User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 041

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
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

Subcats[edit]

Hi Brown Haired Girl, since you removed subcategories from several Pakistan-related bios earlier this month [1], I wanted to ask you if these categories could be added to pages or no? --Saqib (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib
I think you misunderstand WP:SUBCAT. It's not about removing subcategories; it's about removing their parents. Please take a little time to read it.
In the case of Arbab Muhammad Zahir, the version after your edits[2] no longer needed Category:Pakistani politicians, because it was in 3 subcategories of Category:Pakistani politicians: Category:Awami National Party politicians, Category:Pakistani MNAs 2008–13, Category:Pakistani MNAs 1993–96.
So I removed[3] Category:Pakistani politicians.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you. By the way this Category:Pakistani MNAs 1997–2002 is incorrect. The National Assembly was dissolved following the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état. --Saqib (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saqib
Thanks for your pointer on the post-1997 assembly. I first created it as 1997–99, then spotted that the next election was in 2002, so I renamed it to 1997–2002. Then I started doing the homework I should have done at the outset.
The Parliamentary history page on the National Assembly website. It says that the Assembly elected in 1997 was suspended in 1999, but not formally dissolved until June 2001. So from that, it seems that the 1997–2002 title is definitely wrong (my bad) ... but that the correct title should be either "1997–2001" or "1997–99".
Which do you think is better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to look at the this page. You can see 11th Assembly was from 1997 until 1999. I am aware that some members of the parliament were suspected following the coup but not not sure about the rest of members but based on this, I think they were. We have Category:Pakistani MNAs 1993–96 as an example. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Saqib. Since the NA itself lists the 11th as 1997–99, that's definitely what the name should be. So I moved[4] it back to Category:Pakistani MNAs 1997–99.
Thanks or helping me get it right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Brown Haired Girl. i wonder if do we have any tool which can perform batch tasks like mass categorization? --Saqib (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saqib, I am wary of using bots for automated mass categorization. Too much risk of errors.
However, I do often use WP:AWB for assisted cateorisation. For example that is how I recently did most of the work of populating the subcats of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland by party and Category:Members of Seanad Éireann by party.
In each case, AWB was a good tool because I could start with good quality lists. Without those lists, I'd be wary of using AWB.
What categories do you have in mind, and are there lists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, actually this Category:Members_of_the_National_Assembly_of_Pakistan contains some 405 bios whereas current members of the assembly are 340. Many bios on current members are not in this category while many bios on former members are which should be excluded. Is there any quick way to do that? --Saqib (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, why would you want to do that?
Why no just diffuse them all to the by-term categories, as is done with or example the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the Oireachtas, or the Indian Parliaments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. so do we need to delete or redirect the Category:Members_of_the_National_Assembly_of_Pakistan ?--Saqib (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib -- no, just keep it as a container for all the subcats (by term, speakers, etc), and tag it with {{Category diffuse}}.
See e.g. Category:Teachtaí Dála, Category:Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Category:Members of the Lok Sabha, Category:Members of the European Parliament, Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/1956 Arabization of the Jordanian Army command[edit]

BrownHairedGirl, just for future reference, the policy is not to move DYK nomination templates once they have been created, even if the underlying article moves. We adjust the template itself to reflect the move, but the nomination page stays where it is. Various bots read the template, and one moves it after it's been approved, and none of them can handle a template that's a redirect. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that headsup, BlueMoonset. In hindsight it seems obvious, but I didn't think of that possibility at the time. I will try to remember this in future.
Meanwhile, it sounds like I messed things up for you, and made more work. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, BrownHairedGirl. Happy to get it taken care of: the nomination's all set with the bots. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please close a CFD for me[edit]

I opened[5] one for the wrong category. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BencherliteTalk 21:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Lyle[edit]

On 27 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Lyle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1944, Northern Ireland politician William Lyle denounced as "obnoxious" the views of minister Harry Midgley, whom Lyle hoped would become "more mature"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Lyle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Lyle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian polo players[edit]

IDUMU A MOHAMMED Nigerian polo players is +1. Add please Mohapolo (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People who don't leave Edit summaries[edit]

What do you think ought to be done about them? Normally I revert them and leave a message on their Talk pages telling why. Is there a better way of handling this? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: I'm not honestly sure. I too try leaving talk page notes, which sometimes help, and sometimes have no effect at all.
In general, I view it as a marker of how serious someone is about working collaboratively, which is what this place is supposed to be all about. That's why people who don't set out to communicate their work clearly often end up in trouble when there is a substantive problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: BeenAroundAwhile asked you the above question - Is it okay to revert someone's change simply because they didn't leave an edit summary? - but did not give you the context.
BeenAround had got into another edit war just before being blocked earlier this month. A user had reworded the lead paragraph to Western United States. [6]. BeenAround did not approve. After a series back-and-forth undo's and re-do's, [7], BeenAround gave his final reason for the deletion as: "Restoring a previous version because the editor misstated in his/her Edit summary what had taken place" .
If you look over some of the differences between the two versions, BeenAround engaged in this mini edit war because a user (1) changed the phrase "Though no consensus exists, even among experts, for the definition of the West..."' to "Though there is no single definition of the West as a region..." and the user (2) moved a citation and added "Later the Mississippi was seen as a delineation..." (and the citation supports his statement, saying that the Mississippi divides the US east to west and serves as a natural border).
This was worth a fight?!?!?!
The user was so frustrated with this experience that they left a wikibullying message on BeenAround's Talk page here saying that BeenAround should have "discussed any disagreements or changes".
Now, BeenAround has come to you and is asking if his behavior is acceptable -- Should he engage in this kind of behavior and revert someone's minor rewording because "they didn't leave an edit summary"?
Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi[edit]

Hi BHG, could you please look at the categories added to subjected bio. Do you see over categorization? I am still trying to get familiar with WP:SUBCAT. --Saqib (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing guidelines/recommended reading[edit]

Hi, you recently popped in on a discussion about a category I helped create with some helpful editing guidelines links; and from that as well as other situations, I've realized that I don't really know the editing guidelines well enough at all to participate in this sort of discussion in an informed way—short of reading through all 42 of Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines are there any particular articles I should check out as a wikipedian? Or, better question—when I search, WP: articles never come up unless I search separately in google which is never very efficient, so is there any good way to quickly check for guidelines on a specific topic? Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More category tagging[edit]

You might want to contribute to this and this CfD discussion. It may be helpful in particular to clarify why a proper formatting is very important, hopefully I can refer to your explanation in future cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for List of radio stations in Plateau State Nigeria [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of radio stations in Plateau State Nigeria —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Robert G. (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category tagging[edit]

Thanks a lot for offering help on category tagging. As also mentioned in the discussion, the longer list of nominations (option B) can be found here. If you have further comments or questions, I'll probably see them tomorrow. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checking, are you indeed able to help me out by tagging these categories with AWB? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babywise wikipedia page[edit]

Brownhairgirl: I really am not good at how to use the Wikipedia system. But my book page on Wikipedia has been completely overrun by critics and does not represent the truth any longer. About 7 years some editor named Binksternet started writing false statements on my book's wikipedia page and then guarding any true statements that were accurately sourced. Binksternet has had a strangle hold on my book's wiki page for over 7 years now.

Can you help me in attaining a fair and neutral page based on properly sourced fact? I can show you where this Binksternet grabs misconceptions online, leaves out other critical content on same site, places his spin on the source, and then acts as though his opinion is fact. The largest LIE is in the first few paragraphs where he claims the AAP has warned against On Becoming Babywise. They have never warned or even said anything about Babywise. He is mis-quoting one rogue pediatrician from 1998 and leaves out the 4 licensed pediatricians who immediately wrote rebuttals in the same source. He is mis-leading the public and hurting the brand. Baby wise is the #1 best selling baby sleep guide on earth and #1 on Amazon.com in 9 categories. But the brand is being given a black eye from this rogue editor who slants the page completely on his criticism. My email is weber8993@aol.com. Would you mind emailing me and teaching me how to communicate the wiki way? I am not even sure how to respond to your message or even find your reply to my question if you make one. But I would like to learn how to communicate the wikipedia way so I can learn how to attain neutral and fair pages based on sourced fact and not personal slant or opinion. Thank you so much for reading my concern.23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Blakenathanweber (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Invertebrates of Seychelles[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. —swpbT 14:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question about neutrality[edit]

Hi Brownhairedgirl--

I am Blakenathanweber. My book "On Becoming Babywise" has a wikipedia page. I have been with the authors for 25 years on Babywise. It came to our attention many years ago that one editor named Binksternet (has 215,000 edits) decided to make over 45 edits/entries on our Babywise Wikipedia page roughly 7 years ago. And he has been "guarding" our Wikipedia Babywise page ever since. Many medical professionals, authors, and wikipedia editors have made edits of true fact that are well sourced and Binksternet has removed them all. Three years ago I introduced myself to Binksternet via the talk page and asked him why he placed so many false statements and misleading internet junk on our Babywise wikipedia page and pretends to label them as sourced fact. And here was his response to me:

"The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic."

This does not sound like a neutral editor that should be making multiple edits on the given page to which he asserts this biased opinion. Can he be blocked for his bias and placing his personal opinion into his "guarding" of the Babywise wikipedia page?

I would really appreciate your thoughts on to attain a simple, neutral wikipedia page that presents both sides of the issues and not just a one-sided slant filled with personal opinion and internet junk that is "fudged" as a legitimate source and then spun to be taken out of context? Can you help e with this pursuit of truth?

For example, in the last 8 months, Binksternet added a piece to the Babywise Wikipedia page right in the beginning where he quotes one doctors' personal opinion written in an abstract in 1998. He mis-quotes this one doctor's personal opinion (Dr. Matthey Aney) and falsely attributes a formal recommendation statement by the AAP to Dr. Aney's personal opinion. Then Binksternet takes it one step further and falsely spins his own opinion into the paragraph where he states that "the American Academy of Pediatricians has warned against the entire Babywise series."

The AAP has never formally or informally made any statement about Babywise, the authors, or any combination of the two. It is simply Binksternet's opinion and it is very damaging.

To put this in perspective, the AAP is 62,000 licensed pediatricians. To attribute a negative formal statement to the AAP is very damaging.

Baby wise is in her 25th year as the #1 best selling baby sleep guide on earth. Baby wise is currently the #1 best seller on Amazon in the Sleep Disorders, Child Care, Babies & Toddlers, Single Parenting, Breastfeeding, Infants, Twins & Multiples, and Childrens' Health categories. Baby wise was written by a 28 year Pediatrician with a successful private practice in multiples hospitals. Baby wise is endorsed right on the book itself by Pediatricians, Professors of Pediatrics, Pediatric Obstetricians, Pediatric nurses, and Pediatric Neurologists.

Two of the other items that Binksternet will not allow to be edited on the Babywise wikipedia page is to add a section about author Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. There is literally nothing said in the entire page about Bucknam and Ezzo's book about Bucknam other than briefly naming him (which pretends he never wrote the book when in actuality Dr. Bucknam has been the major factor in 5 complete edits and re-writes since 1993 taking Babywise's internal value from 160 pages originally to today's 279 pages). Binksternet has edited any bio material or sourced fact about Bucknam off the wikipedia page immediately. Also, books are given "external links" on their wikipedia page. Binksternet will not allow Babywise to have her own official website of Babywise.life placed on the Babywise wikipedia page under "external links." Binksternet edits it off the page.

Can you help me in attaining a fair and neutral page on the Wikipedia page based on sourced fact and not personal opinion and false internet junk positioned out of context to mislead the readers as if it were fact? It appears this Binksternet needs to be banned from the Babywise wikipedia page but I leave that up to someone with a lot of experience like yourself. Thank you for your time and consideration.01:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)01:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakenathanweber (talk • contribs)

MfD debate[edit]

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Johnvr4/Operation_Red_Hat I have nominated Johnvr4's stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change logo on client's page[edit]

Hi,

Our company manages marketing for Renfro Foods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renfro_Foods

Their Wikipedia page was set up a long time ago and we don't have anyone on staff who is experienced working in it.

We need to update Renfro's logo. I think we need an Administrator to do that?

Please advise what we need to do to fix this.

Thank you! Catherine Whittington, InterStar PR, cw@interstargroup.com 

ChristinaMQ (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Emma Rogan[edit]

On 30 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emma Rogan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after gunmen murdered her father in a pub (pictured), Irish politician Emma Rogan campaigned with the Loughinisland Justice Group to uncover their identities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Rogan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emma Rogan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query on a category – BLP violations involved[edit]

Hi BHG, Could I ask your opinion of what I think to be a dubious category, and certainly one which is being loaded with BLP violations: Category:People with alcoholism, which appears to have been started by a very new user. There are people on there who are not alcoholics, but may have been in the past, as well as several dead people who don't have alcoholism as they are dead. It's the BLP connection to the category that I have most of a problem with tho. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as the recreation of deleted content, salted, and in the process of emptying it. Not sure that "cheers" is the appropriate sign-off, though!! BencherliteTalk 13:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - a force of habit. Many thanks Bench; much appreciated - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Mine's a double. BencherliteTalk 13:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we with red/spurious user cats?[edit]

I've lost track of what the official policy is on the likes of Category:Another red-linked category - the only member is an admin hopeful who professes to care about vandalism, no less.... Le Deluge (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have some basic understanding of chemistry has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who have some basic understanding of chemistry, 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. VegaDark (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the number 23 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like the number 23, 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. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are not evil despite having "Evil" in his/her username has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Users who are not evil despite having "Evil" in his/her username, 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. VegaDark (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do not feel the need to use the category namespace to convey their feelings of pleasure, annoyance or boredom about the state of the world or about Wikipedia's processes, and who wonder if anyone pays any attention to such things anyway has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who do not feel the need to use the category namespace to convey their feelings of pleasure, annoyance or boredom about the state of the world or about Wikipedia's processes, and who wonder if anyone pays any attention to such things anyway, 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. VegaDark (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are sheep has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Users who are sheep, 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. VegaDark (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers in Montana[edit]

Hey, just wanted to tell you how happy I am that Wikipedia now reflects the fact that there are no skyscrapers in Montana. Hooray for empty categories! Dlabtot (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who get all POV on others, 'cause it's funny has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who get all POV on others, 'cause it's funny, 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. VegaDark (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Epicene Wikipedians[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. – Fayenatic London 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooian sportswomen[edit]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I've noticed that something is off with your template {{Fooian sportswomen}}. In Category:American sportswomen, for instance, it generates an incorrect link to Wikimedia Commons, "Category:Sportswomen from United States", although it should lead to "Category:Sportswomen from the United States".

Hope you can fix it, good luck.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

It's been a while, and I know you haven't been too active the last few months, so I just wanted to say "hello" and I hope you're well. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Statistical Society[edit]

Hi, there is a list of almost 100 presidents at Manchester Statistical Society. I've not completed linking their names yet but all the blue links were existing articles, bar one that I created, and the redlink has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so will be blue at some point (probably tomorrow). Given the sheer number of these people who are notable for other reasons than their membership of the MSS, do you think it is worth creating, say, Category:Presidents of the Manchester Statistical Society that would draw them together? I don't want to waste my time categorising only to find the thing taken to CfD, where the arguments often seem to be very obscure to anyone who doesn't spend most of their time categorising. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I checked a sample of the linked articles and none mentioned the society so it would not be a WP:DEFINING characteristic.- i.e. the list is sufficient. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a slow reply, Sitush. I haven't assessed the articles myself, but based on DexDor's assessment, I'd agree it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting reduction of protection level of Catalonia[edit]

Hi there,

I am writing to you about your protection of the article Catalonia. I think full protection is a little harsh and that it should be put under 30/500 (Extended confirmed protection) as the policy says that "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic". I believe the big jump to full protection is unnecessary and suggest that the page simply be protected as extended confirmed. Thank you. --Sau226 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sau226, and thanks for your message.
I did consider ECP, but my hasty analysis of the edits so far was that a significant chunk of the edit-warring was between editors who passed rhe 30/500 thrshold. If you think I misread that, I'd be keen to see how you read it.
Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see now (kind of). The last real people that could be considered vandals are a registered user, an autopatroller (probably not) and a user with 30/500 rank. Oh well then sorry for misinterpreting your action and lets hope everyone has good changes to the article. --Sau226 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl's application of full protection on this article. Many of the editors that were causing disputes and back-and-fourth reverting on the article had extended confirmed user rights. Full protection on this article, given current events, is the logical (and most fair) way to stop the disruption globally, and to not give any group of editors favored or unfair content access over other users and based on their user rights and tenure. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia[edit]

Might want to check Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Independence referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. I semi-ed them, but if you think they need full, that's fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the protection level, full is a bit harsh, although I understand the reasoning behind it. However, I have a suggestion. In the spirit of WP:IAR, protect at 30/500 with a 1RR restriction (notified by an edit notice). Think this might be better discussed at article talk page but thought I'd run it past you anyway. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like edits at both articles have been quite manageable since the protection was set. Samsara 16:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a slow reply, SarekOfVulcan. I'd prefer to leave each page to be judged on it's own merits, rather than to try to enforce some sort of consistency-by-topic. I'm sure it was right to semi them all, but beyond that, I'd prefer a case-by-case approach. I intervened on one page, but I feel it might look a bit WP:OWNERish for me to also make the judgements on the other pages. So I prefer to leave them to another admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the response! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You all probably want to be aware of WP:AN#Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence if you're not already ‑ Iridescent 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iridescent. I have added my thoughts there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Isabella Sillars[edit]

Hi BHG. Isabella Sillars has been applying a book reference into the further reading sections on many articles covering the Brontë family. I suspected a new user as they couldn't format the parameters and the isbn numbers were all over the place. The book is here on Amazon [8], which it describes as a fictionalised account of Arthur Bell Nicholls' courtship with Charlotte Brontë.

After I removed it from non-specific articles I left these warnings on their talk page [9] and [10]. In response they openly admitted to it being a book that they had written, so I quoted WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR and WP:COI which they seemed to have ignored as they have re-written the information with this diff [11].

Have I been too heavy-handed? To me it seems like blatant self promotion, but as Keith D is away at the moment (he looks after WikiProject Yorkshire), I thought it best to involve an admin somewhere down the line. Thoughts? Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary edits to individual Years in Vermont[edit]

Hi there BHG, what do you think of the unnecessary edits to Category:2017 in Vermont created by you. By Kev519 He has done the same to many years in Vermont, back to Category:1777 in Vermont, and for many eg Category:1778 in Vermont has omitted the decade category eg Category:1770s in Vermont. Mostly he has replaced the “year in US state category” template as used by me for Category:2020 in Vermont with the all-purpose template for “Years in anything” . Hugo999 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Parliamentary General Election Results of 1983[edit]

Hi! I saw that you edited a page about the british parliamentary general election results of 1983, but there are no references. I would love to have the references for a project that I'm working on.If it's possible, please let me know where did you find these informations. You can also contact me on my e-mail: miguelpc319@gmail.com.


Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.14.241.214 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amphibians of Jordan has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Amphibians of Jordan, 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. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American theatre people has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:American theatre people, 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.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Ethnography Project[edit]

Hi,

Thank you s much for your contribution to this platform. I owe Wikipedia a huge part of my education.

I am currently pursuing business studies in India, in one of world's top 30 b-schools and am doing a project on digital ethnography. I wanted to learn more about the anonymity of the contributors on wikipedia.

1. Do you think maintaining anonymity is helpful towards building this platform? 2. Does anonymity encourage acts of vandalism on wikipedia, with respect to editing articles with false information etc. 3. What are the pros and cons of anonymity with respect to points above?

It'll be really helpful if you could share your opinion in this. Thank you

Mrigaunkp (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya![edit]

Please please do not edit other people's userpages. It makes them unhappy. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Quixotic Potato
Please do not revert routine maintenance tasks. It disrupts Wikipedia.
Thanks in advance, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost Christmas! Please follow the WP:CONSENSUS, even if you disagree with it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato, where is this consensus to support your reversion of routine maintenance tasks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware the burden is on you to justify the change, and get consensus for it. Personally I do not like professional football. But the consensus is that people who kick a ball professionally are notable. I disagree with the consensus, but I respect it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato, As you are well aware, the category was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19#Category:Worshipers_of_the_Mandarax.
The burden is on you to justify your reversion of edits which uphold that consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. See my previous comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato, which part of The result of the discussion was: delete is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above (comment dated 13:45, 11 December 2017). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato, your comment at 13:45 was about football. You have not indicated its relevance to this discussion.
Do you agree that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19#Category:Worshipers_of_the_Mandarax was closed as a consensus to "delete"? Yes, or no. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a potato, not a dog. Quote: "As you are well aware the burden is on you to justify the change, and get consensus for it.". If you disagree with the current consensus then there are multiple options available to you. A discussion, an RfC, etc. We can make a pro's and con's list and talk about this as a community. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato, the impression you give here, sadly is of neither a potato nor a dog, but of an obstinate idiot who believes that a discussion can be conducted by making assertions and simply ignoring evidence of a consensus which counters those assertions. Or maybe just a badly-programmed bot.
That may not be the impression you wish to convey. If you wish to convey a more favourable impression of yourself, then there are multiple options available to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally pretending to be a potato. Insults are not very effective against someone who is pretending to be a potato. Same thing with real potatoes. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then stay off my talk page until you can pretend to have gained a few human attributes such as reading comprehension, the ability to answer a v simple question about the point you are trying to make, and a desire not to waste other people's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl, I don't believe you're trying to harass anyone or otherwise be disruptive, but I agree with others that you should not edit people's talk pages in this way. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, @Dr. Fleischman.
      WP:USERPAGE has never given editors some sort of alienable right to use their pages to cause disruption elsewhere. Sadly, in some cases this is explicitly stated intentional disruption.
      Anyway, to avoid timewasting drama I have reverted to using a workaround which eliminates the disruption without touching the userpages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spent some time thinking and the optimal solution is pretty simple. BHG stops editing other people's userspace and we all agree to use BHG's workaround (Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages) except in cases where the category specifically mentions being red and the user has edited in the last year. Those don't pollute the list imo because there aren't many and when you see em you immediately know whats up. Is that acceptable to you (I mean, you proposed this workaround, so I hope so)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato, I am sure you mean well, but this has been discussed to death. which is why I am weary of it and short on patience. Sadly, you used up a lot of my patience already today, and statements such your comment on Dr. Fleischman's page that Consensus for deleting a category is not the same thing as consensus to edit all pages that contain wikicode that include that page in that category don't help. (Hint: there are several bots which do just that on a routine basis. e.g. Cydebot has done several millions such edits.)
A year ago, there were hundreds of red-linked user categs, but the vast majority of users so categorised were v happy to remove the categs when they became aware of the disruptive effect. Sadly, a small and vocal hardcore reject anyworkaround, and some of them just spout vitriol and create new redlinks to break any workaround.
I will continue to do what I have done all along: pursue whatever seems at the time to be the path of least resistance to clean up these errors. That will include e.g. upholding WP:USERNOCAT, which thankfully doesn't create drama.
The cases where the category specifically mentions being red have already, by agreement, been whittled down to one or two.
Sorry if this sounds dismissive, but I am worn out with circular discussions which will never satisfy a hardcore. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unconventional idea. I'll pretend that you've apologized and we've started over and this is the first time we interact. And I'll start us off with a little script if you don't mind:

BHG: Hi, nice to meet you, can you help me please? I want to reduce the amount of items in the list over at Special:WantedCategories. Quite a few of them seem to be caused by people putting silly categories that do not exist on their userpage.

TQP: Hi, nice to meet you too, I will give it a try. First we need to figure out which of the items on that list are referenced from a userpage. Hm, 261 out of a total of 3458 WantedCategories are referenced from a userpage, that is 7.55 %. I'll sort the WantedCategories that have been referenced from a userpage by number of references from a userpage (1/2-10 or more) so that we can reduce the amount of WantedCategories as quickly as possible. Out of these 261 references to WantedCategories on userpages there are probably a couple you'll have to learn to live with, sorry, but the overwhelming majority can be deleted. Note that the amount of actual joke categories on userpages is very very small compared to the total amount of WantedCategories, so the hype about silly categories being the cause of the WantedCategories list being long is not true.

I'll separate the categories that are related to sockpuppetry from everything else.

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

Would you be so kind to deal with those?

I have posted the list over at User talk:The Quixotic Potato/BHG. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You propose a fresh start, then say the hype about silly categories being the cause of the WantedCategories list being long is not true.
I don't like your tone, and I don't like the straw man. Nobody has ever claimed that "silly categories being the cause of the WantedCategories list being long". The problem is that silly categories clutter up the list, and are never cleared. They remain as permanent distractions. And no, there are not so many of them now because they have been dealt over the last year.
Sorry, but you have had enough of my time. Please go away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing a well-known song Public Enemy - Don't Believe The Hype but you seem to have mistaken a popculture reference for some kind of attack. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in drafts[edit]

I was under the impression that we don't put live categories in draft space. Am I wrong about this? In fact, is there a policy on this, one way or the other? bd2412 T 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412
Sorry, that's a little unclear. Do you mean that articles in draft space should not be in categories which are intended for articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my understanding. Although, come to think of it, I don't know where I got that idea. I always colon out the categories that I include in drafts. bd2412 T 18:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412
I colon out categories on userspace drafts, per WP:USERNOCAT. I was unsure about draftspace, and had meant to check, so you did me a favour by raising the question. I see that WP:DRAFTNOCAT is unequivocal: pages in the draft namespace are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories such as Living people or Biologists.
So you have been doing it right, and I should start doing the same whenever edit drafts.
Thanks for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for researching the issue. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Special:WantedCategories[edit]

:-)
thanks, Gjs238.
The judge said that if I worked really hard, he would reward me with a transfer to Gitmo. V kind of him; it'd be a great promotion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox breaking[edit]

Hi. Re your edit "to avoid breaking infobox", I'm just curious what aspect of the infobox is damaged by the citation needed template, and is the same true of cite book etc templates? (Watching here.) Thanks, Batternut (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Batternut
Slightly wrong edit summary. It's really to avoid breaking the cleanup category.
the page is in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2017
the prev version was in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2,017
it's cos the infobox formats the numbers in the data fields, but not in the footnote fields. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it now, and get it... Subtle! Thanks, Batternut (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expand templates used by Twinkle has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Expand templates used by Twinkle, 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.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Territory categories[edit]

What is happening here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Justin. Several were showing up in Special:WantedCategories, but most appeared to be empty. So I started deleting.
But then on checking further, I found that the problem was a tangle over the prefix "the". So I sorted them out by using "the" throughout.
Hope you think the end result is ok. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Thanks for your hard work and the explanation, Brown. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

red category for Léa Clermont-Dion[edit]

Hi again! I probably shouldn't have left the redlinked category on Léa Clermont-Dion, but while I found sources that (1) she attended Laval University and that (2) she earned a bachelor's degree, I didn't actually have a source that said she earned a degree at Laval. I don't suppose you found a source? Or maybe categories don't have to strictly adhere to BLP policy? I mean, it's likely that she's a Laval alumni, but I wasn't able to verify it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg
My understanding of alumni category is that an alumnus is a "a former student, and commonly a graduate of a university. So I don't see a problem here. She was a student at one point, so one way or another she's an alumnus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's another one to remember. I was probably extending the infobox guidelines which say not to list it as an alma mater for non-graduates without a good reason. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nottaway Hydrological System has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Nottaway Hydrological System, 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eeyou Istchee Baie-James has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Eeyou Istchee Baie-James, 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh–Kuwait relations has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Bangladesh–Kuwait relations, 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. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Soundtrack details to Dark Netflix[edit]

Hi there,

I was hoping you could help. I've never edited a page on wikipedia but I was wondering if there could be a section talking about the soundtrack to Dark on Netflix? I've also got a blog post that would be a great source to refer to. Is this allowed? Can you help?

Thanks,

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve McPherson (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions to WP. Störm (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Störm|. That is v kind.
I was feeling a bit bogged down in my current categorisation spree, and this cheered me up nicely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samtskhe–Javakheti[edit]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl – I saw your recent edit to the category in Samtskhe–Javakheti. I don't know anything about categories, but I was puzzled why the change you made would be from "Samtskhe–Javakheti" to "Samtskhe-Javakheti" – i.e. from the name of the region spelled with an en-dash to the name spelled with a hyphen. I had just a few days ago moved (i.e., changed) the title of the article from "Samtskhe-Javakheti" (hyphen) to "Samtskhe–Javakheti" (en-dash). The region was formed in 1995 from several other regions. If the spelling of an article title is corrected, shouldn't the category reflect that corrected spelling? If there is a reason of which I am unaware, I apologize for my ignorance. I was just curious, that's all. Best regards and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!  – Corinne (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !!![edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Thanks, [User:CAPTAIN RAJU|CAPTAIN RAJU]]. Seasons greetings to you and yours too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ho, ho, ho[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, Neddy wishes everybody a very merry Xmas (suggestions of direct ancestory with one of the eyewitnesses to the happy event have, so far, proved unfounded) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Coolabahapple. Happy Christmas to you too.
I like donkeys. In my experience, they are wise, kind and gentle creatures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy festivities to you too, Bzuk ... up there in the tundra. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United States Army Air Force personnel of World War II[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:United States Army Air Force personnel of World War II requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

wrong cat name

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. FieldMarine (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snag in category renaming?[edit]

Hello.

Some categories for renaming (here) were moved to "Working" around 12 hours ago, but have not been moved yet. Would you kindly check if there is a snag somewhere, or if the bot just has a big workload?

Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandsomeFella
I see that User:Cydebot went asleep for a few hours. Must have been a big night last night.
But the hungover bot is now back at work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by nationality and status has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:People by nationality and status, 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. Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roxy the dog[edit]

I could do with advice please. My efforts to diffuse the Category:Alternative medicine are being disrupted. Rathfelder (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: how are they being disrupted?
Please explain, and post diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what post diffs means. When I remove Category:Alternative medicine from articles which are already in subcategories he reverts them. He now seems to have removed Category:Acupuncture from the article on acupuncture and wont let me put it back. Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: See Help:Diff.
I presume you have tried discussing this with the other editor. Where is that discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roxy will not discuss anything with me. He says I am banned from his talk page - because of our earlier altercation about redlinks on user pages I presume.

Some diffs: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Most, but not all from Roxy. He is not the only one who is unhappy about taking alt-med off articles which are in its subcategories. See the discussion at WP:FTN. I'd like reassurance that I am not doing the wrong thing, and advice about how to proceed, and I would value your advice.Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi. Haven't "seen" (i.e. noted your presence) overmuch lately, but glad to see you're still part of our little international cyberfamily. Wanted to wish you a Happy New Year. Yours, Quis separabit? 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaylin Andres[edit]

hi BrownHairedGirl, just wondering whether a non-admin should have closed this afd, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolabahapple
It looks OK to me per WP:NACD. Even split on the numbers, and on the strength of argument possibly a weak keep.
Do you see some problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
first, thanks for the prompt reply:), im not really concerned about the outcome, just that from my reading of afds over a couple of years, as this one is so even, i would expect there to be a relist to see whether the discussion continues like this or whether consensus goes one way or the other, but thats okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: It could have been relisted, bu I don't think that much would have changed. "No consensus" or "weak keep", which end up in the same place, so probably wise of @Serial Number 54129 not to prolong it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl, Congratulations with Happy Hollidays! I plan to gradually conduct a questioning to determine the best speculative fiction novels according to the wikipedians from from different countries. I wanted, that you to think and gradually create (if you like the idea) a list (as long as possible, but not more than 50) of the best genre novels of different authors, regardless of the language of the works (it is desirable: 1 author - 1 novel, but not necessarily) personally read by you. The list can include all novels containing speculative fiction elements - science fiction, fantasy and fairy tales, horror & supernatural fiction, alternative-historical, etc. The place of the novel in the list should correspond to the quality of the work and your impression received from him. The first novel in the list will be scored at 50 points, the last - in 1 point. And when there are enough respondents to collect - we sum up the number of points and get a list of 100 best novels. I hope for your agreement and that you will get 50 or less less read novels and there will be time and desire.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest in the case of consent the following example of the formalization of the list:
  1. John Brunner «The Dramaturges of Yan» (English: «The Dramaturges of Yan », 1971)
  2. Péter Zsoldos «The Task (novel) [hu]» (Hungarian: «A Feladat», 1971), with respect.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add image(s) on a particular page as an early editor.[edit]

Hello there. I wanted to know whom shall I ask to add image(s) on a page I contributed to a few days ago. It was my first edit here and as you must be knowing, I as an early editor can't add images. Kindly guide me who to contact or if you can, would you do it? (I'll attach links and references once you confirm).

ABC3569 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)ABC[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Limes[edit]

Hi BHG,

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 4#Category:Roman Limes, I see your point about the discussion on 18 November 2017 rendering this one partially moot. Originally, this discussion was just about renaming the category, so there wasn't supposed to be any overlap or conflict. User:Fayenatic london's reasonable suggestion to do away with the category scheme altogether certainly gained traction, but of course the whole category tree was not nominated (and I didn't think of that at the time).

I know that much of the discussion was about splitting the category, but do you think there was consensus to rename the category to a different name? As long as the category continues to exist, virtually any name is preferable to Roman Limes.

Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Black Falcon, and (belated) Happy New Year.
I'm not sure whether there was a consensus on a new name. I suggest treating this as a no consensus close, and with the subcats out of the way, put the various options on the table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly fair. A fresh discussion will hopefully be smoother, especially considering the age of the previous discussion. Thanks, and Happy New Year to you as well! -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 years of editing[edit]

Thank you, Slightlymad. 12 years, eh? Any chance of parole? <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parole, would not remove your great contribution to the project. Brilliant. Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Victuallers. That's v kind .. but does this mean you reckon they should throw away the key? <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother, some of our "residents" are so far gone, that they'd throw it out of the window and then write an article about Institutional insanity Victuallers (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though I beat you by a little over a month, your contributions have been exceptional and vastly more than mine. So thanks and congratulations for sticking with it. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ww2c. And belated congrats on your own 12 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding parent cleanup categories[edit]

I personally don't care whether the categories are hidden or not, since these categories shouldn't remain on articles for very long before AnomieBOT adds a date to the maintenance tags to move the articles to a (hidden) dated subcategory. Since it seems you do care, it might be helpful for the future to reply at Template talk:Parent monthly clean-up category#Why is it hidden? in case it comes up again. Thanks! (: Anomie⚔ 12:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Anomie, I think you're overcomplicating this.
There's a longstanding consensus that maintenance categs are hidden, so that they never appear on articles. Unless these are hidden, they do sometimes appear on articles. Worse, they are a verbose title
If you want to reopen such a longstanding consensus, please start an rfc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't care. But it might be nice to reply to someone who asked about it at that talk page. Anomie⚔ 13:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Anomie, I growled at the wrong person. Have replied at Template talk:Parent monthly clean-up category#Why is it hidden?. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals[edit]

You're quite welcome! I happened to be on Wikipedia, clicking around not doing anything in particular, when I got the notification that you'd pinged me, so I just went right ahead with it. Luckily, there weren't very many articles that actually had to be upmerged at all — the vast majority were either already subcategorized appropriately by state, province or city, or had never actually been removed from the national-level category on WP:CATDIFFUSE grounds, so in most cases it was just a straightforward removal. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Category Barnstar
A barnstar well deserved for closing about 100 CfD discussions in two days. Wow! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Marcocapelle. That's v kind of you.
I had been looking for weeks at the huge and growing backlog, and decided that only a blitzkrieg approach would have any chance of clearing it. There is still some way to go, but I have some hope now that it might be possible to actually clear the backlog.
Bless @Anomie for the bot which maintains Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. That list is invaluable in identifying what needs to be done.
Now ... when can we can we persuade you to accept a nomination for adminship? You have already been doing an admin job at CfD for at least a year. I had some doubts about your judgements 18 months ago, but I can't fault them since, so it seems daft that you don't have the tools for the job which you do so well. Please will you say yes? Please please please please please please please? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cambodian[edit]

hi hello i w want to know if u are cambodian coz i seee u are write a article list of films cambodian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:8b69:51e0:282b:8c38:7eea:729b (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Cambodian , and I didn't write a list of Cambodian films . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is BHG Cambodian? I nominate that for the Wikipedia question of the day 10 January 2018....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta presenters has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta presenters, 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. –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank stagg burial place[edit]

Hello Frank Stagg is buried in the Republican plot in Ballina Co.Mayo, alongside fellow Mayoman and hungerstriker, Michael Gaughan who died from forcefeeding a year or so prior to Frank Stagg. The wiki entry has his burial place in Belfast. This is incorrect.Tomasquinn12 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stagg (Irish republican)#Funeral says "His body was taken to Ballina and buried near the family plot. In order to prevent the body being disinterred and reburied by republicans, the grave was covered with concrete. In November 1977, a group of republicans tunnelled under the concrete to recover the coffin under cover of darkness and reburied it in the republican plot.".
@Tomasquinn12: What page are you referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like your views on gender neutral language[edit]

I like writing to talk of police officers, firefighters, actors and people. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OnBeyondZebrax
That's a bit of a generialised question. Any special reason for asking me, now?
In general, I'm in strongly favour of it. However, it is usually not appropriate when the context involves a specific reference to gender.
So, "six police officers arrived at the crime scene"

... but "Jones was the only woman among the 26 police officers deployed at Smalltown Police Station. She and the county's four other policewomen did something".

Does that help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw on your userpage that you support gender neutral language. I was just saying I agree with you. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sorry I was a bit distracted, and misread your post as a question. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Camille Claudel[edit]

Hello, and happy Old New Year's Eve! I guess I'm not understanding the removal of category Camille Claudel from a few pages because of misuse of eponcat. The Musee Rodin has an entire room exhibiting her work, so that seemed a directly related category. Then those of two closely related people, her brother Paul Claudel and of course her lover and associate Rodin himself. If you have a minute can you explain the misuse. Thanks, and lift a glass high come midnight. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randy Kryn, and thanks for your v friendly msg.
Per WP:EPCATPERS, eponymous categories for people are supposed to be used for articles directly related to that person. That would include such items as lists of her work books about her, etc. That does not include Paul Claudel, Musee Rodin etc, which are about other topics that involve Camille, i.e. indirectly related. That is why I removed them from Category:Camille Claudel.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes. Seems a bit restrictive, as they are all closely related, but tis the way of the Wikipedia world. I only found out about Claudel in June, and what a fascinating story and life, in equal parts glory and sadness. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Randy Kryn, it is restrictive, but necessarily so. Otherwise eponcats fill up with lots of stuff, and cause category clutter on other articles.
I am not a fine arts fan, so had never heard of her until today. It is indeed a sad story; her brother and mother behaved appallingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Don't want to take your time up by a long discussion (although am glad to have it, writing about Claudel is an enjoyable topic), but I want to say I'm happy to have introduced her to you. She is, and is becoming more recognized as, one of the greatest sculptors of her era, and apparently either inspired or directly initiated many of Rodin's most famous pieces. A woman artist of the period couldn't (or at least it was scandalized) portray erotic poses themselves, so Rodin, with her influence, did so. I should get around to adding to a gallery on the page. Would be nice to see a full film about her in English, with major actors...and I assume someday that will occur (will store my popcorn in a freezer bag waiting for that viewing). It will be a career-film for an actress, much as Madonna was born to play Evita. Long comment shorter, thanks again for the clarification on the categories. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French senator categories[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar on the lists and categorization of French senators. That turned out to be a bigger job than I expected. Sort of depressing too. Most of the list entries are redlinks, most of the articles are stubs, and many of the stubs are out of date, presumably abandoned by their authors. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the acceptable/poor article ratio is deteriorating.

Question: is there a way to check that all the articles categorized as "senators of [x department]" are also categorized as "French Senators of the [Third/Fourth/Fifth] Republic", and vice-versa? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know of a way, do you know someone who might? It seems like a fairly standard sanity check: all French senators after 1875 must be senator of a department and senator during one of the republics. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: please post some links to the categs you are referring to. Then I'll show you how it can be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Senate (France) by department has 112 subcategories like Category:Senators of Yonne, where Yonne is a department in France. Each contains articles like Hippolyte Ribière that should also be in at least one of Category:French Senators of the Third Republic, Category:French Senators of the Fourth Republic or Category:French Senators of the Fifth Republic. The question is how to find all articles in the 112 department categories that are not in any of the three "French Senators of the nth Republic" categories, and how to find all articles in the "French Senators of the nth Republic" categories that are not in any of the 112 department categories. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: thanks for the links. Now the magic of Petscan, the categorisers magic wand:
French Senators not in a Category:Members of the Senate (France) by department or its subcats:
Petscan is at https://petscan.wmflabs.org. I love it! And have it as a button on my broswer's menu bar.
Basic usage is fairly simple. The main pitfall is that you need to type the categ names, with 100% accuracy. Copying and pasting the categ title from the categ page will not work, because it includes hidden formatting codes which Petscan assumes are part of the categ name.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that is what I was looking for. It shows up my failure to account for the 116 "inamovible" senators, who did not belong to any department, senators for some defunct colonies who should be listed, and also several errors. I can tweak the searches. That is great.
For copy/paste, I always have TextPad open, a similar text editor to Windows Notepad. Copy/paste into Textpad, then copy/paste from there to another window, removes any formatting characters. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Letter Organizations.[edit]

Have left note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. You may want to start a general discussion there instead. Naraht (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: thank you, but I have no interest in a general discussion about Fraternities and Sororities. I just want to get rid of pointless smallcats which serve no purpose and risk being misused as membership cats. I strongly suggest that you withdraw your unfounded claim[36] that I am trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, see change to talk page. I don't understand how you can say "you have no interest in a general discussion on Fraternities and Sororities" and "The purpose of this discussion is to test whether there is actually a consensus for this to be seen as an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Also, it appears that you feel that risk of misuse is a guide to whether something should exist, I simply don't. For example, Wikipedia has decided that just because an image of specific body parts may be used for vandalism, the answer isn't get to rid of the image, it has invented the blacklist.Naraht (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. @Naraht: please read the nominations. I nominated because of WP:SMALLCAT and/or WP:NONDEF. Misuse is a secondary consideration, and no cat has been nominated solely because of misuse. Some have been nominated because they have no purpose other than as membership cats, which are deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which ones in this are membership cats. Do you consider Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha founders to be one? (and wierdly enough in the original proposal, all of the founders groups show with a red dot at the end of the name in the edit window)Naraht (talk)

Reset[edit]

I believe two things that led to the category creation.

  1. If a list of chapters becomes too large it should be split off from the main page about the organization
  2. A page which is split off and the page that it comes from *should* have a category in common.

That's why they exist. I'm curious as to your comments on these two.Naraht (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in many cases a page which is split off and the page that it comes from *should* have a category in common. However, that does not always apply, and it does not have to be a specially-created eponymous cat. In this case the lists of members /chapters could all go in a common Category:Lists of members of honor societies/Category:Lists of chapters of honor societies, which would be much more useful for navigation than these 2-item WP:SMALLCATs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that that rollup category in that dimension should exist, but for lack of a better term that goes in one direction, and the group specific in the other.

Category:Rock lighthouses of Scotland cleanup done[edit]

Tank yew. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yew be well come, @Mangoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Hi, please don't add categories that experienced editors believe are BLP violations. Several discussions may need to be had about this, and the articles should remain out of the categories until those are completed. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SarahSV
This experienced editor would like to remind you that both Category:Biphobia feminists and Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists have on them a notice which says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".
Please do not prejudge the debate by de facto removing the category while the discussions are underway, because that deprives editors participating in discusions the chance to see what articles are in the category and what sources exist to support their inclusion.
Many thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But as you know, BLP trumps that. No one is saying frivolously that these are BLP violations. Calling people terfs has led to extreme online abuse and threats of physical violence. However the term originated, it has become a term of abuse. Meaning is use. SarahSV (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV That is one perspective on the term. As I'm sure you know, the other side says that the reverse is true: they say that terfs have engaged in extreme online abuse and threats of physical violence, and offer evidence of both. Please do not simply assert one side's view as undisputed fact when there are 2 well-documented sides. As an experienced editor, please let me remind you of the importance of NPOV, which you do not appear to be showing here.
If your reason for removing articles from the categs is solely BLP, then please list at the CfDs all articles so removed., so that editors can make their own assessments. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I'm aware that a small group of people who have been called terfs have done unpleasant things, and that a small group of people who use the term have too. Equally, lots haven't. The term has become a flashpoint, which is one of the reasons it's completely inappropriate as a category. Would you support Category:Misogynists, whereby anyone called that by someone who is subsequently quoted by an RS can be added to it? (It would end up being a very large category.) SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: that is a v bad comparison. As I am sure you know, the term misogny is consistently as "hatred of women". It is an assessment of state of mind or emotion.
OTOH, "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" makes no judgement of state of mind or emotion; it combines an ideological label which the subjects accept with a non-abusive descriptor of a policy position which is undisputed.
So please clarify. Do you dispute that either or both of Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys are a) radical feminist, b) Trans-exclusionary. Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misogyny is prejudice (sexism) against women, and it needn't refer to any state of mind. Any situation or behaviour can be misogynist. Here is a BBC article about "misogynist marketing". SarahSV (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahSV: So you prefer a news article to a dictionary as a source of definition? Time you re-read WP:RS.
OED uses a similar definition to Merriam-Webster's above. OED says: misogynist: A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women. Again, all about state of mind, rather than advocacy of a policy position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS You didn't answer: Do you dispute that either or both of Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys are a) radical feminist, b) Trans-exclusionary? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, and people can engage in prejudiced behaviour without actively hating and despising. That's how most bigotry works, in fact. But look, this is pointless, so I'll take my leave. The only reason I came here was to ask you to respect BLP and not to restore the cats unless consensus develops that they're appropriate. SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see someone introducing themself as "experienced editor", and then substituting their own POV over RSs.
But we are not done yet, @SarahSV. I have asked you to respect consensus-formation by ensuring that the articles you removed from the categories are listed at the CfDs. Will you do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Templates containing navboxes[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Also, Category:Listplayer Templates. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic london
Both cats created by me because they had been populated and appeared in Special:WantedCategories. Both now empty, so I WP:G7 deleted them both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai male kickboxers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Thai male kickboxers, 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. Paul_012 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mecia Simson[edit]

This person has e-mailed me (apparently I undertook some edit(s) on her article - I am guessing probably improving the references) complaining that her Wikipedia article has been deleted (by User:Amortias). I do not know if that is the case. Frankly without a current article, I do not know where, if anywhere, I can take a look. She stated that others that she beat in Britain's Next Top Model (cycle 5) still have an article. From what 'research' I have done, she is presumably referring to articles on Sophie Sumner and Jade McSorley. To be brutally honest I have no real interest in the whole affair, but would like to be courteous and able to reply to her. Can you help me please ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek R Bullamore: Have checked and you improved references on Media Simpson that I subsequently deleted as an expired WP:PROD. I have e-mail enabled so feel free to point them to my talk Page page or e-mail user link. If they don't have an account and they've reached out to you personally let me know and I'll happily ping you my e-mail. Amortias (T)(C) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I do not know why I did not check if you were an admin and write directly to you. Sorry, I am getting old ! Probably best if I send the e-mail I got from Mecia and you reply directly to her. If you would prefer not to publish your e-mail details here, then you can contact me at derekrbullamore@yahoo.co.uk. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Derek R Bullamore: - amortias-wiki@outlook.com

Amortias (T)(C) 23:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Derek R Bullamore

Is this under control? If you still need my help, please can you identity the article?

thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it: Mecia Simson. No sign of any coverage remotely approaching WP:GNG, so @Amortias was absolutely right to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. I think that Amortias and I can deal with the query between us tomorrow. Thanks for your input and sorry to involve you - it is getting late here. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikitravel has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikitravel, 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. – S. Rich (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval years in religion[edit]

All categories of this nomination are empty now and ready for you to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Marcocapelle, but I don't remember which CfD day they are listed on. Link? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link was in the opening sentence already, but I'll happily give it again: it was this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Marcocapelle. I didn't spot the link. (Laptop on battery dims the screen and low contrast of visited links makes em hard to spot). I'll do it now.
BTW, there is a bit of a backlog building up again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. If you were able to close a few, that'd be great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Have to say I agree with you on the Sarah Brown thing. Annoys me slightly less than the English names for pretty tennis players stuff, but it is still ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @In ictu oculi. Sometimes, en.wp consensus can be in a really weird, reality-denying place. It took about 6 months to overcome the howls of opposition to categorising actors by gender, and I wonder how long it will take for this one to bump into reality.
I enjoyed your implicit comparison of Broon to Caesar. And I needed that cup of tea . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt research in Australia[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.153.66 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Kicev[edit]

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.22.77 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_041&oldid=1031703677"