Jump to content

User talk:Bradv/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Happy holidays


Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bradv, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, Bradv!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ajithkumar Thampan

I didn't create this. I happened across an article with a title inexplicably in all caps and moved it. It was created by User:Keralahri. - Sumanuil 05:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I left them a message too, but then you created it again, I presume due to an edit conflict. Also, your signature doesn't contain a link to your talk page - please fix that. – bradv🍁 05:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it was an edit conflict, as I had started trying to clean up the mess pretty much automatically. Maybe I spend too much time here.- Sumanuil (talk)

Hey, no problem. I'll delete the redirect now - feel free to help out on the draft if you think it's worthwhile. – bradv🍁 05:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi

I noticed you informed Rebecca jones about the RfC on whether Assange was a journalist. For your information, just in case you don't realise, Rebecca was editing the page before, during, and the RfC on this very topic. I think it is clear she was aware of the RfC — which went for three months, as you might recall — even though she didn't take part.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I agree it's likely they have seen that. But it does address their concerns with the article, so it's worth a re-read. – bradv🍁 04:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Do you think the edit will be appropriate if content in <ref></ref> is removed? Or they may be improved in another way?--GZWDer (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

GZWDer, I do think it could use some clarification, but what you wrote isn't quite right. You're implying that arbcom cannot unblock without consultation with the community, which is not the policy. The community cannot overturn arbcom blocks, but in certain cases arbcom can overturn community bans (see this motion). However, in the current situation involving both an arbcom block and a community ban, the case will need to be reviewed by both. – bradv🍁 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
So it is proper to say "In this case, the Arbitration Committee will usually invite community to comment before unblocking"?--GZWDer (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
GZWDer, what gives you that impression? – bradv🍁 19:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
So this means ArbCom can overturn a ban even if community does not want it to be overturned without community review?--GZWDer (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
GZWDer, in cases where arbcom has issued the block, yes. But a community ban on top of an arbcom block makes that extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, the arbitration policy gives arbcom the mandate "to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", so they arguably do have that authority. – bradv🍁 20:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
So is it good to say "Editors blocked or banned by the Arbitration Committee (including those who are also under community sanction) must appeal to the Committee (see below)."--GZWDer (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
GZWDer, well yes, but that's already covered elsewhere on the page. – bradv🍁 20:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I just want to emphasize "including those who are also under community sanction".--GZWDer (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
GZWDer, the edit you made was within a section entitled "Appeals of bans imposed by the community". Is that not clear enough? The following section deals with arbcom blocks. – bradv🍁 20:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I commented on that users page, because that user was promoting A convicted pedophile, and he was insulting my religionGumshoe97 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97, it really doesn't matter why you felt the need to make a personal attack. Comment on content, not contributors. – bradv🍁 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to be a personal attack, I was just madGumshoe97 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97, then maybe you should take a break for a bit? – bradv🍁 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean Gumshoe97 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97, I mean, don't edit Wikipedia while you're angry. You may say something you regret and have to live with the consequences. If you can't be rational and reasonable, walk away and do something else. – bradv🍁 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Immigration Act of 1891

A source is indeed listed in the previous sentence, as you observe. However, when I checked the source, I found that the source seemed to contradict the assertion. That's why it's nice that Wikipedia links sources: one can follow the link and check.

When you check the source, do you not find the source to contradict the assertion? If you do, then would you reverse your recent edit? Tbtkorg (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. The content is verbatim from the source. – bradv🍁 00:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a bit too verbatim. This needs to be looked at for copyright issues. – bradv🍁 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, now I remember. Thank you for reminding. You are right, the content is verbatim from the source as linked. Unfortunately, the source as linked is not even approximately a proper source. It appears to be just some random lecture notes someone jotted down. The comment I left a year ago on the talk page explains and, also, links proper sources including the actual legislation.
To forestall further confusion between you and me, let me observe that the paragraph you have restored refers not to the 1891 act but to the 1887 act. This is why I have linked the 1887 legislation rather than the 1891.
As you can see, when I made the edit a year ago, I was interested enough to research the matter, which is why I edited the article—though I had forgotten about the edit until your reversion this week. It is of course possible that I have misread the sources I have linked, but in any case Wikipedia's Payson Act paragraph remains unsourced by Wikipedia's usual standard. Even if the paragraph were not counterfactual (as I believe it to be), the paragraph should probably be struck for lack of a source.
Thanks for the review. Tbtkorg (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

James Martin edit warring (again)

Thucyd made recent edits on James Martin (priest, born 1960). I objected on the talk page and raised an RfC: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960). Thucyd did not respond to my objections on the Talk Page and did not respond to the RfC. Instead, he made additional edits to the content under dispute, expanding it and adding more content. Thucyd has never once responded to my concerns on the talk page. Instead, he simply edits the article the way he thinks it should read. This has been going on for months. Can you please do something about this? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And please don't just lock the page the way Thucyd has edited it. That is just rewarding his behavior. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ, I don't see any edit warring that needs to be dealt with - they've made several bold edits which have not been reverted. Thucyd is also under no obligation to respond to the RfC, although that does mean their opinion will not be considered. – bradv🍁 19:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RFC states, "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I took the effort to gather community consensus, and now Thucyd has unilaterally changed the content that the community was invited to review. How are we ever supposed to reach consensus if he keeps moving the goalposts? --PluniaZ (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason you can't revert it with an explanation? – bradv🍁 00:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not want to start an edit war, but hopefully Thucyd will refrain from further edits to this content until the RfC is closed. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Certificate of Wrongness

Wrongness
You are hereby awarded this Official Wikipedia Certificate of being wrong for some act of wrongness you will inevitably do! Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We would all like to complain

Hi Brad, I thought we might increase efficiency if we processed complaints about admin actions with a standard form. Here's a rough draft, let me know what you think. – Levivich 19:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin complaint form

ADMIN COMPLAINT FORM

Greetings,                 (admin's username), my name is                 (filing editor's username) and I am submitting this complaint because I believe that you have incorrectly:

(Check all that apply.)

Blocks
[ ] Blocked me
[ ] Blocked my alternate account
[ ] Blocked my friend
[ ] Blocked an editor I do not know but who didn't deserve it
[ ] Blocked an editor who did deserve it but for too long
[ ] Blocked an editor who did deserve it but for not long enough
[ ] Blocked an editor who did deserve it but for the wrong reason
[ ] I do not know know the editor or the reason for the block, but your action was incorrect nonetheless

Deletion
[ ] Deleted content that should not have been deleted
[ ] Undeleted content that should have remained deleted
[ ] I do not know/care if the content should be deleted or not, but your action was incorrect nonetheless

Protection
[ ] Protected a page that should not have been protected
[ ] Unprotected a page that should have remained protected
[ ] Protected a page for the wrong duration
[ ] Applied the wrong level of protection
[ ] Protected the wrong version
[ ] I do not know/care if the page is protected, but your action was incorrect nonetheless

The above action(s) is/are incorrect for the following reason(s):

(Check all that apply.)

[ ] Blatant violation of policy, guideline, essay, common sense, or opinion I hold
[ ] Grossly negligent
[ ] Clearly incompetent
[ ] Affront to justice
[ ] Obvious slap in the face to all that is good and right in this world

To correct the the above incorrect action(s), I request the following corrective action(s) be taken:

(Check all that apply.)

[ ] Reversal of block/deletion/protection
[ ] Public apology
[ ] Resign your bit
[ ] Scramble your password
[ ] Refrain from editing anything written in the English language in any media
[ ] Seppuku

The above corrective action(s) should be taken in the following time frame:

(Check only one.)

[ ] Immediately
[ ] You should have already done it

Thank you for your time and attention.


ADMIN RESPONSE SECTION
(To be completed ONLY by above-named admin.)

Thank you for your feedback. After giving this matter due consideration, my response is as follows:

(Check only one.)

[ ] Request(s) denied
[ ] Request(s) denied, editor blocked, talk page access revoked


ARBCOM REVIEW SECTION
(To be completed ONLY by an Arbcom clerk following the closure of an Arbcom case, if applicable.)

Year case opened:     
Year case closed:     

Case result:

(Check only one.)

[ ] Reminded
[ ] Admonished
[ ] Defenestrated

Levivich, not bad, but perhaps we could allow for few more response options, maybe using a stamp. – bradv🍁 19:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE TO PETITIONER:
So the bot can process this request in a timely manner, please indicate the length of time you wish to be blocked for:
[ ] 72 hours [ ] 7 days [ ] 30 days [ ] indefinitely [ ] surprise me


Do you need talk page access while blocked?
[ ] no [ ] no


Are there any sockpuppetsother editors who wish to join your complaint? Please list below:
______________________
______________________
______________________
______________________
______________________

CThomas3 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Bradv

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bradv, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBradvたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

From my family to yours, wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Here's to 2020! --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bradv. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nosebagbear, replied. – bradv🍁 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma

Hi Bradv. You might want to look at WP:THQ#Confession since it's almost certainly the same user. This does seem to have been going on for awhile so maybe everyone's patience is gone, but perhaps one last explanation on the master's user take page about what it might take for the account to be unblocked might clarify things for this editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: The Kusnur account was blocked by another admin. The editor in question does now seem aware as to how to appeal the block of their main account and did request that it be blocked on that account's user talk page. I'm not sure if the Kusnur account should also be added to the SPI related to all of this. If it does, let me know an I'll do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, I've tagged their userpage to identify the sockmaster based on their confession at the Teahouse. Thanks for tracking this down. – bradv🍁 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats / Condolences!

Guess I'll have to step it up in the clerking dept! SQLQuery me! 01:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A little query

Hi, how are you? Hope you are doing well. Thanks for visiting some articles I have created. I wanted to know if the pages for these two professors, namely, Gisela Webb and Mustafa Abu Sway have notability issues other than insufficient references. I thought they fulfilled WP:NPROF #5. Thanks and greetings. Mosesheron (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mosesheron, I'm not sure whether either of them meet NPROF. It's possible that criteria #5 applies, especially for the second one, but I am hoping that someone would come by with a second opinion. These aren't named chairs in the traditional sense, but perhaps there's something here that I'm missing. – bradv🍁 04:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Jeff Van Drew

I had specifically declined a protection request for Jeff Van Drew at WP:RFPP on the ground that much of this was comming from registered editors, and so semi-protection was not approrpiate, and also that it is not totally unsourced, althoguh the sources do not quite say what some edityors are taking them to say. Did I misread the protection policy? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, I was not aware there was a request at RFPP and did not mean to step on your toes. I applied that protection based on a few recent edits from IPs, including [1][2][3][4][5]. As this is a BLP currently in the news, and there is a recent history of disruption, this in my opinion meets the expectations laid out at WP:SEMI. Do you disagree? – bradv🍁 04:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel stepped on, and I may have read this wrongly. I was thinking nof the section of SEMI which reads Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. I regarded this as a content dispute, not vandalism. And becasue some of the inaccurae edits were from registered users, not IP editors, or I thought so. I came mto this from Wikipedia:Teahouse#Stopping page vandalism. I didn't regard it as a BLP issue because it is not negative to say that a person has in fact done what he has been reliably reported as saying that he intends to do next week. It is inaccurate, but not, I thought, a BLP violation. I am asking not to get you to undo your action, but for my own guidance. This isn't quite my usual line of issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
DESiegel, fair enough, it's always a good idea to look for the best way to solve an editing issue, and too often articles get locked up simply because of a misunderstanding, or protection gets applied that favours certain editors over others. I just took a look at the RFPP request, and I note that the IP edits that immediately preceded the request were BLP violations. Most of them were solved with this block, but there was also this and this, which were enough to think that semi-protection was appropriate. When it comes to BLPs, I think we ought to err on the side of caution, and even if it is just a content dispute it can be resolved on the talk page while we apply escalating levels of protection to contain the disruption. Article stability and compliance with our BLP policy are far more important than being up-to-date. – bradv🍁 05:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hello 👋, I’m sorry I didn’t leave a personal message in your talk page showing my gratitude. You might not remember but Here I left a message on Barkeep49’s talk page requesting advice and assistance on a mysterious and baffling experience I had but in his reply he mentioned you and credited you as the one who eventually helped me out hence I thought it wise to show my gratitude. Once more I say a big thank you to you both.Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Celestina007, no worries, I'm happy to help. Thanks for your kind note. – bradv🍁 04:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2020 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

  • the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
  • if you wish to assigned checkuser and/or oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned checkuser or oversight permissions you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If it isn't, and you haven't signed the agreement, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed it. If you have signed the agreement, but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 17:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, thank you. Email sent. – bradv🍁 18:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Congrats and/or commiserations - strikethrough as appropriate! I trust that you will serve on the committee with patience, diligence, perspicacity and all-round awesomeness - I just hope for your sake that it doesn't turn out to be a massive pain in the wotsit. The committee gets a lot of shit thrown at it, often simply because there's a lot of shit going around, and a general paucity of permissible targets; whatever happens during your tenure, please remember that there are a lot of people who recognise and value the effort you put in here. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 22:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Message from Beaneater00

I would like to complain.

You deleted my page, Turks in Mississippi, while there was a very active and ongoing speedy deletion discussion. -- User:Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 15:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Beaneater00, that was something you just made up. Please find something more constructive to do, like fixing your signature. – bradv🍁 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
bradv Plenty of articles about theoretical concepts exist on Wikipedia, and nobody tries to delete them. Why should Turks in Mississippi be any different? -- Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing your signature. Do you have any other examples of silly made-up content I should look at? – bradv🍁 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
bradv Please see any article on, say, mathematical theory. -- Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 15:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) published mathematical theories aren't made up. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae Then Turks in Mississippi aren't made up. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Beaneater00 cool then you should have no problem providing independent reliable sources then, right? Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae Where might I find sources for a theory? The source is logic. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Beaneater00, if it's a theory you made up yourself, which nobody else has written about, then it's not notable. We even have a special speedy deletion criterion for articles like that. We only exist to summarise stuff that other people have written in reliable publications, not to document original ideas. GirthSummit (blether) 16:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit Would the article be notable if another user wrote it? I see no reason the concept should be excluded from Wikipedia. It's very reasonable. There may even exist several Turks in Mississippi not having entered their ethnicity in the census. - Beaneater00 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I am getting some strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from this user. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Me too. And now I'm having to explain why antisemitic jokes are inappropriate. – bradv🍁 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, wow. Grossly offensive, reinstating that after a revert looks like very clear NOTHERE to me. GirthSummit (blether) 18:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I haven't even discussed this with them yet. Not sure it's worth the bother. – bradv🍁 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Is "bean eater" not a generally recognized racial slur in England and Canada? GMGtalk 22:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, I'm not aware of it being used as a slur against Jews, Albanians, Serbians, Montenegrins, or any of the other groups that this user has expressed feelings about. As far as I am aware, the whole world eats beans. – bradv🍁 22:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
In the US, it's a racial slur against Hispanics. Long story short, troll is troll. GMGtalk 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, thanks for the heads-up (and sorry for the delayed response). This is not a term I've ever heard or come across in the UK, but it makes sense given the nature of their other contributions. Thanks for expanding my horizons in the weird and wonderful (?) world of 'ways in which people can find fault with and thereby denigrate other people'. (<political rant>I suppose I will find out a lot more about that sort of thing under our new government... </political rant>) GirthSummit (blether) 22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Oh don't be so myopic. The human capacity to hate one another transcends nationality, creed, color, religion... The best thing that could happen to our species is to discover dangerous alien life, because it would give us an external enemy to unite against. It would in fact, be the best conspiracy ever for Jeff Bezos and his buddies to make an elaborate hoax of hostile alien life to achieve world peace in a generation. GMGtalk 23:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, you're so right. I'm a Glaswegian - I can picture a future astronaut asking some far-flung traveller the all-important question: "But are you a protestant alien, or a catholic alien?' GirthSummit (blether) 23:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Well yes and all, but are you the right kind of protestant? GMGtalk 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

how do you put back a deleted article that I wrote

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... the article is NOT cover the same subject as Impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump. The inquiry is over and the impeachment vote in the House takes place in 42 hours or less. The impeachment of the president is multi-phase process and the trial is a different one in its initial moments. While there's a slight overlap between this and other articles, there is no duplication to speak of. The Senate of the United States is a very different animal than the House of Representatives and the procedures for the first trial of a sitting president in a generation are very different from the various investigation attempted by the different committees in the House.

This is not an investigation, this is a trial. Whether or not it's a "Potemkin Trial" that some want or a real one like others do, the initial moves between the players have already started and are all over the news. this is now a genuine event. The investigation phase was over weeks ago and while there is consensus to do something, there isn't on exactly what. A couple of people want us to "wait." Wait for what? While it might have been a decent argument a couple of months ago, we're sitting on a deadline here. the vote is upon us.

Tomorrow there's going to be marches and protests all over the country over this. That doesn't fit the "Investigation" article. Not only is there no room for it there, but they're also may not be room for it here. is it notable? I dunno. But there are at least two on earlier ones. That's why there's a parent article in the draft space you guys have refused to put in the main space. I don't know why.

So please don't delete it for a few days. The vote in the house is less than two days away, and with ten percent chance of it failing, then you can delete it if it does with my complements. But if Impeachment passes, this is 100% necessary notable and ready for action. Like the New Hampshire primary, we know it's going to happen and we need an article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, we've been through this before. Please get consensus before splitting articles or creating versions with a different point of view. – bradv🍁 01:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

teach yourself dutton speedwords

Hi Bradv

You deleted my new page on teach yourself dutton speedwords on the grounds it was adertising and promotion

teach yourself dutton speedwords is a now out of print but is still readily obtainable book second hand which contains lessons for speedwords. the book was specifically written for notetaking. a google search will reveal speedwords is frequently mentioned as a worthwhile noteaking technique.

I read the wikipeda article material and do not see why it was deleted. There are numerous books listed in wikipedia. Many of those books are still in print and therefore the wikipedia article is direct advertising for them because royalties accrue to the author. my article does not advocate using speedwords it simply points out the strengths and weaknesses of learning speedwords from the book

also there are many articles in wikipedia on note taking systems which are no different to what i was covering in my article

the article was prompted by the fact that the 1940-1950 booklets which detail how to learn and use speedwords are not in libraries or available second hand. they describe the full version of speedwords. Dutton 're-engineered' speedwords which is an international auxiliary language solely for notetaking. i became interested in it for transcribing interiews where interviewees did not permit recording of audio or video. in other words there are two distinct versions of speedwords, the communication version and the note taking verion

my article on teach yourself dutton speedwords is based on considerable scholarly research and reactions from attendees at conferences on intellectual capital and knowledge management. it points out the how the book is written, structured, pitfalls to notice and avoid if learning speedwords, and how to adopt it fully or partially.

it is therefore balanced and informative and should be a wikipedia article

warm regards/gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyol (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Garyol, from your contributions it looks like your only interest is in promoting Dutton Speedwords. What is your connection to this book? – bradv🍁 01:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

you ask what is my connection? As I explained above, I have been investigating note making and taking systems. As a result I have become very knowledgable about it. As an academic, I am interested in helping people with their learning and understanding and I carry this over to this book because it is quite a benchmark in its approach. I disagree that I am promoting speedwords. Again, aboe, I made the point the text is balanced with how to use it and what are its pitfalls. Again reiterate what I wrote above, there are many wikipedia pages on equivalent matters of greater interest whereas mine is independent with no personal benefit. Therefore I cannot see why you are refusing to allow it to be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyol (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

not sure why no reply to my 11 december post above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyol (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Garyol, I've looked into this a bit further, and I'm quite sure that Teach Yourself Dutton Speedwords does not meet our standards for inclusion. I can't find any reliable sources that cover the subject matter, so anything written about this would be original research. – bradv🍁 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

you claim two things. one, it is original research. if you read the page you will see it summarises and states on what can be seen in the book and how the book is oriented to notetaking not conversation between international persons with no common national language. if i remember rightly, it even quotes page numbers. obviously a book published in the period 1950-1970 pre-dates the internet and this means a search is not going to get many hits. dutton speedwords underwent a renewal in the 1990s but those web pages are now lost. two it does not meet the standards for inclusion but it does. i looked at the general notability guidelines as well as those for book. it meets criteria 1 in that there are several sources which refer to it including the raymond brown web pages and ichard kennaway web pages. my recollection is that there are some other web pages which also refer to dutton speedwords including http://www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/conlang.dir/Speedwords.dict. This is another reason which justifies a wikipedia article on teach yourself dutton speedwords. Criteria 2 refers to making a contribution and that is demonstrated by the fact that speedwords is the standard which is the benchamrk for alphabetical abbreiation systems based on word frequency. If you do a search on royal society of arts in UK you will find that its members supported dutton in his quest to develop and refine speedwords. i have made the point before and will make it again that teach yourself dutton speedwords is the legitimate and only available reference for it. it also meets criteria 5 as having historic reference. there are other artefacts of speedwords which cite it as important. for example, https://thetechnicalgeekery.com/2014/01/dutton-speedwords-shorthand/ another is https://thetechnicalgeekery.com/2014/01/dutton-speedwords-shorthand/ and another is http://www.kafejo.com/lingvoj/auxlangs/dws/ in the discussion forum on constructed artificial languages speedwords has been an important reference. also it is also not self published but was published by a reputable publisher at the time hodder and soughton now owned by hachette. we are living in a time when libraries are dumping their hardcopy titles which have low borrowing history and books like it will become overlooked in the downward spiral of digital preference. i cannot understand your continuing objection to having a webpage for teach yourself dutton speedwords. there is considerable evidence it is significant in the history of constructed or artificial languages and further evidence it has merit being made accessible. merry christmas/gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyol (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I Need Your Advice

Hey 👋 once again, sorry I keep bothering you but I really do need to talk to someone about this. You see here I explained a situation of which you helped me solve and for that I’m eternally grateful as I have stopped receiving alerts on the page. But my issue is this, if you observe This you can see that the Robin Millar (politician) article is still listed as mine and this is causing me great discomfort as I have requested for the autopatrolled rights & the last thing I want is to appear as though I’m a liar or a dishonest editor as it has increased my number of created articles by 1, making it look as though i have created 38 BLP’s whilst in actuality i have created 37. Please in your candid opinion should I be worried about this or is there a way you can assist me to fix this? Thanks.Celestina007 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Celestina007, I have no idea why xtools shows that the way it does, but anyone who clicks through to either the history or the logs will see that you didn't create that article. I wouldn't worry about it. – bradv🍁 14:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Bradv thank you for the assurance. Now I can sleep with a clear conscience. Celestina007 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 Happy New Year!
🏈May your new year go better than the 31 teams who passed up on this guy🏈
Love,
Action Jackson

Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Bradv,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Bosnia

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=931397443&oldid=931037980 Santasa again removed a source without any compromise. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother, editor is using this Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja as a source for theri edits, concerning historicity of some events and persons - doesn't matter to them, as explained at least dozen of times, that this is an original document, a primary source, and of particularly fishy nature at that, and that they are not the one who can give their interpretation, no matter how they perceive their own competence in reading and interpreting historical documents. It is sort of Matter of Balkan, and in its category it falls somewhere between Historia Regum Britanniae and Getica - one have to be sufficiently enough trained and damned good medievalist to parse through the chronicle to discern few bits of facts from factoids and utter BS.--౪ Santa ౪99° 04:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Women's titles

Hello, Bradv. I saw you protected some articles about women's pro wrestling titles, like [6]. The problem, the protection expired on December 17 (yesterday) Since Yesterday, the IP make the exact same editions twice [7]. Can you protect the article again? Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree, I've extended it for a month. – bradv🍁 15:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Great. Thanks :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to disturb you again. The IP is making the same edition in the WWE Women's Tag Team Championship. Since Dec 18, he made it 3 times. Can you increase the protection? next time, I'm gonna use the AfP, if he vandalices other articles :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree, I did not realize that this edit war was over a hidden section of the article. I've removed the commented out section entirely; it can be recovered from the history if needed. – bradv🍁 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recent block of User:James The Bond 007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies

Hello, Bradv,

I was looking at my Watchlist on my phone and went to look at an edit you made on an arbitration page and accidentally hit rollback instead. This has happened to me a couple of times when I've tried editing on my phone. I meant no slight and luckily El C immediately reverted me. I blame my big fat fingers and the small screen. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Liz, no problem at all. I'm a big fan of the one-click rollback feature, but this is a very easy mistake to make. Cheers. – bradv🍁 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Message from Abdelmonem89

Hi, I don't know why the page I've created for Awtad charity organization has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelmonem89 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation, as it copied directly from the about pages of the organization's website. Articles should be based on what reliable sources say about the subject, rather than what the subject says about itself, and should never copy text directly from a source. This is explained on your talk page. – bradv🍁 16:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

help with wrestling titles

Hello, Bradv. Happy New Year. I hope you can help me with this problem. As you know, an IP is vandalizing several pro wrestling titles. The IP removes a template to keep track of the days. However, he does it over and over. You protected son pages, but as you can see, the IP jumps to another article. It's very anoying and I dont know if a block for the IP would work (IP change) or protect the articles (looks like the IP just change the target). Can you help me, have you some ideas? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree, can I suggest using edit summaries and talk page notes? Explaining why you are changing things would make it a lot easier for other people to get on board with what you are trying to do. – bradv🍁 02:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I will try. However, I explained the situation to the IP several times and I had no answer --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Teach yourself Dutton speedwords

I cant find my last response and the section on the above so I am following the instruction and creating this section and posting this message

warm regards/gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyol (talk • contribs) 11:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More Yury Mosha

Here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, yes, but that was created before the author started socking, so it's not eligible for G5. – bradv🍁 04:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, my fellow Canadian!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Çelebicihan

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Çelebicihan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, thanks for catching that. I'd created this category in error, so I've gone ahead and deleted it. – bradv🍁 14:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You are very welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project semi-protection

I accept the semi-protection decline, because one (or the same ?) of the IPs have started to talk. I made the semi-protection request 11 January 2020 07:53. One IP user started to talk only on 11 January 2020 14:50, 7 hours later, after my several invitations of 27 October 2019. I understand that Wikipedia editing is not every day work for every editor, but waiting over 2 months for a reply ?
My question is: next time a group of IPs start reverse editing, but refuse to talk (has as happened for over 2 months) on the article page (and I can not contact them on their talk pages because the don’t have any), what is the suggested correct form of resolution ? Thanks for your time.--Robertiki (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my screw-up. I thought I was closing an unclosed <s> tag on the page I was reading, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 5 #Arbitration motion regarding Geogre, but I'd followed a link to an old id, which of course overwrote the current page. Mea culpa! --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [8]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous eidtor's harrassment against me, on and off Wikipedia

Hello, Bradv. I have edited Wikipedia for over 12 years now, with a specific focus on articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe that you and I may have interacted a few times on one or two matters related to my work on such pages, if only in such settings as deletion discussions. I understand that you are a member of the arbitration committee, and I am asking for your help as a member thereof. Someone who edits Wikipedia anonymously has engaged in behavior that I feel consistitutes harrassment against me, and this harrassment has occurred both on and off Wikipedia. Their conduct originated over a dispute this editor had with my revert of content they had removed on List of missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This editor began their harrassment against me on my talk page, then it further spread and intensified when they somehow tracked me down off Wikipedia through a couple of nasty comments related to this matter on my personal blog. I have tried to reason with them civily, both on and off Wikipedia, but they have no interest in reciprocating with civility regarding this matter. I hate to have to bring any member of the Arbitration Committee in on a situation like this, but the nature of tehe esclating incvility of the editor involved in this matter has created problems for me that are now spreading to and impacting my life outside of Wikipedia, so I need to request your intervention. If you are not in a position to help me, you can pass this matter along to any other member of that committee whom you think would be able to do so. Thanks for any help you may be able to give me in dealing with this apparent internet trollery that is impacting my life, both on and off Wikipedia. I am preserving all available evidence on this matter on my talk page and on the thread of my personal blog for now, but as soon as I hear back from you to note that this matter has been approrpriately handled, I will be absolutely relieved to expunge this content from both my talk page and my personal blog. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, quick follow-up to my earlier comment. Due to the nature of the off-Wikipedia harrassment that came into play on my blog, which is hosted on Blogspot, a subsidiary of Google, I had to report the comment chain from my blog to Google. And given jthe nature of the exchange, which violates Google conduct rules as well, for Wikipedia purposes and next steps here, I wanted to furnish you with this copy of the exchange in question. The ball is in your court. Inform me of the next play, whatever that may be. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Jgstokes, I've passed on this report to the rest of the committee. If you have any other evidence or comments that you want to share privately, please email the committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. I'm sorry you are experiencing this, and I hope we can get to the bottom of it. – bradv🍁 02:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bots

Hi Bradv! Please can you tell me how to write a bot in Wikipedia? Bilal190023 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 12

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (December 2019 and January 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 12th issue issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello B. I saw your r/d work here. I wondered if you wanted to remove the edit summary that is contained in the sinebot edit as well. If not no worries I just wanted to double check. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, done. Thanks for letting me know. – bradv🍁 01:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. Sinebot can be a tricky editor at times but at least it is on our side :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Demond Anthony block

Have you seen this and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superkeegan9100/Archive? Check the logs on the IP range, you'll see they match.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo, I had not seen those, but I would concur that one of those is the master (or both). Should they be retagged? – bradv🍁 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The Superkeegan SPI is pretty stale, so I'm not sure there would be much value in retagging based on that report. The PeppaPig stuff is more recent though. @NinjaRobotPirate and Berean Hunter:, as the CUs who handled the linked SPIs, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ponyo, NinjaRobotPirate, and Berean Hunter: I think there's enough in the logs to merge these two SPIs, and include the newly blocked socks as well: Terrence Mac, Demond Anthony. What do you think? – bradv🍁 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The technical and behavioural overlap is striking. You would think they would have aged out of their obsession with the topic by now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems possible to me. The more checks I run, the less I believe in coincidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Message from Anitaoguni

Hi Bradv,

I'd like to know why you deleted the Few Models Management page. Thanks a lot.

Looking forward to your response.

Anitaoguni (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Anitaoguni, I deleted it because it was blatant advertising. What is your relationship to the company? – bradv🍁 12:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv/Archive_16&oldid=998718650"