User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 061

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

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

...?

With all due respect, is it really any of your business as to what goes on my User page? Not attacking, but I do not think that it is your business.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Loyalmoonie, with all due respect you seem to have completely ignored the explanations which I provided in edit summaries on your user page,[1][2] and in an explanation on your talk[3] (which you have just deleted[4]). Why did you come here and write as if you were unaware of all that?

What's on your userpages is my business only insofar as it effects other pages. And a redlinked category has such an effect.

Per WP:REDNOT, a redlinked category on any page is an error which ends up on the cleanup page at Special:WantedCategories. Clearing up the errors at that page is a constant slog, which takes hours every day for thew editors who do it.

Nearly ll editors who do that are unaware of its adverse effects. In many cases, when I remove such a non-existent category from a userpage, the editor sends a thank you notification. However, you clearly are aware of the adverse effects, and are by now aware that repeatedly adding your user page as a permanent fixture to cleanup page is WP:Disruptive editing.

I now see that I had first removed Category:Straight Wikipedians from your talk page in this edit[5] early August, per WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/June 2007#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians. So as well as the general problem of your disrupting the cleanup of non-existent categories, you area also ignoring an XFD consensus.

I hope that you will simply stop the disruption, so that I don't have to escalate this.

Best wishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Public Art in Public Places for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Barte (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Election categories

Hey, BHG,

Thank you for your massive efforts in creating and filling election categories. I don't know when you find time to sleep! I can't think of a single editor who has made more of an impact on Wikipedia than you and your work on categorization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, Liz. That's very kind of you.

I have been doing this categorisation stuff for enough enough that I now have set of tools and techniques which allow me to work very fast. And with other things on hold due to the pandemic, I can put a lot of time into it.

You also do wonderful work on the empty categories etc, which is v valuable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

I am still proud of the TFA 1 September ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You are a breath of fresh air on a hot day and your insight is amazing. Thanks! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Eloquent Peasant. That's very kind.

May the wind be always at your back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and subcategories of Puerto Rico municipalities and barrios

I am working on putting all the individual map images into their respective categories. There are 78 municipalities which are currently listing under [ [ Category:Locator maps of wards of Puerto Rico ] ] and 902 barrio maps which will fall into their respective municipalities.

Version 1 - On some of the 39/78 municipality categories that I've done up to now, I added category:Maps of (that municipality), Puerrto Rico and I did this even though Maps of (that municipality), Puerto Rico doesn't have maps (yet). But I expect to add some maps (such as census maps) and those images will have just the category: Maps of (that municipality), Puerto Rico (not Locator maps)

Version 2: On some of the 39/78 municipality categories that I've done up to now, I didn't add Maps of (that municipality), Puerto Rico butdid add the category: Municipality, Puerto Rico --- and will do version 1 once I have created other images/ maps. On this version, I instead added category: Municipality, Puerto Rico so that the map can be found by users

On a related note: the word "ward" on the category: Locator maps of wards of Puerto Rico we on the Puerto Rico WikiProject think the term used should be "municipalities" and "barrios" so maybe should be "subdivisions"

Can this be changed? Should it be changed? If it is changed from "ward" to "subdivisions" as we believe it should be, then all the categories have to be updated to reflect "subdivisions"

If you see the categories, Dorado has two: Locator maps of Dorado, Puerto Rico (being the municipality) and Locator maps of Barrios of Dorado, Puerto Rico (self explanatory)... I don't know that we need both. If we were to eliminate one of the two, it would be the "barrios" one so we'd be left with Locator maps of Dorado, Puerto Rico and that cat would include all locator maps of Dorado (the municipality) and the barrios within Dorado.

Before I continue I thought I'd mention it because maybe you have suggestions, before I go and do something one way, when it could be done a better way.

Would you have any suggestions or preferences on this? Warm regards! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in Gibraltar by year

Hello. I was wondering what the point of Category:2014 elections in Gibraltar etc is? There don't seem to be any examples of more than one election being held in a year in Gibraltar. Would it not be better to keep the articles in Category:2014 in Gibraltar and Category:2014 elections in Europe? I am not sure having all these tiny subcategories is terribly helpful for navigation (when I go to Category:2014 elections in Europe I want to be able to find all the national elections listed there, instead of having to hunt around in subcategories. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: it's a tradeoff between various types of utility, and I haven't reached a firm view on how to balance it all.

Two factors tilt me towards by-year categories for Gib:

it reduces category clutter in articles. In most cases Category:YYYY elections in Gibraltar replaces the cats: Category:YYYY in Gibraltar, Category:YYYY elections in Europe and Category:YYYY elections in British Overseas Territories. That makes things easier for both readers and editors. (In the case of EP elections, the Category:YYYY EP elections remains, so there's a reduction of only one cat)
The advent of {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}} makes it very easy to jump around large sets of small cats, so most of the navigational arguments against small chronological cats no longer apply.

So even in the case of Gib, where I think 2019 is the only year with more than one election, I think there is a net gain. And Category:2014 elections in Europe is never going to contain all the national elections, because a good few European countries clearly have enough articles to justify their own by-year categories without being marginal.

These cat are still being developed, so wait and see what the set look like. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the utility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that we end up with articles spread across so many categories that the trees become un-navigable for certain types of use. It's fine if you want to hop from year to year for one country, but if you want to see which countries held a national election in a single year, you'll end up having to look in over 100 categories in some cases.

I'm not sure category clutter is too much of an issue in most cases, as many election articles are only in three or four categories; usually "[Type] elections in Fooland", "XXXX elections in continent", "Month XXXX events in continent" and perhaps one or two others like one-party elections.

A solution might be to make the continental categories (like 2014 elections in Europe) non-diffusing for national-level elections; this would make the categories more useful as a search mechanism. Number 5 7 22:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I think you'd be surprised how many election articles are in more cats than that. Several cases get more complex, including:

Elections in countries which span more than one continent (Russia, Turkey, chunks of the Caucasus)
Elections in countries which are part of current or former Empires: US insular territories, British Empire, Overseas France, Caribbean Netherlands etc
sub-national elections

As above, we always have a trade-off between three virtues:

easily navigable sets
reduction of category clutter
retaining lare groupings

There's no way of maximising all three virtues.

I think your use case might be best met by creating a new set of categories for "YYY0s national elections in continentname". I did a quick and dirty Petscan job at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17271938, and after discarding a few false positives, we have a set of ~110 articles. That looks good to me, and it would be a trivial AWB job to sort the cat by year. What do you think of that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: second thoughts. Wouldn't your needs be best met by lists?

I doodled a crude example at User:BrownHairedGirl/2000s European national elections. It's a v crude hack of the Petscan output via a few regexes, but I think it's potentially v useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar set complete

@Number 57: Category:Elections in Gibraltar by year is now complete. Please can you a take a look?

If we don't reach agreement, I will bring to CFD as a procedural nom. I am not trying create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and since you objected early on in the process of creating the set, you shouldn't have the burden of creating the CFD nom if we need one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all the national elections can be kept in a category for navigation purposes, I don't have a problem with the subcategories like these Gibraltar ones. Re your comments above, are you suggesting having a category for each decade for each continent (e.g. 2000s national elections in Europe)? This would allay my concerns to some degree, but I wonder whether it's creating another set of categories that doesn't really need to exist, if we could just keep the national elections in the elections in continent by year categories on a non-diffusing basis?

Re the lists comments, we have lists of elections, but they aren't really accessible for navigation purposes (a lot of the time I navigate between elections via the categories). Number 5 7 20:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I don't think that non-diffusing cats really work. They are an exception to the general rule of WP:SUBCAT, but when a cat is seen on an article, there is no indication that it is non-diffusing .... so it is likely to be removed per WP:SUBCAT because the editor is not aware that it's no-diffusing. They are a well-intended concept which fails to take account of how editors maintain categories, so I don't think that's a good way of reaching your goal.

So I think the options are new cats as I suggested (e.g. 2000s national elections in Europe), or lists like the example ... or possibly navboxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for the new categories – the navboxes could end up being huge for some continents. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Number 57, when I have finished polishing the chronology categories, I will do some work on those national-election-decade categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval music category

You seem to be the category aficionado around here, so I was hoping you might have some insight. I'm trying to organize the early music section of WP through templates and categories and such (since before I started it was seriously lacking in any coherency), looking at the Category:Medieval music there seems to be a lot of pages that are in both the main "Medieval music" category, but also a subcategory. For example the Chantilly Codex is in "Medieval music" but also the sub category of "Medieval manuscript sources" – should an article like this be removed from the overarching "Medieval music" category and simply kept in the MMS one? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aza24

I see that Category:Medieval music manuscript sources is a subcat of Category:Medieval music. So you are right: per WP:SUBCAT, Chantilly Codex should be only n the more specific of the two categories, i.e. Category:Medieval music manuscript sources. On that article, Category:Medieval music is redundant.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that does help, thank you. Looks like there will be plenty of redudent articles then, this should be "fun"... :) Aza24 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24, indeed there probably are plenty to do!

en.wp categorisation is a bit like painting one of those steel huge bridges: start at one end, spend years working to the end, then start again. Great to have you there with your paint brush. Just don't fall off the bridge

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I managed to get through most of the category. In the process I ended up making a Category:Medieval musical instruments, and found these two: Category:Renaissance instruments and Category:Baroque instruments. It looks like some standardization needs to be made but I'm unsure what that would look like. Looking at Category:Early musical instruments you can see that some are "instruments" and some are "musical instruments" – there is also a List of medieval musical instruments page but a Baroque instruments one. Any ideas about how to standardize this, if it's even needed? (which I'm assuming it is) I'm leaning towards changing them all to "Musical instruments" to match the Musical instrument page... since these terms could technically refer to "instruments" of Art and Architecture of Medieval/Baroque etc – but I'll be honest, if someone said "Baroque instrument" to me, I would immediately assume they meant "musical instrument" and I feel like that may be true for most other people... Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 Assessment statistics

Hi, I noticed that you had some involvement in updating the assessment categories from "Poland-related" to "Poland".

I always find it hard work to get these working. The advice at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is now more up to date, with a new link to run a manual update on the assessment table.

Before the manual update I made this edit which may have been important.

Then, after running the update, there was this edit to display the results.

Hope this helps. This message is partly for my own reference as well. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic

I had to check back to see what had happened. I find that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Category:Poland-related_articles_by_quality had renamed the parent category from "Poland-related" to "Poland". So I updated[6] the banner template {{WikiProject Poland}}, moved the -Class and -Importance categories to match the new format, and update the categories. It was quite a big job.

Thanks for cleaning up the assessment template.

I wonder if the CFD nominator User:1234qwer1234qwer4 knows how much work is triggered by this sort of change. Maybe it was better renamed, but I have some doubts about the return-on-effort from renaming or restructuring categories which are not reader-facing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for breaking things. If I ever nominate assessment categories again, I'll add all the subcategories as well. FWIW, I think adding the list of needed category changes to WP:CFDS would have been faster. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @1234qwer1234qwer4. CFDS wouldn't really have helped; the worst of it was re-templating all the categories, and then sorting all the pages which were manually categorised. I have dealt with several sets of project cat renamings, and there aren't many shortcuts in that job.

That's why flag this up, not cos you did anything wrong (apart from nominating only one cat) ... but just so that you are aware of how much work it creates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two million barnstars for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on passing two-million edits! BD2412 T 15:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BD2412. It's an almost absurdly high number, isn't it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – I can relate! BD2412 T 15:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not far behind, BD. Just a little bit less absurd.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations! Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palermo

Apologies, I misread the logs, I didn't realise that the "original" creation was a redirect and not the topic itself! Giant Snowman 08:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, @GiantSnowman, we all make such mistakes, and the way that those log files are arranged is not the clearest ... so mistakes are horribly easy.

So the problem is not that you misread the log. The problem is that instead of telling me that you reckoned I had misread it, you chose to accuse me[7] of deliberately misremembering. That's why my reply was angry[8].

I'd be happy to accept an apology made in the same place as the original accusation, with the original struck-through. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Giant Snowman 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century elections in England

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century elections in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century elections in England

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century elections in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century elections in England

A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century elections in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crimesdecade

The crime by century tree is a mess because it switches from "crime" to "crimes" at 1500 - see Category:Crime by century & Category:Crimes by century. As a result Template:Crimesdecade is populating redirects instead of the right categories - Category:11th-century crimes & Category:13th-century crimes. Can the template be modified to sort this out? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup, @Timrollpickering.

The crime/crimes tree has several such inconsistencies, and some day I will do a few big CFD noms to sort them out.

In the meantime, I tweaked {{Crimesdecade}} in this edit[9] to use {{Resolve category redirect}}, which I created a few weeks ago to fix similar issues with some anarchism categories.

It seems to have done the trick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your help

thank you BrownHairedGirl for pointing out I did as your suggested, let me know if I did correctly when you get a chance appreciate you for help thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.168.68.248 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that refers to this edit[10] by me. You're welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Elections in England by decade

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in my draft page

Hi BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), thanks for notifying me about the categories in my draft page (here). It just slipped my mind and I thank you for your help! I will look out for that in the future!

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, @Kvwiki1234. It's an easy thing to overlook.

God luck developing the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, God will grant me luck ;-) Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need your review of changes to page

Hello –

My name is Kate Fox. I am the assistant to Mr. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson who is the founder of the Justice Party. On September 15, 2020, Mr. Anderson and I made substantial changes to the Justice Party Wikipedia page in order to correct several errors and update outdated information. We received your message regarding our changes being undone. We would like Wikipedia to please review the changes we made. I have a .pdf of the updated page. I am new to major Wikipedia edits. We need these changes made to the Justice Party page. How do I get your review in order to ensure the changes are actually made?

Thanks. Kate Fox (Redacted) AndersonRocky (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate

There are two issues here:

It seems that you and Rocky Anderson are sharing use of the same account. That is not allowed on Wikipedia: we have a rule of one human to one account, and vice versa )see WP:ROLE). Please, create a account for yourself: Special:CreateAccount
You both have a conflict of interest with respect to the article Justice Party (United States), so neither of you should edit that page directly. See:
- Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (the full policy on CoI)

I do not personally have time to help you through this. However, if you would like help understanding the guidance, please consider going to Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask for assistance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my draft

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/978937518

Thank you for this editing. I didn't notice my draft was affecting the categories. I'll be careful when this sort of editing next time. 🙂 shuuji3 (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, TAKAHASHI Shuuji. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Grande

Thanks so much for this cleanup. I might have remembered when I began editing it, but just as easily might have missed it. StarM 01:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female musicians

Hello. Per the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 28#Women guitarists, I've nominated the subcats of Category:Women guitarists that use "female" for renaming to the variant using "women" on CFDS. By going up a different part of the category tree, I noticed the upper category is called Category:Female musicians. Through its history I found the discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 April 27#Women/Men or Female/Male as an adjective (to which I added a link on the category's talk page), in which there was no consensus on what word to use. Do you think it is useful to nominate the categories in some smaller batches? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be useful, @𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰. But one step at a time: let these dodgy speedies go through first (the CFD close was v dodgy) and then do a group CFD for Category:Female musicians and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, as I said "a group CFD for Category:Female musicians and its subcats" is very likely to come to no consensus again, that's why I suggested unifying categories for specific kinds of musicians first; this was the question. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰,the problem with that doing it separately for each type of musician is that it's very hard to make a plausible case that cellists should be considered separately to oboists. I will oppose CFD noms which try to do this in chunks, unless there is convincing evidence of a cultural distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd find a renomination of all the affectable categories better? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: the community has decided not to take an overall stance on all occupations. So I think it's est to take one occupation at a time. However, I think we should try to aim for consistency within occupations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, o. actally ddn't notc th CfD as abt th s of "fmal" and "omn" n catgoy nams n gnal; fo som ason thoght t as only abt mscans. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: huh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I've sporadically not been able to type the letters q, w, e, r, u, and i on my keyboard lately; I'm using the on-screen keyboard now (hell, is that slow). My text was intended to read "Oh, wow. I actually didn't notice the CfD was about the use of "female" and "women" in catgory names in general; for some reason I thought it was only about musicians." 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upfdater: Now thre kreyboarfd wreites morere letters than neefdefd without any notivceable patteren.

User:2dmaxo/Adaku Utah

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I am writing with regards to the (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) criteria for speedy deletion tag on User:2dmaxo/Adaku Utah, and I have stated reason on article talk page as directed. However, article is ready and I intend to move it to the main userspace, kindly advise if it okay to proceed. Many thanks. 2dmaxo (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag was added[11] by @Celestina007, so I dunno why you are contacting me about it.

I also don't know what you mean by move it to the main userspace. Mainspace and userspace are different namespaces.

The next step is to wait and see what happens to the Speedy deletion tag. If it is not deleted, you can submit the draft for review by pressing the button I have added to User:2dmaxo/Adaku Utah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, BrownHairedGirl. Forgive my typo, I meant the mainspace. Thanks a lot! 2dmaxo (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Template category#Automatic topic

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Template category § Automatic topic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179

Online events:

Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Categories in my draft

Hello BrownHairedGirl. Just a quick thank you for your comment on my Sandbox, regarding the use of categories in draft articles. Now I think about it, what you say makes perfect sense. In this particular case, I am about to delete the draft as it has served its purpose, but I will keep your advice in mind for the future. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike Marchmont. Glad that helped. And nice work on Morningside, Edinburgh.

For future drafts, you may find these two scripts handy: User:DannyS712/Draft no cat and User:DannyS712/Draft re cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category edits on Smooth-On Draft

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo2160 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India cat header templates

For info, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1, I have made India versions of three of your USstate templates. You can find them in Category:India state and territory templates. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good,'Fayenatic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for fixing my article, it helped a lot, and BTW, I copied my sandbox into an actual page, so if you are going to make future edits, please don’t do them on the sandbox, because it won’t be seen. Also, if you will respond, please do it on the new page, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Puffy 5312 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new page I mentioned is called The Invention of the Windmill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Puffy 5312 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 'Mr. Puffy 5312.

The edit which I made[13] was solely related to the page being a sandboxed draft. I have no cause to visit the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's back

United Kingdom’s internal market, same issues and same author, so I'm guessing this similar to the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market? Not sure whether to request G4, or a WP:AN/RFC on the merge discussion (not that there's really much that can be merged). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup, @ProcrastinatingReader. But I'm sorry, I don't have the energy right now to help. I have had a lot of time and energy wasted this week by becoming the latest target of the long-term nasty troll Chris.sherlock. All resolved, by a one-way IBAN on the troll[14] ... but it has left me drained, and I need to focus on finishing other en.wp work I had started and on dealing with a just-gone-critical problem with my house.

Good luck in sorting this out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Him again!

Up to his old tricks I see. I think a few more people are seeing through him now. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, DuncanHill, it's the same old pattern. Attack, troll, then whine when asked to stop, and complain that being asked to stop trolling triggers his mental health. A real timesink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your reactions on WiR. In a similar automated context, we have recently been landed with over 7,000 wp:Women writers talk page additions (actually in the form of "Women Writers" -- so most of them can be easily identified) drawn from a range of questionable sources such as women journalists (many of whom do not write but report on TV or radio). While most nevertheless seem to be valid, we now have to check them all for assessment and delete those which are inappropriate. In this case though, I must say SAdN was responding to a specific request to increase the number of articles in the wikiproject. When I questioned the approach, I was informed that lots of editors enjoy gnoming. Maybe, but they could be spending their time on more useful topics. In the light of your reactions, I hope others will take up your cause. Btw, thanks for all your own continuing effots on categorization.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your msg, Ipigott, and sorry for the slow reply.

the consistent problem with SADiN's editing is that it seems to be all geared towards maximising his number of automated edits, rather than to producing good outcomes. It is exacerbated by the sneakiness of his edits, due to the persistent lack of infotrmative edit summaries.

It seems from his reply to you that he is happy to knowingly do a bad job which creates lots of work for other editors. Can you pint me to a diff for that comment you mention? He refused to engage with my critique, and seems to want everything to go ANI, so that diff will be useful in evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a misunderstanding here, I think. The comment did not come from him but from the person who asked for the additions to wp:Women writers. Anyway, I have a feeling it came by email rather than on Wikipedia. But you might be interested in "Women writers" on [15].--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Special report: Paid editing with political connections

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

Featured content: Life finds a Way

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

Traffic report: Is there no justice?

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article: Patrick McGrath (Irish Republican)

Hi BHG Im pretty new to creating articles. I submitted a short one on Paddy McGrath back in July 2020 and I am awaiting some type of notification. When you get a moment can you please take a look the article and let me know if it meets standard etc? Thanks for any help you might offer.

I did get one article approved - Thomas Harte (Irish Republican) - he was executed with McGrath and Id like to link the two articles together.

Since the article is awaiting approval/rejection I don't know how to include a link here but I've cut/pasted the following: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Patrick_McGrath_(Irish_Republican)

Again, thanks Palisades1 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palisades1

It's great to see editors creating articles on Irish topics. I see this has been awaiting review since July, which is a long time ... so I will review this one now.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AWB removal of template on category page

Hello, in this AWB edit you removed the Template:2020 in space from the page. Please make sure your AWB edits don't remove such templates from category pages (in most cases at least).

Thanks. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prototyperspective

That was intentional. A navbox like that belongs on articles, where it appears at the bottom of the page. Placing it on a category page is an impediment to navigation, because it appears above the listing of the category's content.

Please do not place such templates on category pages. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy McGrath article

Thanks very much for looking at the article and pointing me to the Irish Times story. I wish Id seen that article before I submitted the McGrath article! Im working on adding some wording to make the article more significant, I will resubmit it when I do that.

One question: I'm interested in the six IRA men executed during "the Emergency". Do you think one page on the executed IRA men from 1939-40 would be better than individual pages? A page on all six could highlight some of the existing issues with the neutral government, the Republican movement etc while providing the biographical info on the executed men.

Again, thanks. Palisades1 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Men's Basketball article

Hi there BrownHairedGirl. You've helped me out with a couple of pages I've created. I was wondering if you knew why the page on Oxford University Men's Basketball doesn't come up on a google search. Have I done something wrong?

Thanks for your contributions . User:Hoopshistory HoopsHistory (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HoopsHistory

It helps a lot if you include a wikilink to the page you are talking about, in this case Oxford University Men's Basketball.

I see that indeed Google doesn't list it: https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22Oxford+University+Men%27s+Basketball%22+wikipedia&pws=0

That's almost certainly because it almost WP:Orphaned. With more links to it from other articles, Google is more likely to pick it up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Bajpiee

Please talk before editing Pia bajpiee page, Her DOB is wrong in this external link,lots of websites have put 6 jan 1989 but if you check her social media statement she alway denying that,her birth day is 22 December 1993.she is not residence of Delhi,she is from etawah and IMDB has put some other girl photos as her. Mahayadav (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk before editing Pia bajpiee page, Her DOB is wrong in this external link,lots of websites have put 6 jan 1989 but if you check her social media statement she alway denying that,her birth day is 22 December 1993.she is not residence of Delhi,she is from etawah and IMDB has put some other girl photos as her. Mahayadav (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pia bajpiee IMDB is full of wrong pics,it’s not her Mahayadav (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB link I was editing coz it’s using some other girl pics Mahayadav (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mahayadav:

See the editnotice on this page asking yoy to link to the article. In this case, it's Pia Bajpiee.
One message is enough. Stop repeating yourself.
See WP:OWN. Nobody needs to ask your permission to edit a page.
IMDB is widely linked to from en.wp articles. It is not a WP:Reliable source, and is not being used as source.
Social media is not a reliable source. See WP:SELFPUB

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I agree but Pia has said in all the interviews and clarified every. Where that 6 jan 1989 is not her b’day,even some other website wish her in November as well.her twitter/fb/insta all mentioned 22dec 1993.any way I will update you on 22nd when she will celebrate her b’day..thank you for support Mahayadav (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahayadav: Again, IMDB is not being used as a source. If you disagree with what has been published on IMDB, then go to IMBD and ask them to correct it.

And, no please do not update me about her birthday. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I Am sorry message got repeated by mistake,I am new here so.really sorry. Mahayadav (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You understood me wrong,I am not saying that you need my permission before editing,all I want wiki page to be authentic as much as possible,I am Pia’s fan since last 8 years so I know things about her.thanks.have a great day Mahayadav (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are new here. I have posted a welcome msg on your talk.

Now, please just slow down and learn more about how Wikipedia works ... and please stop messaging me.

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the right person to judge this in light of past issues

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hmains_and_human_rights_categories. E Eng 07:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, @EEng. I have made a comment[16] at ANI, which I would summarise as "unfounded, disingenuous report". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm glad Hmain's finding his groove. E Eng 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he means well, and seems to be on a good track, now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters from October 2015 has been nominated for deletion

Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters from October 2015 has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete user pages?

How can I delete user pages? --Emanuele676 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emanuele676

That depends whose userpage it is.

To delete one of your own userpages, tag the page with {{db-userreq}}
To delete someone else's userpage:
- if it meets one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then apply the appropriate tag
- Otherwise, use WP:MFD

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

User:Tsistunagiska/NCNOLT Sandbox I didn't even think about disabling links to categories and how it affected the category. My apologies for not being thoughtful. You do such an amazing job with the categories. I have watched you work. Hopefully that draft version won't be there long. I only keep it in case anyone wants to source the original content and then copy/paste it back to the article. It will go away soon. Keep being you! Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, Tsistunagiska.

The disabling of the categories is one of those wee technical issues which rightly don't get much attention when drafting an article. The important thing there is referencing everything as you go, and polishing the prose. So I used to add the categories as I went, and didn't notice how this polluted mainspace categories until iI started more work on categories.

Congrats on our good work improving the coverage of native American topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Appreciate your contribution Brownhairedgirl. will adjust it accordingly. ping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topdowg23 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chris.sherlock AN/I

Responding here since the thread at WP:AN/I is closed.

First, my comment about the Foundation performing interventions was tangential to my point. (Although if the Foundation wants to get into the business of managing the community, they need to consider other responses to undesirable behavior than sanctions like banning people.) My point was not to defend him. It was that an IBAN from you &/or DuncanHill alone isn't going to work. Maybe it will take an indef block until he can prove to everyone he can show he has whatever problem under control & stops this cycling. Because next time he returns this drama just going to happen again, only to someone else. (But I infer we are agreed about that.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi llywrch, and thanks for your characteristically thoughtful contribs at ANI. I agree entirely about the IBAN being inadequate: for my own records, I summarised my own thoughts in a post here on my atlk[17], but promptly archived it lest it appear as gravedancing or gloating.

The indef block has already been tried, and lasted three years. I was surprised that nobody at ANI suggested reinstating it, but there we are.

Like you, I am pretty sure that he will be back, and that he will find a new target, possibly picked from the ANI participants. I am relieved that if I am the target, it can be dealt with quickly ... but if it's someone else, then we will have another long ANI drama. I am horrified by how much community energy is wasted on situations like this. A rapid return to the 2016–19 indef-block would have been less bruising for Chris, and less of a timesink for everyone else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indef has been tried before, and quite apart from it obviously not changing his behaviour towards other editors (if anything he's got worse) he's shewn an almost gleeful willingness to evade blocks. I hope this time he actually does stay away, Wikipedia is clearly not good for him, and he's not good for Wikipedia. I fully expect to have this post thrown back in my face by him at some point. Anyway, hopefully BHG will get some respite now from his entirely unjustified bullying of her, triggered solely by her decency in coming to my defence. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @DuncanHill. I agree with all of that ... including your fear that your words will be thrown back at you. But I think that Wikipedia is clearly not good for him, and he's not good for Wikipedia sums it all up very well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my guess is the only reason no one suggested an indef or permanent ban is that there are few who know his entire story; they've only seen how he's behaved over the last few years. Despite what outsiders think, we Wikipedians are reluctant to ban people unless we are very familiar with them. (I was trying to nudge the thread towards such a ban, but I came upon it late at night when I should have been in bed & only had time to type a short & hasty message. Had I more time, I would have explicitly stated that was the appropriate action.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to drop a few hints without dragging the whole sorry saga up when I mentioned his numerous previous retirements. And of course those of us who do know his past behaviour are disinclined to spend hours digging out all the old diffs, because we have so many things we'd rather do, are sick and tired of the inevitable "see you've got a grudge" accusations, and not least don't want to revisit times that were hurtful to ourselves. Above all it's so exhausting. If/when he does return I think we should insist all his old accounts are redirected to his latest one, and he should have to acknowledge them all on his current userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, DuncanHill, I agree with all of that. It is exhausting and it is hurtful, and it is exacerbated by the editors who who turn on Chris's victims. In your case it was some of the usual Aussie crew; in my case it was a newish editor who decided that the most wicked thing was to describe what was actually happening.

To avoid, the problem that llywrch describes of chris's toxc history being unknown, any return should be accompanied not just by listing his previous accounts, but also by listing his long history of misconduct, including the discussions which led to his 3-year block, his socking while blocked, his hounding of Duncan, his multi-venue campaign of trolling me, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my guess is the only reason no one suggested an indef or permanent ban is that there are few who know his entire story. I only found his unblock request and the AN poll from a year ago yesterday (I was on a bit of a wikibreak at the time it occurred). Had I known of all that, I would have suggested an indef or CBAN. As it is, if he comes back and starts up again, there's more than enough evidence (including deleted/wiped evidence) to take to ArbCom if the community doesn't put a stop to it. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Softlavender. You did great work at ANI, for which I am indebted to you.

I think we do have a bit of a systemic problem here: the failure to keep a log of Chis's previous dramas, exacerbated by his account-hopping. Hopefully enough material was collated and linked at the discussion which led to the IBAN, so that any future reviews of his conduct start off better-informed. But it's now very hard to defend his 2019 unblocking as having worked out as hoped, and I hope that when he resumes his mischief the community will recognise that he has used up the WP:ROPE which was offered to him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a wise decision, but I made a log of his usernames here, which ought to be accessible unless that draft is oversighted. Just to save time researching some of his behavior in case it is needed. For balance, I also included a link to the Signpost article from 2005 about his first departure. (Despite everything, he was once a model Wikipedian who fell from grace as have a number of now-departed contributors.) In any case, I'll stop my discussion of his behavior with this. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@llywrch, I really hope that note will be seen as the constructive move that it is.

I had not seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Top_admin_leaves, or even been aware that he was once an admin. The contrast between the admin described there and and nasty troll seen over the last few years could hardly be greater ... especially since the troll shows abysmal grasp of process and policy. Fifteen years is a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nasty troll who even hides behind excuses of PTSD for his disgusting behaviour was 80% responsible for me being desysoped for researching his murky past. 10% was due to the lies and gaslighting by a sitting arb, the rest was due to the few remaining arbs left after most of the others had recused themselves. They all refused to fully examine the fake claims made by the rest of the trolls, (some of whom have since even exercised a RTV under a cloud) and jumped at prima facie evidence to get rid of yet another admin. Unlike you BHG, who has also suffered more than enough, I just don't have the energy to continue with this circus of never ending drama called Wikipedia, but I'll certainly be back to support a ban the next time he starts his antics - if I get to hear of it in time. (FYI Llywrch, Softlavender). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you, @Kudpung, and thanks for that background. I hadn't followed the details of your ordeal at Arbcom, but given my own bitter experience I am sadly unsurprised that the current committee screwed up so badly. The sheer amount of damage done by this nasty troll is appalling, and I dearly wish I could be shocked that Arbcom effectively backed the troll.

I eventually decided to stay on for now, but I remain very disillusioned about Wikipedia. I cannot in good conscience ask you to return to such a dysfunctional environment, but I do miss you ... and when Chris.sherlock's disruption resumes (it's only a matter of when, not if) I will try remember to alert you.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity got the better of me and I've located and read that ANI case. Absolute classic Chris.sherlock. Difference is, he can't get you desysoped with his trolling and gaslighting because you are already, but neither of us can do much about a corrupt Arbcom who allows people like him to troll to their heart's content with impunity, while they callously get rid of (or drive away) genuinely dedicated Wikipedians for whom appeals are totally ruled out. I doubt that the upcoming ACE will change much of the current environment but I'll probably come out of retirement to kick up some dust there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's in a nutshell, @Kudpung. All very nasty.

I will stock up on popcorn for the Arbcom elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom in the past have been made well aware of the sort of emotional abuse Chris engages in, at least one current Arb was an Arb then. He conveniently didn't remember the previous communication when asked in April, despite having been extremely involved in giving Chris a free pass to escape a case - one which Chris promptly abused by returning both anonymously and with new accounts. "Lies and gaslighting" sums up his AND his enablers' behaviour very well. I find the whole thing incredibly draining and demoralising, it has certainly impacted my wellbeing at times. The one glimmer of hope is that he really does seem to have run out of enablers this time. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think Mr Sherlock has run out of rope. Up to now he's been relying on his once sterling reputation to get his way, which has not only passed its expiration date but now has tarnished. When he returns, unless he can behave as a responsible Wikipedian is expected too it won't end well for him. (Not a threat or promise, just a prediction.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@llywrch, I hope you are right! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch and DuncanHill: We Wikipedians are reluctant to ban people unless we are very familiar with them - very true. I obviously now muse a lot on my former participation on Wikipedia, its meetups and Wikimanias - it became an important part of my life following my retirement from academia. I came across a lot of strange, wierd, and unpleasant characters during my many years as an editor and admin. One of them was an editor who wrote disgusting personal attacks on the articles about notable female children and then attempted to extort money from their parents to remove them. I unearthed that scandal along with the exposure of quite a few other unpleasant forms of UPE and abuse of extended editing privileges . Those were the results of the delicate sleuthing I used to do here as an admin, and why my edit count does not even begin to reflect the extent of my work.

Some other decidedly unpleasant characters are or were senior executives (diffs & RL witnesses available) at the WMF (a less important one was fired for paid editing but was astonishingly allowed to retain their admin rights on this Wikipedia). Among the most uncivil editors and harassers in the history of the encyclopedia hide or hid behind the glory of being prominent FA contributors, while others enjoy or enjoyed the status of admin, Arbitrator, or even Steward. My investigation and re-exposing of Chris.sherlock's murky past led to me being desysoped while those others providing their 'facts' with their trumped up, uninvolved, and/or exaggerated complaints are also still allowed to roam with impunity. Along with a couple of 'prominent' and/or senior active users, Sherlock is very high on my mental list of the 10 nastiest, probably because of his sneaky, toady, disingenuous ways, and gaslighting simply for the pleasure of it and destroying other editors' Wikiwork and reputations. Honest, dedicated Wikipedians need to do more to discover and discredit such users - even if it means making a thorough investigation and reform of the Arbitration Committee itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging wikidata items

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I would like to request help with something I've never done before so I'm not very familiar with the process. I just noticed that the Swedish page sv:Kategori:Öar i Ontario is not synced with the English page Category:Islands of Ontario, and I'm thinking they should be merged on Wikidata. Do you know how to go about this? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Revirvlkodlaku, but I'm kinda rubbish at Wikidata. I have done a few things there, but I can't manage this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks anyway :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revirvlkodlaku, done, I think. Well, at least as far as the Wikipedias are concerned. I couldn't find the wikidata item for svwiki cat, maybe it never had it? Let's let Wikidata folks worry about that. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, much appreciated, Usedtobecool! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of change

Thanks for the summary of the changes you made on my sandbox. I use a translation tool to translate some articles into Turkish. Creating a page this way is easiest. I will consider your suggestions about the categories. Again, thank you.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Thecatcherintherye.

Two tools make it very easy to enable/disable the categories on your draft: User:DannyS712/Draft no cat and User:DannyS712/Draft re cat. With those installed, it's just one click for on, and one click for off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.. Thanks, BrownhairedGirl. You have been very helpful.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category?

Hi, I don't know why you reverted my edit so there is no red link there. Category:Stationery currently exists. And that category is more appropriate than "Art materials" according to the range of products offered by Olfa. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fma12.

Please take another look at your edit.[18] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was my mispell. - Fma12 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12: Indeed. And knives are not usually labelled as stationery. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the classic kitchen knives, but I refereed to paper cutters. - Fma12 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12: see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stationery --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Would Category:Visual arts materials help? Hmm, I suppose they're tools not materials ... Category:Tool brands? PamD 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PamD. To my eye, tool brands looks the best fit so far. Ping @Fma12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, @PamD: and @BrownHairedGirl:, this category fits perfectly for me too. - Fma12 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance with my draft edit article in my Sandbox. I’ve finished editing and deleted the article from the Sandbox, but I appreciate your help.Go4thProsper (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion notice

An arbitration motion involving you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Motion: Portals. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ArbCom ruling is contemplating only a 24-hour window to write about the topics at issue before the RfA starts, I would suggest that you draft as much of your part as you can without touching on those issues (and draft anything that does touch on them off-wiki). BD2412 T 01:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @BD2412. I will do all my drafting offline, and let you and Dreamy Jazz know when I am ready to begin the 24-hour countdown.

If I have understood things right, the clock starts ticking only if and when I mention those issues, so we can take our time on when to start the clock. Please can you hold off launching the nomination until all that is in place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't launch until you're ready. Just let me know. BD2412 T 01:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh mile maith agat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ndéana sé maith duit. BD2412 T 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox page categories

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Thank you for this edit, I meant to remove/disable the categories when draftifying the page, but clearly forgot to. I appreciate you fixing the issue. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Sean Stephens. I know its a bit of a pain doing, but two tools make it very easy to enable/disable the categories on your draft: User:DannyS712/Draft no cat and User:DannyS712/Draft re cat. With those installed, it's just one click for on, and one click for off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about these tools. I mainly use my phone to edit so I'll see if it's still able to function correctly. Regardless of whether it does or doesn't, I appreciate your help. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volkslieder

Sorry, I meant to create Category:Volkslieder but then was too tired over a task (in the context) larger than expected. Some day ... unless you tell me a better name for the very specific German kind of folk songs which has nothing in common with folk songs other than a literal translation. - Best wishes for the upcoming RfA, - I'll be there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. I know that feeling of a task being a larger than expected. I am in the middle of one at the moment.

German music isn't my field, so I can't make any suggestions. But Volkslieder seems to be a loanword, and the head article is Volkslied, so I see no prob in using it for a category if there are enough articles to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Never occurred to me that sandbox-related editing would show up on the relevant category pages. Thanks for informing me - I'll keep it in mind going forward. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, AnOrdinaryBoy. Two tools make it very easy to enable/disable the categories on your draft: User:DannyS712/Draft no cat and User:DannyS712/Draft re cat. With those installed, it's just one click for one, and one click for off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Years of century in country category

Hi BHG, I'm still new to the world of categories but I've made this new template: {{Years of century in country category}}. Could you check if I've done anything stupid or missed something obvious with it or can I continue with making categories use it? Thank you! – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 10:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Majavah, and many thanks for messaging me about this.

I have taken a quick peek, and I see a few minor issues and some major ones. I want to explain those in detail (because they are complex), but first I want to wrap up my current task and then do some other work.

So it will be later today before i can give you a full reply.

Please may I ask you to be kind enough to hold off any further use of the template until I have explained the issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thank you for taking time to look at it! – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 10:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just making sure you haven't accidentally forgotten this. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, @Majavah. I am onto it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Portals

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Portals

you have blanked my user page

Hello, while I understand that categories are not supposed to feature on user pages, and while I understand that a user page can not contain offensive material, commercials etc., I am not sure which WP rule forbids using user pages as draft platforms. Can you please help me to identify the rule (link appreciated) which led you to blanking my user page? rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dd1495

It isn't explicitly condemned, but a) it is the convention, and b) it doesn't fit with the spirit of WP:FAKEARTICLE.

Why not just use the /sandbox like everyone else? The only other User:Foo pages which I encounter being used for article drafts are newbies and/or those using en.wp contrary to WP:NOTWEBHOST. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for prompt answer. I am not at all convinced you are entitled to what you did.

1) Convention is what it is - convention. There are proposed conventins, emerging conventions, existent conventions, prevailing conventions, abandoned conventions - one might or might not adhere. As long as it is not a rule - it is optional.

2) The way I use my personal page barely resembles a WP:FAKEARTICLE; the rule reads that "userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like article"; my edit sits there for 2-4 days and then I blank the page, so there is nothing about "indefinitely" hosting content there.

3) Now to the point, namely why I use my user page the way I use it. I used to use sandboxes the way they were designed to until few years ago, when someone high-ranking in the WP hierarchy inspected my newly created article and concluded that all my sandbox edits should be in its history, as "they demonstrate development line" or something in the like. I tried to discuss and argue that sandbox is for trials and errors, and I do not want my errors to be reproduced in history of the article, but as it usually is in case you debate against WP tycoons - I was basically told to shut up. So, as measure of my personal protest against this rule, and to make sure no-one else arrives at the idea that my sandbox errors and stupidites are then reproduced in live article, I switched to editing my user page.

4) since you failed to point me to a rule which prohibits using user space as sandbox, I restore its previous content for the process of polishing the text before I am happy with it and release it as a WP entry. I take the point and exclude categories. regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dd1495, so a few years ago one rogue admin did something stupid ... and therefore you have spent the last few years doing something which is not explicitly banned but which is mildly disruptive?

That's punishing everyone else for one admin's folly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, thanks for prompt reply and apologies I was a bit slow when responding.

1) I have started to use my user page as sandbox in August 2016, and your intervention was the first one I have got since then. Hence, I would suppose my edits hardly disturbed anyone, mildly or not, since for 4 years they went unnoticed

2) but even given the above, and given any script might easily exclude user pages from runs based on categories, and given as a simple user I am not supposed to know who is using all in-built WP gizmos and what for, I have taken the point re categories and will not be using them, hope no-one will feel disturbed any more

3) as a simple user, I am merely trying to write decent articles; I am neither trying to stand in anyobody's way nor trying to understand the WP machinery in all its details. There was a user posing as a WP expert who told me to do this and not to do that; then comes another such user, namely you, and tells me the opposite, and calls the advice of that guy "a folly". I am not sure whether tomorrow another expert will come and tell me what you say is rubbish. This is all bewildering and daunting. Never a word of encouragement, never a friendly advice, always instructions, admonishements, threats, warnings, forewarnings. It takes determination and perseverance to be here. rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dd1495, hi! It might help to add {{userspace draft|help = no|extra = [your personal message, if any]}} to the top of your userspace draft. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usedtobecool, no idea what exact purpose it would serve and how it would operate, and actually I do not want to know. I understand inserting the line will somehow prevent confusion between my user page and live articles. Have done as suggested. Thanks for your advice. rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating you for adminship

Per the discussion we started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rock King (Rapper), I think the best thing for Wikipedia would be if you were again an admin, and I would be glad to nominate you. I understand your preference to have several co-nominators, and I hope that others will show up who agree that it would be of great value to have you back. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, you @BD2412. I am honoured. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to extend my support for you to run for RfA. Let me know if you want a co-nomination, as I've never done one (so another editor / admin who has done one might be a better choice) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Dreamy Jazz. That's very kind.

I think that a co-nomination would be best. May I leave you to liaise with BD2412? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm be glad to join with Dreamy Jazz in putting this forward. BD2412 T 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will email them now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, Hi. Could you give rough amounts for any good articles / featured articles / featured lists / DYK hooks so I have them correct in my nomination. From your userpage, I have written "several DYK hooks, has good articles and a featured list to her name". Is that fairly accurate? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this as is in my co-nomination and finalise it on the RfA page. If this is wrong and needs changing, I'll amend it later on. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's fairly accurate, Dreamy Jazz. I just spent a few minutes checking this, and to the best of my knowledge, the figures are:

FA: 0
FL: 1 (A)
GA: definitely 3 (A, B, C), and possibly one more
DYK: at least 47 (that's the tally at User:BrownHairedGirl/DYK, but I think that at some point I think I gave up adding to the list)

Hope that helps. And thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. The wording "Several" seems pretty small for nearly 50, so I'll change it to "at least 47". Fingers crossed for the RfA, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh mile maith agat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for the encyclopedia would be if BrownHairedGirl were again an admin. There was a relationship difficulty, there was a harsh response, but looking at it as a learning exercise, a cultural course correction for the good, the best thing for Wikipedia is to move forward, to forgive, and to include. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dreamy Jazz and SmokeyJoe: I have begun writing a draft nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2. Please feel free to step in and add to it. It would be my privilege to co-nominate with both of you. BD2412 T 21:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the ping. I will add the start of my statement shortly. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you as an admin again, but it is a process which I decided long ago not to have anything to do with. Having said that, if certain issues should come up in the proceedings I would strongly consider making a statement in your support. You have dealt remarkably calmly and with great decency with some very difficult matters in the last year or so. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SmokeyJoe and DuncanHill. That's v kind of you both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to head off any potential issues, I have made a request at Arbitration Enforcement to lift your restrictions under their previous decision, at least for the purposes of addressing them if they are raised in the RfA. Hopefully there will be a quick response there, and you can plan your answers to the standard RfA questions accordingly. BD2412 T 17:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, BD2412. I was trying post a reply there endorsing your request, but got an edit conflict with a wrong venue response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BHG – if you would like to appeal the restrictions WP:ARCA is where to go. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Kevin. I am drafting an ARCA appeal right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can go ahead and file the same request there that I filed on the other board, unless you definitely want to file it yourself. BD2412 T 18:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, BD2412. That would be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Portals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, BD2412 T 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly vote early in extremely strong support of your resysoping. Until my character was assasinated by my own desysoping, my votes at RfA carried a certain degree of weight and respect. I don't know if they still would, but I don't however know how the current request at Arbcom will end - frankly I have no confidence in the current Committee but I sincerely hope they would see it as an opportunity to redeem themselves. Perhaps Worm That Turned's comment will carry some weight. Perhaps it might be best to wait until after this year's ACE - but don't take that as advice from me ;) I still remain jaded, but I'm reminded of this message to you earlier this year Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This non-apology apology, which contains a fresh violation, goes exactly to your sole weakness. I suggest you revert that post before anyone notices. The project needs you, but does not need you to point certain things out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe, you have badly misread the situation. The other party raised concerns about what I would do, so I clarified that I would give a very minimal response if the issues were raised. I included a ping so that they would be aware of my reply. I intended that as a courtesy, and I am genuinely sorry that it was unwelcome. I am very sad to see that even giving a minimal response is being used against me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third co-nomination is up. Ping me when you're ready for me to put this live (though I have a busy day tomorrow, and will only be editing intermittently - I will be readily available later in the week). BD2412 T 04:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BD2412. Unfortunately, I have a weird thin going at the moment. Two weeks ago I stopped smoking (which may or may not be a long-term measure), and while I haven't had any of the usual effects, I have become very very sleepy, to the point where most of the day I am either asleep or too drowsy to do much.

All very weird, and unlike anything I experienced on previous breaks from the baccy, but it would be silly to open the RFA while I am like this and unable to reply to issues raised. I will keep you posted. I hope it will clear soon, and will keep you posted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Feel better! BD2412 T 22:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it when it happens. To be honest, being extra sleepy would still be preferable at an RfA compared to the classic quitting-smoking symptom - being really irritable! ~ mazca ^talk 22:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. Yes, Mazca is right that being irritable and yelling at everyone would be a very not good thing. But being dopey and unable to reply to questions isn't great either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of Tanks in the German Army

I noticed the proposed split at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts. Not that I'm planning to participate, but I'm unable to find the actual split proposal or discussion thereof. This applies to several proposed splits, which is why I'm asking. The automated system seems to assume that discussion will take place on the relevant talk page, but there's nothing on it there. Where can I find the proposal or discussion? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RobDuch

I have no idea why or how that entry appeared in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts. I have no recollection of making any such proposal.

Sorry I can't help. Maybe you could raise this at WT:Article alerts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an AWB edit to the page in September 2019, which (presumably as a general fix) bypassed the template redirect from {{merge portions to}} to {{split portions}}. The Article Alerts system must either have not known about the redirect, or been confused by the unusual whitespace in the template call prior to your edit, and therefore not recognized the split proposal.
The split proposal was actually made by Staszek Lem, and the discussion is at Talk:Tanks in the German Army#Merge suggestion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Pppery. Mystery solved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I see you all the time on Wikipedia. Firestar464 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the draft page

can you please tell me how many days it will take to to publish the article now the created article is in draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicspeaker2020 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Publicspeaker2020

I presume that you are referring to Draft:Vaibhav edke. I have added a button which allows you to submit the draft for review. Once you do that, the article will be reviewed whenever an editor chooses to review it. The review process is backlogged, so that may take up to a few months.

However, I suggest that you do not submit it yet. As far as I can see, the article does not establish the notability of the subject per WP:BIO, so if I was the reviewer I would promptly reject the article with the comment "notability not established". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for fixing the categories on my draft page - I'm still new here but appreciate the gentle correction. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, UWM.AP.Endo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message for me?

I received a note that you left a message for me in my sandbox. I don't see it there or on my talk page. Forgive me please. It is very early in the morning. and I could be missing it. Could you possibly repeat it here or explain? Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. And in the words of Cullen328 "Let's discuss it!" Nicodemus (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsilenus: I didn't leave a message. I pinged you in this edit.[19]

BTW, please fix your sig. Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P,

A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username

... but your sig doesn't do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I was asked once before to change my sig. but I had been using it for several years w/o complaint, the person seemed to make no sense and WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, was not published yet. I will take care of it later today. Thank you again. forgive me for again signing-- Nicodemus (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely sorry to keep this up. changed my signature to Oldsilenus which is my user name. I am not very active so this will disturb only one set of posts. I will see if I can set up a nickname but that seems to violate the rule of making it easy to identify my user name. Correct? Oldsilenus (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsilenus: thanks for the change. May I gently suggest that consideration of a nickname is overcomplicating things a bit when you make so few contributions to discussions? I count only 99 uses of your sig in the last ten years, which is an average of less than per month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine I can't argue. I could go through a litany of complaints about unsports-person like behavior by other editors but why bother? I'll leave it as is.Oldsilenus (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft Vaibhav Edke

Recently I read you reply Can you please then how can I publish this page or what change or improvement should done by me I am a new person to Wikipedia Can you please help me to publish this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicspeaker2020 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I change the references or add more references please inform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicspeaker2020 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland (links)

Hi, could I check what you meant by the references being ambiguous in this revert? I updated the links to the current versions, rather than relying on archived links, and changed the names of the references because they are no longer on a distinct Department of the Taoiseach site, but on the general gov.ie site. I don't mind doing the same work again, but titling them "Govie-1st-Dail" etc. if you think there's a benefit there, but we should be avoiding dead links where current alternatives exist. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iveagh Gardens, and tanks for your message.

I am sorry to have say this, but your changes were an alarmingly big step backwards, in two ways:

You removed the links to the archived versions of the web pages. I had laboriously created those archive links to protect the references from linkrot, and to allow verification of the precise document I consulted. I am quite annoyed that you both removed that protection and prevented readers editors from checking the actual page that was used when writing the article.
Your changing of the names of the references was unnecessary, and also disruptive. A title such as "23rd Dail" may refer to numerous source which could be used in the article; "DTaoiseach-23rd-Dail" is a term unlikely to be used for any other ref which may be added.

So while I have doubt that your intentions were good, the effect was highly disruptive. At best, this would have been a make-work; but in practice it was a big negative.

Changing the links to refer to pages which were not consulted when writing the article is a very bad thing to do. It misrepresents the sources.

Please can you remember that the List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland went through a very intensive FL-review. You can see the 6 weeks of scrutiny at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland/archive1. So you should start from the assumption that features were in place when the list passed FL have already been highly-scrutinised, and are there for a reason.

Please may I suggest that your huge energies would be better used by doing the hard work of creating new featured pages, instead of applying well-intended but deeply unhelpful changes which degrade an existing FL? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered reply, I had waited a few days until I knew I had the time to respond. In msking the changes I had, I had followed the first suggestion under WP:DEADLINK. A few years ago, as we're all familiar with, as it was the reason you had to use archived links, the government moved from having separate sites for each department, to hosting most of them on gov.ie. If nothing else, it makes it easier when they change names and functions so much! So what was at a page on the Taoiseach's site is now on a page on the gov.ie site. I don't think my edits changed the information to Wikipedia readers, as the provided the same information as before. I don't think it even takes away from your work leading up to the FL review, as it still is the same page anmd source you had referenced, if now hosted elsewhere in government servers, and reformatted. I also think we should provide the best current link in the reference, as it's easier for users then to continue to navigate through references when they are live, than when using archived references. Otherwise, the reference section becomes fossilised, rather than having the dynamic quality which is one of the best things about Wikipedia, and that FL status shouldn't hold it where it is, and prevent further change, as long as it continues to provide accurate sourced material to the reader.

But that said, while I do think my edit did follow Wikipedia guidelines, and hope you might be persuaded, it's not something I want to pursue a back-and-forth on. What drew my particular attention to this page of late is that I had been thinking of drafting a similar page for women Ministers of State, and may do so in time, having started very basic notes for such. I would value any input you'd have there if and when I get around to it. While doing so, I thought of possible modifications to the page we're discussing here, such as a separate section for the four Tánaistí, although it might make sense to discuss it on the talk page there, rather than continue on your page, as it would be better to get a range of views. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, @Iveagh Gardens, and for the friandly tone.

However, your reply contains a fundamental misunderstanding. I did not [have] to use archived links. In every case, I used the live web pages ... and in every case, regardless of the sources, I took the time to archive the page both on archive.org and on archive.is (in some cases, only one site actually. I then used those archive links in the refs, so that every reader could see a) exactly what URL I consulted; and b) exactly what it contained at the time when I consulted it. This is pre-emptive archiving: see WP:Citing sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving.

Sadly, your edits removed both of those facts:

By changing the URL, you re-wrote history. The page actually consulted was not the URL which you added.
By removing the links to the archived version, you removed the record of what the web page actually said at the time I consulted it. That prevents readers and editors from verifying whether I used the source accurately.

This task of checking and archiving and formatting those refs took several complete days of work. You demolished that, and I remain troubled that you still don't see the problem with misrepresenting the sources. The ability to verify that sources were used accurately is crucial to the integrity of any scholarship, and you still do not seem to understand that you demolished that.

I strongly contest your assertion that it still is the same page anmd source you had referenced, if now hosted elsewhere in government servers, and reformatted. The new URLs link to a page which may just have been reformatted, or may have also been updated, or may have been completely rewritten. I guess it is likely that they were simply reformatted and updated with new appointments, but there is absolutely no guarantee of that. It is also possible that they may have been completely rewritten, and now assert different facts to those which they asserted when the article was written ... and it is also possible that they may be changed in the future. For example, online newspaper articles are often modified several times: they may add new info, correct perceived errors of fact, replace the headline, or even be completely rewritten.

And, I'm sorry, but your edit did not follow en.wp guidelines. You mistakenly followed WP:DEADLINK, but these are not links; they are references. The relevant guidance is therefore at WP:DEADREF ... and no change was required by DEADREF because the ref was not dead. Your actions may have been appropriate for external links, but these are not just links. They are citations of the source consulted, and you are completely wrong to treat that as a dynamic issue. This is the exact opposite issue: verifying that a source was accurately consulted requires a static version rather than a moving target, and a reference section should be fossilised ... because the fact of what sources were used does not change. You seem to have have fundamentally mistaken the purpose of a reference.

As to the the four Tánaistí, I would strongly oppose removing them from the main list. Each of them held other cabinet posts both before becoming Tanaiste and concurrently with that office, so removing them from the main list would degrade the utility of that list. Maybe you meant adding an extra section about the Tánaistí, which I do not oppose in principle ... but I don't so far what such a section would add without straying from the fact that the page is a list of cabinet ministers. It is not discursive article.

I thank you again for your friendliness, but I hope you can begin to see why I am frustrated that I have again had to take time to explain what seems to me to be a very basic issue: that the absolutely fundamental purpose of a citation is to allow verification of the source that was actually used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought I'd respond briefly to explain, to my slight embarrassment, that I had quite misunderstood you earlier in the conversation above, or perhaps it was that I had misunderstood the nature of your work on the page in the first place. To take a page such as Confidence motions in Dáil Éireann, its references are to the old version of the Oireachtas site. I had mistaken the work you had done with the archived links as if someone was today to rescue those links with archived versions of those pages, rather than using their equivalents on the new versions of the site. Although I had thought your work was because of a transition where gov.ie hadn't yet migrated all its old pages over yet, and you were trying to preserce old pages in that transition (and so using a different approach to WP:DEADREF to what I would do). Whereas you were seeking to preserve the sources ahead of time. There might be a time and place for updating work done on this or other pages, with fresh references, but the work I did was not actually to fix or solve that issue, because that was not the reason you had given them archived reference links. Perhaps links to the new version of the site could be useful too, as well, but that's a different question. Anyway, there's a writing project I now have that will take up a lot of my free time, so other than monitoring the ministerial and department pages, and other minor related pages, I'll probably take a small break from any bigger Wikipedia projects, but if I do return to build a women Ministers of State page, I would value your half-an-eye over it once I get it up, which may be in the new year. All the best, Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Your participation would be highly valued and significant as you are the only user who edited the concerned page other than the creator. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 13:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help please

please urgently protect the List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places article new User:-ink&fables is trying to delete the article.. It is a list article of Lee Min-ho wax figures with locations as we cannot put everything in his main page and his wax figures are set to be expanded in other locations in the future.. the page was created please remove the deletion tag and protect the page.. thanks Myhometownkorea (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Myhometownkorea: Please stop WP:CANVASSing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for helping me!! I am trying to do the best I can to improve these articles.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome12241 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal the Raccoon Draft Article

Hello BHG! My name is Paul. I noticed that you commented for me to disable the "category" in my Rascal the Racoon article. If you haven't yet figured it out, I am a new user and am in the process of learning the wikipedia rules through my university class. By disabling "category" did you mean that since it is still a draft, you don't want the article to show up under the categories in wikipedia such as like "sports," "entertainment," etc? If so, I will go to try and figure out how to disable it. If I can't, I will probably ask my instructor. Thanks for the help!

PaulSereeyothin (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling by an edit-warring IP

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.54.2.103 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]