delete the article reflects the consensus of the community. In this case I'm hoping for more reviews by experienced editors. – bradv🍁 16:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new on Wikipedia and not sure but the link you has shared of WP:NODEADLINE has a section which says there are certain deadline in Wikipedia

Deletion discussions should usually be finished after a maximum of 21 days. Article deletion discussions have a deadline of seven days which may be extended to 14 or 21 days (in rare cases, discussions can run longer). As such, Article Rescue Squadron always works to a deadline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline#Deadlines_in_Wikipedia

Again I might be wrong but I don't think that article is eligible for rare case. Please let me know, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019KB (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society re-opening for discussion

Hello! We were still in the middle of discussion but then you closed it already. I don't really mind if the majority vote is keep or delete but I believe it was prematurely closed as "keep". I don't know how to re-open the discussion or renominate it so I am confused what to do now. If you can do something to re-open the discussion, that would be great. Cheers!—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allenjambalaya, how was this premature? It had been relisted twice, and at the time I closed it the page hadn't been edited for 4 days. I don't see what leaving it open for another week would have accomplished. – bradv🍁 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reply

Hello, Bradv. You have new messages at Can I Log In's talk page.
Message added 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I've replied back. I would like a reply back from you please. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. – bradv🍁 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for being a admin on this wiki. Also, I thank you for constantly reverting edits made in bad faith,such as vandalism. Henry20090 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And welcome to Wikipedia. – bradv🍁 15:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violations

Let me preface this by saying that I do not typically pursue sanctions for editors, but I do not like seeing them enforced selectively. 1RR violations in the last day:

RedHotPear: [1] reverts [2], and [3] reverts [4].

Volunteer Marek: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Granted I think these are just considered 2 reverts.

Do you think those were 1RR violations? I have some more, depending on your opinion for these. I'm not looking for those editors to be sanctioned, and do not want them to be. But I would like you to undo your block of Kolya until across the board enforcement is in place. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively. I think that, to maintain regular order at Joe Biden pages, we need to see them enforced across the board under all circumstances. If those two editors violated the sanctions, they should be sanctioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, for the first one, those are reverts to different sections of the page, and they did not revert back to the same version. I know that 3RR says that it applies "whether involving the same or different material", but I don't think I've ever seen 1RR interpreted that way - generally people are allowed to make multiple reverts provided they are to different content. Regarding the second one, I think that would all be counted as one revert (or even as one bold edit), even though it was interrupted by a completely unrelated edit. And I'm with both you and Muboshgu here - these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work. – bradv🍁 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I thought 1RR meant no more than one revert on the page period, even if it's different content. So I could have reverted the Stephanie Carter addition yesterday that I held back on because I had already made a different revert?

Brad, you're Canadian, and not INVOLVED in the post-1932 U.S. politics realm. Please monitor Biden pages for the next six months. I'll give you all of the barnstars if you do. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've heard 1RR described that way. The edit notice is unambiguous - "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Marek's reverts were interrupted by another person, resetting their revert count. I don't think the sanction is applied evenly or fairly. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to both of you – do you recall ever seeing someone blocked at ANEW or AE for making two completely unrelated reverts to an article under 1RR in the same 24-hour period? It's always been my understanding that the community interprets "revert" a little more loosely when counting to 2 than when counting to 4. But I could be mistaken. – bradv🍁 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to communicate that project wide. Just yesterday MrX and SPECIFICO (well and me) were giving editors a heads up when they went over 1RR, as in made more than one reversion in 24 hours, regardless of what section of the page. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ernie! We all like to see uniform and impartial enforcement. Ernie, your concern would all be much more valuable if you'd also sleuth out recent violations among those who might share your POV on content issues. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of battleground behavior shown here, and the same in SPECIFICO's recent comment on KB's talk page, deserves sanction. Following editors you're in a content dispute with from page to page and taunting them is basically harassment. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, they were pinged here. And it's a valid request, especially considering the request here is to enforce things equitably. – bradv🍁 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true about the ping but I disagree very strongly that it's a valid request. First, it presupposes that there are editors who have violated 1RR recently who have not been reported (there aren't, as far as I can see). Second it ignores the fact that Ernie is specifically not asking for sanctions, and instead makes it sound like he is. Third, it divides editors into factions and avoiding that sort of tribalism is what WP:BATTLEGROUND is all about. Honestly, I hate when admin let this sort of "food fight" behavior fly, especially when the same admin is blocking another editor who was, in good faith, attempting to address SPECIFICO's specific concerns (each reinstatement attempted to address the concern in the preceding revert's edit summary). You know, KB's 1RR violation was an attempt to gain consensus but a technical violation of our rules, while SPECIFICO's violates no technical rules but poisons our collegial environment. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, it's a polarizing article, and it's not helpful to pretend that there aren't competing interests at play. We're having a conversation here about how to enforce things equitably and fairly. If you want to join in the substance of the discussion you're welcome to, but you don't get to tell other people to get off my talk page. – bradv🍁 19:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't tell anyone to get off your talk page, I'd never do that. I'm saying polarizing conduct should be addressed, and I'm saying it's more important than if someone technically violated 1RR through partial reinstatements, OR by editing the same section or a different section. I'm making a forest-and-trees argument. The problem isn't who's reverting how much, the problem (in this topic area) is polarizing behavior running rampant. The problem is that some editors are trying to work with their colleagues (that's clearly what KB was trying to do by making a series of partial reinstatements, don't you agree?), while other editors are actively fighting their colleagues (was SPECIFICO's statement not "fighting words"?). That's the problem that we should be focusing on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Every time I have warned or sanctioned an editor for violating 1RR it's been because they were edit warring over the same content. You could be right, this may require a broader discussion. – bradv🍁 19:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brady, there's been some discussion about that from time to time. The Edit War page is not clear and is subject to unpredictable and radically differing interpretations by Admins. In terms of the American Politics articles, the result is that most of us are guided by the strictest interpretation to avoid any possible violation. Regardless of whether a community-wide consesnsus and documentation can be reached as to the meaning of a revert, the central points for Ernie are that there was unambiguous disruption at the article and that he brought a rather incomplete list of possible recent violations to the table here. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I suppose that if editors are following the stricter interpretation, and enforcing admins are enforcing the looser interpretation, that gives us a suitable buffer. – bradv🍁 19:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It works well. Generally, 1RR violations are inadvertent and the offending editor immediatly self-removes the violation when reminded on their user talk page. The more frequent problem in politics-related articles, I think, have related to issues of WEIGHT and RS, especially among editors who are not widely familiar with the range of mainstream reporting, who may be steeped in twitter/reddit/blog/podcast narratives, or who may have fringey political beliefs. I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also was hoping there were more exceptions to 1RR. I felt that I was restoring different text than the text which was cited for reversion; I restored the collaterally removed text. Obviously after reading 1RR and 3RR I see how unambiguous it is; there is no leeway as there is in BRD. I don't want to see anyone sanctioned either. I don't think that is an effective way to improve collaboration. I ask that administrators look at what is happening beyond the straightforward policy. There is WP:CIVILPOVPUSHING happening. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cannot believe an administrator on this site doesn't know that a revert is a revert even if it is to a different part of the article. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". If you seriously don't know or understand that, youshoudl resign your bit, immediately, until you have a bit more experience. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 ::::::::Yes. It works well. Generally, 1RR violations are inadvertent and the offending editor immediatly self-removes the violation when reminded on their user talk page. The more frequent problem in politics-related articles, I think, have related to issues of WEIGHT and RS, especially among editors who are not widely familiar with the range of mainstream reporting, who may be steeped in twitter/reddit/blog/podcast narratives, or who may have fringey political beliefs. I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 I also was hoping there were more exceptions to 1RR.  I felt that I was restoring different text than the text which was cited for reversion; I restored the collaterally removed text.  Obviously after reading 1RR and 3RR I see how unambiguous it is; there is no leeway as there is in BRD.  I don't want to see anyone sanctioned either.  I don't think that is an effective way to improve collaboration.  I ask that administrators look at what is happening beyond the straightforward policy.  There is WP:CIVILPOVPUSHING happening.  [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
+I simply cannot believe an administrator on this site doesn't know that a revert is a revert even if it is to a different part of the article. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—'''whether involving the same or different material'''—within a 24-hour period". If you seriously don't know or understand that, youshoudl resign your bit, immediately, until you have a bit more experience. [[User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!]] ([[User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|talk]]) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)