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
Hello BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 039! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Dear BrownHairedGirl/Archive, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
To speed up the job, and minimise errors, I created a series of custom AWB modules to create the categories consistently. However, a few hundred were done manually, and it seems that in a small proportion of those I made an error.
But y'know, it would have been as easy for you to fix them yourself as to post here about it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for nominating the category together with the page; I thought that was what I was supposed to do. Now I know better. Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 20:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. It was good that you spotted that the category was involved too, and that CFD was the place to rename it.
CFD tends to be a bit away from the normal focus of most editors, so WP:C2D escapes the notice of most editors.
There was nothing wrong with what you did ... it's just taht there is a better way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued participation in this RM (even though we disagree). It occurs to me that this is a relatively central page, and the relevant wikiprojects should probably be alerted with a neutral notice. Could you do the honors, so that I can't be accused of WP:CANVASS? Thanks! Homunq (࿓) 12:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC) ps. So as not to leave the burden on you alone, I'm also making this suggestion to another commenter whose name I forget at the moment.[reply]
At Amakuru's suggestion, I did it myself. So, no need, thanks.
The debate has moved to a new place; "voting method" is no longer an option. I think your opinion would be useful again. Homunq (࿓) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks. Homunq (࿓) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Indeed, it existed; no one's suggesting otherwise. If there are indeed many sources to this sub-sub-stub of an article which discuss the subject in the significant detail the GNG requires, why not add some? Ravenswing 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have alerted to me to it, I will add some. The page was created as apart of a restructuring of the article on sheriffdoms, and I didn't get as far as I wanted with all of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't watch category pages so I missed the discussion of this category speed change request. Bits under the digital bridge, but had you considered changing the parent categories so they would be more likely grammatically correct? I'm finding it quite jarring. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jwy/John , and thanks for your msg. No, I didn't consider changing the many thousands of other template categories. Category:Country templates and its many sub-categories are deliberately non-grammatical, for simplicity. Many of the categories include in a HTML comment a standard note explaining the reason: For consistency, the name of this and similar categories use country names rather than adjectivals, as some country adjectivals are less than straightforward (see Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in the List of adjectival forms of place names. These categories exist to group pages which are of use only to editors rather than to readers, so there is no need to adopt the more grammatical form. This dates from long before I had anything to do with such categories, and it has always struck me as a handy way of simplifying maintenance for pages which are not "customer-facing". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I don't completely agree (for example, I occasionally use categories for navigation when I'm in non-editor mode). But my inner Grammar Nazi will get over it. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwy: when you are in non-editor mode, why would you be looking at template categories? The only reason I can see for navigating between templates (rather than between articles) is to edit the templates or apply them to an article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point of the _template_ categories... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spiderjerky, and thanks very much for doing those reverts. I think I have caught the rest.
This was an idea of a way to bridge the gap between those who want to retain the deleted categories on their userpages, and those doing category maintenance who want the redlinked usercats removed from Special:WantedCategories. My idea was that using hard redirects would turn the categories blue and remove them from the wanted list, without actually creating navigable categories. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories#A_possible_solution_for_zombie_categories.
However, if a bot is just going to change them, then the idea will break fast :( You are rigt that there is no point in either of us getting into an edit war with a bot, I'll go talk to the bot owner.
Thanks again for your help. But just one little point of disagreement. I am an admin, so I probably am more powerful than you (even tho that was not how adminship was intended to be); but I am not more important. Your work maintaining the category system is important, so please don't put yourself down.
@Spiderjerky: I followed up by talking to Russbot's owner at User talk:R'n'B#RussBot_and_hard_category_redirects, and Russ promptly came up with a simple solution: use {{Nobots}}. It turned out that there was a glitch in the bot which left it ignoring nobots, but Russ has now fixed it. So I hope that it has been all been sorted, and that we won't get the drama which would result from a bot editing the user pages. Thanks again for alerting me that this was happening. Without your prompt attention, my attempt at a win-win solution could have gotten very noisy! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I didn't know {{Nobots}} was a thing, so that's helpful. Thank you much! spiderjerky (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a number of categories started showing up on my report that tracks usages of nobots, which is a bit unfortunate. It'd be nice if RussBot could be made to avoid these without the sledgehammer that is {{nobots}}. I also note that the categories themselves are still functional, e.g. Category:Editors with a demented sense of humor still shows the two users who use that category. Anomie⚔ 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick first point: yes, the categories are kinda navigable. But only with the use of noredirect, as you did there. An editor who follows the link from the categ list at the bottom of a userpage gets redirected. A further step is needed to see the category listing.
I am sorry about the addition of these pages to yourlist. When Russ suggested {{nobots}}, I didn't consider that it might have any adverse effects. But of course I should have foreseen that since conscientious bot owners like yourself maintain multiple tracking lists, this was something likely to be tracked. And so it is.
I would be reluctant to ask either you or Russ to amend your bot code to cope specifically with this. Partly because I am unsure how durable this still-experimental-kludge will turn out to be, and partly because I am loathe to ask anyone to create the maintenance headaches which arise from hardcoding exceptions.
That means that >90% of this list is list is now redlink-workaround categories, which I regard as having swamped the tracker list.
I don't want a kukdge-fix for one maintenance headache to simply be displaced into another headache elsewhere. So How big a pain is the pollution of this list? Is it something which you or others monitor routinely to try to clear?
It's not really a pain at all, my concern is a little more philosophical that {{nobots}} shouldn't need to be a permanent part of many pages. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: I agree. This a kludge to allow a kludge to mitigate the damage caused by editors who intentionally create errors in the category system because they won't respect a consensus decision. It's fairly obvious to me where the real solution lies to that, but so far there isn't a consensus to put an end to all of the intentional error-creation. Ultimately it is a social problem. I don't want this to get in the way of your good work. So if you say that you want the nobots tags to go, then I will support you 100%, and I will take any steps needed to implement that. Just let me know if and when that's what you decide. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Your solution seems to have worked. Wanted categories is beginning to be usable.Rathfelder (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Rathfelder. I am glad that you feel it it has helped. But keep your fingers crossed, because my solution involves a few ugky kludges, and it is fragile. I am not sure that is a long-term solution, but hopefully it will last long enough to give everyone some breathing space to get on with work while something more durable is hammered out. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Not that I care either way, but the discussion caught my eye as I was closing others. – FayenaticLondon 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Fl, I took another look and have revised[4] my close to retain no consensus on the parent, but delete the subcat.
It's a hard call, because turnout was so poor, but since there were only 2 actual !voters and they both supported deleting the subcat, I think I shoukd have weighed the subcat as a consensus. Oh for the days when a CFD with "only" ten participants looked sparsely-attended compared with the rest of that day's log. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed!
I have no objection to the revised outcome, but a point on counting: I count participants who express opinions, rather than !voters – including the nominator. In this case all three participants agreed on deleting the subcat. I'd only exclude a nominator if they stated that they were disinterested; am I wrong on this? – FayenaticLondon 14:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fl: you're right. It doesn't necessarily need a specific !vote.
However, I don't weigh them in the same way. I don't attach much weight to unreasoned !votes, and similarly I weigh those who just express opinions with a little caution. There is a clear convention for how editors can specifically and clearly set out their support for a particular action, and if they choose not to do so, then their comments may be indicating that their support is clear ... but on the other hand, the comments may be more along the lines of "if you want to do something like this then here's some points to consider". So I don't have a hard-and-fast rule.
Similarly with the nominator. I think that the nominator's primary role is to set out a proposal on which the community decides, and the weight I attach to their support depends in part on the extent to which their rationale is policy-based and finds support. I have seen nominations which offer almost no rationale, or a rationale which doesn't support the proposed actions; and I have also seen nominations where the rationale is soundly rejected, but editors back the substance of the proposed action on other grounds. So again, no hard-and-fast rule.
Does that make sense?
In the case of the sub-cat here, I was a bit rushed and made an over-hasty judgement without enough weighing. Thanks for persuading me to look again. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all makes sense – thanks.
I fully understand about haste/speed, and am grateful for your efforts to clear the recent backlog. Thanks for being willing to revise your close. – FayenaticLondon 23:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am dealing with a GA nom. When that is done, I am gone. Well done. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: I would be sorry to see you go, but that has to be your decision. However, before you decide that's a reason to go, take a look at the page that it redirects to, to see why I did it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI thatI have gone ahead and closed the RM to Electoral system. I had pinged you on my talk page, but I don't think it went through because I forgot to sign it again when I fixed the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I'm so glad it was closed. The nominator had poured so much unfocused text into it that assessing it all was a big job. Congratulations for taking on! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like creating categories in subjects about which I know nothing. Especially if there is not a corresponding article. Lots of sport article seem to have red categories created by template in a rather unhelpful way. Rathfelder (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: that's a good principle. It is not a good idea to blindly create categories. But nor is it a great idea to blindly remove them just cos you don't know what it's all about. If it's not your field, and you don't feel inclined to do the research, wouldn't it be better to just leave the redlink in place? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Sometimes my removal of a red link prompts somebody to resurrect it and turn it blue. And I do create categories where it is fairly obviously needed - and in particular if there is more than one entry in it. But there are so many red categories it seems more helpful to prune some of them. In particular I have been removing red categories of the form "Icelandic expatriates in Tahiti", and "Icelandic people of Tahitian descent" which are almost entirely generated by articles about footballers. It's clear that if we generate all the possible categories of that kind there would be 40000 of each, and they don't seem very defining. What do you think? Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you remove all previous edits and remove everything about fundraising week so that it no longer comes under COI in your eyes. Please then remove the tags you have on the page. I will not add anything else to this page, I would rather just not have the COI merely because of a sentence change.
That's not how it works, Alex.Laybourne. Your employers were quite wrong to push you to use en.wp in this way, and if you desist then they may push others in the same way. So the tags should stay as a warning to editors that this article needs to be watched. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken to my colleagues about this and they are now fully aware of what you have mentioned. Please note the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. Im sure you can understand that we were trying to tell people that Third sector have an annual fundraising week as well as a magazine and nothing more. Its annoying as It was never meant to come across as promotional which was what I was trying to explain to the other editor. I even said can you look at this copy and change it in a way that isn't seen as promotional too which he said no. The only reason for the back and forth was because the current source in regards to section I edited links through to a sponsor that is no long part of the event and wanted to remove that and try and link it somewhere else. We were never trying to promote which is why I am asking for the tags to be removed and the old copy to be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne (talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.Laybourne, please drop that stuff about the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. That's straightforward promotion of your event, and what you say about wanting to change the article because you had a new sponsor massively reinforces your promotional intent. I don't know what makes you think that it is any part of the role of an neutral pint-of-view encyclopedia to assist your employer's sponsorship deals, but you are seriously mistaken about that.
Near the top it summarises its main points in big letters. The last of those points is:
Respect the volunteer community's time and avoid making protracted or repeated requests.
Before I intervened, you had rejected the advice of another editor, and edit warred. You posted in response to my note on your talk page, and I replied promptly.
You have had my answer, and nothing you have written persuades me to change it. Please respect that. I think you have had your fair share of my time, which — unlike your employer's time — is unpaid.
If you are not satisfied with my answer, please feel free to raise a complaint at WP:ANI, where other administrators will review my actions. If you do, please do try to remember that you are talking to the volunteer editors of an an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BrownHairedGirl.
I have respected your decision and was merely asking for the page to be reset to the original version before this issue arose. There is no need to be extremely defensive and aggressive in your response. Before you 'intervened' I was actually coming on to let the other editor know that his final amendment was fine and just wanted to add one word. I don't believe you had to intervene at all. I wish you well in the future.
Thank you for your great sense of humour making me smile, first time that's happened since I've got re-involved in this. Got a good chuckle out of it - and you're not wrong either. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PageantUpdater: Thanks! A bit of a smile eases some of the tedium of sorting this stuff out. I am saddened by this saga. The editor concerned is prolific and well-meaning, but periodically seems to experience huge lapses of judgement in how to approach this sort of question. Substantively, I think that there is a good case for the view that the topic-specific notability guidelines have become both far to numerous and far too prescriptive, leading to the creation of far too many articles which will never never progress beyond glorified list entries. But the way to pursue that view is by centralised discussion of the guidelines, rather than flooding AFD with nominations which are going fail under the current guidance. And this particular editor doesn't seem to do well at putting together the sort of case that it is needed for a broader discussion, and also tends to get too heated in such discussions. So I think that they retreat to these AFD fests as the only mechanism which they feel comfortable using. This sort of thing is easily enough dealt with in face-to-face situations, but I'm not sure how those solutions can be translated into an online environment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. JPL seems to believe I get some sort of perverse pleasure out of this but that's far from the case, I'd much rather everything had settled down after the discussion in September but alas it wasn't to be the case. I wish there was more discussion on the ANI about him inflaming the situation by the blanking of attempts to discuss with him on his talk page, even without the "rubbish" edit summary I still find it quite rude and something that hasn't fully been addressed. Can you give me some idea of how long the discussion stays open before a decision is made on the proposal? There are a few oppose votes but it looks like the support votes do outnumber them. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"And WP:TROUT the IP for an unfounded complaint."[edit]
It wasn't unfounded, and I would bet my bottom dollar that you didn't examine what they said. Of course, who's gonna side with a lowly IP editor? Nobody, ever. User:Nfitz has been on Wikipedia for over 11 years. Is there no obligation to treat newbies better? I mean, I'd cite WP:BITE here, but as the AfD proves, WP policies are a joke and nobody gives a damn about them. Even admins. Thanks for your...er, contribution.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment[5] has nothing to do with you being an IP, and everything to do with your conduct in a discussion which I both read from top to to bottom and then sequentially read each diff of the whole discussion.
Do you seriously have over 500k edits? I'm like a virgin compared to you. How do you stand it? :) Drmies (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Haha! I think it's over 600,000 now. I am still adjusting to the stigma of losing my virginity ;) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess that was an inappropriate metaphor, haha. Dang girl, you catching up with Koavf! Anyway, I'm pleased you're still around. I'm sure the comments by the above...er, editor are not representative of the editing corps here. Laterz! Drmies (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies no probs about the metaphor. I know it was meant as a joke, and a joke about you, so I had no grounds to take offence. Editing here is like the rest of life: there's always some people I don't get along with, and some people who don't get along with me. The IP wants to be in the latter group, and that's their choice. Anyway, good to see you still around too. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well over 600,000 - see item 14 on this list (updated daily by bot). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Hi @Phatblackmama (and great username BTW!). Thanks for your message.
I have left a note at User talk:BeenAroundAWhile, which I hope will be heeded. But given the long history of this tendentious editing, I have some doubts, esp since @John from Idegon pointed out that there has already been an RFC on the matter.
Copes with both yyyy-yy seasons and single yyyy years (the latter being like the navigation bit of {{Year by category}} without having to enter any year parameters)
{{Clubseasoncat}} is a wrapper for navseasoncats that also adds the categories found on eg Category:Australian soccer clubs 2014–15 season or Category:Republic of Ireland football clubs 2015 season. Again it can cope with seasons and single years, and the different category structure found in the Aussie hierarchy. I've added it to Algeria, Australia and Cape Verde (!) so far and it seems to work. But I'd regard both of them as being on probation for the next few days - I'd encourage you to use them in the meantime but only when you can see the result, they're not ready to be banged out in bulk by AWB (although that's obviously the whole reason for making the effort for them to be intelligent enough to not need parameters, it's a real pain doing bulk {{Year by category}} edits). I've spent way too much time here lately, I really need to get back to real life for a bit but at some point I may tweak navseasoncats a bit more, I'm not entirely happy with how it looks yet. What do you think? I didn't want to go too wide and the idea of doing three seasons either side was that it took up about as much room as ten years. One option I've seen somewhere which I quite like is something like -10•-3•-2•-1•+1•+2+•+3•+10. I'm also debating whether to include the option for a header. And I've just had the thought that it shouldn't be too hard to get it working with decades - in fact it semi-works now, it gives links to individual years as eg 1990s in... gets interpreted as 1990 in... In the long term - I definitely feel the need for a navcenturycats, but that will have to wait for a while! Le Deluge (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is kinda fun. I've got decades working properly (with a cute little twist) - now you can throw Navseasoncats at just about any category that has a year in it (after 999AD...) - it's going to need a new name! So anything from Category:1990s in Ghana to Category:Lists of 1990s films and Category:Novels set in the 1990s can all now have navigation without needing to mess about with parameters. Again you start bumping into the territory of other templates like {{DecadeCategoryNav}}, which maybe have some lessons on presentation, I'm not sure. In a way I don't see them as "competition" - this is more about something that can be easily thrown at potentially thousands of categories really easily with AWB, but people are free to manually add something prettier if they want. Having now done Clubseasoncat, I've now got the basic mechanics for many more wrapper-type templates that could potentially do a bit of customisation of Navseasoncats and add custom categories for any hierarchy that is big enough and predictable enough for it to be worth doing.Le Deluge (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Deluge Wow!!! That is brilliant. It seems to be pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of by-year/season/decade categories. I think it will be a replacement for hundreds of other templates. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re this change Instead of changing all the talk pages, what I think we need to do is change the template to not generate the category card, which I don't think is of much use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 I am only aware of one such category being created, but feel free to change the template if you want to. However, it may be possible to use different parameters for the existing template, or create the category as part of whatever series it supposed to be part of. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the category. All the good/featured topics have these categories. The red link category only appeared when the article was promoted to Featured Status a few weeks ago. There are as yet no other articles in the Good Topic that are featured. The owner category already exists. I have checked it against other good topics and verified that this is the case. You may find other instances of this; I recommend following the same procedure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl, there was this discussion on Talk:Im Yoon-ah#Requested move 10 February 2017, it was going on for three weeks long, and the discussion was clearly heading towards no consensus, so TonyBallioni has closed this discussion and gave a very reasonable comment for the close. But it has been reverted by a user arguing that it is still going on. However, based on all the points stated throughout the discussion, there is definitely no consensus. Please inform me whether it was the right behavior for the revert and whether the discussion should still go on. I have reverted a couple of times and don't want to revert further to violate the rules. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMNAC is clear that the closure by @TonyBallioni stands. So as a procedural step, I have reinstated the closure[6], and left a note[7] reminding editors that WP:Move review is available.
The decision by @Sawol to revert the closure[8] was clearly in breach of WP:RMNAC, and their subsequent edit-warring[9][10] against its reinstatement was a further wrong. I trust that Sawol will now let the closure stand, and open a WP:Move review if they wish to challenge the closure. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pings, here BrownHairedGirl. I am happy to discuss the close with any party on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the same moment you reverted my reverted edit, I was saving the missing category page. Now, do you think it's possible to categorize that language Template better? Thank you, --Gloria (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Wikipedian categories created to be humorus or whimsical"[edit]
Please explain why you felt that moving the "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" category to a different name was out of process? Is there a policy that says that categories may only be renamed after a discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Around about the time that category moving became possible (May 2014), there was a thread or two at one of the admin noticeboards and/or village pumps, the outcome of which was that bold category moves were not to be encouraged, since a lot of ancillary work is necessary. Each page in the category must be amended to use the new cat name, because categorisation does not follow redirects and so WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply either. Accordingly it was recommended that all cat renames should be preceded by either a WP:CFD/S or a full WP:CFD. But I don't think that it was written down in policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you for the replies. As Redrose64 points out, the advice at WP:BOLD is non-binding guidance, a sort of "best practices" rather than formal policy. BrownHairedGirl, I do take your point as a good one, that it's more helpful to have a discussion before moving a category instead of doing it boldly, and I will remember that going forward. At the same time, when you undid my change, your edit summary described what I had done as "out of process", which I do not really think it was. (Less-than-ideal process, but not contrary to policy.) I'll point out that "idiosyncratic" can be construed as pejorative towards those editors whose userpages have such categories, and I wanted to use a more AGF category name, something that I will raise again in discussion. Following the link at WP:User categories, I discovered the RfCs on its talkpage, and have commented there. But what I see there tells me that these issues are currently under active discussion, without yet having reached a consensus. (Of course, I do indeed understand that, until a new consensus arises, the existing deprecation of non-serious user categories remains the existing practice. And I do understand and am sympathetic to the issue of red links getting in the way of category maintenance.) But with those RfCs still ongoing, perhaps it's too soon to be taking action in changing user categories. I just discovered what has been going on, and I bet a lot of other editors don't yet know about it yet, and there may well be some strongly negative reactions to changes on user pages as they occur. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you don't mind me asking but I am generally unfamiliar with the process for ANI closures and there's nothing on the page there to enlighten me. Your proposal is currently sitting at 19-7 support and has been discussed at length for a week now, it's currently the oldest remaining discussion at ANI. How much longer would you expect it to remain open before a decision is made? Also, am I right in assuming the closing admin will consider it on the merits and not the !Votes? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a formal process for closing WP:ANI discussions. Unlike RM or XfD, it's left kinda fluid and flexible.
So some discussions are closed within hours, while others remain open for many days. Some never get formally closed, and just drift off into the archives. When a thread floats to the top of ANI, it is more likely to be formally closed, but that is not guaranteed.
If an admin looks at the discussion and sees a consensus forming in a direction which they think is inappropriate, or of they see problems in the nature of that consensus, then they are entitled to not close it. I think that is what is happening here, and after watching the turns in the discussion, I can see why. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the response, I appreciate it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get a little clarity on what you mean by "problem with the nature of the consensus"? pbp 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the situations where I would hesitate to close an ANI discussion include:
Cases where a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS contradicts policy. As an extreme example, there have been cases where aggressive sexual swearing has been endorsed by ANI commentators, in clear contravention of WP:CIVIL. I was to close that sort of discussion, it would have to be as "regardless of the numbers here, you don't get to override policy" ... but in those cases I knew that if I did that, the aggression would then be turned against me. Life is too short to get involved.
Where the balance of the discussion seems to be changing, with later comments taking a different perspective to the earlier ones. That may indicate canvassing, or it may indicate a genuine change of tone as discussion broadens out beyond the initial partisans. Much work involved in interpreting that, and any closure is likely to be hotly contested. The wise admin ventures there only when equipped with a flame-proof suit.
When the discussion reveals one side to be much less measured than first appeared.
That's just a sample of the flavours which can make admins hesitate. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words we probably haven't done ourselves any favours and should have just unfollowed the page for a while instead of arguing every single oppose vote that didn't appear to make much sense to my mind. Sigh. I think I already knew that :/. Appreciate the clarifications BrownHairedgirl. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I think that these could be speedied per WP:C2C. Why don't you give it a go, and link to the Feb 14 CFD as part of your speedy rationale? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do this correctly. The message displayed by {{db-xfd|fullvotepage=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Category:Kazakh_ambassador}} says that "...a consensus to delete this page has been reached at a...", but all these categories weren't discussed on that page:) It's only a precedent. XXN, 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have found a way of turning the others blue without fully restoring them, and that has removed mountains of crud from Special:WantedCategories. If these are all that remains, then we toilers at the redlink coalface have much to celebrate about our task being eased. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your accommodating this one relic. Just so you know, if there really had been no way to accommodate all the other fun categories without substantively complexifying serious project work, I certainly would have supported eliminating them. EEng 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I recently said above, I do not believe that the community consensus has been settled about the approach used, and I expect that there will be further discussion. But, that said, I too am happy to see solutions that make life easier for editors inside or outside the coalface. We just need to make sure that we are respecting everyone else too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I think a lot of stuff remains unsettled on this, and I agree that there will need to be further discussion. Some elements of a solution are starting to emerge, but it remains fragile. For example, Anomie raised some concerns above (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Problems_for_AnomieBOT about the use of {{nobots}}. Some editors such as EEng are very constructive, but while some other editors seem to have backed off (at least for now) their hardline view that they are entitled to create redlinks in their own userspace without regard to the consequences elsewhere, others are still entrenched. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that we are discussing these things here, thanks. Ironically, it was me who put nobots on EEng's userpage and talkpage. I'd describe myself as sort of entrenced in terms of wanting to find ways to continue to allow good-faith (ie, not attack) silly categories in userspace, but on the other hand, I'm very friendly to finding ways to make the redlink issues easier. I'll give you now a sort of preview of the issues that I, personally, am considering raising, in case it helps to think about the issues. First, I might raise a CfD about "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" to rename it to something more AGF, maybe "Unserious user categories". Even if the word "idiosyncratic" was intended to be neutral, it can be read as slightly pejorative. Imagine if I were to go and place the "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" category on the user page of an editor with whom I was having a content dispute (purely hypothetical, of course). It would be quite reasonable to interpret that as an NPA violation.
The other issue I have is about the way that the "Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus" category is constructed. Frankly, I think it should be deleted. The use of hard redirects actually violates WP:CATRED and WP:R#CATEGORY. I'd be happy to IAR about that, except that it means that if one clicks on a category name, one is taken to the "retain on userpages" parent category and has to go from there via the "redirected from" link, in order to see the actual category page, and that's needlessly complicated. If, instead, we have a renamed version of "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" as a container category, and make a strict rule that unserious categories must be subcategories of that, and not be in any other category, those categories will be "contained" and will not complicate other category trees. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I see where you are coming from about the term idiosyncratic. However, please remember that those categories were created to fill in redlinks, which themselves existed because some editors simply ignored long-standing categorisation guidelines. It's not easy to AGF when that's the underlying issue.
A CFR might be good idea at some point, but right now the guideline remains that such categories should be deleted. So if you do a CFR before the RFC is closed, or if the RFC closes without a consensus to change the guidelines, then the likely outcome of the CFR would be to delete Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and all its subcats, which takes us back to square one with lottsa drama. Better, I think, to leave it be for now and not try to preempt the RFC outcome.
I quite agree that "Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus" is problematic in many ways, and have repeatedly said so. But so long as we tolerate editors refusing to accept a CFD consensus, then it seems to me that the choices are:
An ugly kludge like this
Leaving the redlinks in place to screw up maintenance
Simply re-creating the categories in direct contravention of the consensus decision at CFD
Maybe a change in the boundaries of WP:USERCAT would reduce the scale of the problem. But wherever we draw the line, some editors will cross it, and some categories will be deleted. So we will still be faced with the same issue of editors who disregard consensus decisions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I agree with a lot of what you said, and in particular, that I'm not going to start any action until the consensus in the current RfCs has been determined. And I remain very friendly to helping with the problem of redlinked categories – I don't want to do anything that would create problems there. But about idiosyncratic, I would ask you to consider that your characterization of editors with redlinked categories is a bit harsh. Most of us who are not experts in categories are unaware of the problem with crowding the redlink list, unless someone tells us about it, but it's not like we intend to add to the problem. We just don't know about it, while also finding some lighthearted categories to be helpful in much the same ways that userboxes can be helpful. We don't perceive it as ignoring CfD consensus, because we don't recreate the category. And I do mean "we". When you refer to editors with red categories, that includes a lot of experienced and good faith users, and I'm one of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you think I'm just a WP:BADGER, but I like to think of myself as more of a hedgehog. As a fox (and a good one) yourself, I see why that rubs you the wrong way.
Electoral system is still a mess. I want to help improve it. I'm sure that's your goal too. I don't think that either of us being adversarial with each other helps that goal. Homunq (࿓) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you write help contribute to alot of female fighter articles. Do you wanna help create records for some female kickboxers because I have noticed alot of female kickboxers and boxers don't have fighter inbox of who they have fought luckily the problem is not as pronouced in female MMA articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwanyewest: no thanks. All I have ever done with kickboxers is to categorise them. I have no interest in making any other contribution to those articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I deleted the one which has been recently created, and not the one which has been around since 2008. Clubs change names (particularly foreign ones, when someone re-translates or re-interprets), and when editors move them they don't move the related categories. That is why C2D of WP:CFDS exists... GiantSnowman 19:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Whatever; my concern is to remove the redlink, and I will continue to create categories which match the article name. Please don't come and moan at me for not knowing that FK really means KF.
Since you reckon I am doing such a bad job, and you know more about football, why don't you go through all the scores of redlinked footballer categories which clog up Special:WantedCategories and do it the way you like?
Or would you prefer that I just remove the redlinked categories from the articles? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest removing the red linked categories tbh; they're probably not notable clubs/categories, and if they are they will be added in due course. GiantSnowman 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I will into read all your comments above the bit I seem to have missed: thank you BHG for trying to clean up all hundreds of red-linked footballer categories, and sorry that all I did to help was to moan about your failure to perfectly replicate the existing errors in a mess which I couldn't be bothered to tackle myself.
I suggest you re-read your messages and offer an apology. Your attitude here stinks, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 20:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I apologise sincerely for pointing out to you your rudeness and unhelpfulness. I should of course have simply ignored you until you took a more constructive approach. That is what i will now do, so please do not post here again until you change your tune. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BrownHairedGirl... As you mentioned on the West Hills, Los Angeles talk page that you would be seeking enforcement regarding BeenAroundAwhile... I just wanted to point out that this user is ignoring community input across many pages, not just at West Hills. With just a quick look back over the past few months -- Here are the Los Angeles neighborhoods where he has re-edited the lead section multiple times to insert data from the LA Times Mapping Project regarding income, ethnicity, marriage rates, and/or population density. Each time this information was removed, he re-inserted it, ignoring the obvious objections of other editors, earlier Talk Page discussions, and the RFC you referenced.
Despite pushback, it seems that his goal is to re-write every lead so that they read like the one he wrote for South Park, Los Angeles.
South Park is a 1.41-square-mile. low-income neighborhood in South Los Angeles, California. It is notable for its dense concentration of residents, their youthful age range, their high ratio of single parents, their low rate of marriage and their low median household income. South Park is third on the list of Los Angeles city neighborhoods where adults over age 25 failed to finish high school—69.4%. The district has three middle and four elementary schools.[1][2]
References
^[1] "South Park," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
^[2] "Less Than High School," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
I would like to revise a number of these neighborhood leads (I find the above one particularly offensive), but based on his past performance, I do not expect him to go quietly into the night. I therefore welcome any enforcement you can bring. Phatblackmama (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:BrownHairedGirl. We've not talked to each officially, so hello and how are you? I have been editing 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 Crash and I was coming up against some things which are not within my normal range (so please forgive my ignorance). Does Ireland favour kilometres over mileage? I managed to find some parameters (IE use Irish English, etc) but I am sticking on this one. Presumably the EU has had an effect? Again, many, many apologies for my ignorance, but hopefully your answer will enlighten and educate me. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats for making a great start on the article, and no need to apologise at all for asking for guidance.
For general guidance on style in Irish articles, see WP:IMOS. Unfortunately, i's not v helpful on some areas, and gives no guidance on miles/km. However, Ireland has used km for road distances for about 15 years, as you can see in articles such as N4 road (Ireland). So I would suggest using km, with a conversion to miles.
Thank you - it does help. The WP:IMOS is a good start and something I couldn't find! The redlink must be because I accidentally capped the word crash - D'oh!. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had been working on novels categories, and found that several of them had been emptied by you without explanation, so I reverted those to create the categs. And then I noticed several other cases where a categ had been removed where an alternative was available, and set to work on those too. In that case of Øyvind Asbjørnsen, I was lazy and didn't check the article, so thanks for fixing that ... but note the number of others where such as Marte Michelet where removal was the wrong option. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've emptied any that existed. Do you think we need a category of novels by X for every author - even if they've only got one notable book?Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RathfelderA category for each author is what we do with albums. So why not written works?
Well I did wonder why there wasn't a category for him. But there are even more authors than there are recorded artists.Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the first time that it has fallen below the 5,000-category maximum of Special:WantedCategories ... just as @Le Deluge predicted[14] it would be.
Most of all congrats to you for shouldering so much of the work - as I said elsewhere it was a really gnarly backlog that went back to at least 2005 and must have been over 15k when you started on it. At least my formulas seem to work, which is always nice - the only slight caveat is that over the last 12 days the apparent additions are somewhere around 137/day although it really varies - this last batch was the worst at 215/day but the one before that was only 54/day. At least we got it under 5k before I've got to go on the road again but I'm afraid I have to leave you to it now, my Wiki time is going to be pretty limited for the next month and in any case I am probably more use sorting out cat nav templates as per my roadmap. Le Deluge (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. And thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I can now run through 500 categories in alphabetical order and not find one red link!Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, another question for you. What's the protocol on reverting a page move? Tobyjamesaus moved the page Foreign Affairs (album) to Foreign Affairs (Tom Waits album) and turned the original page into a redirect to the Foreign Affairs disambiguation page. This really seems needless, as the only other page for an album called Foreign Affairs is itself a redirect to the discography page for the artist (by someone I had not heretofore heard of). My understanding is that disambiguation is only necessary if there's a good chance of confusion between titles and neither can claim to be the primary topic. In a case where one title doesn't even warrant an article, it seems the long-standing article can claim to be primary. Does that makes sense? If so, how to disentangle this? This is why I rarely get involved in page moves – they are better left to people who know what they're doing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OldJacobite, how's it going--I'm also trying hard to forget it's the 271st anniversary of the end of the campaign. Yes, page moves are a drag and ideally your editor would have discussed this. In this particular case it does seem a bit needless, though it's mitigated (they may not have known) that the other album of the same name went gold, so it's likely notable. We could write that article up and give your opponent a reason, after the fact, for the move. But yes, I agree with you. And the only way to undo it is to undo every individual step. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OMG the guitar solo two minutes in--everything about this spells 1980s: some sort of Frankenstrat, with some distortion and palm muting thrown in. It's not bad, actually, though "slick as silk", as I saw in one reference, is very true. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys - re the Foreign Affairs move - I had started to create the Sharon O'Neill album (of the same name) - when I got called out to do something. Doing it now. Sharon O'Neill is a very well known artist in Australia and New Zealand and the album was certified gold. I am creating that now. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and you dropped an entire paragraph in the process. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I hold to the school of thought that once we disambiguate, we should disambiguate fully. So if we have coverage of another album of the same name, that's ambiguous -- and the fact that the other album doesn't have a standalone article is irrelevant.
Secondly, "Foreign Affairs" is easily confused with "Foreign Affair", and there are several entries under that title. I have never been persuaded that distinction between single and plural forms is a good way to disambiguate.
Can you please stop reverting my edits when I am trying to tidy up basketball categories. It is incredibly annoying and your edits are not very helpful and just making more work. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, I have not reverted any of your edits. Please can you clarify what you are talking about? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fairly simple. I am cleaning up a huge backlog in Special:WantedCategories, and that page contained redlinked categories, which per WP:REDNOT are an error to be fixed.
I have not taken a view on whether those relinked categories should exist, but right now they don't exist. Feel free to restore the categorisation if and when the categs exist. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the middle of trying to create them and you have just reverted them again. As I said this incredibly annoying. You are removing categories before I have had chance to create them. Please stop and do something more constructive. Try helping and not hindering. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Djln, you seem to have read the point I made above, that I am removing non-existent categs which are listed in Special:WantedCategories. When you create them, they will be off my radar. Please do something constructive, and try helping that cleanup, rather than hindering it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is that give me an opportunity to create the categories before you delete them. You are too quick off the mark to remove red linked categories without looking into to it. Maybe you could actually help create them. That would be more helpful then what your doing now. talkDjln (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Djln, two months ago there were about 30,000 redlinked categories in Special:WantedCategories, some of them dating back to about 2005. Two months of near full-time work has reduced that tally to just over 3,000. Sometimes I create a redlinked category, sometimes I remove it, and sometimes I replace it with another actually-existing category. All I am asking of you is that if you want to place a page in a new category, then create the category promptly. Please don't leave it is a redlink. I have no intention of spending time trying to figure out which countries have basketball-by-season categs, or of finding the format for each one. You are the one who thinks they are a good idea, so if you want to place a page in the categ, then create it promptly. Not complicated, is it? Your current approach of creating swathes of redlinked categs is unhelpful, and un-needed. Please do try to be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very mature behaviour !!! Completely unhelpful attitude. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Djln, I am disappointed that you think it is immature to be asked not to create errors in the category system. Take a cup of tea or something, and have a rethink when you feel better. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safe the patronising tone for somebody else please. I appreciate redlinked cats are an issue. I have removed many myself when I come across them but I am not "creating swathes of redlinked categs". You are being ridiculous in the extreme. I'll go have a cup of tea and I recommend you go have your medication. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Djln, if you don't like a patronising tone being directed at you, then don't direct it at me. Simple. Now stay off my talk page until you grow up a bit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
How about giving Djln a few more minutes to actually create the categories they're obviously working on? They're clearly doing the right thing and cleaning up these cats appropriately, and there's no need to fix this issue within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, I didn't pounce on these things within minutes; they were in this morning's Special:WantedCategories, where they appear as errors, and like all such errors they appear with with no indication that the editor(s) who had generated these redlinks had any intention of fixing them. If Djln is actively creating them, then fine. However, Djln came here with a bad faith accusation, which is not a good start. My first substantive reply to Djln was Feel free to restore the categorisation if and when the categs exist. However, Djln has filled up this section with a lot of moaning a simple request to either create them, or leave the alternatives in place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Armenian people of Czech descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq (࿓) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hurling competitions in County Derry[edit]
Hi there. I just wanted to drop a query on the new category you created at Category:Hurling competitions in County Derry. This has been set up as a geographic categorization, not a GAA categorization and as you know we've deleted categories in the past in County Derry in favour of County Londonderry. I wanted to raise the issue with you instead of just renaming it as I know you've been involved in those discussions in the past. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have now threatened me that you will "seek sanctions without further warning" if I don't drop the discussion at Talk:Electoral system. As you know, I have already said that I would drop it if told to do so by a neutral third party, and have repeatedly asked both you and @Number 57: to start an RfC on this matter to get the attention of such neutral third parties.
Clearly, this needs to be resolved, and it also would seem to be clear that the two of us are not going to listen to each other on this so third parties will be needed. I would be happy to post in the forum of your choice, whether it be RfC or (as you put it) a "drama" board. I would also be happy if you were to make such a post. I do not believe that it would be fair of you to phrase that post as simply a problem with me, but rather as a disagreement between the two of us. Obviously, you believe that I am in the wrong here, but you have made that more than clear on the talk page, so any third party coming to look at the matter will be able to see your point of view; the notice itself should not be pre-judging the matter.
So, something like "There is a dispute between BrownHairedGirl and Homunq on Talk:Electoral system. Homunq had started an RM proposing the article be moved from Voting system to Voting method; after the RM was resolved moving the article to Electoral system instead, Homunq has continued to discuss the idea of putting some of the article's content at voting method or a similar title, while BrownHairedGirl believes that Homunq needs to drop the stick. Both sides of this debate have support from others on the talk page."
But yes, it's time for the two of us to stop arguing at each other, and to bring in a third party or parties. I'd be happy if that were @TonyBallioni:; or if you posted something like the above to the forum of your choice; or if you told me to do so. Homunq (࿓) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if it were not me. I think that by closing the RM I am too involved in the situation to truly be a third party. I think BHG was hinting at WP:ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Sorry for the trouble, Tony. As for ANI, I suspected the same thing, but I didn't want to assume I knew what BHG meant.
BHG: ANI would not be my first choice of venue, but I'd be OK with it. If it does go there, I trust that whoever resolved it would be an admin who is not one of those with whom you work most closely. Homunq (࿓) 14:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Homunq, my concern here is not that we disagree, but with the fact that even though you know that there is no consensus for your proposal, you persist in raising it again and again and again and again and again and again, with minor variations, at great length. My patience is utterly exhausted with your endless pushing of a proposal for you know that there is no consensus. AS you know, when there is no consensus, the status quo stays by default. Your conduct here is one of the most severe cases I have sever seen on en.wp of an attrition strategy, where you repeatedly push a proposal (or variants thereof) for which know there is no consensus, in the hope of wearing other editors down until they either concede, or give up and edit elsewhere. If I was not involved, then I would have no hesitation in blocking you right now for this protracted, tendentious editing. That's why I was pointing towards WP:ANI. You are of course free to start an RFC if you want to, but given your protracted history of bludgeoning discussions with extraordinary verbosity, and of repeatedly bringing back variants of a proposal, I see absolutely no reason at all to have a glimmer of faith that it would amount to anything other phase in your campaigning, to be rapidly followed by yet more campaigning. User:VoteFair has already suggested that we proceed by implementing the agreement to move the comparison table to a new page. That's a very sensible one-step-at-a-time approach, so Why not do that, and then review the resulting article? TonyBallioni did great work in closing the RM discussion, but it's unfair to keep dragging Tony back as if they were some sort of guardian of the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have said most of that before. I heard you, and I do not agree. You know that. I will respect a third party opinion. Where would you like to take this? Though I've previously suggested RFC, at this point, your issue with me seems to be personal / behavior-related, not content-related, so perhaps that's not the best forum. So at this point I'd choose DRN, ANI, or RFC in that order. You say you don't trust me not to be verbose if this goes to such a forum, but actually I think that both of us have already laid out our points at more than enough length, and that we wouldn't have to say any more for somebody to look at this (except to respond to any specific questions that person might have). So again: would you like to bring this to such a forum, or shall I, and if so, which forum would you prefer?
There are a couple of things you say just above that are new. First, again, I'm sorry to TonyBallioni. I named him as an example of somebody I consider neutral and whose word I would respect, but now that he has said he doesn't want to take that role, obviously I won't bug him. Second, you suggest that the comparison portion of the article should be split off now. I have no problem with that; though I think that the comparison portion may eventually find another home, there's nothing wrong with putting it into its own article now. Homunq (࿓) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homunq, I get that you don't agree. But I have been very clear already that you need to either back off and slow down and stop bludgeoning and attrition-warring, or this goes to ANI. We have agreement to split out one section. Let's just do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ANI is where you think this should go. Not my first choice, but fine. Would you like to post the notice there, or shall I? If it's you, please keep whatever notice you post there obviously neutral. I realize you think that I am obviously in the wrong here, but if you are correct, it should be easy for whoever looks at this to see that, even with a neutral notice.
If you're reluctant to bug ANI with this, I'd be happy with any other solution where the talk page discussion there is not interrupted by your entreaties to me. For instance, we could agree on a single neutral third party to take this to. But you telling me what I need to do is not working from anybody's perspective, so we need to change that dynamic, not just repeat it. Homunq (࿓) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth, such as ANI is where you think this should go. ON the contrary, I said that ANI is the venue unless you either back off and slow down and stop bludgeoning and attrition-warring. I take your comment as a statement of intent to continue with bludgeoning and attrition-warring.
you have now managed to aggravate me further by your repeated attempts to miscast this as a personal dispute between us two. You know perfectly well that the reality is that several other editors have asked you to desist from repeating variants of the same proposal and from bludgeoning the discussion ... and given your continued pushing of the same proposal, your complaint that you get the same request to stop the disruption is thoroughly disingenuous. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to put words in your mouth, so I am sorry. My purpose in being here on your talk page, which I reiterate for the 5th consecutive time, is to find a mutually-agreeable way to bring in a neutral third party or parties. I believe that this dispute will probably not end until such a third party is involved, and that it will end agreeably soon after they are. Each successive back-and-forth we go through before we can agree on a person or forum is just one more thing that person will have to read (or at least skim).
I am also sorry to have given you the impression I think this is nothing more than a personal dispute between the two of us. Obviously, it involves more than that; for instance, our different views about what is good for the article in question, about what is appropriate behavior on WP, about how to interpret each other's behavior in that light, and about how much other editors agree with our main points. But all of those are disputed issues. In posting a notice to bring in third parties, we should focus on what is undisputed; and that is the fact that we have a disagreement, and that discussing it between the two of us does not seem to be resolving it.
I'm not going to fill a page with "please", but we need to take this elsewhere. If not ANI, where? Do you want to do it or shall I? Homunq (࿓) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you just want me to shut up about "voting method". I would like you to focus your comments on article content, not my behavior.
I think there were issues about "voting method" that were not resolved by the RM. You think that my behavior is counterproductive and deserves comment.
Both of us believe these things in good faith, in my view. Still, until one of us changes our behavior, the talk page will continue to be derailed. In your view, this will be by my not dropping the stick; in my view, this will be by your refusal to engage on the substance and insistence on critiquing my form. (I think that if instead of focusing on content, I were to try to defend my actions, the derailing would only get worse, and there is very little chance I'd change your mind.)
Since I believe this is in good faith on both sides, I think that this will be relatively easy to resolve with some mediation. It would be better if we could agree on the forum beforehand. If you'd rather not discuss that matter (understandably, from your perspective; after all, my very desire to discuss it can be seen as part of the allegedly problematic behavior) then I will bring it up on DRN tomorrow. Homunq (࿓) 19:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homunq, you ask me to focus your comments on article content. The point which I have made to you repeatedly that we have had the discussion on splitting out "voting method", both at RM and afterwards, but insisting in pushing it again and again and again and again and again and again and again. I am keen to focus on content, but that is prevented by your attrition strategy of raising the same proposal (or variants thereof) until other editors give up, go away, or lose the will to live and fade off into the ether. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully: you have asked me not to put words in your mouth. I ask you to extend me the same courtesy. There is no chance that Number 57 will just give up and go away and leave me to do whatever I want. Yet they are able to engage on content, and I am happy to engage on the same basis, with no hope that they will fade off into the ether. You, on the other hand, have focused all your comments since the RM on my behavior. So who's hoping to convince someone to give up and go away, here? Homunq (࿓) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homunq, that's so thoroughly disingenuous that I really doubt it is said in good faith:
as you well know, User:Number 57 has also asked you to stop pushing the same proposal.
I am not asking you to go away. I am asking you to work on the areas where there is agreement, such as splitting out the comparison, and on any oyther issues ... just to leave off flogging that dead horse. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We were working on those issues. In the process of working on those issues, I mentioned something you feel is off limits. And you came in to (in my view) derail the productive discussion with a page of "please". I respect your tireless work as an admin. But I do not respect your authority in this matter. Saying again what things you think I shouldn't be allowed to talk about is not helping the discussion. I've repeatedly said that I will shut up about this matter if the consensus on the talk page swings against me. Right now, I think it's 2 against 2, with neutral parties VoteFair and Filingpro possibly sympathetic to elements of both sides. Those are the ingredients for a productive discussion, unless one party insists on policing what another party can talk about. Homunq (࿓) 13:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homunq, this is quite simple. As you acknowledge, views on your desire for a split are divided evenly. It has been that way ever since you first raised it, and it shows no sign of changing.
All you are doing now is bludgeoning.
You say that you will stop if there is a consensus against, which is good; I too will accept a consensus whichever way it lands. But in the meantime, what you are doing is WP:FORUMSHOPping, by repeating the same proposal continuously. Nobody else has shown up to swing the discussion, and the irony of your conduct is that the more you bludgeon the process and generate walls of text, the less likely that anyone else will want to join in.
What do you find so hard to understand about the simple principle a proposal has repeatedly failed to reach consensus, it's time to leave it aside?
There's noting magical about this; it's what any half-way decent person does in real life. If you ask a group of people (friends, family, work collegaues, whatever) and they can't agree on it, what do you do? You can drop the idea, or you can keep on nagging them on it and demanding that they reach agreement one way or another ... and if you persist in nagging them until you get a definitive answer, you will start being asked to drop it, and if you still don't get the message, you will eventually be told in no uncertain terms to [expletive deleted] off. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 disagrees with me, and is working productively towards a consensus, because he assumes that such a consensus is possible. You disagree with me, and seem to believe that no consensus is possible until I can be forced to "drop the stick". Thus, your interventions on the talk page there since the end of the RM have been focused on me, in a tone of impatient exasperation. This is not working. That is why I started the DRN: not primarily in order to get clear resolution on the underlying content issue (though I hope it will help do that too), but because the dynamic where you seem to think your role is to police my behavior and I reject your authority to do so is obviously broken, and I am relatively sure that DRN will clarify that matter one way or the other.
On the other hand: I would like to thank you for keeping this discussion here equanamitous. Homunq (࿓) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the above category [15], but am mildly curious re the "1794" identifier, on two grounds. First, is this to differentiate it from a different Artois-class? Second, wondering why 1794 - the frigate plans were completed in 1793 and their launch dates are prospective throughout the rest of that decade.
On the surface it seems more logical to have the category simply be "Artois-class frigates" without the identifier at the end. But other views and comments welcome, and if I've missed a key point in asking this please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered the Category:Artois class frigates (1794) as a redlink in Special:WantedCategories, and since it was part of a series (of ship classes) and had material to populate, created it to fill the redlink. I have to confess that I didn't give much thought to the disambiguator; clearing this backlog (of about 20,000 categories 2 months ago) has meant working fast and making quick decisions. In hindsight, this one would have benefited from more scrutiny. So I am grateful to you for pointing out the inconsistency.
Looking at it again, I see that the page which has the redlinked category was Artois-class frigate, i.e. without the disambiguator, but that the redlinked title of the lead ship is HMS Artois (1794). It is listed at Artois-class frigate, and also at HMS Artois. As the latter page makes clear, the lead ship of this class is disambiguated from HMS Artois (1780).
Per WP:C2D, the category name should follow the lead article, so as things stand the category should be renamed to Category:Artois class frigates.
However, I am not so clear on whether the class should inherit the disambiguator of its lead ship. In other words, should Artois-class frigate be renamed to Artois-class frigate (1794). Are you familiar enough with other military ship classes to form a view on what the naming convention is in that regard? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, and no worries re filling the redlink. I do think that it should be renamed to Category:Artois-class frigates, as the only other vessel named Artois was a captured and renamed French craft, which was necessarily one of a kind.
There's the minor issue that eighteenth century Royal Navy ship classes were usually named years after the fact - the designers and shipwrights rarely set out to design a "class", and didn't relate the batches that were built to the names of the first ship launched. For example the Coventry-class frigates were all modeled on HMS Tartar and not on HMS Coventry. In turn, Tartar, which historians now call a Lowestoffe-class frigate, was modeled on HMS Lyme which is not a Lowestoffe-class frigate. And Lyme, which is now considered a Lyme-class frigate, was actually modeled on a captured French ship called Tyger which is not in any class at all.
For all that, we have to group them somehow, and in a way that matches sources. The phrase "Artois-class frigate" does appear in the works of naval historians such as Rif Winfield, who wrote the commonly accepted reference text for the eighteenth century RN. It's also not contradicted by other historians of the era, though they tend not to use any name for the group. And it has sufficient clarity for our purposes, because there are no other RN vessels for which this batch of ships might be mistaken. On which basis and per BRD I've moved the category. But if you (or anyone) disagree, please do feel free to revert. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the cleanup - I have fairly limited experience in category moves! -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).
(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnvr4 and long-term difficult editing[edit]
I have given the editors involved a few suggestions, and that's as far as I am going with this case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2017 (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.
Would you be willing to consider taking admin action in the case of a reappearing, very determined editor with a great desire to have his texts remain essentially unchanged? This comes as a result of Johnvr4, having had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat deleted some time ago, retaining the disputed text in his userspace for years. Now he is trying to import it into the mainspace but is doing it in such a disagreeable fashion as to potentially constitute disruptive editing. He has a string of blocks for this kind of thing already. I was advised to seek an uninvolved admin's intervention by User:Nick-D. Hope you might consider looking into this. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk) 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick peek at the AFD, and it looks like quite a messy situation. Johnvr4 is quite entitled to develop an article in a sandbox, but not to use that as a reason to demand deletion of an article in mainspace.
It does appear that Johnvr4 has a very detailed knowledge of the topic, but also a history of OR. I haven't analysed in detail either the current article Operation Red Hat or the sandbox draft atUser:Johnvr4/sandbox, and don't have time to do so. However, AFAICS, the situation has now stabilised for a month since the rejection of Johnvr4's unfounded requests for speedy deletion.
@Buckshot06, If you are going to mention me here or anywhere then you needed to notify me just as BrownHairedGirl did! If Nick-D mentioned me then he does too! If you both were discussing me, then where exactly did that conversation take place?
There certainly is a lot of history here-99% of which that editor left out[16](see link at bottom). I at times don't understand there is a WP policy on a particular dispute, so if one exists, please point me to those policies. The above editor has repeatedly stated his intent to separate me from my sandbox draft and has made numerous threats and attempts to do so. The opposing editor continues to repeatedly remove sourced content and frequently inserts gibberish into main articles with arguments that are based upon utter ignorance of the subject. This is especially troublesome because this editor has stated an unwillingness to review our reliable sources. In fact, he has actually stated that he did not review any of the sources that are cited when he restarted Operation Red Hat (not even the citation that he put a retrieval date on) which I am so troubled by that I can't even put it into words.
Forcing my edit text appear essentially unchanged is just a misrepresentation. Operation Red Hat was the very WP first article I developed and I really had no direction or help or idea what to do with it and it is probably full of mistakes that shouldn't be maintained. The article edits I made were also right at a time (around 2012-ish) that the subject was being redefined in highly reliable sources (my so-called "history of OR"). Some editors, and especially that one, have utterly resisted any redefinition of the subject based upon newer sources and they continue to do so. When I did ask for this editors input it was only per the request of the original deleting editor and as a courtesy. Buckshot06 among many other editors felt my draft was too large and covered too many subjects. I was asked to break up the material and move it to main space. At that point, Operation Red Hat was recreated by that editor. He states his purpose was NOT to create the very article that he already well knew I was in the process of creating since that was the ONLY reason I even contacted him. He says he just wanted a brief summary for Operation Red Hat in the main space.
So, I moved a few bits of the draft into a new article: U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and it was immediately set upon my this editor who deleted sourced content and then took to inserting falsehoods and unsourced content that replaced it into the main space and other dubious edits with dubious concerns. Of the text that I submitted, he put the entire thing into a place that I explained it would never ever fit: Japan and weapons of mass destruction. I explained that because the page he selected would cover all of the same subjects in my draft plus a ton of more VERY large controversies, it simply wont fit there as he left it and summaries are needed on that page.
I'm happy to explain any aspect needing clarification but literally no one would want to read all that discussion. The current problem between us is here: Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and there are links to all of the other discussions. I have repeatedly asked for RFC (3 times in discussion and here:User_talk:Guy_Macon#Volunteer_assistance_request) but I'll just have to figure out how to do it myself. Admin input and advice to resolve these matters and improve our content is highly welcomed! Johnvr4 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have not taken you to AN/I, and I specifically was advised that it might be possible to have this issue solved before AN/I by Nick-D ('any uninvolved admin'), so no advisory is mandated. But you're now aware, and, of course, should this go to AN/I I will advise you in the correct fashion.
BrownHairedGirl, I approached Nick-D with a request to review my conduct in regard to Johnvr4, as I thought that my approach might need to change; I wasn't sure. What I got back from Nick-D was a surprise: Nick suggested that a NOTHERE block was the best course. I had my concerns about Johnvr4's OR, insistence on using primary sources to build arguments that those sources cannot properly sustain, POV, and tendentious and disruptive editing, including multiple reverts, but I was wondering whether my approach needed to change. What Nick suggested was more in line with the consensus at the 2013 deletion debate; I too have advised Johnvr4 that possibly he needs to find another website in view of his combative, WP:OWN approach. Having considered what Nick said, I am beginning to seriously consider that a NOTHERE total block might be advisable. Would you be willing to look into this further? Kind regards Buckshot06(talk) 16:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but for reasons entirely unconnected to Wikipedia or to this topic, I am not currently in a position to investigate further. However, I think that this now needs to be taken to a forum where more eyes can be brought to bear on it.
In terms of a next step, I think that each of you needs to consider the extent to which you see this as a conduct issue, and the extent to which it is a content dispute. That will guide you on whether an RFC or ANI is the more appropriate venue: ANI for conduct issues, RFC for content.
Whichever venue you choose, I suggest that each of you take some time to summarise your positions clearly, with diffs and links, and to set it all out as succinctly as possible.
@Johnvr4: a user's talk page not is the place where decisions are made, other than between two editors. Plenty of editors chew over wider issues on their own talk pages, exchanging ideas and thoughts which may or may not be brought to a wider discussion. Think of it s being like one of those chats at the coffee machine or water cooler before a meeting.
I am not aware of any guidelines requiring any such two editors having a usertalk chat to notify a third party who has been mentioned. Personally, I usually do make such a notification, but sometimes I don't; it depends on many factors. I am also aware of other editors discussing me without notifying me. I think that this is one of the many areas where it is best to be "generous and forgiving": generous in notifying others, and forgiving of lack of notifications to you.
So I don't read anything into the lack of notification there. If am just glad that the discussions between @Buckshot06 and @Nick-D happened on-wiki, rather than via IRC or email. I hope you too can welcome that.
However, Johnvr4, it seems to me that you are missing the big picture. Here is how it looks to me:
The 2013 Operation Red Hat AFD showed a very bad picture of you. The article itself was so full of both WP:OR and of misused sources, that a whole bunch of editors invoked WP:TNT. In the course of the discussion you repeatedly expressed degrees of WP:OWNership.
The result is that your resumption of editing on this topic happens when you have already created a very bad reputation for yourself through your previous misconduct. Editors are entitled to be wary of your further contributions on the same topic, and it is up to you to demonstrate that you have changed.
Now, I haven't checked your recent contribs to see whether that has happened, and I am not going to do so. But if I (BHG) was in your position of having screwed up really really badly and trying to make a comeback, then there are four thing I would do:
Stop worrying about whether other editors are behaving perfectly, and instead try to make my own conduct the best it could be, esp in relation to WP:OWNership.
Reassess all my contribs against the consensus at that AFD. The consensus there was clear about a set of serious problems ... so I'd be trying to ensure that my work now respects that multiple pillars of that consensus, in particular the concern that en.wp was being to publish a paper which was original research, non-neutral and full of sourcing errors
Break my remaining contribs to the topic down into smaller chunks, to make them easier for others to assess.
Actively seek wider input into the discussions about what to do with them, from WikiProjects and/or from dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g. WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC)
As I say, that is how I, BHG, would do it. There are other approaches, and you are not me., and another editor might give you a difft answer. But you asked me, so you get my answer about an approach which I have seen provide a way through many such difficulties, leaving all sides reasonably happy.
Now I have already spent more time on this than I intended, and that is all I will say. If you find that helpful, then I will be pleased to have helped; and if think you see a better way ahead, then I wish you good luck with that too. But that's as far as my talk page will carry this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[17]Meatball:DefendEachOther. You've obviously done a good job. The level of upset is far less than I expected. Preceding comments make you look good. If the last upset person finds peace by throwing gratuitous insults at you, you have achieved peace already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Administrator changes
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
