This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I want to formally request you revert your close of Norwegian First Division → 1. divisjon and close the new RM I started. I should have asked you to do that before I started the new RM. I think the RM you closed needs more input from more people who understand our title policy better. People there cited COMMONNAME in favor of a name that is never used in English sources. That’s just wrong. Thanks. — В²C ☎ 15:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Born2cycle: I recommend you close the new RM you started, wait for the other one to conclude, and then find an appropriate way to resolve the conflict if necessary. Another RM at that point would be considered appropriate.

I already tried this, and you reverted me. Brad v🍁 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing my RM without reverting your previous close to allow discussion to continue there makes no sense. Do you not see a problem with people using COMMONNAME to support names not used in English sources? Am I missing something? -- В²C ☎ 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Born2cycle: I evaluated the consensus based on the arguments presented in the discussion, and you've already stated that my close was correct. There was only one editor who opposed, and there were supporting arguments that also appealed to the common name. Closing the discussion any other way would have been a supervote, and reopening the discussion now would only add to the confusion and drama. The cleanest way forward is to wait until the other related RM closes, and then decide whether to open a new RM to resolve any conflicts. All the other editors on the talk page agree that this is the way to proceed, so can you please just do that? Brad v🍁 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I can do that, of course, but very reluctantly. Do you not see a problem with people using COMMONNAME to support names not used in English sources? Do you not see the problematic title based on that problem causing further problems? I will just add that I advise any experienced closer who sees a consensus like that going so obviously against policy should weigh in opposing the proposal (in this case endorse what the one experienced participant said rather than close in favor of the misguided majority at that time). Citing policy does not mean the policy supports the position. You have to evaluate arguments a little deeper than that. Citing COMMONNAME in favor of a title never used in English sources is absurd. It would be much better if you reversed your close (go ahead and close mine as well). I don't see how that would be confusing at all. Unless you still don't see the problem with the decision in the RM you closed. -- В²C ☎ 17:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your argument basically boils down to "I didn't get a chance to vote." One more time: please close the second discussion you opened, wait until the other RM closes, and then, if you're right, you'll get another shot at this. Brad v🍁 17:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what you're getting from what everything I've said? Wow. Are you even reading my comments? -- В²C ☎ 18:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've closed that 2nd RM now. Now, please answer my question. As a closer, how can you not oppose a name for a title per COMMONNAME that is not used in any English sources? If you have no answers, I urge you to revert and relist that previous RM, and ideally weigh in in opposition. Please? -- В²C ☎ 18:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say Brad, per even say common sense, if there is another RM on basically the same issue where is no consensus, an RM shouldn't be closed as having a consensus. And you can reopen a discussion if it didn't have too much participation and significant opposition appears just after it is closed. IMO the best way forward is to reopen the discussion on 1. divisjon and close the discussion on Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division with a ping to all the participants there who didn't comment on the discussion on 1. divisjon. That would centralize the discussion and produce a clear result. Galobtter ( pingó mió)

@ Galobtter: I closed this RM in an effort to centralize the discussion in one place. You'll note that this discussion was opened earlier, had already been closed as move, and the second RM was opened pursuant to the close of the first. This is the main topic, so I don't see why it would make sense to leave this open and close the secondary discussion as no consensus.

As I've already stated, I will be happy to revisit this once the other discussion closes, if you still want my input at that time. But having two active discussions is not likely to result in any further clarity — the discussion at Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division can, and should, continue. Brad v🍁 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How does it make sense to have the centralized discussion be the Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division RM and not the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM? And once you've closed the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM as Move that pretty much seals the results of secondary RMs as Move. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But the second RM was opened as a result of the first, which was the correct procedure. The first RM was then reopened, and only one person opposed it by the time I got to it. How many more times do we reopen it because people didn't get a chance to vote? Brad v🍁 19:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no way for the second RM to overturn the first - there is no way for it to not close as MOVE because the main article has been moved and absolutely no one is going to oppose consistency with the main article; they are going to argue for moving back the main article which can't happen in that RM.

And people did oppose the move before you closed it, just on the wrong one: Steel1943 opposed on Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division and In ictu oculi on Talk:2008 Norwegian First Division; including that opposition makes it seem a no consensus. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, sure there is. If the second RM results in a different outcome, that's grounds for a new RM based on a reasonable assumption that consensus has changed. Nevertheless, I've reverted the close. Someone else can sort this mess out. Brad v🍁 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sorted it out, I think :) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to both of you. Brad, hopefully you've learned from this. When a discussion is so obviously contrary to policy a good experienced closer will weigh in to support community consensus and policy, not perpetuate the ignorance and close in favor of the mistaken local consensus. Galobtter - that was a really a good way to combine the confusing related discussions. Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not "obviously contrary to policy" — what you're advocating here is your opinion, and there are other opinions that are also grounded in policy (for example, the opinion that "Norwegian First Division" is not an actual common name). I maintain my close was correct based on the evidence presented in the discussion, and I reopened it based on the presumption that consensus may have changed persuant to Galobtter's comments. However, I do not care for the idea that closers should reopen discussions because people didn't get a chance to vote, which has happened twice now on this RM. I hope that doesn't become a trend. Brad v🍁 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether COMMONNAME is not an actual common name is not relevant, and any closer should know that. COMMONNAME states on the outset: "an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article", a definition which the current title ("Norwegian First Division") certainly meets. Besides, when there is no COMMONNAME from looking in English reliable sources, we use WP:NATURAL disambiguation, also guided by usage in relevant English sources. Only when a topic has no references in English sources do we fall back to using non-English terms (per UE), which was not the case here. So, yes, the proposed non-English title is "obviously contrary to policy", and any closer should be able to recognize that. I'm disappointed that you still don't recognize this and am concerned about future RM discussions you may be closing. -- В²C ☎ 21:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The current title is also against WP:COMMONNAME though, as that's not generally how it's referred to in reliable sources. The sources I found generally called it "Norwegian first division" without caps, or "1. division" or "1. divisjon", or simply described it as the second-level league. Brad v🍁 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m still waiting for a citation to a single English source that used “divisjon”. Whether there is yet another even better title is not relevant to deciding which of these two is better. One clearly violates policy, the other is merely maybe not the best choice (but a clearly better one has not even been suggested much less identified). Night and day. — В²C ☎ 22:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Here's one. [1] Brad v🍁 22:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yay. That's a good one. Too bad it wasn't mentioned in the RM. And that is the first one I've seen. -- В²C ☎ 23:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

-- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I know that you might have been asked about this before, but why did you decline the Donna Strickland draft and what did you think of all the backlash the draft decline received in the media after it was revealed that she didn't have a Wikipedia article thanks to you declining the draft and lastly what do you think about the people who labeled this decision to decline the draft as Wikipedia discriminating and/or being biased against women? 344917661X ( talk) 04:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You can read all about it in the 28 October version of the Signpost. Brad v🍁 05:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I feel so sorry for you. The media claimed it was Wikipedia's fault for not having an article, but it's technically their fault because the media does not cover women enough for them to be considered notable on Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck in the future and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year! 344917661X ( talk) 16:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, I hope this message finds you well. I saw you added to the Jxy n' cuso Article. Sadly, I think you may have been mistaken. As I am sure you are doing your best and do want the correct info for Wikipedia, please research the design duo before adding comments. Let me know if you would like to discuss further. Thank you. -best Oliver J. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1717&bih=886&ei=w4QnXPzNNrG5ggek9prgBQ&q=jxy+n+cuso&oq=jxy+n+cuso&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.2746.6931..7164...3.0..0.82.836.13......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i10.NjGuJsA2d3U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olijack23 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Olijack23, I'm confused by this comment, as you don't appear to have contributed to that article. Brad v🍁 00:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Overlord (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Bradv,

I was working on the "Overlord (album)" article and I noticed you removed the article and changed it to a redirect.

Looking at the definition of WP:NALBUM, this is the criteria that "Overlord" clearly meets:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

The draft page for Overlord included multiple published reviews of the kind listed above.

There are also MANY online reviews for this same album, and it is a big gray area what constitutes a legitimate/illegitimate online review for a heavy metal music release. I see no objective standards listed on Wikipedia for this and this is an issue that is very subjective IMHO.

Thank you and happy new year, AirWave II ( talk) 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@ AirWave II: Yes, WP:NALBUM can be a bit subjective, but I do not see the required sources for this album to warrant a stand-alone article. If you can come up with more than was there, you are welcome to recreate it. If we need to, we can take it to AfD to get consensus on whether it meets the notability criteria. Brad v🍁 16:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brad, Happy New Years Eve.

I provided 2 reviews from popular heavy metal online sites and 2 reviews from print magazines. This is in addition to the many other reviews that were printed on less popular metal webzines, that I think should also be counted. I'm unclear on how many more reviews I need to provide, and why the ones I have provided are insufficient. They meet the criteria listed below from Wikipedia's guidelines. If you don't agree with my assessment, I think we'll need to take it to a group to determine the target number of reviews that I need to provide.

Thanks, AirWave II ( talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. 👋 Sorry, but I think there was NO need for u to change my edit because if u check Braun Strowman's Instagram page it clearly has his second name (Joseph) in his bio 😡 I am bone123 ( talk) 15:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am bone123, you didn't provide a source for the middle name. There's a discussion on the talk page about it. Brad v🍁 16:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

😑 I am bone123 ( talk) 16:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

...for the revert on my talk page. The IP was the banned editor HarveyCarter. I frequently delete the edits of his socks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes Galobtter Orangemike BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange Bureaucrat changes Addshore

CheckUser changes Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime Oversight changes AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion ( discussion). This is {{ db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion ( discussion). This is {{ db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts ( discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{ db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{ Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Happy New Year!

Bradv,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBig Xrayᗙ 13:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

An early alert (still extant) requested that all biographical claims be documented. All I have done is add links to meet that request or replace others that had undergone rot. This biographical vignette is strictly descriptive. Includes no claims that are untrue or cannot be verified. More could be added but it has not so that those acting as judges or verifiers do not criticise the vignette as a piece of self-aggrandisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Frances & Aiko. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. lullabying ( talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and best wishes to the year 2019. I want to inform you about the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The source on ben shapiros page for him referring to women who get abortions as baby killers has no source itself and is not a factual article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.79.102 ( talk) 02:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure it does. [2] Bradv 🍁 02:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

He edits the Daily Wire, a conservative blog, and hosts the online “Ben Shapiro Show,” where he’s called women who have abortions “baby killers” and said that “a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or two women.” where is the source for any of those quotes there isnt any — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.79.102 ( talk) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Presumably they're direct quotes from Shapiro himself, and wouldn't be too hard to find. This certainly is not a valid reason to delete the quotes from the article though, as we have a reliable source. Bradv 🍁 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have searched for any instance of Shapiro using the term baby killer to describe women who get abortions and there is no quote at all. Persumably it was made up as the article presented as a source is not a sourced article so it is not reliable in the slightest Mrbill0327 ( talk) 02:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)MRBILL

I'm at a loss as to what you're getting at. I did a Google search and found plenty of results, including a whole video about it. Either way, we repeat what reliable sources report, we don't do our own research. Bradv 🍁 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

He hasnt used that term ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill0327 ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, I removed a block evading IP's comments from the Workshop page (after blocking the IP first for block evasion). Considering this all happened on January 5, it's a bit belated, but unless someone pings me to the case, I'm not paying a lot of attention to it. Please let me know if I was wrong to remove the comments. After all, I'm not a clerk and I'm a party to the case. If I shouldn't have, I apologize and won't do so again; I can also self-revert if you like. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbb23: I presume you have checkuser evidence for the block evasion, which the arbitrators could ask you for if required. Nevertheless, I think it may work better to collapse the comments then remove them entirely, in order to preserve the integrity of the discussion. Does that make sense to you? Bradv 🍁 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My personal view is that nothing is lost in the discussion by the removal, but you should do whatever you think is appropriate. As for CU evidence, any of the arbitrators can ask me privately for whatever they need.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I've collapsed the comment, but I don't think it matters too much either way. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 01:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bradv,

from GEB11:

Sorry about causing trouble. An earlier warning of yours (still extant) demanded that evidence be provided for the claims made in the biographical vignette. Over the years I have added links to comply.

I should like to say that no untrue claims have been made in regards to my academic biography. If you identified any, please, do let me know so that I will provide the link to support it, or I will delete it.

May I emphasise that at my age I do not have any interest in self-promotion or self-aggrandisement, I just wanted an informative vignette to be available so that my students and others can have access to it.

Be that as it may, if you still believe that the vignette is exaggerated and hence untrue or offensive, please do not hesitate to delete it altogether. Goodness knows, I do not really need it. Please, do reply and let me have your views.

Professor G E Berrios University of Cambridge, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Geb11, thank you for clarifying your conflict of interest. Since you are (or claim to be) the subject of the article, please don't edit it further. You are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page of the article, and you are more than welcome to edit other areas of Wikipedia that aren't connected to you. See WP:COI for more guidance on conflict of interest editing. Bradv 🍁 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To Mr. Bravd

Thank you, Sir, I shall not edit the entry in question again.

best,

geb11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bradv,

Sorry for bothering you. Could I seek your help further?

I must say, I feel terribly embarrassed about what I have done. The warnings and mastheads that now appear on top of my biographical vignette, albeit correct, feel very accusatory and incriminating.

Could I ask you a enormous favour?

1) Could you delete the biographical vignette altogether? I am not sure that I can (or should) do it myself. I think it is right that it should not be published in W.

2) Could you tell me how to delete my account altogether? I cannot find a way to do so!

Please do help,

Thank you,

geb11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Geb11: You appear to meet the criteria at WP:NPROF, so the article on you will probably not be deleted altogether. It should be trimmed though, as only information that can be credibly sourced should be included. Regarding your second point, Wikipedia does not have the technical means to delete accounts, as they are required for attribution. Bradv 🍁 17:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bradv,

Could I please have the entire biographical vignette deleted?

Some of the requests for 'credible' evidence are impossible to meet. For example, it is asked that I provide evidence for the fact that I have four children and that two have died. Apart from sending dead certificates, how can I evidence that? Furthermore, if I entered any evidence then I am going against the injunction of not editing.

You ask that only those bits of information that are properly evidenced be left. Who is going to do the pruning? Will you do it yourself? Have you actually read the vignette?

If the vignette is considered autobiographic, why is it that now I cannot ask for a complete deletion?

I imagine you have administrator's rights. Please, do delete the whole thing and then there is no need for the mastheads to appear accusing me of fabricating things about my life!

I am asking politely, sir, for you to proceed.

Thank you.

Professor G E Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Geb11: I am not an admin, and cannot unilaterally delete the article. Part of the rules around conflict of interest stipulate that you do not have editorial control over the article – you have released your contributions under the CC BY-SA license, and it is now up to the community to decide whether this content is worthy of inclusion. The criteria at WP:NPROF suggest that it will be kept, but I have asked for more input at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Bradv 🍁 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bradv,

Have you been able to find out how could my biographical vignette be completely removed from Wikipedia? If not, Is there a higher authority I could appeal to?

A sort of catch 22 situation is beginning to develop here. Any change I implement is 'reversed' by some invisible hand who does not bother to explain or give reasons for it. I am really at a lost.

Please, help. So far, you seem to be the only visible and sensible interlocutor that I have been able to find in Wikipedia.

Professor G E Berrios (geb11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Geb11: The best place for your request is at Talk:G. E. Berrios, where you can request what you would like done. I would start with identifying any falsehoods or embellishments that may be in the article. Also, please make sure you sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Bradv 🍁 15:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Let us hope that those participating in the ongoing conversations on my putative conflict of interest decide, after all, that the biographical vignette be deleted altogether, as I do not really qualify for the level of notability rightly required by Wikipedia.

In the meantime, whoever the current editor of the vignette is (I am grateful to her/him for the help) continues to request additional evidence. I am quietly complying and now all the requests except one have been met. This one concerns the award of my honorary Fellowship by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. For some reason the RCPsych does not publish a list accessible to all and sundry. It is of course available in their passworded intranet and whilst I have access to it, the external link would not convey to the required information. I am writing to the RPCPsych asking them for a solution to this problem. I would be happy to provide a photocopy of the award and a picture of the ceremony that took place in Edinburgh in 2010.

Respectfully, I would like to emphasize that the vignette is utterly factual and totally devoid of 'embellishments'. Indeed, many other achievements have not been listed. For example, I have 6 doctorates honoris causa but the person currently editing the vignette chose to delete three, that is ok by me, and I will do as I am told.

Could you kindly make this message available to those who are deciding on the fate of the blessed vignette? My final request has to be, can it be deleted altogether?

Thank you for your patience and continuous help!

Professor G E Berrios (geb11) Geb11 ( talk) 18:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

hey, I'm new to wiki, the message said you instantly reverted the 2A02:AB04:2BC:CB00:9168:9C39:3699:FD1A contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=South_African_farm_attacks&action=history and said to talk about it on "talk" page. This should be it, right? I removed misleading line in the article as my first attempt to edit and see what happens. Please correct me if I'm using wiki incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB04:2BC:CB00:9168:9C39:3699:FD1A ( talk) 22:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed two references and changed the title of one of the references. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish, but if you have opinions on the accuracy of the article I suggest bringing them up at Talk:South African farm attacks. Bradv 🍁 23:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eva Bartlett. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment "no it's not" is referring to. I stated, after you undid my addition that it is not presented as a medical diagnosis, in fact the exact quote I have is that it is not yet an official diagnosis. Though medical experts agreed further research should be done on this new label, which is also listed with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.156.73 ( talk) 18:17, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Suggesting that Trump derangement syndrome is a "well-documented phenomenon, backed up by hard neuroscience, endocrinology, and history" is utter nonsense. Bradv 🍁 18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This was a direct quote by renowned the pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, and is in quotes with citation. A more credible source than some of the opinion pieces already accepted on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.156.73 ( talk) 18:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. It sounds like you're trying to make a POINT. Bradv 🍁 18:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, i'm looking for a legitimate justification for the removal of two cited medical experts on the matter. What it appears you are doing is cherry picking what you want to see on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.156.73 ( talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I see that you reverted my edit. I'm not gonna revert it back but it would be nice if next time you would give an explanation in the comment field so that other editors that look at the article history don't have to guess or worse each ask you individually. This saves them precious time -- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I did. Bradv 🍁 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You wrote in the summary what you did, not the reason why you did it. That you restored the sentence can bee seen by anybody without looking at the edit summary. But why would you restore a sentence that was removed with the reason that it's not supported by the sources? A legitimate reason in your edit summary would look like "Wrong, source N° 2 says 'so and so'" -- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think it required further explanation. Bradv 🍁 22:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Bradv takes the time to work on "tough to review" AfC drafts that other reviewers have by-passed. This requires taking the time to familiarize oneself with the subject and respond to article creators (usually newbies} questions. He helps provide feedback, guidance and support to these new editors, letting them improve an article rather than outright deletion of their efforts and in so doing creates productive Wikipedians. He does his best to be consistent with other reviewers and strives to embrace opportunities for his personal self-reflection and review. He tirelessly works behind the scenes to improve and enlarge the encyclopedia. A very agreeable editor, he has a good track record of being civil, polite and helpful and well deserves to be this weeks Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Ten Year Veteran Editor

Bradv

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 20, 2019

This hard-working editor works on "tough to review" AfC drafts. Familiarizing oneself with the subject and responding to article creators creates feedback, guidance and support, improving an article rather than deleting it. Result? Productive Wikipedians. He is consistent and strives for personal self-reflection and review.

Recognized for

Going beyond the norm

Notable work(s)

People's Party of Canada and Christine Blasey Ford

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7  ☎ 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Buster7, thank you for the award and for your kind words. Bradv 🍁 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Enterprisey ( talk!) 02:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Bradv, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! A 10 fireplane Imform me 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain what you mean by that with regards to Draft:Piaoyou? Timmyshin ( talk) 21:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Timmyshin, at the time I placed that tag, it was little more than a dictionary definition with a bit of original research thrown in. It looks much better now, thanks to your efforts. I don't have time for a thorough review myself, but feel free to resubmit and another reviewer will take a look. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Timmyshin ( talk) 02:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Aloha, I see you left a edit on the Kalani Pe'a Page. Can you give me a example on how to go about sourcing citations and links for bios. Many editors keep going on the page and listing what needs to be done but don't leave much instruction. It is hard to pin point exactly what you are looking at because there is so much on this page. He has so many links it is endless. From the LA Times, Fader, Paste Magazine and on. Allanbcool ( talk) 08:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Allanbcool, the simple answer is that writing articles is like math - you have to show your work. That said, the tag I left was a little over the top, and the other tags don't really seem to apply either. I've removed all the tags from the article now in favour of more specific {{ citation needed}} tags. Generally speaking, the article is in pretty good shape, and you've done some fine work. Bradv 🍁 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to find out why did you remove the image inside the info box? 12.208.218.195 ( talk) 11:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove the image. That was removed by a bot as a copyright violation. Bradv 🍁 13:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brad, the case notes say there are 12 arbitrators on the case. By my count, nine have contributed to the PD thus far: AGK, NYB, Katie, Silk Tork, Dave, Joe, DGG, Rick, and Doug. Who are the other three? (If the case didn't cross over 2018 to 2019, I'd be able to figure it out, but...) Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, the list of arbitrators active on the case is shown on the talk page of each of the case pages. There are three active arbitrators that have not yet voted - Courcelles, OR, and PMC. Bradv 🍁 14:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Another thing I didn't know. Thanks!-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, you're welcome. It comes from this template, which I can only describe as magic: {{ Casenav/data}} Bradv 🍁 14:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I love using your superlinks script. However, recently it seems to have been having trouble bringing up people's block logs. I checked the requests, and it looks like the script is properly requesting the block log page and getting a valid response. However, "No results" keeps on coming up. Any ideas? Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Enterprisey, I'm not sure, but I don't use the block log feature too much myself. I plan on adding some features one of these days, so I'll do some further testing at the same time. I just got an error with reply-link while replying to this, so maybe a little tit-for-tat is in order. ;) Bradv 🍁 05:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I found it - at least on my browser, there is a new form element added in between the #mw-content-text and the ul for those logs. (Maybe from the fact that I have revdel checkboxes in there now?) Changing the selector to #mw-content-text ul (from #mw-content-text > ul) makes it start working for me. I don't think there are any other ul's floating around in there for those pages at least, so we should be fine. If the selector becomes ambiguous, that'll become obvious pretty fast and we'll know what's going on. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Enterprisey, I changed the selector - let me know if it works for you now. Bradv 🍁 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Works fine now, thank you! Enterprisey ( talk!) 16:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress ( permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

I love the new superlinks update! Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Enterprisey: I'm glad you like it. Tell your friends. ;) Bradv 🍁 05:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was a stupid mistake, I would say why but it is irrelevant, if I cannot think straight I should not undo edits.. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, no problem. I read it over several times trying to figure out what you meant by your edit summary, and concluded you must have completely misread the edit. No worries - it's a wiki, we can fix it. ;) Bradv 🍁 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really I read his edit summery which said less about his edit then it in fact contained, but could not quite put two and two together as to what the difference was. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the best approach to take, but Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#Late comment from Amorymeltzer on remedy 3 clarification is also a threaded discussion. isaacl ( talk) 17:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks. I'll keep an eye on that one too. Bradv 🍁 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with leaving threading discussion up is that others see it and think it is reasonable for other threads... Since the discussion has died down, perhaps it can be closed too, with a reminder. isaacl ( talk) 17:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. If you are able to, could you please review Draft:Dundo Maroje? Thanks in advance! 141.138.39.138 ( talk) 18:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's in the queue for review, so someone will get to it. Thanks. Bradv 🍁 20:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm DannyS712 ( talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bradv, I reworked the Vera King entry according to your recommendations. Thank you for teaching some lessons about Wiki standards, I appreciate! In my view, the entry has overcome the Start-Class level. If you agree, I would ask you politely to update the status. Thank you. Rudyguy21 ( talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Rudyguy21, when posting about articles on talk pages, could you please wikilink to the relevant article? I agree you have done good work in expanding this article, and it's possible that this now classifies as C-class by the relevant WikiProjects, but making that determination really isn't part of the AfC process.

One issue that I still see with the article is that the references are not formatted correctly - are you able to fix that? Bradv 🍁 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Page is /info/en/?search=Styalz_Fuego.

You helped me a couple of weeks ago and I'm unsure where to go next Look at the talk section of the page, I've added in my recommended changes but no one has gotten back to me?

ChrisClbr ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I created an svg file to try to add clickable links to the NPP flowchart. The original PNG has just had minor updates, but I also created an svg file at File:NPP flowchart.svg. When you navigate fully to the raw svg file in a new tab ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/NPP_flowchart.svg) the links are clickable, but I'm not sure if there is a way of getting it to be clickable on-wiki. If there is, it would be great to have it work with clickable links from the sidebar of your superlinks script. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 06:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, this is really cool. I will look at integrating it into Superlinks. Right now I'm just loading the png, but I'll see if I can load the svg instead and get the links to work. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sir, no offense or anything, but I would like your feeling regarding this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@ ImmortalWizard: I'm not offended by your question. You can read my take on that event at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Opinion. It was also covered in several other articles in that issue of the Signpost, and there are some conversations in my talk page archives. Hope that helps. Bradv 🍁 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, we all make mistakes. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you're just trolling me. I thought you were genuinely interested in this topic. Bradv 🍁 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No no, I wasn't trolling, I was genuinely interested. Hows this a troll? THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on the BLP noticeboard. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jenny McCarthy Bradv 🍁 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jussie Smollett. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bradv!

So, I was thinking that maybe we should take the discussion off WP:AN/I and instead do a more all encompassing RfC. Here is a link to the draft so far: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour/RfC.

Would this be possible in your view? Should I bother? I just think that this probably should just be one centralized discussion.

Many thanks! ― MattLongCT - Talk- ^☖ 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, I wouldn't. You'll just end up with having the discussion in yet another place. There still needs to be a deletion discussion, and there still needs to be a block/unblock discussion. Those are happening at the appropriate venues. Bradv 🍁 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if you could please delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Gender RfC and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour/RfC for me, I'd appreciate it. I've moved it to my sandbox where I am about to blank it. Thank you! ― MattLongCT - Talk- ^☖ 19:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait, nvm. You are not an admin. My apologies. ― MattLongCT - Talk- ^☖ 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Hello, Bradv,

Empty categories that appear on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories are tagged as empty. The empty categories THEN sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion after being tagged. After 7 day of being tagged and sitting in this category, if the category is still empty, the category is deleted. But we don't wait 7 days after a category has appeared in the Database Report before tagging it.

If you have questions about this, please read the instructions at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion that will explain this process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Liz: I believe the categories are required by this template. The template was recently changed, so I assumed the categories were only empty since that update (which has since been reverted). I'll have to look into this further. Bradv 🍁 05:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I requested this edit as the CSD template said don't remove them yourself. But those categories are supposed to be filled. I have no clue why they have been empty except my thought was the template Brad linked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And the categories have repopulated, so everything is back to status quo. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your edits at Rie y Llora [3], I can’t think of any source that would constantly update the view count of a music video that was originally filmed in 2003. How is YouTube not a reliable source for the video’s view count? And how is iTunes not a reliable source for its iTunes release? Is there a policy somewhere that lists those two as unreliable? And if so, why do most other articles use these two? (YouTube for view counts and iTunes for release dates?) — Diva Knockouts 18:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DivaKnockouts, YouTube is not an independent reliable source, so we don't include information that is cited only to them. If a newspaper, book, or magazine article were to mention how many YouTube subscribers or viewers someone had, we could then discuss how best to include the information. The same applies to iTunes. It's also worth noting that YouTube subscriber counts are notoriously unreliable and easily gamed, and therefore do not contribute to the notability of a subject. It's best to leave the information out until a better source can be found. Bradv 🍁 19:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about subscriber counts. We’re talking about the views of an official music video. Most song articles which have music videos generally use YouTube to reference the view counts. — Diva Knockouts 03:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this, I suggest beginning a conversation or RfC on the article talk page. I do not agree that we should be including information that cannot be reliably sourced, especially for something as trivial as the number of views something has on YouTube. Bradv 🍁 03:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)