User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 033

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

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 my current talk page

Help me! SOS!

Hi dear pal! I am Tamravidhir. I have a problem and the problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Wikipedia guidelines" and the information has no reference so he has been keeping on deleting the info. I have almost ended up doing an edit war foten. He has deleted the information without reasons and he is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. Now, after many days he has come back and is again deleting info without reason. Firstly, the soap opera aired at 10:30 pm so that means that it is late evening, and there's even a reference regarding the time slot but he says that: You may NOT keep reinserting your personal interpretations of "sporadic" or "very late" without providing a reliably published source that verifies the claim.

Except this there is also an info which says that the soap opera's broadcast on Thursdays in 2014 was sporadic. He again says that there is no reference so he has been deleting the info. I guess that there is a citation needed tag which I was forced to add now. But I have seen many article without references in the lead paragraph. For instance, the article The Simpsons and there are more such as How I Met Your Mother and Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And I don't know and why he is always up to prove me wrong! He is somewhat engaged in WP:BITE.

And this is not ending by a healthy discussion. He is very dominating, dogmatic and adamant. It will lead to something terrible. After which I would have to take a long break and come back later (now I think that I would have to). I don't want that to happen. So I want a third opinion, your reviews. Please help me. I know that you will and please don't tell me to go to some other place, your much more than a veteran. And I would like you to help me. I would also like you to know what another user has written on his talk page:

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources. You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something. Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today. Sorry for bad English. LOL!

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. Help this poor user! Please I need a third opinion and your help! He won't just understand me. There has to be my fault but what he is doing is also wrong and he is not understanding it. He just boasts about Wikipedia rules even if he doesn't know how to use and implement them. Please help me. I will be more than grateful to you! And if you are replying (Please do so. I know that you would, won't you?) please leave a talkback template on my talk page. Thank you so much my messiah! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please would you help me? :'( -:( -Tamravidhir (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Sorry, but I don't have the energy to get involved to day. May I suggest that you post at WP:ANI, where you will find lots of admins?
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you so much and sorry for not being gender neutral but it has almost become a habit. Sorry but i generally keep it in mind but I was frustrated now so...sorry... --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I just had a question! We have been discussing the matter in our personal talk pages. So I can't go for a 3O or a dispute resolution. What can I do? (Sorry for disturbing. I know that you are quite busy) --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: that's not a problem. You can still go to ANI.
If others conclude that there is no need for admin intervention, I am sure they will direct you to a more appropriate place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You are quintessential! I just love you! I am not exaggerating but I seriously need help...thank you a million times. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for the additions in Arthur Richardson (politician) page

Please mention the name of Mr Arthur Richardson's younger son, Captain Donald Richardson, who got Military cross medal for showing velour at the height of the Battle of Passchendaele,August 22 1917.

The fact that Captain Donald Richardson was a son of Mr Arthur Richardson is mentioned in newspaper Nottingham Post in 1918.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAgnihotri (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 July 2014‎

Hi NAgnihotri, and thanks for your message.

I have a better idea: why don't you add the info? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John Johnstone (East India Company)

Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. 3400 page views. I think that's a record for my DYKs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Shipsview (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Harlon Carter

Hello,

Could you please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Harlon Carter? Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi GabrielF.

Good to go. Sorry I missed the ping. For some reason it never showed up in my notifications, so I am gonna make a bug report. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! GabrielF (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Whittaker may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{S-new|position

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jim Njegovan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{S-end}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Coote may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont]]| (1738–1800), Irish politician, MP for Cavan County]] 1761–66, Postmasters General of Ireland 1789–97

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blake baronets may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Sir Patrick Blake, 1st Baronet]] ({{circa|1742}–1784)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Copley baronets may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Sir Joseph William Copley, 4th Baronet (27 July 1804 – 4 January 1883}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to De Bathe baronets may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be the daughter of the [[Sir Arthur Nicholas Lindsay Wood, 2nd Baronet|Arthur Wood (sailor)]] (1875–1939, eldest son of Sir Lindsay Wood, 1st Baronet, of the [[Wood baronets]], of the Hermitage.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hay baronets may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Sir John Hay, 2nd Baronet (died 1659}})

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stirling-Hamilton baronets may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Earl of Tyrone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of the Peace, Micheline Kearney Walsh, R&S Printers, Monaghan, Ireland, 1986</ref> ({{circa|1550}–1616) attainted 1608, attainder confirmed by Irish Parliament 1614.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edward Henry Cooper

Hello! Your submission of Edward Henry Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warofdreams talk 18:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Armonía

Sorry for the negative experience with the Armonía Somers nom. Rosiestep (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. That's very kind of you.

It's a pity, because it wouldn't have taken much work on the article to wrap up Template:Did you know nominations/Armonía Somers. But I can't do a review if the review process is mistaken as some form of persecution :(

There is no deadline for completing a DYK review (e.g. John Johnstone (East India Company) hung around for a month), so I'm just sorry that you co-editor mistook it as a form of pressure :(

I haven't closed the review, so if you want to change your mind about withdrawing the nom, another reviewer may want to take it over. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll think about it but I'm inclined to just let it go. Some of it is 'lost steam'; and I don't want to offend the co-editor by trimming what he added, even if the refs aren't spot-on. On the other hand, self-removing a woman's biography from the DYK nom process is disheartening as I'm mindful that women's biographies are a minority (compared to men's) at DYK (except in March, Women's History Month). --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Newari language

Hi,

If you're going to protect Newari language, please mark it as disputed. BTW, there's the same issue at Classical Newari. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi kwami

If you want the page tagged, you can make an {{edit protected}} request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Abt Nepal Bhasa

Hi there, I was wondering if you could moderate the discussion of the article and watch over the page. A few editors and I have been working on the page, on and off, since 2006. Recently, another user has started moving the page (without citing reasons), deleting sources and creating a hostile, polarized environment there. I would greatly appreciate some moderation there. Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eukesh

I do not want to become directly involved in the dispute. However, I have fully protected the page for one month, and I have left an explanatory note on the article's talk page.

Good luck in achieving consensus on how to develop the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Is it possible to have some degree of moderation from an admin there?

Also, I have noticed that the environment in English wiki, in general, is becoming more hostile and bureaucratic. I have volunteered as an admin in more than 10 language edition wikipedias and have helped communities grow in smaller wikis. It is really disheartening to see more experienced users involved in hostile takeovers and edit conflicts in English wiki. I think that the experienced users should rather be focusing on community development and building cordial environment. I sincerely hope that, you people, who are really active in this chapter, do something about improving the atmosphere here. Thanks again!--Eukesh (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Eukesh.

The general expectation at en.wp is that discussions will be moderated by the participants themselves. Uninvolved moderators are brought in only to big, intractable disputes, such as the various discussions at WP:IECOLL about the title of the article Republic of Ireland. The disagreements over this language are at a much lower level.

As to the problems of bureaucracy and conflict, I'm afraid that those are large systemic problems which are very hard to turn around. English Wikipedia is huge, and structural flaws in the Wikipedia model which don't show up in a smaller project become serious here. I have my own views on how to change things, but it would be a long essay ... so I just concentrate on creating content, helping fight the odd fire, and trying to conduct myself in the way I would like others to behave. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CIR problem

Hi. I wanted to get your input on a problematic user – Pawan Bariaar. They edit primarily cricket (the sport, not the critter) articles. A lot of the edits are to add/update statistics, but they also write prose describing individual matches. The problem is, they don't know how to conjugate verbs, use articles, spell, punctuate, etc. Until I pointed it out, they Capitalized Every Word In A Sentence, and they still over-capitalize routinely.

It's unreasonable to think this person's grammar could suddenly improve, so the alternative other than blocking would seem to be that they need a partner to edit their submissions before posting, if there are such editors willing to do so. Is there such a solution, other than asking for a block?

Thanks for your help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1, and thanks for the msg.

The direct answer is the Guild of Copy Editors, who may be able to help.

However, I have have taken a quick look at this editor's most recent contributions, which consist of a series of edits to Clint McKay. That's a lot of poorly-written, and wholly unsourced, additions to a BLP.

Why copy-edit unsourced additions to a BLP rather than reverting them?

I am all in favour helping editors improve, but the bottom line is that competence is required. I don't see any reason so far to believe that this editor has the necessary competence to edit an encyclopedia. Do you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not by themselves, no. It just felt a little different than the average kiddie-spew, like they could overcome all but the grammar with an editor behind them to clean that up. I don't value all the up-to-the-second sports stats that seem to be acceptable, though, to be that editor. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, I guess I tend to be more hardline on this than most, but my concern is that Wikipedia simply does not have the resources to handle editors who need a permanent cleanup-team at their service.

As the number of active editors declines, all sorts of community processes are becoming hollowed out. Tumbleweed blows through the empty halls of scores of WikiProjects, while most of the others are barely alive. Processes such as XFD are increasingly shaky due to lack of participation, and some important ones such as editor review are moribund. There is no mechanism for deposing rotten admins, so the community will appoint new admins only after they have survived such appallingly intense scrutiny that hardly anyone applies.

There are many competently-written, workmanlike articles which would benefit immensely from a polish, but we have only a fraction of the number of active copy-editors which would be needed to do so at a rate which would maintain quality, let alone improve it.

It just doesn't make sense to me to stretch that limited cleanup team any further by bending over backwards to accommodate incompetents.

As ever, YMMV :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

...survived such appallingly intense scrutiny that hardly anyone applies You've got that right. At the start, I said "bring it on". Now, I'm wondering why I'm wasting my time, particularly when getting picked at over things I don't want to be involved in, following guidelines for service awards as written, and a single syntax "error" in a place without a defined syntax

As to the problem at hand, where do we go from here? Should I bring it to AN (or ANI) or what? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, I hope that you don't take the RFA saga personally. It's a ritual everyone has to go through these days :(

As I noted above, adminship comes with no time limit and is near impossible to remove, so editors are displaying inevitable hyper-caution in looking for unattainable certainty in their scrutiny of candidates.

I find myself driven to exactly the same near-paranoia in reviewing your RFA. Everything I have seen of you suggests that you are civil, articulate, open to other views, and slow to get defensive. Those are core qualities in an admin, so I would love to be able to support your RFA.

However, I don't see much evidence of you handling policy decisions, or brokering disputes. In most other contexts, I'd say fine; those are things which mostly apply once you have the job. You look like a decent person, so we will give you the mop and see how you do with this particular challenge. That's who I'd do it in an election, or when appointing someone for a job: the ingredients mostly look right, so we'll live with a few reservations and try the recipe. That what happened at my own RFA, back in 2006. I'm v grateful to have had the chance then, and to have mostly retained the confidence of the community since.

I'd like to do the same for you, but what I know now is that what RFA would be doing, is giving you the mop for life unless you go absolutely totally disastrously wrong. If you just turned to be middling bad as an admin, we would be stuck with you. There is now way to say, "sorry, this admin thing isn't working out as brilliantly as we hoped, so please go back to being a great editor". The only options are either to crucify you, or leave you to carry on.

So I dunno what to with your RFA. I think that a not-yet oppose is the best reflection of how I have to assess against the insane structures, a neutral is as nice as I can do ... and since I hate doing either, I will probably refrain from any comment at RFA.

As to this dude, I suggest a gentle pointer to the problems, a little dialogue, and encourage him to seek a mentor. I don't think there would be support for admin action at this stage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't canvassing, just venting a little because you mentioned the issue, without which I would not have said anything I chose you because of your comments in a similar ANI case.

The fact that it's hard to remove an admin is clearly the problem. I've never hired someone under those conditions in real life – I don't know why Wikipedia should be any different. Clearly, an initial probationary period (say, 90 days), during which an expedited recall process is in place, makes sense. Longer-term, I don't know what the process is, but to me, if someone routinely screws up and doesn't want to fix or stop it, it makes sense to de-admin them.

Another thing that seems out-of-balance is that "gentleman's agreement" sanctions are often used for refrain-from-doing-something bans against users that have demonstrated an inability to do something properly, relying on the sanctioned user to obey (or else...). Why isn't an admin applicant, who has not done something wrong, given the same courtesy, especially when they state up front, before the issue is even raised, that they will not do something without seeking help if they are not experienced or sure of policy (rhetorically)? That's pretty twisted.

Back to the cricket guy... I did point out the issues to them here, to which they did not respond, and initially ignored. I get that – nobody likes to be told they're incompetent – and I tried to soften it as much as possible while still retaining the needed strength. I warned again here when they ignored it. At some point, they stopped The Gratuitous Capitalizing, but there's still a fundamental problem with English that can't likely be fixed soon. They also didn't seem interested in fixing (or were not able to fix) their previous contributions as I had asked.

Miniapolis shows as "available" at GCE, so I'll contact them and see if they're interested.

Thanks for your support. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, I didn't for a moment think you were canvassing in any sense, and I hope that my post didn't imply an suggestion that you were. It was me who brought up the topic of RFA! Sorry if my thinking out loud at an inopportune moment caused any embarassment.

Good call on seeking out a mentor for Pawan Bariaar. I dunno if it will do any good, but it's worth a try. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref error

On Edward Henry Cooper, it seems pretty uncertain, when I tried on my sandbox it wasn't showing any error. Have a recheck? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Still under construction. I am using the refs as I go, and it will all sort out in the end :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I was sorry to see that you simply deleted the discussion on your userpage, without archiving it.

My point still stands. You edited a page which was clearly tagged as {{inuse}}, within 60 seconds of the last edit by its creator and sole editor, to "fix" an error message generated because it was a work-in-progress. Any work-in-progress will have many glitches: grammatical, semantic, typographical, gaps in coverage, and possibly some technical glitches such as broken refs or malformed template usage. These are all things which should be cleaned up -- but the whole point of an {{inuse}} is to indicate that an editor is already actively at work on them. Once the inuse notice is stale or removed, by all means be WP:SOFIXIT, but not while the inuse notice is merely 60 seconds old.

Your final reply to me before you deleted our conversation shows no understanding of how your impatience to remove an error message disrupted aative content creation, let alone any sign of an intent to desist from that sort of disruption in future.

That's a decidedly uncollaborative approach, which impedes the creation and development of content, in pursuit of what?

I had hoped that your response might be to acknowledge that you had learnt from a good faith error, but instead it seems to be a determination to both continue this form of disruption, and remove the evidence of it from your talk page. Sooner or later, that sort of conduct will be challenged more firmly than I have done on this occasion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I was only telling what I had experienced before. I archive conversations but later. I know I had bothered and it was not my intention, I really had no idea about the consequence, so I am sorry for that and I won't do it again with just anyone. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, OccultZone. That's very reassuring, and helps ease my feeling that content creation was being made into an obstacle course. Matter resolved :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like I've learned a lot today. Thanks too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not keeping it too big, but I had agreed about not changing dates anymore, I did it on some 160 pages, while 145 were correct(related to american subject). I knew how to rectify from start, if any of my change was bigger than 60 bytes. Because it would mostly remove the engvar and dmy tag or even adding comma can be reflected on any edit that has added more bytes to it. That was about few hours ago. Since then I haven't used AWB for dating. All of my later 500 edits were manually done. I have added dmy dates tag to your article[1] so that anyone with similar scrip may won't change, or if they did it will specifically explicit. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of user sandbox

Hi BrownHairedGirl! When you have a chance, could you please comment out the article categories on your user sandbox page User:BrownHairedGirl/Edward Henry Cooper per WP:USERNOCAT? (My bot and I are respecting your {{inuse}} tag on the page.) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I had hope that this article would be a fairly-quickly-completed effort in mainspace, but sadly it got driven out of mainpsace by a meddler who ignored the prominent {{inuse}} banner (see above). I intended it to be back in mainspace within an hour, but some research has taken a little longer than planned, so I guess it may be in userspace for up another 24 hours. No big deal, I thought.

You did ask very nicely, and were kind enough to respect the {{inuse}} tag, but I wonder whether this was really needed? I have done it now to avoid hassle, but my faith in the content creation process has been dimmed a little further :(

I see 4 article creations by you in the last year, which I am sure are valuable additions to Wikipedia, and there is no requirement to be a content-creator at all. But I wonder whether if you did a little more creation you might be a little more inclined to to recall that there is WP:NODEADLINE? Just a thought. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! I understand the belief that there is no deadline to create or update articles, and therefore some users keep drafts in their user sandboxes for days, weeks, or months. One way to keep other users away from your drafts is to make sure users can't find them on article category pages. Thank you for reminding me about my article creations - I had forgotten that I created a few of those. It's nice to see that some stubs I've started have been greatly improved by other editors. You're right - if I were to spend more time creating articles, I would spend less time on wikignomic activities. However, I like those activities, especially recently trying to find little niches where I can create a bot that can carry out repetitive and mundane tasks. For this specific task of uncategorizing user drafts, after my bot cleans up as many user pages as it can, I've been investigating those pages it skips and doing some detective work to find out why. Yours was easy to figure out, and I appreciate you taking care of it so quickly!

If you would like, I would be happy to do some minor tweaking to the article once you have completed your work and moved it to articlespace. Good luck with your work on the article! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty, and sorry for the slow reply.

FYI, Edward Henry Cooper is back in mainspace. I am reasonably pleased with how far I was able to take the article. Probably not someone I would have liked, but definitely a notable life.

I take your point about gnoming being what you enjoy, and that's great. It's valuable work, and if enjoy it, everyone wins. My point is that I think greater experience of developing an article from scratch to a way-beyond-stub might change your perspective on a bit on the impact of gnoming. My gripe here is that in the early stages of a draft, I was twice interrupted by gnomes, which I don't think is a good thing.

In this case, you encountered a newly-created draft under construction, with mainspace categories. If a draft is stale or long-standing, then you are right to seek its removal from mainspace categories ... but I think that a little less urgency would have been nice for a fresh draft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you found my request to be an interruption, and sorry for whatever I did that led you to believe that there would be some "hassle" from me if you didn't honor my request. Thank you for your feedback, and congratulations on your article! GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Joshua Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shooting star. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi!Choi hyun44 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hostile environment

Hallo BHG, do you find this message acceptable? It's one of the most aggressive things I've come across on WP but apparently it's considered to be quite OK because it's a quote from some film. What do you think? PamD 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi PamD, pls can you give me a diff? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not clear: it's the "welcome message" at the top of the talk page. I'm fairly sure I raised it at ANI or somewhere, years ago, and was laughed out of court. It still makes me cringe any time I have cause to look at that page. PamD 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's from the film Full Metal Jacket. A good movie. Doc talk 12:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find that old discussion, I've found an interesting entry at Wikiquette assistance: a complaint against that same editor which was closed as "Resolved: OP retired". Not an ideal resolution. PamD 12:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And? You're allowed to have film quotes on your user page, "aggressive" or not. The message is "acceptable". Doc talk 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If it was labelled as a quote from a film, then fine: it's not. It just looks like pure aggression. PamD 12:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just wandering by after the brouhaha at Jimbo's talk, but I don't get the "it's a quote from a film so it's ok" argument. Can I put quotes from 70's porn movies (I'm sure there's some dialog somewhere) ? Or the Silence of the Lambs c-word scene when Clarice first meets Dr. Lecter? I dunno, I like Lugnuts, he's done a lot of good work over the years in alt music articles. But if I was a new user going to drop a note on his talk page about something, I'd feel a bit hesitant about he environment after reading that. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we need only flowery, happy movie quotes on user pages? Who decides what is "aggressive" or not when it comes to movie quotes? This is a slippery slope. Doc talk 12:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the owner of the talk page should be advised to add the film attribution at the bottom of the quote, or at least, to enclose the quote in quotes. (I would illustrate quotes here, but in wiki markup, that is just too much work.) (At least it isn't insulting to any subgroup of humanity, but to humans in general.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that for sure. It is a direct quote from a copyrighted work, and it must be properly attributed. Doc talk 13:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I probably had a fair bit of a hand in making this place somewhat incivil over the years, something which I regret these days, and do what I can to see if things can be changed going forwards. No one's asking for flowers and bunnies everywhere, but at the the same time, the Wikipedia isn't a man-cave; the Bro code (if that turns out to be a redlink, it shouldn't be) isn't the rule of law here. That this and other tech/gaming/etc places on the internet are rather hostile towards a certain segment of our society is really undeniable, any more than global warming is deniable. The quibble comes in how to fix with it, or even getting people to want to fix with it. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's just focus on this small issue of the film quote for now. Lugnuts needs to put an attribution to the quote. I do not see it as an "aggressive" quote, and I shudder to think that someone can decide that only a "friendly" quote is acceptable on a user's page. Doc talk 13:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Pam that this looks like pure aggression, and with Tarc that it would be discouraging to any user.

The fact that it is quote from something is irrelevant. A quotation is relevant in a discussion of the work from which it came, or of its author of the genre; but an editor who splats it across the top of their talk page has taken on the words as their own. Attribution would resolve any copyright issues, but it does not alter the inappropriateness of their use as the first words seen by an editor visiting that talk page.

I'm sure that if any of us were to scour the appropriate set of films or books, we could unearth a wide selection of aggressive, racist, misogynist or otherwise nasty comments. Their availability in print is no justification for repeating them out-of-context, and they should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Doc talk 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to register my complete agreement with BHG. There is no end to the aggressive and insulting quotes that could be plucked out of context from media sources and used in a hostile manner. "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to our topical coverage, but is meaningless with respect to our internal discussion and displays. bd2412 T 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Doc9871, the encyclopedia is not censored, but this is not a discussion about encyclopedic content. It is a discussion about editorial interaction, where have a policy which requires editors to be civil to each other and to create a collaborative working environment. Similar rules exist in workplaces, in sports and social clubs, and even in elected assemblies such a parliament or congress. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You think this is my first day here?! I desperately want to correct your misspellings in the above post, but I will let you do it. Doc talk 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: I had assumed that it was not your first day here, and that you would be aware of WP:USERPAGE which says While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute.

A gratuitously aggressive message at the top of a talk page doe snot help an editor to better participate in the community.

As to my typos (due to a computer slowed by having too many tabs open), I point you to WP:TPG which says that it is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice of Pam to notify me of this. Oh wait, she did it in a sneaky clandestine way because she has cried about my edits before. This is basically Pam still complaining about my use of stub tagging which then lead to this, which was quickly closed as Pam hadn't a leg to stand on. Carry on with your quite sad vendetta. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, [2] is the full quote. There's a bit missing from my talkpage... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"You will not laugh! You will not cry! You will learn by the numbers! I will teach you!" Doc talk 14:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts, regardless of whether there is any other dispute between you and Pam, please will remove that quote from your talk page? It does nothing to foster a collaboration, which is the purpose of talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you think I should remove my quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth on my user page because it doesn't "foster collaboration"? "Be bloody, bold and resolute." Nope. You should just drop it. Doc talk 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Doc9871, you have five words on your userpage, on the second screenful, in the context of a thoughtful exposition of your view on Wikipedia. Those words are a rather macho way of saying "be bold", but they are not an attack on anyone.
That's a very different matter from a talk page which greets other editors rudely and aggressively as "Attention Scum". Lugnuts's comment may be intended humorously, but the lack of any facial or vocal cues, or any explanation, makes it unclear whether the intent is as toxic as the quotation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have a vendetta against Lugnuts - but his message/quote, and the interactions we had about stub tagging (here and here), have come the nearest to making me walk away from Wikipedia of any interactions I've had over the years. I'm a female retired librarian: I don't give a damn about Eric's occasional use of over-strong language, but I find the rampant hostility of Lugnuts' talk page message, and his interaction style, to be "incivil" in the extreme and not conducive to the good of the encyclopedia. PamD 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As for notifying Lugnuts: I believe there is no requirement to notify an editor when you mention them on someon else's talk page (in fact that came up somewhere in the walls of text about Lightbreather in the last few days). I thought about it, and decided against. I was asking BHG's opinion about what seems to me to be a worse act of incivility, and greater damage to the atmosphere in which editors work, than the edit for which she had just blocked Eric, and wanted to hear her views on this generalised aggressive statement. PamD 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For particularly insightful comments about the need for the WMF to address the separate but related problems of incivility and the gender gap, and to address the failing fifth pillar of civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert! I think it's really you who deserves a barnstar for trying to focus attention on the policy issue behind the ugly spat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG, I wanted you to know that I have unblocked EC based on the ANI discussion. I can find 100% reason why you did block, as I personally can see EC's comment in the edit summary having 3 or 4 different meanings (no matter what, it was uncivil and unwise). Consensus - when we take out the c-word from the equation - appears to be that the summary was not a violation of NPA. I also completely agree that there's no proof you're WP:INVOLVED whatsoever, and I find calls otherwise to be disturbing. the panda ₯’ 14:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to do something about the chronic incivility around here. The fact that admins that I once respected, such as Dennis Brown, feel that effectively calling someone brainless is not an attack, is one of the things that makes me loath to edit any more. Hal peridol (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume that's a weak and ill-advised attempt at sarcasm in your first sentence. Incivility and NPA are two different (yet related) things. Dennis and myself have done more around this project surrounding civility than most other editors, so be careful of misreading things the panda ₯’ 15:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that many comments that are grossly uncivil are characterized as personal attacks, when they are merely grossly uncivil. Should the posters be blocked for incivility instead, or has it now been concluded that gross incivility is not blockable? If gross incivility is not blockable, then of course many editors will request to have grossly uncivil comments construed as personal attacks. Are "impersonal attacks" free? If so, of course we will have wikilawyering about what is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we agree that personal attacks are a proper subset of incivility? That is, all personal attacks are uncivil, but not all incivility is personal attacks? What is done about incivility that is not personal ("impersonal attacks")? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that god did not give an editor brians is a personal attack. The unblock seems odd to me. Can we really not agree on what is an attack on a person anymore? Chillum 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There goes the cycle once again;

• The Artist Formerly Known as Malleus is blocked
• a crying fit by the fan club at ANI (where I once used to throw in support, regrettably)
• block is undone after only a few hours
• The Artist adopts an ominous tone that hints at quitting.
• The user page is wiped and replaced with "retired" (pending)
• The fanclub pleads for a return (pending)
• The Artist starts editing articles within a week, with no mention of the aforementioned affair again (pending)

Tarc (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my kudos to you for your comments at Jimbo's talk page. Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you, Joe, agreeing with my comments at Jimbo's page, or with BHG's, or both? If with mine or both, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG's, actually. Pardon me for being unclear. I think BHG was correct in her comments and appropriate in her actions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both her comments and her action. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert, regarding your comments in this edit, I agree with your first two points quite strongly. Regarding your third point, while LB may indeed, by strict definition, have been forum shopping, I do believe her concerns were valid, appropriately raised and inadequately resolved. Hence, raising at Jimbo's talks seemed OK. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarc, Hal peridol, and Robert.

As I placed the block, I had a sinking feeling that it might all end that way, but I hoped that maybe for once ANI would uphold WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, or at least refrain from actively overturning their enforcement. It seems that the consensus at ANI is that calling another editor irrational and brainless is acceptable or even desirable. It was depressing to see several editors explicitly supporting the personal attack in the edit summary.

It is unclear how many editors endorse the comment by Davey2010, who wants to give a free license for personal attacks to be engaged in by editors because "we either lose him or put up with". But the lifting of so many of Eric's previous civility blocks suggests that Davey2010 may not be the only editor to hold that view.

That's why I think that the non-enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is a systemic failing of the community, where the Wikimedia Foundation needs to intervene. I am not holding my breath :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I said there's pros and cons to what I said and If I'm honest it's best we all just move on,
  

I don't think anyone should get a free pass to be uncivil but yeah pros & cons,

I also apologize if I came across harsh (In my defence I did keep going back to remove the uncivil crap out) but yeah If I have offended you in any way I apologize,

At the end of the day everyone was getting hot-headed and perhaps none of should've! - You acted in good faith and to be honest you did what you though was right, Some agreed, Some disagreed,

Anyway have a nice day, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010: no, you didn't come across as harsh (at least in the version I read, and if that was the edited version, then I presume it was what best reflected your intent). My concern is simply that if there are no sanctions on editors who refuse repeated requests to change their ways, then they effectively have a free licence. If editors who frequently ignore WP:NPA don't face from sanctions, then we might as well delete the policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I've not offended you :), That's actually a very very good point - Why do we allow people to ignore NPA & get away with it .... I feel like saying something should be done about it but I also break NPA quite alot (For instance yesterday I told an editor to "eff off you idiot!") ... So If I'm honest I can't really say anything ..., Anyway have a nice day, Regards –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think those who disagree with the current NPA policy should go the talk page and try to have it changed. The consensus at NPA fully supported the block, only a small interest group who thinks NPA should not be policy are interfering. The community as a whole wants NPA enforced. Chillum 16:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to avoid this debate, but I feel I should show my opinion and let it stand. I have a lot of time for Eric, he is a good editor who can copyedit me under the table, he comes up with really interesting articles, and he's willing to help anyone wanting to improve their writing, and I tried defending him as best as I could .... but this and this were fair warning from me that there is a time when saying nothing is the best option and he was heading for something like this. Good block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edward Joshua Cooper

Hello! Your submission of Edward Joshua Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

False dilemma

Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork".

Or the freedom to change it! :) Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG, we had a brief exchange on Jimbo's talk yesterday about WMF's role. I'm slowly, grudgingly, partially coming round to your view.... DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for a v belated reply, DeCausa. But thanks for that.

I know that what I am proposing amounts to a fairly radical shift from how many editors believed Wikipedia was governed, so folks need time to consider apparently new notions. Personally, I don't think it really is a shift, just an activation of something which has only previously been used in other contexts ... but we'll see :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Watch that will to power, girlie. (Joke.) You're making sense. I'm looking forward to Jimmy's response, and I'd be interested to hear from User:Sj, User:Phoebe and User:Raystorm, too, about civility and the terms of use. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, Anthonyhcole! My will to power has a scarily wide reach. I can exclusively reveal that the full extent of my megalomania is a top-secret plan to get my garden back under control. That will obviously lead directly to becoming global empress, and enslaving .... no, can't keep it up. <grin>

I am also looking fwd to his response. I am taking the delay as a sign that he really is considering this carefully, so it will be interesting to see where it leads. It may be that he is unable to say much, in which case I will raise it directly with the Foundation. The WMF's previous Exec director and its current director have both spoken publicly about the problems in this area, so it would not be an entirely new issue for them.

I kinda wish I hadn't landed into this issue because I had been on a bit of a roll creating content, using some new sources. But that's how it goes here: stumble on something as I did, and stuff happens. As Viriditas says, we have the freedom to change things ... or at least to try to change them. All any of us can do is to make a case and see where it leads.

Interesting times :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A leader emerges to fill the vacuum. BrownHairedGirl, instead of deferring to the WMF, how about setting up an ad hoc committee to present the problem in a brief, formal manner to the foundation? And while you are at it, how about coordinating a Signpost article documenting the dispute? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Honest, Viriditas, I'm not the messiah, I am a very naughty girl <grin>

Seriously, tho I think that both ideas have mileage. I just dunno how much I can commit myself to. Unless I clone myself, I think that I may best to suggest that others take the lead on some of those ideas.

Howsabout we wait and see what (if any) response Jimbo manages? It's a little hard to know where we stand until then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I just don't want you to lose your momentum. If you had a committee of your peers to help you, then you could delegate tasks and responsibilities so everything wouldn't fall on your shoulders. Maybe the Gender Gap group could help you. Off the top of my head, you've got Lightbreather, possibly SlimVirgin, Carolmoore, etc. "Gender Gap powers, activate!" My opinion is, don't wait for anyone, push on ahead and seize the day. Nobody is going to give you the rights and respect you want, you have to demand it, grab it, and take it as your own. That's how every right has been won by people everywhere. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your well-spoken defense of civil and collegial discourse here. I appreciated your courage, passion, and cogency on the matter. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Herostratus.

As ever, it's hard work and it generates some hostility from some defenders of the status quo (though some such as Drmies above have been impressively civil and open to discourse).

I think it's worth trying to shift the culture a bit. The problems have been discussed for years and documented in enough research that it's time to explore other routes to change. The community is clearly unable to solve this problem alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of "the community solving a problem". It's a matter of competing visions. I'll expound on that a little below. You're probably right that the community can't change it though. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Communes/ municipalities of Italy

Hi BHG, missing you at CFD! As you led the RM for lists of comuni at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 15#Italian municipalities. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayenatic L. I have replied[3] at the CFD discussion. Sorry that my reply couldn't be more helpful :(

I will be back at CFD some day ... just busy with other things for now :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Hi BrownHairedGirl; Accuracymattersman here. It seems the Proverbs6 poster on the Ralph Drollinger wiki has a vendetta against him. If you look at Proverbs6's historical posting, the person continues to bring up the same issues that have no merit. I saw where you temporarily blocked Proverbs6 before, but now P6 is back with the same postings. Can you block P6 permanently from this site? Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracymattersman (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Accuracymattersman

See my notice at Talk:Ralph Drollinger#Article_fully-protected_indefinitely, and my notice[4] at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Ralph Drollinger.

Please continue any further discussion at those locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction and invitation

Hi. I am so happy to be reading your reasoned comments and especially your concrete proposals about how to improve civility on Wikipedia. Would you like to work together on this? Another editor set up a page in my user space to work on a proposal,[5] but I'm open to working anywhere - as long as the work gets done.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am the woman who told Jimbo Wales about my experiences and observations. I can't imagine I'm the first, but I'm glad that it helped to get the ball rolling re: WP civility. I would be honored to work with you, if that's allowed. Lightbreather (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, and thanks for the offer.

For the moment I am going to decline, for a number of reasons.

The first is that I have not yet reviewed the leadup to the dispute(s) in which you were involved. There are repeated claims that you were forum-shipping, edited disruptively on various articles, etc. Note that even if all those allegations stand up, I still hold to the view that they do not in any way justify the gross incivility of those with whom you were disagreeing. If your conduct was inappropriate, that could and should have been addressed without using obscentities or accusing you of being irrational. It is entirely possible to restrain a diusruprive editor without being uncivil.

However, if those claims have substance, I think it damages your credibility as a complainant. I suggest that you would be best placed to start by carefully reviewing your own conduct in those areas.

Additionally, I will have little wiki-time over the next week, and any energies I do have I want to focus for now on one aspect which I have opened up, viz. where the Wikimedia Foundation stands on civility enforcement. I think that the WMF's response — or lack of it — will define the territory within which any proposals will be considered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Long rant

There's quite a lot to think about here, and quite a lot to say. I'm not sure where to say it and what good it would do, so I'll just do a brain dump here. Feel free to ignore. Of the several thoughts I've had about this, here's one:

I think it's false and unhelpful to frame the problem in terms of "editors who lose their temper sometimes and are given a pass" or even "a few editors who are regularly uncollegial and are given a pass" and so forth. These people, the leaders especially, are not losing their tempers. Rather they are acting on a vision of how the world should work. They can't express it very well or at any rate haven't, but after many years of teasing out various postings on the order of "The best way to not be called an idiot is to not be an idiot" and so forth, here's how I might frame it, if I were one of those folks:

Look. This is an encyclopedia, not a garden party. We are here to make the best encyclopedia we can, and that means making the best articles we can. That is the goal. Everything else is secondary. And good articles are made of good edits.

If someone makes an edit, or a pattern of edits, that are taking us away from the goal, we need to to say so, and we need to say so clearly and forcefully. "I'm not sure the material you added is helpful because X, could we discuss this?" is a very good and useful and constructive comment if you are actually uncertain whether the material is an improvement and want to talk about it. It is a very bad and useless and destructive comment if the material is stupid. In that case "I'm not sure the material you added is helpful because X, could we discuss this?" is mealy-mouthed politically correct pablum and is a lie. And it helps no one -- not the reader nor the editor nor the community. In the case of a stupid edit, what you want to say is "That was a stupid edit". It is true, it is forthright, it is how honest and true and confident adults address each other.

In the case of editors who don't get the point, we are justified -- not just justified, but duty-bound -- to press the issue and press it in terms that are clear and effective. One stupid edit is one stupid edit. Ten stupid edits is a moron. Ten stupid edits defended is an asshole moron. That is just a fact. Assholes need to be told that they are assholes. They don't get the point by whistling and pointing, because they are assholes (and morons). They need to be told clearly that they are an asshole (cunt, bitch, whatever it takes -- morons are notably slow-witted about getting the point) and if they get the vapors over that, well, the door is that way and one less moron is addition by subtraction.

Please do not tell us about "editors being driven away" and so forth. We add editors. Editors are driven away because they have to put up with nonsense editing and nonsense arguments and are constrained from calling these out plainly and clearly. If we lose a few crybabies and special snowflakes, this is no loss compared to the recruitment of honest, intelligent, dedicated adults.

So that's our goal: improved articles above all, and honest and forthright discourse to achieve this.

And we will absolutely go the mattresses to defend this. We will test any limits and transgress any limits to make the Wikipedia work as it needs to and must work. We will block, or unblock, or intimidate, or use any other means without regard for any rule except IAR. Because the Wikipedia, the actual encyclopedia rather than the social-media poor-me drama games, is important.

We will always defeat liberals, so-called "feminists", milquetoasts, and other people who get the vapors over words not heard in church. Always. Because they are constrained by their politically-correct concepts of so-called "politeness" and "rules" and "process". They drown in them. We are true men and honest. You talk. We act. And we are the stronger.

So get used to it. We are not going away and we are not going to lose.

Of course this is arrant nonsense and I think anyone with any sense of organizational development could pick it apart fairly readily. But that's not important.

I also think this is not what really motivates most of these people. (For one thing most of them are pretty thin-skinned if they're on the receiving end, which indicates it's not a genuine ideology but just an excuse to dish out meanness and cruelty.) But that's not important.

What's important is that this plays in the background of their minds, this is the ideological underpinning (rationalizing excuse if you prefer) of the desire to... let's just say to control one's environment which, if not twisted to monstrous proportion, is natural and healthy.

So they don't think "I was mean. I should maybe work on my temper" or even "I was mean and I shouldn't have been, but I was provoked and so it's justified". They think "I was mean, on purpose, and this an objective virtue". Of course they do. Almost everyone wants feel, on some level, that they are doing good.

So anyway we're dealing with a consistent ideology, which means we're dealing with a political faction. So I don't know. How do you deal with this? As a purely political fight, I guess. Very hard to win here. You understand this I guess, which is why you have spoken of appealing to the WMF.

So... as to practical advice, I haven't much... I have some, but how useful it would be I don't know, and I'll end here. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus - Well, you are right about one thing, this is an ideological fight. Although it is not the white hats v. black hats, enlightened ones v. ignorant lugs, progressive voices v. reactionaries, women's freedom v. sexist subjugation, ad infinitum battle that you make it out to be. It is a fight between those who seek to create a ultra PC "Friendly Space" [© User:Sumanah], believing in the magic of community and crowdsourcing to create an excellent encyclopedia on the one hand (gaining for themselves some sort of political and quasi-religious fulfillment in the process); and those who, quoting Wehwalt believe: "We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor" and that, yes, even obnoxious people should be tolerated if they deliver the goods of building the best encyclopedia possible. This is not a venue where I care to expound, but I did want to say that you did get that much right. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I wish he'd tone it down, and he came very close to losing any tolerance from me on a permanent basis when we lost Khazar2. If it happens again, well, I will reconsider. But I don't think blocking him is the answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Jesus, Herostratus, that is one of the most insightful and persuasive thoughts I've ever seen on the subject from either side. Wow. One minor thing, it's "go to the mattresses".--198.201.23.10 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I am late to thank Herostratus for that thoughtful analysis. I agree with a lot of it.

Carrite makes some interesting points too, but falls down at the end in creating a false dichotomy which is central to the debate. Carrite takes far too narrow a view of the productivity impact of civility.

I broadly agree with Carrite's quote of Wehwalt's point about this being a shop floor where we are engaged in building an encyclopedia. So I am firm with those who cannot contribute effectively. Those who lack competence or push POVs should be shown the door.

I for one am not here to sing Kumbaya (please, just spare me that!), or to be loved by other Wikipedians. Go get that on Facebook. I am here solely to expand an encyclopedia which I (mostly) enjoy contributing to. I enjoy working with people of v different world views, and I try to avoid disclosing much of my own worldview because it creates barriers to collaboration.

However, a productive workplace needs to accommodate the huge diversity of people who can contribute something to the task in hand. That's why so many of the world's most successful knowledge-based companies have been pioneers in promoting inclusivity. That's not idealism or altrusim; it's hard business sense from companies which are often ruthless in dismissing their less productive employees. Good workers come with many different attributes, and if a knowledge-based company loses a talented worker because workplace misconduct alienates them, the company is the loser.

Same goes on Wikipedia. If a talented person is driven to leave or to contribute less, then the encyclopedia loses. That applies whether the issue is religion or race or gender or disability or whatever. If someone can do the research and do good NPOV writing, we need them ... but we do not need them to conduct themselves in ways which damage the editing experience of others, and risk losing those other contributions.

When one of these big beasts degrades the workplace atmosphere by gratuitous use of obscenities or insults or persistent incivility, then its very easy to see the loss from the departure of the big beast. It's harder to see the loss from the editors who are deterred by this sort of conduct, and the supporters of the big beasts simply refuse to take that in to equation when it comes to gender.

That's the sad thing about this. Anyone spouting racist or anti-semitic stuff gets booted very fast, because editors understand the toxic effect of allowing that to continue. But the enablers of the big beats persistently deny all the evidence that an aggressive, insulting and obscene workplace is one which women try to avoid.

Most of those defending and enabling the big beasts vehemently deny any prejudice against women. The direct prejudice is very evident in some cases, but in most cases I believe that they genuinely don't see themselves as sexist. The problem is a refusal to consider how an uncivil or obscene environment drives away valuable contributors, particularly women.

I don't see any reason to believe that those who wilfully blind themselves to the wider effects of this conduct are open to persuasion by debate. That's why I think that action from the Foundation is needed.

As to the consequences of enforcing more civility, I think the evidence is that fears of a mass exodus of our current talent are misplaced. The editors concerned are clever, and adept at avoiding other misconduct such as edit-warring, because they know it will be punished. They want to keep editing, because they like editing and the value the respect which their skill earns them.

So if those editors look around them and see that obscenities and personal attacks get them blocked, they will avoid those blocks by avoiding incivility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested speedy renamings of categories

Hi there, BHG. Within the past couple of days, my attention has found its way to WP:Categories for discussion for the first time. I soon noticed that the instructions given there for handling contested speedy-rename requests is quite unclear. Searching the Talk archives for more information led me to your RFC on contested speedy renamings of categories from February 2012. I find that I agree completely with your reasoning as expressed therein. However, that discussion was never officially closed, and as far as I can tell, it did not result in any changes being made.

Fast forward to today. First of all, there is nothing on the CfD/Speedy page to explain how an editor who wishes to contest a speedy nomination is supposed to do so! That's an unacceptable barrier to participation in the process. Secondly, there is nothing on the page to clarify how editors are supposed to express their views on speedy proposals, nor even to clarify what is actually being discussed at this stage. For illustration, look at the nominations currently listed under "Opposed nominations". In this context, any discussion should be limited to a brief indication that an editor objects to "speedy" processing of the proposal, with a brief rationale. But in reality, the merits of the proposal itself appear to be under discussion. Yet evaluation of the merits of the proposal (i.e., whether it should be carried out or not) is supposed to be entirely separate from consideration of whether the proposal should be processed as speedy. It is entirely possible for an editor to feel favorably inclined toward a proposal on the merits, and yet also feel that it ought to be subject to full discussion before a decision is made. Yet there is nothing in the way the page currently appears to be operating to accommodate this. It appears to me, coming upon it for the first time, that the process is seriously in need of standardization and documentation.

Do you agree? If so, what next steps would you suggest?

— Jaydiem (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jaydiem, this will be a quickish reply, cos I need bed soon.

I think that a brief note somewhere accessible on how to object would be a good idea. It shouldn't be verbose, but some guidance would be v helpful. Why don't you write something and either WP:BOLDly add it, or propose it at WT:CFD?

As to my proposal in that WT:Categories for discussion/Archive 14#RFC on contested speedy renamings of categoriesFeb 2012 RFC, I don't think it needed to be formally closed. There was a consensus to retain the status quo; I wish it were otherwise, but I accept the consensus. If you think that change is needed, feel free to make a new proposal or revive some variant of mine. Good luck!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for attempting to hold the same expectations for an established user as we do for a new user. It is a shame that cronies of the established user make sure that any such fair treatment is discouraged. Our cenensus bases NPA policy is often at ends with special interest groups. Chillum 15:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum; it is not even first time I guess. I remember checking the block log of Calton, Altenmann, etc and found they were blocked by BHG for personal attacks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not even the 10th time. This happens every few months. A long term user acts in a way that we all agree deserves a block(NPA,3RR etc...), an admin blocks. A few minutes later another admins comes along and reverses the block either saying that the blocking admin was wrong(when they are right) or they make some sort of claim that long term users should not be blocked. They rarely follow the policy WP:ADMIN which says you should talk to the blocking admin before unblocking.

This results in long term users being comfortable to violate policies and thus get advantages in content disputes by being able to drive away editors they do not agree with.

Letting established editors get away with more than new users results special "made" men and women that cannot be held accountable. It makes it so that a new user seeking help from such a user will not find help.

The whole thing goes against the idea that every editor should be held to the same standards. Chillum 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is a bit late, but many thanks for the barnstar, Chillum. It's v kind of you.

I agree with all that you have written above. There are a bundle of problems here, but the two main ones I see are some persistently rude editors being repeatedly defended, and a steak of macho culture which rejects the principle of civility.

The problem is that this is all self-reinforcing. The more that civility and NPA blocks are overturned, the less likely it is that anyone will apply them. Editors who disapprove of that sort of conduct either shut up or give up, further increasing the sense of immunity felt by the small minority of editors whose conduct is regularly out of line.

It is very rare for this sort of culture to be effectively challenged from within any group. Change usually comes by directive from above, or from pressure from without. In Wikipedia's case, it seems to me that external intervention is unlikely, and that the Foundation is best placed to insist that a project is run in accordance with its values.

Whether it will do so is another day's work. But when an admin can make a comment like this without apparently fearing sanction, something has gone badly awry with self-governance. Everyone who edits here signs up to wmf:Terms of Use, yet one of the core terms is routinely ignored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hey BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are weathering this storm well enough. To get this out of the way first, I am one of those who strongly disagree with your block of Eric. I probably also am one of those that Chillum, above, refers to as a "crony" of said Corbett. I find that expression to be a personal attack on my integrity, but hey, it fills me with sadness more than anger: I would have expected Chillum, whose recent return I welcomed, to show more good faith. If I remember correctly (but it's been a while) he has been on the butt-end of some heated, maybe overheated criticism. Eric's "cronies" have also been called "corrupt" and enablers"--really, it doesn't have to be that way.

  Anywayz, I fully accept your good faith. You've done a lot of good work, for a long time (longer than me, obviously, and I already feel old and jaded), and I hope you will keep it up. FWIW, I do not ignore our civility pillar, and I block in a heartbeat for sexist, racist, etc. comments, but this didn't rise, in my opinion, to a blockable offense. But I think all sides (or, some editors on both sides) are pushing a little too hard: perhaps it's time for summer vacation to be over, or for a hugfest or something like that. All this fills me with sadness. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not referring to you. Rather I am talking about the phenomenon of certain estalished users to be unblocked without discussion whenever they are blocked regardless of the quality of the block. I have seen it going on for years. Chillum 16:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum. Sorry for painting with a broad brush. I don't think every block he's ever had had the same level of justification behind it, and I don't think he's always been unblocked immediately, and/or without discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm gonna kindof revisit the point I made below. Let's assume that editor X gets a civility block. Some other editors look at it and think "that was a bit harsh". Here are two ways they can take that view forward:

1. Demand that the short block be lifted, and maybe that the blocking admin admonished/defenestrated/desysopped etc, or
2. Tell X that they wouldn't have blocked in that situation, but that X needs to remember that lines will be drawn and the best way to avoid a block is to stay well clear of them. Look fwd to working with X on their return, it's not a long break, value their contribs, etc

(There are other possibilities, but lets start with at those two)

So what's the effect? #1 leaves X feeling like a victimised hero. A victim of justice denied, who survives only because a few valiant warriors for Truth have stood by them against the onslaught of the baddies.

OTOH, #2 leaves X still feeling valued. Plenty of people saying you're good, we like you, you are valued, but you do need to find a wider safety margin. The ego is not bruised too badly, X still feels valued, but understands that if they get too far into murky territory again, they will probably once again face a block.

The first option is very destructive for the community, reinforcing the notion that the best followup to bad behaviour is to create a huge drama. The second option leads to a lot less drama in the short term, and in the longer term it discourages the sort of action which led to incident in the first place.

I think that there probably are some editors who follow option #1 because they enjoy the drama. I guess that many of those who follow that path do so in the hope of reducing drama, as was Drmies's intent. But despite the good intent of of what Drmies and others did, the effect of their actions is to perpetuate the cycle -- not only by emboldening the uncivil minority, but by discouraging admins from intervening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, BrownHairedGirl--we may disagree more than I think. I don't think the comment was that uncivil that it warranted a block in the first place. At all. "You're not smart" is what it boiled down to: I hear worse here almost every single day here. I've heard much worse from other longstanding editors, and never saw a warning on their talk page. And I've heard much worse from administrators. It's been said elsewhere, I've seen it said again in this case, that a rude word (or two, or three) aren't as destructive as the venom one sees expressed in more courteous language. To put it another way: it is possible that the admin in your hypothetical example is simply wrong, and that the first part of #1 is the right way to go. The admin's intent may have been good, to enforce civility, but the net effect of it is that an editor gets blocked (and angry, frustrated, divalike, etc.) and unblocked, a shit storm starts on ANI and AN and BN and AE, and people call other people cronies and corrupt, and Jimbo gets called out of semi-retirement, and people don't look at each other anymore but throw adjectives and nouns around. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, I think we do have a rather bigger disagreement.

First, I think that you underestimate the huge difference between saying "not a clever move"/ "not a good interpretation" and calling someone irrational. That particularly applies to interactions between men and women, because denunciation of female concerns as "irrational" (or in the more extreme form "hysterical") is such a widespread and long-standing part of the low-level sexism which women encounter on a daily basis. It is deeply toxic language for a man it use against a woman, and I was shocked to see how many male editors were prepared to repeat and endorse it. The fact that it was accompanied by an edit summary saying "brainless" left no doubt that the intent was to degrade and demean the complainant.

I am stressing this because it is a fundamental aspect of why there has been such a big divide on this issue. I don't know how that sort of commentary is parsed in interactions between men. But it appears from the vociferous response at ANI (and on related talk pages) that a significant number male editors are either unaware of the effect of this style of male discourse, unwilling to hear women's views on it, or actively contemptuous of how it is perceived by women. I think that the contemptuous group was very small; but the size of the group who refused to acknowledge any problem in demeaning an editor's rationality was extraordinary and alarming.

That comes on top of the fact that the underlying dispute was about a male editor's unnecessary, deliberate and repeated use of the c-word; a term word documented as highly offensive, based on a problematisation of women's genitalia. It was very striking how many male editors adamantly refused to hear womens views on either aspect of this, and piled further abuse onto those who objected. Notice for example how John repeatedly alleged that because I take a strong view on upholding an established policy, I was therefore WP:INVOLVED. That is a charge I gave seen in no other context, and in case anyone missed the gendered nature of John's attacks, note how on his talk page he responded to my requests for clarification of his "put up with it or clear off" statement by questioning my emotional state. That "woman seeking justice must be emotional" response is such a widely documented form of sexist behaviour that it is almost a cliche.

The shit storm arose because some editors chose to respond to this complaint by not only refusing to consider its gendered aspects, but also by actively attacking anyone who raised it.

And your concern about it all remains that editor at the centre of all this, who repeatedly reposted the c-word after being challenged, was angry and frustrated? We do indeed have a very fundamental disagreement.

For me, the bottom line here is that a relatively small number of male editors have followed a pattern of behaviour which could have been lifted straight out of a textbook on the marginalisation of women. Some of those editors appear to do so deliberately, tho most are apparently blind to the nature of their conduct; but either way it is abundantly clear that the community mechanisms are incapable of resolving the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that Eric's remark was motivated by sexism. All the best. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I have no idea what his motivation was. My concern is that his behaviour followed a classical pattern of sexist conduct, and there is copious literature to confirm how this is often done without any conscious sexist intent. Whether he set out to engage in a bout of sexist incivility, or simply did so without considering the fill impact of his cations, the problem is that he persisted when asked to desist and was defended by a group of enablers.

This is not simply a problem of one editor's misconduct. It is a problem of a culture which defends that conduct, and which John has chosen to illustrate most succinctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BHG, you are my new Wikipedia hero. The first time I went before ANI, one of the guys threw out, "Perhaps she could be useful in other areas on Wikipedia, but she is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related."[6] Meanwhile, male editors can call people c*nts and question others' intelligence, and their emotionality isn't called up as a judgement on their ability to edit in any topic area. I am so glad that JW spoke up about this, and that you were there and ready to step up to the challenge. Lightbreather (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lightbreather! That's a lovely thing to say. To be quite honest, I don't really enjoy this sort of drama; I much prefer creating content or tweaking categories. But every now and then I stumble across something where a cosy consensus seems wrong, and most times I sigh silently and move on ... but some times I do decide to get engaged. When I saw that appalling personal attack, I just thought that it shouldn't go unchallenged. If I had known just how big a storm would follow I might have thought twice, but I've started so I'll finish. Whatever "finish" means with something like this :)

As to the firearms thing, I haven't read the dispute there and don't have the energy to do so. Maybe you are insufficiently NPOV; I dunno. But I do know that is very rare for a male editor to face that sort of accusation of being "too emotional". Sadly, there are not enough active women on Wikipedia to routinely challenge sort of sexist stereotyping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't give that diff expecting you to read it. I have simply gotten used to providing them because I get challenged a lot. Lightbreather (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Hi Drmies. Thanks for dropping by, for your kind words, and for the very friendly way you expressed disagreement. If only everything on wiki went like that!
    We will have to leave it for Chillum to explain the scope of who he was referring to ... but doesn't your presumption that it included you also stray a little from AGF? Better, surely, to ask.
    I think we are going to have agree to disagree on the merits of that block. A skilled writer like Eric is very well capable of expressing his disagreement without resorting to vulgarities or direct personal attacks, and is quite capable of ending a conversation if he wants to. He chose not to, and in my book calling someone irrational and brainless is a serious personal attack. The reason I went straight for a block is that a quick check showed that this is an editor with a looong history of this sort of conduct, who should by now be very well aware of what is required. I think it is a very great pity that once again he been allowed to cast himself as Mr-Persecuted. From all my experience on other social media, drawing a civility line firmly means that it rarely needs to be drawn. I have had very little interaction with Eric, but I am quite sure that he would be well capable of staying inside a redrawn line.
    I am sad about this too, and I would like to agree with your suggestion of a hugfest or something. But I think it's time to try to break the cycle of hoping that these problems will simply go away if we put our heads in the sand. We are allowing a small minority to repeatedly use Wikipedia as a place to engage in conduct which they know wouldn't be acceptable in their family, school, social club, workplace or whatever, and it really needn't be like that. I have no idea whether what I am trying now will make any difference, but I am willing to give it a try. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While honest people may differ as to the merits of the original block, there should be no doubt on anyone's part that it was a bad block, an involved block, to be delivered by you from the heat of battle. I've seen not the slightest sign of contrition on your part for that particular dollop of gasoline on the fire; indeed, I see only continual intimations that you are proud of it. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For a clear headed and passionate explanation of what is perhaps Wikipedia's most serious problem. I only wish that the rest had the same understanding of the issue as yourself. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For your outstanding efforts to explain and address the problem of sexism on Wikipedia, in the face of widespread hostility and lack of understanding. Neljack (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Landowner categories

Hi BHG, please see my close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 29#Landowners by nationality. There was no consensus, but I suggested going ahead with some test cases. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Joshua Cooper

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Investigating block/unblock of Eric Corbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I am trying to document the events that led up to and followed to block and unblock of Eric Corbett in an attempt to address concerns about admin behavior.

I am trying to do this in a neutral and objective way. At this early stage I am not assigning blame to anyone.

My current understanding was that the reasoning of the block included:

• A history of similar past behavior as reflected in his block log
• A series of small incidences of incivility/intimidation prior to the personal attack[7][8][9]
• A personal attack[10]

I believe the incident needs to be clearly documented in an easy to view fashion in order to cut through the nonsense. I also think it is important to consult everyone involved to make sure their version of events is reflected.

If my interpretation is missing anything or I am incorrect in anything please let me know. You may respond here or on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Investigator Fred (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Investigator Fred

Thanks for your msg. I am just about to go away on holiday, and I am very sorry that I simply don't have time to reply now.

I will try to reply as soon as possible after my return, which I expect to be some time around 9th August. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Investigator Fred, forgive my lurking, but there are two items you might include in your "series of small incidences of incivility/intimidation prior to the personal attack":[11][12]. Those were part of a discussion that preceded the PA on Jimbo's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any point to pursuing this matter any further. As Carrite points out on your user talk page, you are not editing from a legitimate alternate account. You have not disclosed the primary account on the user page of his account, which implies that you are using this account for secrecy. In other words, by your own statements, you are a sockpuppet, and I don't know who you really are. If you have been harassed, threatened with doxing, or had your identity exposed, there are Wikipedia remedies that do not involve the use of an inadequately disclosed alternate account. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolution

I just posted to the ANI thread you commented in. Would love to see some action. I struggle to make comments more about the actions and less about the user. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 22:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

By-election deletion discussion

As you had been involved in one of the articles in the past I thought you would be interested in a deletion discussion I opened around uncontested ministerial by-elections. JASpencer (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Henry Cooper

BrownHairedGirl, please stop by as soon as possible and respond to the comments made on your nomination. It does appear that you've done something to address some or all of the issues raised; you need to let us know what so the review can continue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Gdfgffytetffvffvvfffcv

  (($((!765  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.51.194 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 

You've got mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:User:BrownHairedGirl/Edward Henry Cooper

G'day BHG, I think this is a remnant of something from your user space. It has a MILHIST banner, so it is showing up on our "MH articles needing attention to tagging" list. Can you deal? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Close please?

Would you like to close this move discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 16:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

List of events named massacres and List of ethnic cleansings

Given you experience with Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at Talk:List of ethnic cleansings#Inclusion criteria in this list for event considered to be ethnic cleansing and comment as you see fit. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Denis Prieur (painter)

You might wish to use your Admin powers to request a re-write of the Prieur entry. Thanks, Shipsview (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up on Civility

I was on vacation, but I just want to follow-up with you. Any progress on the Civility board or other plan for handling incivility problem on Wikipedia? You seemed to be the person who had Jimbo's attention, at least for awhile, some good ideas, and some support among other Wikipedians, including other admins. Just wondering...

I'm not giving up on this, and I hope others - especially others who've been around longer - don't either. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eustace Balfour

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eustace Balfour you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to know how you know so much information about past Tipperary hurlers?

Just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.171.40 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Add photo of my father to his Wikipedia page (Rex Partington)

Hello! My name in Tony Partington. I am the son of the late Rex Partington and am the person responsible for creating the Wikipedia page dedicated to him. When I first created the page I tried to include a photo - a head shot actually from his Broadway period which was the 1950s - but was unable to. I own all of my father's photos and the rights therein and would very much appreciate some guidance as to how I should, properly and legally, include a photo in his entry. I look forward to your reply and thank you most sincerely indeed. - Tony Partington (Email: tonypartington@gmail.com)Tony (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious

categories
Thank you, tireless girl who doesn't want to tempt us to stereotype, for your helpful bot, for quality work on categories, such as those for elections and the monuments of the split List of National Monuments of Ireland, and for thinking in the category "constructive suggestions", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 August 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 594th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sir

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I left a message for you in the edit summary [13] for linking the sir entry in the dab Chris White. If you'd prefer to move this to the dab talk, or just point me in the right direction for linking sirs on dabs, would appreciate. Regards and keep up the good work, Widefox; talk 23:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Parliament of Ireland elections

Hi BHG. I was wondering whether you might have any dates for elections to the Parliament of Ireland, or any idea where results etc could be found? I was thinking of creating a parallel template to {{British elections (1707-1800)}} - is the List of Parliaments of Ireland article any use in determining dates (i.e. using the "opened" column)? Also pinging Chrisdoyleorwell, as they seem to have done some work on Parliament of Ireland-related articles. Cheers, Number 57 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

polish Nobility

your list is very short, you don't even link it to the polish clans, most of the clan pages have the family names under their clan sites. also princes, barons, counts, etc, are church given titles, a prince is equal to the poorest noble, in every way. nobility was gifted by god, and witnessed by man, a king had the honor of giving a person their paper of nobility, he couldn't give nobility. in a family, a person can be adopted in nobility, be they will be under that family, not under the Sejm. There is a lot of history written to destroy the polish history, if a German or Russian government says anything it not true, the invader must never be given words over the people he invaded. that would be like, saying the rapist words have more value then the woman being raped.

Everywhere online I see these with anything polish, free the golden freedom, when the partition moved in and killed thousands of people, and raped the land, and ruled with a iron fist, how is that freedom? too the Nazi propaganda as some kind of fact. Germany hated Poland 1260? or around there, when the Germans started killing Jews for the black plague, and Poland gave them a safe haven.

Every Man and Woman that is born of a noble is noble, given by god, and even if your not catholic, it truth of szlachta, Poland was a pagan and catholic country for over 500 years, the pagan side was for life, and the catholic was for death, the church did not like it being duality, but having the worlds strongest army, they couldn't change it.

Thanks a displayed szlachcic of the kingdom of polonia. Gutowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.144.55 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

past interest in Nipo T. Strongheart article...

I think with alittle more work it could go to GA nomination. The main need is a picture after some assistance cleaning up syntax things that is now "done". See the talk page if you are interested. --Smkolins (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Brown bread?

RIP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Textiles education

Category:Textiles education, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Textile schools. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thanks for the legislators in india's info... it was reallly helpful to me!:):):):) N also quiet helpful for my pol sc. Exam! Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.31.184 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

GGTF

We invite you to join the Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are discussing issues that affect the gender gap on Wikipedia (including editor interactions and gender bias in articles). If you would like to get involved, consider signing up or visit the talk page. If you have questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The entry: Robert Vans-Agnew

The name Vans Agnew was never hyphenated by the family (from which I descend by male line; I was born a Vans Agnew but my father changed the name to the more historically correct Vans). I've corrected most of the entry by can't edit the title. Would you mind doing it? And reply to mailjamievans@gmail.com? Thanks.

Yours sincerely, Jamie Vans (of Barnbarroch). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.118 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Eustace Balfour

Hello,

I reviewed Eustace Balfour about a month ago at Talk:Eustace Balfour/GA1, which you nominated on July 10th. To be honest, I forgot about it until I reviewed the GA nominations today. I am guessing that you didn't get the notification that the article was under review.

Are you interested in having the article reviewed?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eustace Balfour

The article Eustace Balfour you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eustace Balfour for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eustace Balfour

The article Eustace Balfour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eustace Balfour for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Balfour (died 1845)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Balfour (died 1845) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a useful/good template?

Template:Cities and towns in the Republic of Ireland, I have reservations about the usefulness and limits of this template. I would appriecate your opinion. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Balfour (died 1845)

The article James Balfour (died 1845) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James Balfour (died 1845) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that this article should have failed GAN, and have challenged it on the review page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

heyyy

Can you lowercase the "the" on Amidst The Bloodshed? Thanks Second Skin (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi im Dfrr i HATE Max Light Rail. Lets get to know each other i watch the nanny and that 70s show but hate Crime. Dfrr (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello BrownHairedGirl:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A request for your time and consideration

I've made an appeal to the AN board that has gone unattended by an uninvolved admin for some time. It's become rather stale and I'd very much like a resolution one way or another. I sought you and two other editors out because I've appreciated your judgement in previous instances. Please understand that this isn't an appeal for your help, that's neither appropriate nor especially constructive. Instead I simply want this matter attended to by competent people who can impart a measure of finality at WP:AN. I'll totally understand your declining to review my appeal but I hope you'll consider giving it some of your time, even if it's to refer another administrator. GraniteSand (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Postmaster General of Scotland

Since we last talked about this topic, I have done quite a bit of reading and research, and now have an in-progress draft at User:Ww2censor/PMGS. The first issue to decide is on the most appropriate article title in mainspace (include deputy or not, and appropriate redirects) which the history section talks about. I'm surprised there are no wiki articles for the pre-1710 office holders, even the two peers have nothing, not even redlinks, and there is scarcely anything online either, just the Haldane book and the list on page 17 of Lang which does not look like it was part of the original publication. If you have some sources, or can point me to any, it would be great. I'm also surprised that Lord Francis Gray has no article either. Do you think this is sufficient for mainspace or should I still work on it? Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been away but have you had a chance to look at this? ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is now in mainspace at Postmaster General for Scotland. Have a look when you return to activity. Hope you are OK. ww2censor (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update

Hi BHG. I noticed that you seemed to reduce your editing after early August, and infer this might be related to some of the offensive discussions that happened around the end of July (a regrettable result and one that I hope will be set right eventually). Those events have been taken up at Arbitration in two different cases. I believe you are aware of the GenderGap case, but there is now a second case against DangerousPanda, and his summary reversal of your block has been presented as evidence by MrX. I'm letting you know so that you would have an opportunity to comment if you wanted to do so. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously voted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Summer Olympic medalists by sport

Category:Lists of Summer Olympic medalists by sport, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello BrownHairedGirl, 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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Please see my proposal to upmerge

• Category:Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:Germany at the Olympics
• Category:West Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:West Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:West Germany at the Olympics
• Category:East Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:East Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:East Germany at the Olympics Hugo999 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)