User talk:Bradv

Hello @Bradv, I wanted to apologize again. I will continue my constructive contributions. Regards, Leo^talk 00:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, you reverted my changes without considering the validity or accuracy of the information. You knew the information was correct, but your justification for the revert was that I was topic-banned.

I will not debate the content of the information, as my concern lies with the nature of your edit itself.

Your issue wasn’t that the information was incorrect; your issue was with me personally being topic-banned. This act constitutes a personalization and amounts to edit warring.

You used the rules to enforce the retention of incorrect information. This violates the spirit of the rules and the purpose for which they were established.

This is not how or why we work here. Your actions go against our core mission.

The rules were not created to punish users or to grant privileges to those who enforce them. They exist to regulate the encyclopedia and protect it. What you did is the exact opposite of the intent behind these rules. Your actions reflect bias by the informal, indirect interpretation of the meaning of the word bias.

To determine whether an edit is right or wrong, you should assess whether it aligns with our goals. The rules are derived directly from these goals and are meant to reflect them, making our mission easier to achieve.

I will approach this in good faith and assume you were driven by a strict, bureaucratic mindset. I hope that in the future, you will be open-minded enough to evaluate an edit based on its merits, even if it challenges your beliefs, and that you will avoid repeating this mistake.

This has been on my mind for a while, and I felt the need to express it. I hope you can take this as constructive advice and remain open-minded moving forward. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Brad. That was a great edit. Regards - Roxy the dog 14:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect. See WP:BMB. – bradv 14:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, my issue is not regarding my edit. I am aware that I am banned and that I was mistaken for editing that article, so I am not going to debate or defend my edit on the basis that it was "good." My issue is with your edit, which I believe was arbitrary in nature and violates the spirit of the rules, as well as the reason they were implemented. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My edit was just an administrative revert, and implies nothing about my opinion on the topic. I reset the article to the state it was before you violated your ban, which is exactly what you should have done as soon as you realized your offence. Have a good day. – bradv 17:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Even though it may still be incorrect and unnecessary when evaluated from a different perspective, consider this: if my edit was undoing vandalism, for example, would you have reverted it?

The key is to approach, isolate, and evaluate each case individually, taking into account the specific context of each situation and acting accordingly. This, in my opinion, is far more effective than applying rules arbitrarily without understanding the nuances of the case at hand.

You have a good day as well. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 19:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is expressly listed as an exception to the banning policy – see WP:BANEX. In fact, I recommend you read that whole page, as clearly you have not. – bradv 15:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Which aligns with my pre-made argument on the importance of the the context and further confirms it. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I told you it's all about the goal. These rules stem from the goal. You don't need to read all the details of the rules and if you understand the goal. K, it was nice talking to you. Have a good day. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 19:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you may forget to tag this one, SavetheSouthofIndia (talk · contribs), per block reason and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GujaratiHistoryinDNA/Archive -Lemonaka 10:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galgotias College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galgotias College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)