User talk:Bri

Home Barnstars, Badges, & User Boxes Talk to me Creations Squirrel terrorists Ta for the link! "Pelzige[r] Selbstmordattentäter" sounds even furrier in German. ;) Zezen (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC) WP:WARNING Attn: @Checkingfax, Cullen328, Amatulic, TonyTheTiger, Titodutta, Bearcat, Mattflaschen, and MichaelQSchmidt: Hi Bri: On 16 August 2017, I voted to Keep the article EURACTIV that you had nominated for deletion on 24 July 2017 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EURACTIV. Following my vote you deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose...by your...unexplained removal of encyclopedic content [1] in that you: 1.) Removed my edit from the Marsha Albert article that provided the exact broadcast she had made; and 2.) Removed my edit from the Pensmore article containing its owner information that contained important context. Your actions against these two edits of mine can logically be construed as your being vindictive against me due to my disagreeing with your assessment that EURACTIV should not be deleted. With this WP:WARNING my hope is that you’ll immediately revert your edits to these two articles in order to make them whole again. Thank you. ScotKreek (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page watcher) @ScotKreek: The edits in question (here and here) are wholly valid, and are not vandalism as you suggest above. Why have you canvassed people to this warning? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC) I have no idea why I (formerly Amatulic) am being pinged here. Bri's edts were to remove unattributed quotations and self-serving self-published material (press releases, blogs and the like), which is perfectly OK. If a subject doesn't have significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent of the subject, then it doesn't merit an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC) What I'm going to do here is self revert at Marsha Albert. Which I had completely forgotten about but I now see is an unformatted YouTube link. Other people can do as they please with it. Then we can see which revision has consensus. As far as Pensmore those were legit deletions of unrelated or unsourced material [2]. The usual thing to do is either restore them with a better source, or agree that they are unfit. What about that instead of claiming that a user who has been here for a decade creating hundreds of new articles, when you yourself appear, has suddenly decided to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Also you might want to invest in headgear in case boomerangs start flying around. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Looks like @ScotKreek: is confused about what reliable sources are to begin with, and is additionally unaware that actual reliable sources are pretty openly mocking the subject of the article at hand as inconsistent and inaccurate. I illustrated this in detail in response to another user's comment at the EURActiv AFD. Zeebowbop (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC) I do not know why I was pinged but Marsha Albert looks like a classic WP:BLP1E to me, and in my opinion, it should be redirected to Beatlemania. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) New Page Reviewer Newsletter Hello Bri, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages! Backlog update: The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day. Technology update: Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories. General project update: The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features. Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script. To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Deprodding of Silentnight I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Silentnight which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The company is the biggest bed manufacturer in Britain and is notable for a prolonged strike, actually the longest industrial unrest in Britain. I have added much to the article and I am in the process of adding even more, possibly even submitting a DYK. Despite everything, thanks for highlighting this as it brought it to my attention and allowed me to improve the article. Have a good day. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC) If that essay meant what it said, we need to talk. I have info you will want to see. Is there a way we can speak privately because that's the only way I will hand it over. If not then just forget it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.96.165 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Assuming you are talking about "what's wrong with undisclosed paid editing" and have some related confidential information. I'm just a volunteer editor and observe WP:OUTING scrupulously. You probably should speak through one of the official secure channels such as OTRS or the functionaries email list or one of the many official Wikimedia Foundation contacts. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) FYI Thought you might find this discussion interesting. I'm going to keep pushing them on the COI/PAID declarations and to the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC) It looks like you've already done everything that would be productive at this time. Thanks for the heads-up ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC) FYI Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Montana wildfires. You are credited as co-creator, might want to watchlist. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Okay! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) New Page Reviewer Newsletter Hello Bri, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages! Backlog update: The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day. Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today! Technology update: The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225 General project update: On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page. Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it. To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Message regarding National Capital Presbyterian Mission page: Washington,_DC_National_Capital_Presbytery_Global_Missions_Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I understand your point about reference. I need about 48 hours to try to fix this. There are other sources, I'm sure, but I need to locate them and a bit of time to do this, with my other commitments. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefrost (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I have added further sources, which I think should satisfy your concern. I will take off the banner tonight unless I hear further from you. No need to respond unless you have further suggestions. Thanks. This is actually much worse. Will put details on the article talk. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Question on Ivo Varbanov (pianist) Hello Bri, I noticed you'd tagged this article as a G5 (blocked/banned user). The user (User:FoCuSandLeArN) is banned now, but as far as I could find that took place in January of this year, while that article was created in November 2014. I'm not terribly familiar with his case; was an earlier banned incarnation of his found at some point? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, it is a new procedure applied to the Jeremy112233 sockfarm. Following what I believe is the intent of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3. Doc James do we have this documented somewhere yet? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) This is a Wikipediawrite[r]s sock They belong to this family[3] which was banned in 2012. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Perhaps I should reference Yaratam as well as FoCuSandLeArN in the edit summaries. I'll go make null edits to do that. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC) What a hell of a mess. I'm glad at least to see that the spammers won't get rewarded on this one. But yes, it would certainly be helpful to have a reference to the supporting information in the G5 nomination. I suspected it was probably the case that the creator was a sock of someone banned earlier, but just wanted to make sure I had everything straight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC) So these are from a company that does paid Wikipedia editing. They have at least three staff. The spammers have already been paid I imagine and usually the guarantee they give is just for a year. One thing we can hope for is that the subjects of these articles start generating back press for the company in question to raise awareness regarding the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC) FWIW, you really should create a WP:LTA on this instead of or in addition to User:Bri/COIbox61. Good way to publicize these cases more extensively. (For an example, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I'm leery of doing that quite yet as the linking evidence isn't all available for all editors to see. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC) DYK for 2017 Washington wildfires On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2017 Washington wildfires, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2017 Washington wildfires caused ash to fall "like snow" on Seattle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Washington wildfires. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2017 Washington wildfires), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Alex ShihTalk 00:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Trump rallies Thanks for taking a look at the Trump Free Speech Rally. FYI, I'm going to see if any of the other rallies mentioned here are also independently notable. Possibly the March for Free Speech. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC) The Peaceful Portland Freedom March/Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March event (September 2017) is also piquing my interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC) I created Draft:Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March as a work in progress. Figure I should at least have several sources before going to the main space, though AfD is likely regardless. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC) DYK for 2017 Montana wildfires On 26 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2017 Montana wildfires, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as of 12 September, 48 wildfires in Montana (example pictured) were actively burning? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Montana wildfires. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2017 Montana wildfires), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Your work is in the media, sort of [4]: Ondanks de grappige video is Upton’s Wiki-foto wel veranderd naar een afbeelding van Kate tijdens de The Other Woman-première in 2014. Congrats? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Dank! I'm telling my friends I'm in Vogue because this. This is actually the second time I've "appeared" in international media. The first was an unattributed quote in The Times of Israel related to Binary options. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Karen Mitzo Hilderbrand Hi Bri. Thanks for your comment on my tp. See my reply. We need to be particularly vigilant - read the claims carefully in the 'Karen' message. Karen Mitzo Hilderbrand was only created by one user, the scammer (a confirmed blatant liar), and once only. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Perez article Hi! I saw you put a paid editing tag on the Jorge M. Pérez article. I'm not sure of the coi/sockfarm issues around this article, but I did add several refs and in the process of doing so I could not see any problems with the article itself. He's definitely notable-- the sources are voluminous and very reliable (Time, CNN, BBC etc). I detest paid editors as much as you do, but I am wondering what good the tag does here, if there's nothing wrong with the article itself?96.127.243.112 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC) FYI, I checked the article quite carefully and could find no copyediting issues. Everything is very well-sourced. The guy is hugely famous, which is what happens when you donate the money for an architecture center and a major museum, and become the only hispanic on the Forbes 400 billionaires list. I could add reliable refs all day long about him, so notability is not an issue. Without notability or copyedit issues, the UPE tag does not belong, so I have removed it.96.127.243.112 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Please join the conversation at WP:COIN#UPE sockfarm cleanup. You will see that other editors there, including myself, have said that he is probably notable. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) COIN revisit You looked into a COIN request for me a while back. The user's assistant has finally given a response at Talk:Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci)#Addressing COI issues, along with edits to the article in the same vein. Would you mind revisiting please? --Felcotiya (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Since they have denied COI, there are limited options while assuming good faith. If you are referring to this, maybe the editor needs a reminder of WP:NOPRICES. Or maybe you think it goes beyond that? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Finnishing Demitz Hi. I noticed you finnished the discussion about Demitz on COI. In my opinion it was a little bit to fast, althogh user:SergeWoodzing wrote he will not write in those articles more. As you can see in the discussion user:Domdeparis, just like me, has other concerns about the technique of sourcing articles to find false positives. He also shows some about the bad sourcing that user:Elzo 90 also comments on and shows diffs on, with self published sources (which was one of the big reasons for the permanent block from Swedish wikipedia exept the promo of Demitz and every time blaming everyone else for harrasements.) By closing it too fast I think we have not come to a solution about the Swedish nobilities and sourcing them, and I guess Domdeparis saw other things too that might need a clean up here. I do not really know how it works on enwp, because I do not use to be involved like this here (I am admin on svwp). Just to show were I am in this case: I was involved in the sourcing-affair here on enwp, and also in the block on svwp because of that (but only in the end of the blocking discussion, when Elzo showed the own produced source and I digged some in it like Domdeparis did here). A have after that discussion been a mediator here in one other user and SW, and solved it - in that discussion I opened up for mediat so he would be able to come back to svwp under special agreements. My goal by writing to you is not a permanent block, but a solution so that he still may edit here (I know it is a life style to be a wikipedian), but in the same time protect enwp aganist the sourcing problems. Hope you can inspect this matter and do the neccecary thing to get a real closure. best regards, Adville (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) SergeWoodzing Hi I am little concerned by the wording of his withdrawal. He has spoken only about Demitz article. The very great majority of his edits involve the wedging of photos into hundreds of articles that point to this person and his interests. I do not think that he will stop there. There is a massive cleanup job to do to remove all his COI edits. I really think he should have been blocked at least long enough to allow us to trawl through his stuff. Domdeparis (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)