Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 042) (bot |
Fayenatic london (talk | contribs) →Categories for animal deaths: new section |
||
Line 345: | Line 345: | ||
:::Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::{{yo|Redrose64}} Ah, OK. I am just concerned to keep things simple for this user, who seems unfamiliar with many simple en.wp processes. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
::::{{yo|Redrose64}} Ah, OK. I am just concerned to keep things simple for this user, who seems unfamiliar with many simple en.wp processes. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Categories for animal deaths == |
|||
Hi BHG, would you be willing to reopen [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_25#Category:Ancient_and_medieval_individual_animals]], please? I'm willing to undo the bot edits. |
|||
If I had seen this nomination earlier, I would have opposed the merge of animal deaths to deaths, as the "deaths" categories are sub-categories of "people". – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:55, 19 April 2018
Thanks + invitation
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks! |
Merge Proposal
Hi there!
Rembrandt research in Australia
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie
Nikola Kicev
can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm
Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Paraguayan clubs
I see why (although I 100% disagree) you are opposed to moving from 'footballers' to 'players' when there is a multisport club and en.wp has articles about other sections. Why, however, have you opposed all the Paraguayan CFDS moves when, as far as I can see, all of the articles are purely about football teams, even those that are part of a wider multipart club? The same goes for Spain as well... GiantSnowman 16:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I do wish you could step outside the en.wp box, and start looking at the ambiguity issue from a real-world perspective instead of focusing on the artefacts of en.wp naming policies.
- Where a "Club X" plays more than one sport, the ordinary, real-world meaning of "Club X players" means players of any sport for that club. That ambiguous reality is a property of the real world out there, and is not altered by the scope or title of en.wp articles.
- At WP:CFDS, I asked you a very simple question[1]:
have you checked that none of the clubs involved are multi-sport clubs? In those cases, "players" would be ambiguous.
- You evaded my question,[2] and replied
the articles about the football clubs only
. - I find this sort of misleading evasiveness time-wasting and very tedious. Why could you not simply give the direct, honest answer "yes, Club X and Club Y. But ..." ???
- Instead, @Armbrust did the checking, and revealed that your answer was misleading. I WP:assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary, and fter that I doubt your good faith here.
- I think "foo players" is a bad naming convention in all circumstances, and indefensible where there is ambiguity. Since I can not trust any of your assurances about the nature of the clubs, I oppose speedy renaming of all of them. They need a full discussion, where more editors can decide a) whether to uphold a silly naming convention, b) if yes, more eyes can check for the ambiguities about which you remain in denial.
- It would be much better for all sportspeople-by-club categories to follow the convention of Gaelic games, where all such categories are named "Club X hurlers" or "Club X Gaelic footballers". Sure, multi-sport clubs are the norm in the GAA, but the sport is still spelt out even for single-sport clubs. No ambiguity, no arguments; all simple.
- Yes, multi-sport clubs are less common in other spheres, but it is much too timewasting to treat multi-sport clubs as as an exception when some editors try to deny the existence of self-evident ambiguities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- But if the wider multi-sport club doesn't have an article on en.wp, and, as far as our readers are concerned, it's only known for the football team, then what is the point of having unecessary disambiguation. That is what you have, continually, failed to convince me or others at WT:FOOTBALL about. GiantSnowman 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: You seem to have missed what I wrote, so I'll repeat myself:
That ambiguous reality is a property of the real world out there, and is not altered by the scope or title of en.wp articles.
- By your logic, if en.wp had no article on Africa, then the continent would cease to exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Nope - by my logic, which is reflected in actual Wikipedia practice, we don't create an article at BHG (astronaut) just because there is also possibly notable topics of BHG (artist) and BHG (jockey) in the wider world, we create it at just BHG - no unecessary disambiguation...and basically, if the multi sports clubs merited their own articles and their own categories then maybe you'd have a point, but not here. GiantSnowman 20:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: You are:
- unwisely conflating the concept of "does not yet have an article" with "doesn't merit an article". That is particularly unwise when dealing with countries outside the anglosphere.
- assuming that the absence of a head article on the team means that there will be no notable articles on its players. This happens repeatedly with soccer players whose career includes stints with clubs on which we do not have an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: You are:
- Nope - by my logic, which is reflected in actual Wikipedia practice, we don't create an article at BHG (astronaut) just because there is also possibly notable topics of BHG (artist) and BHG (jockey) in the wider world, we create it at just BHG - no unecessary disambiguation...and basically, if the multi sports clubs merited their own articles and their own categories then maybe you'd have a point, but not here. GiantSnowman 20:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: You seem to have missed what I wrote, so I'll repeat myself:
- But if the wider multi-sport club doesn't have an article on en.wp, and, as far as our readers are concerned, it's only known for the football team, then what is the point of having unecessary disambiguation. That is what you have, continually, failed to convince me or others at WT:FOOTBALL about. GiantSnowman 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We're never going to agree so let's leave that aspect. Another query - why have you opposed the moves where there is no wider sports club and/or opposed moves where the category (whether 'footballer' or 'player') does not match the actual team name? GiantSnowman 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
CfD marked for closing
I noticed that you marked this CfD as "Closing" in Feb 2018, but all the respective categories still have CfD notices on them. Perhaps the closing got interrupted?—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I see this was also brought up above at #BIG3_closing_as_closing? As an alternative, we can also reopen the CfD. No worries, we are all WP:VOLUNTEERS here. Let me know how you want to proceed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've reopened the CfD. No problem if you still choose to close it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 14. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI - typo on WikiProject banner shell
Greetings, For WP Catholicism articles, a number of their talk pages contain a typo WikiProject banner shellhell|1= when WP Ireland was added. For example: Talk:Richard O'Reilly at 10:28, 22 March 2018 BrownHairedGirl. I have corrected a few of them & am now being interrupted by life. At here for March 23, subsection "Removed" is a list of those articles. If you are able to correct these talk pages typo that would be helpful. Otherwise I will eventually correct the pages. Note - I started at the bottom of the list. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that, @JoeHebda, and for the v helpful explanation. Looks like there was an error in one of my regexes, and it seeems to have broken on about 20 pages. I'll fix them now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- @JoeHebda: all done. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I couldn't actually be bothered to take this to ANI myself. @Casliber: if you really want to make a big stand denouncing a reproach to an editor taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to a content issue, please open an ANI discussion yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you scan the recent talk page discussion here, my impression is of a major decade long copy vio problem. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Ceoil
- I have scanned the discussion at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)#Irish_name, and ... oh dear.
- It has turned into shitfight, started by your unnecessarily antagonistic comment at 20:56 yesterday,[3] and stoked by many of your comments thereafter, e.g.
unfocused belligerence
...most hypocritical
...you are were looking for reassurance and validation
...shrill and hysterical
. - You may or may not have a valid substantive point, but any merit in your analysis is entirely lost in your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and your barrage of NPA on other editors. There is absolutely zero chance of anything productive arising out of a discussion where you address people like that.
- If I had stumbled across this discussion myself, I would have promptly blocked you for personal attacks, without warning. However, I don't like blocking editors who who come to me asking for help or advice, so I won't block you now. But if you resume personal attacks, I will block you.
- So for now I will post a warning your talk page, and I will close the discussion at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish_leader)#Irish_name. And I suggest you take a break from your keyboard until you feel less angry.
- Sometime in the future, maybe after a week or more, you may want to reopen your concerns about the article. But you should start by setting them out in detail, without accusing anyone. And if you want to have a productive discussion about them, it would be best to precede them with a clear apology to the editors who got blasted when you were having a bad day and not showing your best self.
- Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Drop the big stick tone BHG, it comes across as really patronising. should someone have blocked you for commenting on the editor rather than the action like this? Are you able to look at content yourself at all? Do you think the segments removed here were encyclopedic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Casliber: Sigh. I didn't even try to assess the merits of the article, because I didn't want to become substantively involved. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I dismissed none of Ceoil's substantive points, and suggested a way to have a productive discussion about them.
- Regardless of whether Ceoil's points are entirely right or entirely wrong, the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach taken by Ceoil overnight is no way to reach a consensus.
- Anyway, since you think I should have been blocked, I'll raise this at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- It was a question not a statement. Yours was a definite ad hominem but it was a while ago now, so of course it is not preventative in any way. Hence raising it would be a waste of time. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. If people don't keep half an eye on what they are trying to govern we all go down the plughole. According o how your managing it, if an editor is right but rude they "lose". This is a problem Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Drop the big stick tone BHG, it comes across as really patronising. should someone have blocked you for commenting on the editor rather than the action like this? Are you able to look at content yourself at all? Do you think the segments removed here were encyclopedic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking of inflammatory, looking at the last 3 segments of this post...this was just escalating rather than dampening. It just comes over as patronising...you really couldn't have worded this better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Casliber: this is not complicated. En.wp works by WP:CONSENSUS, and content disputes are resolved by consensus. When an editor takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, the discussion descends into a fight ... so consensus is not attainable, so no fix is agreed.
- If you actually want problems to be fixed, then please support policies such as WP:CIVIL which allow problems to be discussed in a way which can help build a consensus for change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking of inflammatory, looking at the last 3 segments of this post...this was just escalating rather than dampening. It just comes over as patronising...you really couldn't have worded this better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok then...
Can you at least fully lock the article before further arm-wrestling ensues...which it will do very soon. And we will seek wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ask at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hugh Thomson article assessment
Hi BrownHairedGirl, thanks for adding WP Northern Ireland to Talk:Hugh Thomson. You auto-classified this article as a stub, I think based on the same rating by WP Biography - is that correct? That rating was added in December 2012 (to this version of the article), and since then the article has been significantly expanded and improved. I recently requested an assessment because I believe the article is at least at Start class or C class status. Would you mind taking a look at the article and perhaps reconsidering your rating? And, if you still consider it a stub, I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for how to improve it. Thanks! extabulis (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker): extabulis, I have reassessed it as a Start-class and added the Ireland Project banner because it is the whole island project. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks, @Ww2censor.
- @Extabulis: I hope that is all OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl and ww2censor, it is, thanks! extabulis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor and Extabulis: I only just looked at the article now. I wonder if it's not more C-class than Start-class on the Quality scale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Extabulis and BrownHairedGirl: I do tend to be rather conservative in my article assessments and as you know well they are quite subjective, so it's just my opinion. I think it's fair but will not get upset if you uprate it to C-class. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor thanks. I do think that in general it's best to stay on the conservative with article assessments. But in this case I think you was a little too conservative. So I'll up it to a C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Extabulis and BrownHairedGirl: I do tend to be rather conservative in my article assessments and as you know well they are quite subjective, so it's just my opinion. I think it's fair but will not get upset if you uprate it to C-class. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor and Extabulis: I only just looked at the article now. I wonder if it's not more C-class than Start-class on the Quality scale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl and ww2censor, it is, thanks! extabulis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
María Elvira Pombo Holguín
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
could you please update information about María Elvira Pombo Holguín?
She is currently the ambassadress of Colombia in Germany.
Thank you in advance,
Miguel Hernandez (Colombian citizen living in Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.111.139 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain
Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your block of Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems harsh and unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to violate the fool rules. What am I missing?- MrX 🖋 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:FOOLR #1: "Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace,[8] will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing.".
- Also WP:Rules_for_Fools#AfDs: don't tag the nominated page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so it was for the tag on Category:Category namespace. I would have thought a level one warning and a revert would have sufficed for an editor who has a clean block record. Hell, we give drive by vandals and Nazis better treatment than that!- MrX 🖋 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- We assume that drive-by vandals don't know better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't. Did it escape your notice that WP:FOOLS says "A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day."? I've inquired at WP:AN, in case you have an interest in weighing in there.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. I just want to get on with building an encyclopedia, rather than waste time on meta discussions about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt it with "jokes" which were stale years ago.
- Thanks for your comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- It was a bad block. Period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't. Did it escape your notice that WP:FOOLS says "A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day."? I've inquired at WP:AN, in case you have an interest in weighing in there.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- We assume that drive-by vandals don't know better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so it was for the tag on Category:Category namespace. I would have thought a level one warning and a revert would have sufficed for an editor who has a clean block record. Hell, we give drive by vandals and Nazis better treatment than that!- MrX 🖋 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- BHG, just unblock them. It's an editor who's been around since all of 2016. Is this really the way you want to register your personal dislike for April fools day? By blocking a productive editor? GMGtalk 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Notifying you: WP:AN#Block review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- BHG for future reference if an editor makes an April Fools joke and you disagree with it .... warn them first ..... don't instantly block them as that's just asking for a desysop right there, Failing that come 1st April stay off of Wikipedia for a day ..... It was a bad block no doubt about it. –Davey2010Talk 21:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Block reduced to time served, and lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good. This was borderline stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
- 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
- Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Not perfect
I believe you were acting in good faith with the block above but you have to remember that WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year. I went ahead and added a footnote for Rule #1, I would like your input seeing that it did effect you above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: you didn't supply a diff, so it's unclear which of your ~15 edits you are referring to. However, on a quick scan, I don't see any big change, just a lot more words. More WP:CREEP
- Look, the underlying issue is your view that
WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year
. I strongly disagree with that; from my POV, the flood of juvenile "let's delete X 'cos I don't like it LOL" AFDs gets more tedious each year, and yesterday's crop was no exception. The only one which made me even smile was the nom of yesterday's AfD page, to make it all stop. - Clearly, we we will not agree about the funniness, which is exactly my point. Sense of humour varies widely by language, country, culture, class, gender, religion, level of education, etc ... so most humour has a very limited audience.
- En.wp has editors from a huge variety of backgrounds, so shared humour is rare. Sadly some people — esp younger people — seem unaware that their humour has limited appeal, so feel entitled to inflict it on others.
- So, whatever the details of your tweaks, they amount to yet more rules designed to legitimate the antics of editors who assume that their worldview is universal and show no sign of respect for those who don't share it. Tedious.
- I'd be way more impressed if you devoted your energies to ensuring that WP:FOOLS antics were kept out of the workspaces which editors use to build and maintain en.wp. So no "joke" XFDs, RFCs, etc, unless they are kept clear of the usual workspaces.
- I doubt we'd get (or need) a new Fools: namespace, but we could have a WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1/Fools linked from a hatnote on WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1, and so on for any other such venues.
- That way
- those who think that "Delete Donald Trump cos Lolz" is earth-shatteringly funny know where to find it
- those who don't want to encounter it don't have to
- the AfD day log isn't clogged with more "jokes" than real AfDs, as it was yesterday
- nobody who isn't playing WP:FOOLS needs to waste time closing these things, 'cos they are not on the usual work pages
- Everybody happy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding your unblock summary,
I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss
, I have to remind you of a previous comment you left at a past ANI:when I spot a perceived problem editor, but lack the time and/or stable connectivity to do the due diligence required of a admin, I leave a quick note for another admin, or at ANI, or I leave it until I can devote the required time.
Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)- @Wumbolo: at the time I made the block, I thought I had done due diligence: I checked WP:FOOLS carefully.
In hindsight, I see that there is a body of opinion which takes a more lenient attitude than I did to April Fools disruption outside the already over-broad boundaries of WP:FOOLS, but I'm not sure that a reasonable level of homework would have clarified the appropriate response. My judgement about the breach of WP:FOOLS was not an issue at WP:AN, just the level of response.
Anyway, have fun trawling my ANI contribs for words to take out of context, as you did with that comment[4] about an admin who had entirely misread every aspect of both the substantive issue and the user's conduct[5]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: at the time I made the block, I thought I had done due diligence: I checked WP:FOOLS carefully.
Edit summary usage
Your quantity of edits is too large for xtools (the limit is 350,000)! You may want to adjust the link [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=BrownHairedGirl&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia my recent '''edit summary''' usage]
in User:BrownHairedGirl#My edit summary usage accordingly (though it may be better to retain the xtools link in some form, as the tool may expand its limit in the future.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @E to the Pi times i: Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Category close request
Hi. The long-term RfD request for the category 'Broken hearts' (which should probably be renamed to 'Broken heart' per a suggestion in the discussion) has seen better days. You closed other sections on the page, and I'm concerned it will be left there. Would you please consider closing it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Links, please --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks. Here is the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Category:Broken_hearts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. At least it's moving again. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Category:Broken_hearts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks. Here is the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red
In connection with the success of your List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, I was wondering whether I could encourage you to join WP:Women in Red (via "Join the WikiProject" in the box at the top RH corner). I thought with your interest in women and women's biographies you had been a member for some time, but I've just seen that you are neither on our main mailing list nor on our project membership list. I think joining the project would encourage others to follow in your footsteps. I think you could also offer advice on how we could improve the effectiveness of the projet.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Ireland project banner
It looks like your tagging is adding a 2nd Ireland project banner to several talk pages, such as this one that I've removed as I did for the rest in today "reassessed" section of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log. There are probably many more but I did not go looking further yet. Have you finished tagging so we can try to got some more editors involved in Irish assessments? ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Ww2censor
- ooops! Sorry about that, and many thanks for the friendly tone in which you alerted me to the glitch. (It's annoying when another editors' bulk edits make clean-up work, and you were kind not to express your frustration)
- I had several checks for pages which already contained a {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner (or its redirects), and AWB was supposed to skip them.
- However, there was a glitch in one of the regexes which I thought I had corrected in time. Looks like I didn't catch all of them.
- It's a fairly simple AWB job to identify duplicate banners on a given page , so I was about to set it to run through all 70,000 WPIE pages. However, I noticed that the pages you found this morning were all automatic assessments. I found at some point that here is a bug in the Kingbotk plugin which I was using at point for automatic assessments: it is supposed to do its own avoidance of duplication option, but while that had worked for other WikiProject banners (e.g {{WikiProject Gaelic games}} I belatedly found that it wasn't avoiding duplicates on WPIE ... and I couldn't make it do so. Grrr.
- So as a first pass I will run the check on all 9,321 pages currently in Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles, and clean up any glitches.
- Then I will check the rest.
- I have finished tagging for now. I intend at some point to make a further run through biographies, which are difficult to set up because there are so many "leakages" into unwanted subcats (e.g. Category:Irish writers+ subcats includes every Dracula-related topic, which I didn't want to tag as WPIE; and there are similar issues with many other writers and other occupations). But I doubt I will get to that before next winter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- No need to apologise as I assumed if if notified you of an error you would try to fix it. Besides which I don't really understand the technicalities of your process. I just don't know how we will assess the 15K plus articles that now need review. That's about the same number of articles that were assessed just 10 years ago when we had just been going strong for about a year! Thanks for the explanation. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Sorry, I meant to reply sooner on this. The only other double-tagged page I found was Talk:Bob Parkinson, which shouldn't have been in WP:IE anyway, so I removed him[6].
- IIRC I found a couple of others and removed them a few days ago, so doubt you would have found them. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- As to the 15K plus articles that now need review ... I'd suggest starting with the ~4500 pages in Category:Unassessed Ireland articles, and leave the ~9500 Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles as a lower priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if articles such as Brian Horrocks should really be assessed by the project. I'm sure there are others whose connections are low to tenuous at best. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Brian Horrocks was tagged 'cos he is in Category:British military personnel of the Irish War of Independence. Some of those in that cat — such as Frederick Shaw, Henry Hugh Tudor and Nevil Macready — very much belong in WPIE, and not as low-importance. However, others may not belong in WPIE at all, if their military role in Ireland was insignificant.
- As ever, editorial discretion is needed. In this case, Brian Horrocks#Back_home devotes only 1½ paras to his role in the War of Independence, apparently with the relatively junior rank of captain. The only source for this is his own autobiog; an independent source, esp an Irish one, might say more. So on balance, I'd leave him in, but I'd respect a difft judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if articles such as Brian Horrocks should really be assessed by the project. I'm sure there are others whose connections are low to tenuous at best. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Sorry, I meant to reply sooner on this. The only other double-tagged page I found was Talk:Bob Parkinson, which shouldn't have been in WP:IE anyway, so I removed him[6].
- No need to apologise as I assumed if if notified you of an error you would try to fix it. Besides which I don't really understand the technicalities of your process. I just don't know how we will assess the 15K plus articles that now need review. That's about the same number of articles that were assessed just 10 years ago when we had just been going strong for about a year! Thanks for the explanation. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DreamDoll songs
A tag has been placed on Category:DreamDoll songs 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. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty
Your username sounds pretty. 2600:1:F142:E9BE:884D:9655:8673:1703 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Category moving
Hello there! I very much appreciate you taking on the task of moving categories as you stated when you closed this discussion. I see you reverted the botched manual edits, but are you still going to move the others? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Thanks, @Daybeers.
- I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 27#Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_in_Australia as "rename all"[7].
AFAICS, the bot did all the renaming with its usual thoroughness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Write a biography
I need a reliable source to write about my biography on Wikipedia please contact me if you are available Markpain (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Markpain: No.
- See the policy at WP:COI, and an explanatory essay at WP:Autobiography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Album cover mistake
I uploaded a new version of the Twenty One Pilots album at File:Twenty_One_Pilots_album_cover.jpg, but the reference didn't get processed properly. Can you please edit it so it displays correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMGWP (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assisting this editor on my user talk page now - you can consider this question resolved here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oshwah. Files are not really my thing anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Multiple categories for single politicians
Hi, I was about to close a CFD as Delete last night, but there was an edit conflict and I found that you had closed it as Keep.
Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors wasn't even in Category:Local political office-holders in the United Kingdom by party; presumably that was the large accepted overall sub-categorization scheme that you were referring to, so I have just added it there.
I still find it surprising that in that UK category with 16 party sub-cats, we have three for single notable persons in Tower Hamlets. I would have thought a more realistic outcome would be either to place those articles in the sub-cat for independent councillors, or not to categorise at that level by party. They will still be in the politicians-by-party hierarchy.
As for the cases about leaders of parties, Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom holds many biography pages directly, and I would have said that that was the overall accepted approach for leaders of local/micro parties. That category therefore does not need the two sub-categories for single pages for Tower Hamlets local parties. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Fayenatic london
- It sounds to me a little like you are applying your own substantive judgement there. A reasonable judgement, but that is not the closer's role.
- In the actual discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Tower_Hamlets_Independent_Group_councillors, Tanbircdq correctly cited WP:SMALLCAT, but was rebutted by the nom's inversion of WP:SMALLCAT. The discussion proceeded without any correction on policy.
- Same happened in the next section, WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Leaders_of_People's_Alliance_of_Tower_Hamlets.
- If policy had been correctly represented, maybe the discussion would have analysed the situation as you suggest above. Or maybe not; we can only speculate.
- But in the discussion which actually happened, the delete !votes were founded on an inversion of policy, which invalidates them.
- A new discussion some time in the future might reach a different outcome. But for now, I think it's v impt that a closer doesn't take a policy-inversion as the basis of a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your rationale for setting aside a large number of Delete !votes in multiple cases. It seemed to me that there were multiple reasons given for deletion, not only the misrepresentation of policy. However, you were the closer, and the discussions needed closing; if you still think you made the best decision, I'm not going to take it further. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure there was a best decision, @Fayenatic london. I was aiming for least worst, and hope I got somewhere near that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your rationale for setting aside a large number of Delete !votes in multiple cases. It seemed to me that there were multiple reasons given for deletion, not only the misrepresentation of policy. However, you were the closer, and the discussions needed closing; if you still think you made the best decision, I'm not going to take it further. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I need a little help, please...
I have a question for you regarding a category I created that was saved from deletion regarding World Series-winning managers. I started adding more names to the category, but now, I seem to be having trouble making sure the category's properly alphabetized. Is there any way you or somebody on Wikipedia can help me out with this problem? Thank you for any help you can give me. Please leave a message for me on my talk page. Mr. Brain (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Brain: see WP:SORTKEY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Brain: This is a known problem, and no single individual can do anything about it. Basically, we're waiting for the devs to complete a maintenance task; more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category sorting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think you are over-complicating things for @Mr. Brain. As far as I can see, there is no such problem in Category:World Series-winning managers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah, OK. I am just concerned to keep things simple for this user, who seems unfamiliar with many simple en.wp processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think you are over-complicating things for @Mr. Brain. As far as I can see, there is no such problem in Category:World Series-winning managers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Categories for animal deaths
Hi BHG, would you be willing to reopen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_25#Category:Ancient_and_medieval_individual_animals, please? I'm willing to undo the bot edits.
If I had seen this nomination earlier, I would have opposed the merge of animal deaths to deaths, as the "deaths" categories are sub-categories of "people". – Fayenatic London 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)