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 see you got busy--thanks. I reworked that section significantly, shuffling around some content and trying to remake it into a standard sort of biography, but I know it was kind of a half-assed job, so I appreciate your help. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I think there's still more to do, but it's marginally better than it was. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 15:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never left a message on a talk page so bear with me if I do this incorrectly:) I've been watching the back and forth on Licona's page with interest and concern. I messaged BradV about this privately because I didn't want to embarrass anyone. In terms of Licona being fired. That is flat out slander perpetrated by Norman Geisler. Unfortunately, as is the case with slander it makes it's way around the internet. However, Christianity Today is a news source and the article clearly states Licona resigned his position with NAMB. He states his position at NAMB was eliminated. This is proven by the fact that NAMB no longer has an apologetics department at all. The entire department was eliminated because NAMB was downsizing at the time. William Lane Craig, who would have been in a position to know the facts, also clearly states Licona was not fired [ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/are-institutional-doctrinal-statements-counter-productive]. Regarding Licona's status as an historian, one may want to look at Wikipedia's own Historian entry [1]. Licona certainly passes the test by Wikipedia's own standard. Simply looking at the title of his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach and the Table of Contents [2] would prove he is an historian. In addition to the course he teaches in Philosophy of History [3] He also received endorsements by historians [4]. I could go on but I think I made my point. He has also had journal articles published in the academic Journal of the Historical Jesus. ]. You may also want to add back in Licona's membership in the very prestigious Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [5]. Here is a source that you have used for other items confirming the name of Licona's wife [6]. Here is another for his wife and both of his children. id=NdF97o5L768C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=mike+licona+alex+zach&source=bl&ots=SGhMLkkgOW&sig=ACfU3U0M1mP68XvyXfBHvJIllMRgZPts7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR6Pz8wvXgAhXhnuAKHdvCBvkQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=mike%20licona%20alex%20zach&f=false Hopefully, this will help make this entry better which is what I know everyone wants. Truthbetold15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold15 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Truthbetold15, there are a number of Wikipedia policies that this article should comply with. In this case, as with all biographies of living persons, we require sources that are reliable, neutral, and independent of the subject. Not all of the sources on the article meet this standard right now, but we are doing our best to get it that way. If you are aware of any additional sources about Licona - e.g. books, magazines, newspaper articles about him - please let us know. Blogs, public letters, and interviews really aren't sufficient for these claims, and they certainly don't take precedence over material published in acceptable sources. I hope this helps. Bradv 🍁 17:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, A blog was used as a source indicating Licona was fired. The same standard should be used both ways. Perhaps, since you are relying on a blog to suggest he was fired and the CT article suggests otherwise, the whole thing regarding whether he was or was not fired should just be deleted. How would any source ever know the truth of the matter without interviewing Licona or NAMB or SES? Only they can answer the question. Thus, an interview would be the only means of establishing the truth. I gave sources that are just what you are asking for. I gave the a page from his book giving credit to his wife and children. That should be enough to source his family. I gave a link to the newsletter from Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas announcing his induction to this prestigious academic Society. What more would you require? I gave links to the Table of Contents of his book and University page showing the classes he teaches and the Wikipedia page defining Historian. What more do you want? These are acceptable sources. Even for an academic paper. All except the Wikipedia page. Of course, that would not be an acceptable source. Here is a source confirming Licona was not fired from SES [7]. The Wikipedia article mentions this situation three times. Twice he was fired. Once he resigned. This letter confirms he resigned. comment added by Truthbetold15 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I'm not sure why you didn't respond to my last entry. I thought, perhaps, you took the weekend off. But I see you responded to an entry below. I will try and make my points more organized and easy to follow.

1) Licona was not fired. The Wikipedia article states twice he was fired and once he was not. This link clearly shows he was NOT fired. Please make this correction. [8]

2] If you are not comfortable with "historian" then what about "Historical Jesus" research? This is the way it is listed on Bart Ehrman's page. Licona has had two papers published in the academic journal "Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus" [9] [10].

3] Family information: wife, Debbie; children, Ally and Zachary [11]

4) Membership in Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [12]

I can't see any reason these would not be acceptable sources. I would really appreciate a response to this message. Thank you. Truthbetold15|Truthbetold15 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold15 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

@ Truthbetold15: I wasn't notified of your earlier message because it wasn't signed properly, so I missed it. Please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

1) The article does not use the word fired once. We have a source that says "removed from his position", so that is what is used. If we're missing some information, please present your sources at Talk:Michael R. Licona.

2) We do not have a source that describes Licona as a historian.

3) There is no encyclopedic reason for including the names of Licona's family members, and WP:BLPNAME says they should be left out.

4) Membership of this group may be worthy of mention, but its significance is unclear, and should be cited to an independent reliable source.

The bottom line is this: This article has been the subject of targeted promotional edits, whitewashing, and original research. Per BLP policy, we need to be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources." That is my focus here. Bradv 🍁 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Bradv: I tried to sign the comment by copying what was in the other messages. I apologize if I did it incorrectly. 1) I'm sorry, but "being removed" and "being fired" are virtually the same thing. I have given you a reliable source and yet you refuse to update the article to make it truthful. There is no more reliable source than a letter from the Seminary!! It doesn't matter what may have been done in the past to this article. If you are now trying to make it truthful and sourced. This is truthful and sourced. 2) I said to go ahead and describe him as someone involved in historical Jesus research just as it is done on Bart Ehrman's Wikipedia page. I then gave you two academic journal articles from the Journal of the Study of Historical Jesus Research. He debates, writes, lectures and speaks on this topic all over the world. You won't accept blogs. You won't accept his CV. You won't accept anything but a published source. I have given you one. Here is another one showing he is going to be speaking in Singapore [13]. I could send you many, many links to conferences in which he has spoken. Is that what you need? The academic journal satisfies an academic paper. Are you telling me the requirements for Wikpedia are greater than for academic sourcing? 3) Family members are given in almost all Wikipedia articles. Here is a link to the acknowledgments page of one of his books [14] Why are you singling out Licona? 4) The fact that you do not know the significance of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas shows the danger of people without knowledge of the subject contributing or editing articles. This is the most prestigious academic society of New Testament scholars. Of course, it would be mentioned in an article about Licona. Regardless of what was done in the past, I have been making a good faith effort to work WITH you to help make this article truthful and in compliance with your standards. When you talk about original research, I find that very interesting because Licona's entire section about Gospel Differences was completely deleted. Licona's last book was groundbreaking research in the field. This is certainly something that anyone versed in the field would know and would understand should be included in the article. However, I'm beginning to feel as though I'm running up against a brick wall and there is some sort of agenda here. Please prove me wrong. I have given good sources. I have not gone in and made changes myself. I have yielded to your opinion and asked for REASONS why the sources I have given do not meet the standard. It is hard for me to believe these sources do not meet the standard of Wikipedia when they meet an academic standard. You and I both know that Wikipedia is not allowed as an academic source. How can the standards for Wikipedia be greater than for academic writing? Or are you making the sources for Licona greater due to you frustration with previous contributors? Please explain. ~~~~ Truthbetold15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold15 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page with instructions on how to sign posts. As for the rest, please read through the policy links I gave you carefully - there is plenty of valuable information in there that will answer most of your questions. Bradv 🍁 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Bradv: Thank you. I did look at the link you gave me and I learned a lot. You are certainly not following the guidelines given. Of course, I haven't either since I didn't know them not being a Wiki person myself. But, I did learn that since Mike Licona is my husband I should have disclosed that. I also learned that there is a remedy when editors will not remove libelous information from an article and I intend to immediately pursue that remedy. I'm sorry we could not work everything out at this level. Every source I gave you was in compliance with the article you sent. I'm afraid you guys seem to have some sort of an agenda. I'm just now sure of the reason. You have also shown your complete lack of knowledge and willingness to even learn anything about the person and/or field in which you are editing and determining what is and is not relevant. I see you guys made it so no one can edit his page. Could you at least do some research so you at least know what your're doing? Especially, when one of the admins admits he is doing a half-assed job. These are real people, you know. ~~~~ Truthbetold15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold15 ( talk • contribs) 17:01, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore is the founder of Greenpeace, and a respected scientist. He certainly has more experience and credibility in environmental matters than the esteemed bartender from the Bronx. While you clearly disagree with his point of view, it is inappropriate to use your opinion of his views to dismiss him as a lunatic. My edit should re re-inserted. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I will not revert. His perspective is not valid criticism, particularly because it makes no sense. You are welcome to try to gain consensus to include it on the article talk page. Bradv 🍁 13:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand how you could characterize the informed, cited views of a respected environmentalist and businessman, Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, as "the rantings of a deranged lunatic, rather than actual encyclopedic criticism". Just because you may not agree with Dr. Moore does not mean you should revert an edit that injects a different point of view into the Ocasio-Cortez article. Indeed, what you do, as many Wikipedia editors do, is to violate the "neutral point of view policy". The policy only works when cited criticism of a particular stance is allowed along with the initial stance. Further, regarding your characterization of Dr. Moore, how are his statements "rantings of a deranged lunatic", when all he is doing is pointing out the absurdity of the plan promoted by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a former bartender with no environmental or business experience? His statements certainly make a lot more sense than her views, but that is just my opinion, just like stating that his criticism makes no sense is your opinion. After all - who are you to determine what statements make sense, and which do not? Please step back a moment from your personal opinion and try to look at this issue in an objective manner, and revert your edit removing criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps my edit summary was a bit over the top, but I stand by the edit. His claims are nonsense. Bradv 🍁 17:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Again - this is just your opinion. Just because you disagree, you dismiss Dr. Moore's statements as nonsense. You should not keep reverting edits that are cited, and are from an informed source, just because you do not agree with them. The fact remains that Dr. Moore's criticism is valid, or at the very least informed and cited, and should not be reverted just because you disagree with his statements. As for trying to get a consensus - I can't imaging that would ever happen with an issue this divisive. but this has nothing to do with consensus - this is about including an opposing viewpoint to achieve a neutral point of view. I understand that you wear your edit reversions as some sort of badge of honor, but editing is not about winning. I implore you to be fair and objective. - JohnTopShelf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 18:13, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

So you know you're never going to get consensus for this, yet you want me to reinsert it? Bradv 🍁 18:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant there will never be consensus on whether Moore is correct or not, or whether Ocasio-Cortez is correct or not. But consensus on who is correct doesn't matter. What matters is presenting a differing point of view, by a respected environmentalist whose comments to a reputable news source were cited. That is what a neutral point of view for an article is all about. And yes - I want you to re-insert it. -JohnTopShelf

I would like to know why #Ibelievewomen and #metoo does not apply to Rachel Marsden, and why the Arbcomm decision is ignored. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, please answer the question about your relationship to the subject. Also, twitter hashtags do not make Wikipedia policy. Bradv 🍁 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no relation to the subject. But i can see why Wikipedia has issues with women. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, okay good. In that case I'll assume you are here to help us write an encyclopedia. I recommend starting with a less controversial subject. Bradv 🍁 18:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have edited it off and on for years and have been on Wikipedia since 2008. Read the Arbcomm decision PLEASE. 3 revert rule does not apply to blankings of disproportionate derogatory information about Marsden. And while #Ibelievwomen is a slogan, there is a lot of truth in it. The Simon Fraser pattern fit to a tee what happened at my own university, in abuse of women by faculty. Her's is an early case, from when titillation over a supposedly debunked claim seemed to provide an opportunity to heap abuse on her -- including, at one time, dragging her dead father into it. Arbcomm dealt with all of this. You might want to consider Wikipedia's reputation for being hostile to women, or, at least, unable to attract and keep them. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, sorry, I am not getting involved in this dispute. I recommend you stay far away from it as well. Bradv 🍁 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your page for 3 days to limit the socking; please let me know if you want the protection removed or extended at any point. -- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{ rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons ( Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page ( Discussion).
• {{ db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 ( Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We got consensus on the talk page can you self revert my edit on ilhan omar? Magherbin ( talk) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Magherbin, I've removed the whole clause for now. Neither version is properly sourced. Bradv 🍁 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't know clerks would do that. Perhaps I was worried for no reason, then. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, given that this is the entirety of the dispute resolution initiatives taken so far, it doesn't take long for the arbitrators to confirm this case is premature. Per our procedures, an "obviously frivolous" request can be removed right away, a withdrawn request stays up for 24 hours, and a request that's declined by vote stays up for at least 48 hours. There's usually nothing to worry about - every case request gets scrutinized pretty closely, both by the arbs and by the community. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 01:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Back in my day, it took more than 48 hours for a quorum of Arbs to agree that the sky was blue. Progress! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, oh that hasn't changed at all. But fortunately this decision didn't require a quorum. Bradv 🍁 01:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Brad and Floquenbeam for being dragged into whatever this is. Not sure how I ended up being a "bully" in this case either. I am happy for the other editor to suggest improvements, and in fact did make some changes to try and clarify per their request / suggestion. We'll see if they come back to discuss. Koncorde ( talk) 14:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I simply cannot fathom why you should revert a perfectly good, succinct and notable article to a redirect to Beneteau#lagoon when there is no such address. Lagoon is owned by Beneteau, but the only reference to Lagoon on that page is a sentence that I posted earlier today!! If you look at list of multihulls you will see that there are a dozen or so links (now blue, previously red) that are directed to Lagoon. Why sabotage this work? Please let me know if you have a coherent reason, as I propose to reinstate the article otherwise. Arrivisto ( talk) 21:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto, the article you created didn't have any references to reliable sources. Might I suggest creating your article at Draft:Lagoon catamaran instead? That way you have time to give everything proper sources before putting it in mainspace. Bradv 🍁 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto beyond what Bradv wrote, I would note that I could find no indication that this particular boat kind is notable. It exists but our standard for notability is different than that. Specifically for products, like these, the product notability guidelines. Not only was this not present in the article as it was, I found no evidence that it COULD satisfy those guidelines. Also, turning the article into a redirect did not turn any of the links at [[list of multihulls] red - the article still exists and has not been deleted. You know it still exists because you undid my redirecting. Only articles which don't exist at all are red. It is is also possible for something not notable to be on a list. If you'd like to read more about that you could do so here. Hopefully that answers your question. If not I would be happy to try and explain further. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is more like Orwell's Thought Police than Wikipedia. The article is barely a few hours old, yet has instantly deleted because it is not yet perfect. Of course there will be more to follow, with lots of nice citations! Of course it's WP:Notable: Lagoon are one of the biggest multuhull manufacturers in the world. Yet you redirect to a paragraph that doesn't exist. FFS, give the article a chance and give me a break! Arrivisto ( talk) 00:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's obviously notable, then it shouldn't be difficult to provide citations from the very first edit. The article as you created it was indistinguishable from spam, which usually gets reverted on sight. Bradv 🍁 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied further on your talk page. Bradv 🍁 01:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto As Brad noted articles have a chance to be developed in draft space, or, alternatively, multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail could be added to a restored version in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On another matter. Now that WP has helpfully made editing multicoloured and easier, please could you advise: are contents boxes now optional? Also, can they be removed? Arrivisto ( talk) 11:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto, which content boxes are you referring to? Do you have an example? Bradv 🍁 13:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages that have more than one paragraph heading (i.e. most of them) used to have an automatic box of contents, which could be hidden. There seems to have been a change - some pages do not have this box. Any ideas? Arrivisto ( talk) 14:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Table of Contents boxes should be automatic. They can be suppressed with __NOTOC__ or forced with __TOC__, but in most cases this is unnecessary. I'm not aware of any change, but I'm happy to take a look if you tell me which article you're asking about. Bradv 🍁 14:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I've solved it: a page I wrote, Brady catamarans, had no contents box when there were only 3 headings; but when I added a 4th ("External links") the box appeared. Arrivisto ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto, oh yeah, that'll do it. Cheers. Bradv 🍁 15:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I respect that you've been editing Wikipedia about twice as long as I have, but please know that it is most unhelpful when you give only a very general reference for your reversions. I follow here and many like directives in capitalizing "church" whenever it refers to a specific group of persons and not the building. Please advise me as to on what authority you insist on decapitalizing "church" in these instances. Just as I don't assume you have personal bias in your point of view here, please grant me the same respect unless you can establish such in this case. @ Bradv: Jzsj ( talk) 16:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, sure. "Church", capitalized, refers solely to the body of Christians around the world, and is not limited by denomination or country. Referring to one particular denomination in one particular country as "the Church" implies that there are no others, which is incorrect and a violation of WP:NPOV. To refer to the Catholic Church in Australia as a proper noun would require two qualifiers, the denomination (Catholic), and the country (Australia), hence "The Catholic Church in Australia". Bradv 🍁 16:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please take the time to check the reference which I give to Chicago style, and note that within this article "the" church refers to the church being discussed in this article. Please give an alternate reference if you don't agree with the one I give here. I'm indifferent on this point of view wise, but it's a huge question and I don't see the point of reverting this everywhere without specific support in manuals of style. @ Bradv: Jzsj ( talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, we don't follow the Chicago manual of style though, we follow our own, which makes no mention of whether or not this should be capitalized. I see this as a NPOV issue, and I'm not aware of any arguments that capitalizing "Church" in context such as this would improve our articles in any way. You are welcome to start a discussion at WT:MOS if you think there could be consensus for your approach, but I expect that the majority of editors would see it the way I do. Bradv 🍁 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If you check articles on churches you will find many agree with Chicago MOS. On boarder issues I leave be as long as the article is consistent in its usage. I suggest that to depart from this approach is more a POV issue than to follow my more neutral approach. I am opening a discussion at MOS, but I suggest until there is a directive in MOS we not change the work of those who follow Chicago MOS. @ Bradv: Jzsj ( talk) 16:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, I think the link you gave me may not represent the Chicago MOS correctly, but I don't have a login to check the official version. Note however, that this styleguide from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee supports my approach, and presents a very simple rule: Do not capitalize church unless it is used as part of the formal name of a building, congregation or denomination. Capitalize Church when discussing the universal Church. [15] Bradv 🍁 17:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll let this go because, upon registering for a free month, I don't see this explicitly covered in the Chicago Manuel of Style; neither do your examples in the Milwaukee Archdiocese cover the case where a particular church is repeatedly referred to in an article. Again, I suggest we should leave others freedom unless we can give a clear reference to them for opposing their work, and not assume a POV problem, or we may exhibit our own POV problem. @ Bradv: Jzsj ( talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, what exactly do you assume my POV to be? Bradv 🍁 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not assuming what it is, but I'm saying that anyone who suggests that another may have a POV problem before presenting specific policy or guidelines that oppose what the other is doing, MAY have some POV problem of their own. I mean no offense, but I do think the points I've made above are worth noting. @ Bradv: Jzsj ( talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bradv and Jzsj : This issue is specifically covered in Wikipedia's own Manual of Style at MOS:INSTITUTIONS where it says that "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals:" I think this settles things as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned. Cheers, Quizical ( talk) 13:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! If we always gave such specific references when changing others' work there would be little need for discussion. Jzsj ( talk) 14:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Quizical, thanks for finding that. You're right, that does settle it. Bradv 🍁 15:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read my revision before reverting it within seconds? You stated previously that the edit should be first discussed on the Talk page. I dis that. I cited to acceptable Wikipedia sources. I understand you disagree with these statements, but they are supported and there is reason to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, you did not get consensus for this edit on the talk page. Remember, BRD is the process used on this page, and it is enforceable by blocks. If you have been reverted, you must get consensus on the talk page before adding the information again. Please revert your last edit. Bradv 🍁 17:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sure this is Wikipedia:Attack page. For such deletion no consensus needed. Plese, also blank page for courtesy. I still don't know how templates placing right. PoetVeches ( talk) 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Repied at Talk:Trump derangement syndrome#Wikipedia:Attack page. Bradv 🍁 18:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting#Requested_move_5_March_2019 your close says, "A broader discussion may be required, as this format is in use in many articles." I haven't seen any evidence of this format (with state offset by unbalanced comma) being in use in many articles. I thought I had pointed that out as a "false premise" in my March 17 comment there. Is there evidence that you're aware of in support of this assertion that you've repeated? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I meant generically in terms of the year place event construct. Changing several of these to a different order because the placename requires a disambiguator which makes it awkward may require a broader discussion. At any rate, it's a no consensus close - I'm just trying to suggest a way forward. If it's not a helpful suggestion please disregard. Bradv 🍁 03:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a majority in favor of fixing the error, and the opposes were all just seconding based on the false premise that you quoted. I suggest you revise. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon, sorry, I see a fairly even split, and the current format is consistent with other similar articles (such as in Category:Mass shootings in the United States). I don't see consensus here for making an exception for these three, and doubt that relisting the discussion again would provide any further clarity. You are welcome to take it to move review if you believe I have erred, or to start the broader discussion I mentioned. I hope this helps. Bradv 🍁 03:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill article: I saw that you struck my vote. I was unsure if one has to vote each time an afd is renewed. This is maddening defending against deletion for a month! Clear consensus is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, March 29, 2019 (UTC) Lubbad85 ( talk) 15:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85, you don't need to defend against deletion for a month. AfD works best when people provide one comment, with a rationale, and leave it for others to say their piece. If the subject is notable, it will be kept. If after the discussion is over you feel the closer has erred, you can take it to deletion review. Voting multiple times, arguing with every voter, and forumshopping at ANI, are all considered disruptive to the process. Also, please sign your posts. Bradv 🍁 15:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment: I have signed my comment. I have also never engaged in forumshopping nor have I argued with "every voter". I also did not vote multiple times. I voted twice because I was unaware that a vote did not to be renewed after a relisted afd. I am unsure why you use hyperbole in your response to my comment. You have stated "If the subject is notable, it will be kept." This is clearly not true since the afd has been relisted after consensus. It seems the afd will be relisted until a different outcome is achieved. It is hard not to take it personal when I get snarky comments from administrators and Wikipedia policies on relisting of an afd is ignored. Lubbad85 ( talk) 15:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Lubbad85, consensus isn't just about votes. I would suggest that discussion has not yet reached a consensus. Bradv 🍁 16:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. Lubbad85 ( talk) 16:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PCCW. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you saw this. It looks like Southern has been tweeting up a storm about her Wikipedia entry. I don't know what's normally done in these situations, but I do think there's a decent chance that there might be some other edit warring in the near future. Nblund ^talk 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, thanks, I'll help keep an eye on it. There probably isn't much point in engaging extensively on the talk page, but we can raise the protection on the article if necessary. Bradv 🍁 23:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Draft:Carrier Aggregation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Permalink/885215453#Rejected article: Carrier aggregation

Hi Bradv You rejected my AfC Draft:Carrier Aggregation yesterday for the reason "No improvement since last review." It is true that I did not edit the artice since the last rejection from User:Praxidicae because there is no need for improvement. The last rejection was because of "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I consulted the rejecting person and asked for the reason why does no consider the two engineering text books from very well known publishers reliable and got the answer "If I didn't feel that the two citations were sufficient to support an entire article". Could you tell me what is the problem with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvultier ( talk • contribs) 14:42, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

@ Fvultier: I would agree with Praxidicae that the article needs additional sources. If this truly is a notable topic there should be other information available so we don't need to rely just on those two pages. Bradv 🍁 14:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So how many books are needed as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvultier ( talk • contribs) 20:14, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

@ Fvultier: Enough to demonstrate that the topic is notable, and so that all the information in the article is attributable to a reliable source. But there are more available, for instance this book has a whole chapter on the topic. Also, please sign your posts. Bradv 🍁 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Fvultier: On further thought I've moved the draft to mainspace, as it is a notable topic. Please continue to work on it at Carrier aggregation. Thanks. Bradv 🍁 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the book you provedid as reference. Fvultier ( talk) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've created my article and hope it has enough reliable resources to be moved to article space. Can you check if am doing well, assist where I made mistakes. If everything is okay you can move it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinwebster ( talk • contribs) 18:58, April 3, 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) As discussed in the AFD, this person is not currently notable and none of the sources you've included are sufficient at this time. I'd recommend finding another subject to write about. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Alvinwebster, Draft:Alvin Xan Juice does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, as has been determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Xan Juice. Bradv 🍁 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your time contributing to wikipedia Alvinwebster ( talk) 19:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey BV: can you please do me a favor and close the current Arbcom case request, the one on portals? With five six "Declines" from 10 non-recused active arbcom members, it cannot get a majority accept. Thanks! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi UnitedStatesian, the case request does currently have a majority to decline. There is a standard 24-hour hold to give any arbs who haven't voted yet a chance to do so, but once that is up it will be closed. Bradv 🍁 13:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah Mentifisto → Lofty abyss Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a 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. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you don't simply tag the item as needing further citation, which I'd then furnish, having just expanded details from the existing source, rather than wholesale eliminating an entire section, which is clearly a valid one, with each point reported by the LA Times. The quick-chop method seems more destructive than productive. Lindenfall ( talk) 23:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, BLP policy requires that poorly-sourced information about living people gets removed rather than tagged. The fact that the source says the grand jury was on April 10th, not April 21st as you wrote in the paragraph doesn't inspire much faith in the rest of the content. Please review it carefully. – bradv 🍁 00:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The information was not poorly sourced, nor did it rely on a poor source. Rather, it was, as yet, lacking additional sources. I did not write April 21, that was pre-existing, by a previous editor. Like deleting factual material, false statements do not serve the Wikipedia community (as you admonish me to read carefully, no less). Prior to your visitation, that same editor had tagged the item [charged] "by whom?", so I had looked into that, expanding other details, as well. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Avenatti&diff=893662951&oldid=893655864) Your action did not improve the content, but only discourages improving tagged content. You have made my own attempt to serve the cause here take much longer with your sweeping deletion. Perhaps you would consider tagging rather than unnecessary wholesale deletions? Please review your methodology as to the actual benefit to the work, with goodwill, and in the spirit of collaboration. Had you simply corrected the date that you'd found amiss, and tagged for additional sources, we would all have been better served. I'll leave that actual April 21 correction to you now, since you spotted it. Lindenfall ( talk) 00:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, I considered tagging it, but there is no appropriate inline tag for poorly sourced BLP content. As I linked above, the BLP policy states

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

This clearly meets that criteria, so that is what I followed. I have no problem with it being added back in, as long as it is properly sourced. – bradv 🍁 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It does not clearly meet the criteria, being neither unsourced nor poorly sourced; a valid source for every point was referenced. Your heavy hand was unnecessary and your unapologetic, sarcastic, and false accusation (April 21) was careless. I see both ^{citation needed} and ^{additional citation(s) needed} on scores of BLP articles, for good reason. Your method is not collaborative, and is highly discouraging to genuine editing. Again, please reconsider your over-zealous methodology. Lindenfall ( talk) 01:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, you are defending a blatant BLP violation. I shouldn't need to explain myself any further. – bradv 🍁 01:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pardon, how do you transform that into a "blatant BLP violation"? Lindenfall ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're making a habit of adding contentious information about arrests and lawsuits concerning living people to articles, and then finding sources later, I urge you to reconsider this strategy. – bradv 🍁 02:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to make a habit of insulting me; I suggest you find a fact. I hadn't seen this until just a few minutes ago. I have not ever done that. In this case, the one fact, being three words to identify Parrish, lacking a source was not even about Avenatti, nor was it even contentious. Clearly, it's just all you could find to legitimately complain about, and belatedly. Every fact about Avenatti and all else in the entire section that I added was in the sources provided, all along. I urge you to look at the actual facts, before making yet a third strike of unfounded and accusatory remarks. I'll tell you what I have been making a habit of: adding facts to contentious articles after reversing vandals, or, lately, even trying to beat them to the punch, because I strive to be helpful to the ultimate goal of WP, in a collaborative environment, ie: my strategy. FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Avenatti&diff=892034824&oldid=892033925 ← Were I of your ilk, it seems clear, that I'd have quickly and fully deleted that content instead, claiming it lacked source, then insulted the editor's ability to ascertain information, if they'd dared to disagree. Lindenfall ( talk) 05:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Go find some more sources, and stay off my talk page. – bradv 🍁 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Fez
	Hey Brad, I'm so glad you agreed to join the arbitration clerk team. In a few short months, you've managed to make yourself indispensable to the clerks and the committee. Your attentiveness and fast learning have been lifesavers, and we're delighted to have you with us. Congratulations on your confirmation by the clerks and the committee. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, that's really kind of you. – bradv 🍁 02:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

in the evidence section, but I now realize the evidence is closed. If it's not too much trouble, please move it to wherever it should go. Enigma ^msg 19:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman, I see Mkdw has already moved your comments to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Workshop#Comments by Enigmaman. – bradv 🍁 00:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models ( WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions ( diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended ( diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Hi there, Bradv, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have such an experienced editor contributing to the project. We look forward to many new biographies of notable women and perhaps some advice on how we can make the project more successfull. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comment. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Just curious if you plan to comment here. If not, I will go ahead and archive. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, sorry, I should have replied sooner. I have responded on the talk page. Thanks. – bradv 🍁 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

All good, just wanted to make sure. Happy editing! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 17:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Bradv ( talk · contribs), I clicked on the 'Ask for advice' button on my declined AfC submission but it did not take me to your Talk space. If I may ask, I have a question regarding notability in the review and how to rectify the advertorial tone considered by other reviewers. It is not lost on me that you have better ways to occupy your time on the Project, so your help is graciously appreciated. Farquaad44 ( talk) 12:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArbClerkBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hello Bradv, your recent BRFA ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArbClerkBot) has been approved. You may operate immediately, but please check up and make sure that the flagging gets completed in short time. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, done. Thank you. – bradv 🍁 14:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models ( WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of DannyS712 ( talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi, Brad! Let somebody else revert it next time; you've done it three times now. Looks like there is no shortage of people willing to revert. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, absolutely. – bradv 🍁 00:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It was reverted by the bot. And then please link me the diff so I can see for future reference what the issue was? I'm still struggling with tags. Thanks! :) Safrolic ( talk) 08:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Safrolic, this looks like an issue with the bot. I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Mishandling multiple RfCs on one talk page. – bradv 🍁 16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Go art -X ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yvonne Jones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need examples from the draft of what needs references please.I believe i can refernce most of the content, i need t know which bits. A list would be great! thank you

Go art -X ( talk) 13:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Go art -X, please don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion. – bradv 🍁 00:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

I noticed that you tagged citations from reputable archival journals such as Animal Behavior, Journal of Comparative Psychology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and Learning and Motivation as "unreputable". I would like to understand that further. What makes you say that these journals are disreputable?

While I could understand a concern about the blog, it is Dr. Brain Hare's blog. He has a large big H-index in the field of comparative psychology, is an expert in canine cognition, and is also a respected dog trainer. Citing his blog post is easier than citing the few colleagues he's condensing into one post. He is an expert in the field and is not at all disreputable. If this is still a concern for you, the blog post is basically a condensed version of Pręgowski, Michał Piotr. "Your dog is your teacher: Contemporary dog training beyond radical behaviorism." society & animals 23.6 (2015): 525-543. I wish Dr. Hare had authored the review, but he clearly respects it. Which would you prefer?

Best regards, GymnasioArgos — Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos ( talk • contribs) 20:22, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

Please bring up your concerns with the article on the talk page. Hijacking the lede in order to promote your own personal opinion or original research is inappropriate. – bradv 🍁 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no original research. That's why I have extensive citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos ( talk • contribs) 02:17, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

@ GymnasioArgos: This is a collaborative encyclopedia, which means we work together on articles. If you have something you want to add to the article, or something that you feel needs to be changed, please open a discussion on the talk page and present your arguments. If other editors agree, they will help you. – bradv 🍁 02:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Bradv: Clearly you aren't qualified to evaluate such things. I can't believe you're standing up on a claim that reputable archival journals such as Animal Behavior, Journal of Comparative Psychology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and Learning and Motivation are "unreputable". I'm a formally trained researcher with an eye for epistemology. I've poured hours of my time into writing these updates with full citations and the refusal to respect these edits causes me to question the validity of Wikipedia itself, which is upsetting as I've considered it respectable in recent years. Even putting aside my issue with ignoring the past 10-20 years of research, dog trainers are not ABA practitioners and many are not okay with that association even when they use techniques that are founded in behaviorism. I'm also very involved in dog training communities. This article, https://theaspergian.com/2019/03/27/is-aba-really-dog-training-for-children-a-professional-dog-trainer-weighs-in/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0vvFQDU6n6W2mdgMIM1Y4RPzrCpCyXnBHtMOgnfyQed7tpUQC_4TigmSwEE ,went viral among punishment-inclusive and force-free dog trainers worldwide. Cesar Milan believes that your emotions are contagious, that's cognitive psychology, thus also not ABA. Your edits that continuously reverting the article back to represent dog training as ABA looks incredibly fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos ( talk • contribs) 02:34, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. And please remember to sign your posts. – bradv 🍁 02:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is that? - GymnasioArgos — Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos ( talk • contribs) 02:48, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dog training. – bradv 🍁 03:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Drake (musician). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bradv.

My name is Akmaie Ajam, and i'm a returning auto-confirmed user. (Sorry for bad English, my country i live in is Indonesia)

Why you revert my edits? Are you British? Tide Pod Challenge is mostly in America (US)! What do you think is correct: pods or packs? Why the reason is "restore actual quote from source"? Sorry if i'm wrong. Please help me explain why you reverted my edit. Akmaie Ajam ( talk) 04:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmaie Ajam ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Akmaie Ajam, the source says "pacs". It's a direct quote. – bradv 🍁 04:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What is "pacs"? What does "pacs" mean? Akmaie Ajam ( talk) 04:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.