This user co-edited "Cow tipping" become a good article on May 22, 2016.
This user created the article "Hemp in Kentucky" become a good article on February 24, 2019.
This user helped to promote the article "Honda Super Cub" become a good article on November 4, 2014.
This user created the article "Leonard's Bakery" become a good article on May 13, 2015.
This user helped to promote the article "People's Bike Library of Portland" become a good article on January 20, 2018.
This user has account creator rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an edit filter helper.
This user has MassMessage sender rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
More than 25 DYKs
Grandmaster Editor

User talk:Bri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

HomeBarnstars, Badges, & User Boxes Barnstars, Badges, & User BoxesTalk to me Talk to meCreations Creations

American Pacific Whaling Company[edit]

Since this one is basically yours, you may want to look at what I've written on the talk page. David B. Williams seems to have a very different set of facts than what you got. - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, ping me if you answer: I don't keep a watchlist on en-wiki these days. - Jmabel | Talk 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jmabel I didn't mean to ignore this. It looks like we have conflicting sources. Usually when that happens I don't try to sort it out but just state in-article that there are conflicting sources. OTOH I respect David B. Williams's scholarship more than the other works (e.g. Arcadia press). Do you have any suggestions on resolving? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on Williams being more reliable. I'd either go with Williams or handle it as conflicting sources. I don't really care which, but I certainly wouldn't leave out what Williams has to say. - Jmabel | Talk 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This might help[edit]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/Clerking_RfC#Basic_proposal Leaky caldron (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this doesn't look right. We have a defeated proposal (by 38 to 25) with !votes on specified clerking activities defeated by the overarching proposal. Yet people are carrying out those clerking activities? It looks like the only defensible one is a kind-of-separate proposal that A3 be carried out by any editor, not clerks specifically. Yet A3 specifies "redact the entire comment/vote if it consists entirely of incivility or personal attacks" (emphasis mine), which clearly doesn't apply e.g. to detailed and coherent discussion of the Strickland affair nor this discussion on application of individual editors' RfA criteria. Kudpung am I following your train of thought here? Do you think this should be raised somewhere? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I first brought up the idea of clerking at WP:RFA2011. It's 9:00 am here and I have to go to the office. What I have glanced over looks like something I may have missed, but it's a lot to read. I'll get back to it later today and let you know what I think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Although he's not the most active, Ched is an admin for whom I have the greatest respect. Today's state of affairs is different from that of the pre 2015 reforms. I have never done any 'clerking' myself because I prefer to start or comment on RfCs about it. IMO, the current climate at RfA is partly due to those reforms owing to the doubling of the number of voters and with it, the doubling of the drama. Generally, the opposers at the RfC were not addressing the reason why clerking is being called for. Like Xaosflux: ...against having to specially qualify a subsection of editors for just this one task, they were opposing the need for a special group of users to be designated for the task, and Joy: Many opposing !votes are worried about excess bureaucracy, yet we're already indulging in an unnecessarily bureaucratic approach that gets more convoluted with every iteration..
On the support side, this comment (#12) by clpo13: ... proper indenting and moving long threads to the talk page are uncontroversial, but the other RfA reforms promise to introduce changes that might be too controversial for just any user to deal with (removing excess questions, keeping !votes and questions civil, etc... pretty much sums up my opinion.
In the discussion section, the proposer says: If this proposal does not pass, the consensus would seem to be that all clerking should be informal, not that there should not be any cleanup/civility enforcement/question management/etc. If so, I find that acceptable.
Dank's closing, which included

As most of you know (and I'm counting at least 4 ways that voters here could or should have known), in the first RfC in this series, a "clear consensus" (probably a superconsensus) was found that something needs to be done about hostility toward candidates during RfAs. (Of course, RfA can be even more hostile to voters than to candidates sometimes, but that's not the question of the moment.) Maybe I'm missing something, but can anyone here point to any comment made in any of these RfCs that suggests an approach to the hostility problem that might be relevant to this RfC, other than what some are calling "clerking"? (Part of the problem, of course, is that the term hasn't been defined, and it's clear that different people mean different things by it.)

was technically accurate, but called for further discussion that was never held. IMO if all the off-topic and incomprehensible votes had been struck, while the RfC would still not have reached a consensus, a further one at a later date (and especially perhaps now) might succeed. The problem of RfA is twofold: first it's the incivility and disingenuous voting, while secondly, it's precisely this which is putting off candidates of the right calibre from coming forward. While at WT:RfA some may argue that it's a necessary and justifiable hazing ceremony, it's not every candidate who even wants to work in contentious areas - there are plenty of other tasks that require the admin bit. In the army, all recruits, even those in non-combat roles, have to go through basic training, barrack room bullying, and square bashing, but Wikipedia editors are not soldiers (even if some of us are or have been in RL) and intransigent RSM behaviour is not wanted here.
The itty-bitty parts of the rest of the RfC were just Biblioworm's way of doing things - although it is one feasible way of approach depending on the matter to be debated. He and I agreed on most things, while we did differ greatly on his approach to them. The participation was low and hardly a quorum for anything as important.
As for the comments on my talk page, well, newbies see admins being baited all the time so they think it's cool to join the sport, even if we have given them advice in good faith. Because they are new, we're not allowed to warn them or block them. We can only hope they will grow up. Others are users who practically semi-retired almost as soon as they had won the admin badge.
Bri, you'll have to interpret the RfC vs the current practice as best as you think fit. I still firmly believe that some kind of pro-active initiative is required at least until the voters all become potty trained or stay away from the process, with or without designated clerks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Agreed with "technically accurate, but called for further discussion that was never held". FWIW, after that, I paid a lot less attention to RFA in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey I got quoted :D Yes, I was (and still are) opposed to creating dedicated "RfA clerks) (akin to ArbCom clerks). Although I was a supporter, the section on having 'crats perform clerking services was fairly well received, though it did not exclude others from possibly being allowed to clerk as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019[edit]

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
In the Seattle area?
Wiknic logo.svg
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Your draft article, Draft:Seed to sale tracking systems[edit]

Hello, Bri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Seed to sale tracking systems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Dom from Paris (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

First Avenue (Seattle)[edit]

Thanks for creating a real article to fill this gap. I think that we should be using numerals for numbered streets to match the majority of modern street signs and avoid conflicts when articles are created for higher-numbered streets (if they are notable). SounderBruce 22:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure ... according to WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't names follow the sources, rather than to avoid internal name conflicts? I'd say from my research the majority of sources said First Avenue, but the street signs do say 1st Avenue. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources aren't all that consistent with usage, but the city government is consistent in using numerals for addresses and project names. Road articles have not traditionally followed COMMONNAME (mainly because it created a conflict that required arbitration) and used a separate naming convention based on official names from government authorities, which is something that I would rather follow. SounderBruce 00:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

miles okazaki[edit]

Hello Bri,

   Not sure if I'm using this page correctly. I went onto Wiki to correct the page that is about me, which is full of errors. 

The one I made is correct, but now it's gone and the old one is up again. I'd be happy to provide you with correct information if you'd like to fix it.

Miles Okazaki — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry re request[edit]

I'm sorry, I made an error. It happens. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, 331dot. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Bri,


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.


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.

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)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, AEV (musician), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. There was a discussion at NPP a while back, see here, where it was decided that articles which have been prodded or speedied should not be reviewed until a decision on the tag has been made. This does not include AfD, as those articles will be subject to the decision of the discussion. Thanks for your help on NPP, it's greatly appreciated.Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh thanks Onel5969. I just started patrolling again today and didn't know. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thought you might not have known about the discussion. Thanks for coming back. We can sure use the help.Onel5969 TT me 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sistina (given name), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Castle Game Engine: edited and removed request for deletion[edit]


I'm the author and main developer of Castle Game Engine (I mean I'm the author of the software, not of the original wiki page). I noticed that the article was proposed for deletion by you.

I have edited the article to hopefully address it. I mentioned the features, applications and scientific papers relevant to the subject. Most of these can be also be found from the main engine website, .

Being the author of the engine, I am certainly not objective, so I of course respect if your decision remains to delete the article. However, if there's any information I could provide to prevent this, I would be happy to do so, please let me know. The engine is used in "production", and in published scientific papers, also by independent developers. I am actively working, and encouraging others to work together, to make the engine as notable as possible :)

Note that I am a completely "newbie" Wikipedia author, so please excuse any errors I made when editing the article.

Regards, MichalisKamburelis (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, the sources you added are all authored by you. Is there any independent coverage of the topic at all? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer!
I can mention some websites that wrote posts about Castle Game Engine (completely independently from me):
* Andrzej Kilijański wrote a few articles in recent months:
* Not sure do these qualify: Some threads like or
* The links from lead to various games -- some of them are done and released by completely independent people. I realize that these are not news sources, they are just games using the software.
* There are quite a few scientific papers mentioning Castle Game Engine: (I'm the author of 1st and 2nd articles on this list, but the rest is by independent people).
MichalisKamburelis (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I will take this to AfD for a community decision. You might want to add those sources beforehand, maybe in a Further reading section. Although I will probably contest them as poor quality blogs and non-authoritative websites. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand, I have edited the page a bit to include some links to independent sources. MichalisKamburelis (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Castle Game Engine[edit]

FYI, a new user, supposedly the product developer, added material to Castle Game Engine with a few cites to their own site and then removed the PROD template. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the above section Face-smile.svg. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your 2007 edit to Conversational Monitor System[edit]

Just a heads-up -- I noticed that a lot of description of the 3270 is labeled "historical note" and surrounded by "blockquote" tags, however, no source is identified. I removed the tags and left this material as normal text. If it is indeed a quote, possibly you can identify a source. Peter Flass (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Respiratory Protection[edit]

Good afternoon, and I'm sorry about the poor quality of the machine translation.

Protecting the health of workers with respirators in the RF is very bad. So I created the initial versions of several articles on this topic in Russian Wikipedia (to warn people); and then the articles were improved by different authors. Several articles were translated into Ukrainian, Bulgarian and English (these translations are not always very good from a literary point of view, unfortunately: Respirator fit test, Cartridge (respirator), Respirator assigned protection factors and Workplace respirator testing). Please, explain - what I have to do now. AlexChirkin (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Responding on your talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Companies formerly based in Redmond, Washington has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Companies formerly based in Redmond, Washington, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding wrapup[edit]

I did not acknowledge the nominee can be "arrogant, obnoxious, and unwilling to admit any alternative explanation for a given event than his preferred theory", I explicitly said that Fram had on occasion acted that way in the past and that "Fram was warned about his conduct in 2018, and since then the issues that caused concern have been virtually non-existent". Given that a reasonably significant aspect of the Fram case has been about Signpost writers being caught red-handed making demonstrably false allegations (I think the previous attempts to cover the Fram case may have been the only occasion in Wikipedia's history where a Signpost report has proven so problematic it's needed to be deleted altogether as a BLP violation), you really shouldn't be making statements that can be proven false simply by reading the page on which you're reporting. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Has been arrogant..." was your original quote, not that it makes a huge difference in semantics in my mind. Has been sort of implies a future possibility doesn't it? That said, I respect your wish to have your words accurately reflect your intent and have changed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This issue appears to remain unresolved.[1] I'll let you two work it out. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.


-— Isarra 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Bri. We've butted heads a couple of times and I know I can be a grumpy reader. But I just wanted to say that I think the Signpost is important and I know you've put a lot of selfless effort into it. Even if we see some things differently I really do appreciate your work and dedication. Haukur (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Signpost Barnstar Hires.png The Signpost Barnstar
I know you don't need another Signpost Barnstar, but please accept my thanks for an extraordinary effort under pressure Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Noticed Vandalism and Editing Bias[edit]

proceeding at User talk:Seandotng
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Bri.

I'm asking for assistance for you to look into the edits and reverts by User:Seandotng on pages:

1. Kevin Liliana 2. Vanessa Ponce 3. Jolene Marie Rotinsulu 4. Jesica Fitriana

for the following reasons:

1. I have updated information on these pages wholly sourced and referenced (provided articles from legitimate news/media outlets/outfits for each update), but this contributor keeps on reverting these edits to the previous ones that are un-sourced and un-clarified

2. He has erased a paragraph of wholly sourced information on the Kevin Liliana page without valid reason, only stating that "It is not needed for the bio" when it is factual.

3. This is just an observation but I think he is leaning on editing bias, as I have observed that he only edits mostly Indonesian beauty titleholders. I am not going ahead of myself here and I am still not wholly particular with editing biases within Wikipedia, but I think I've read that anyone related to the organization or the person in question (subject of the page/article) should be looked into as they might be biased in editing. Again, I am not concluding that he is, but his actions can only be interpreted as leaning on bias.

4. His reverts are mostly, if not all, invalid, reverting updates/edits that are aptly sourced and referenced and preferring instead the old edits without ANY sources or references.

I am still learning my way here on Wikipedia, but I hope to contribute and contribute well. I am trying to edit with only facts, and with factual neutrality. But I will not stand for contributors who are editing only with biases.

Thanks. I hope to hear you soon on this.Migsmigss (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I saw something that said that you needed a summary however I did not need one such as your talk page --Personisgaming (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing as Activism: Edit-A-Thon to Correct Systemic Bias in Wikipedia[edit]

Allen Library, location of the Research Commons, University of Washington. Photo by Joe Mabel
Help address the systematic biases relating to gender, race, and social class that lead to under-representation of topics, people, and organizations on Wikipedia.

When: Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 9am–1pm
Where: UW Libraries Research Commons, 4000 15th Ave NE, Seattle, Washington 98195
Hosted by: Labor Archives of Washington, UW Special Collections, and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Cascadia Wikimedians
User Group