User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 046

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

Your user talk page[edit]

Hi there BrownHairedGirl. I was reading your talk page today and I gotta tell you that on my laptop it doesn't look so good, as some of the elements at the top overlap one another. So I looked at the page on my phone, and the archive box completely covers the "BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin", to the point where the whole thing is non-functional. I've made a possible replacement in my sandbox - User:Diannaa/sandbox. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa
Sorry it isn't working for you. It's fine on all my browsers (Opera, Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge), but I haven't tried it on a phone.
It was v kind of you to make a modified version, but unfortunately it breaks on my browsers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at it on an Acer Chromebook running chrome, and on an old Samsung phone. Ah well, food for thought anyway. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say, it's not the browser that causes the issue; it's the width of the monitor. Try narrowing the width of the window in which you are viewing the page, and perhaps you will see how it looks for me. Also, clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says "mobile view" and narrowing the window to about 3 inches wide will reproduce how it looks on a phone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, @Diannaa.
I was able to replicate that, and I hope that this fix [1] has cured it for you.
Please could you let me know if it's OK now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new version works really well on the phone, and works on the chromebook unless I take the zoom to 125%, at which point the archive box overlaps with the table of contents (I normally use 110% zoom). So that's a good fix; most people will not zoom at all. Thanks. Now I am working on converting the table at the top of my userpage to a navbox. The table gets all truncated on the phone and makes me look bad to all the savvy mobile younger set — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that, worked, @Diannaa. Thanks again for the pointers.
Good luck in tweaking your page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1736 in the French colonial empire‎[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I get this wrong: If you visit recent changes, An edit you made on Category:1736 in the French colonial empire‎ seems to reappear every 10 seconds I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but please can you check it out?

--Canti60 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canti60: I am doing some big AWB runs. Is that a problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience --Canti60 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Canti60 No inconvenience --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Please see WP:AN#Review of re-block, where I comment on a block that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, I stumbled over this after it had fortunately blown over at AN, and I'm not about to spend time forensically analyzing precisely who said what in a sorry episode. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to drop you a note of thanks for your intervention, for your cogent explanation at AN, for deferring to apparent consensus by unblocking, and for standing up to attempted bullying in the aftermath. All too often, the actual working atmosphere at en:wp is remarkably at odds with our Civility pillar. You point to this as an important obstacle in being more welcoming to women. This is doubtless true, but it's worth stating for the record that it's not just women who are put off. I'm a (as it happens, male) genuine expert in one field and fairly knowledgeable in a few others, who happily contributes my professional expertise in several collaborative online communities, but stays on the fringes at Wikipedia for these and related issues. From discussions with peers, I know I'm not alone. Your approach, while somewhat controversial, is very defensible (with reference to wikipedia's pillars and values) and worth trying. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Martinp.
Standing up to the enablers can feel a bit lonely sometimes, so support is very welcome.
You're right to point out that it's not only women who are put off by the aggression of big beasts. There are so many ways in which this sort of thing has negative impacts, and it's very sad to see how much talent is not available to en.wp because of these antics.
I'm glad that you have niches which work for you, but it is v sad that Wikipedia is not a place where you feel comfortable sharing your talents. I wish I could say that I see signs of improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the big beast here. I've been reflecting on it, and I want to apologize to you for not discussing my concerns with you at your talk page before going elsewhere. My opinions remain the same, but I was wrong to go straight to AN, so I apologize for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, @Tryptofish.
I still think that your priorities are destructively wrong, but I guess we will continue to disagree on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How To Make Edits That Are Acceptable[edit]

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Can you please give instruction on making the edits that we tried to make to Glenn Hetrick's Wiki page?

We're not trying to do anything wrong, libelous, or against Wiki rules...

The images of Mr. Hetrick are old; we wanted to take them out and put in his image as the host of SyFy's FaceOff! which he was for years.

All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistants.

How can we update his bio? Do you need authorization from him?

What are considered reliable sources? I tried my best and had no clue I was using what Wiki considers "unreliable" sources.

IS it possible to have you reply also in my personal email? Wiki is very awkward for me and honestly hard to figure out.

Is it possible to forward the changes he wants to you? Can you enter them properly on his behalf?

serenascholl888@gmail.com

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikiwunderkind
Sorry to use numbered points, but I think it's clearest:
  1. I keep discussion about Wikipedia articles public on Wikipedia, so I won't be emailing you.
  2. Wikipedia articles must use relaible sources. You didn't; your edits[2] used unreliable sources including Wikipedia and IMDB
  3. Since you say that All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistant, you have a Conflict of Interest, and therefore you should not edit the page See WP:Conflict of Interest
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I see that I had already left a note[3] on you talk page about the Conflict of Interest. Please read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHariedGirl,

I gave my email address because there's a bug red bar across the notes from you that say indicate you'll be answering on the talk page unless we give another way to answer --- not because I want to take the talk off this page.

I was hoping for a more human response however, and one that would actually help.

I don't understand 9% of what you sent out to me. It might as well be in Greek. And navigating through this site is really unfathomable. It's just not understandable or intuitive.

I do get it that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits... So WHO IS?

Can I replace the old version of the Wiki page before I made edits? (I kept a copy of the code version) so that at least we know that version is acceptable to you/Wiki?

Instead of reams of Wiki rules, is there anyone in the Wiki Admin world who can help with making legit updates to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Wikiwunderkind.
I'll try to explain this very simply.
  1. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia. This is, a reference work which summarises knowledge published elsewhere by reliable sources
  2. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. If anyone wants to promote Hetrick online, they can set up a blog or website, or use social media or buy advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service
  3. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality. So an article should not edited by anyone with a conflict of interest. That means that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits on to articles about him.
  4. You or Mr Hetrick or anyone else is free to edit Talk:Glenn Hetrick to request edits to the page
  5. To request edits, follow the instructions at Template:Request edit.
  6. Note that any changes will rejected unless they are sourced to independent, reliable sources. So, for example, a scholarly book or a newspaper article is appropriate; a blog or a press release or a company website is not suitable.
  7. Your requested edit will be reviewed by independent editors, who will decide whether the change improves Wikipedia.
  8. The previous edits which you made contained copyright violations, so have been removed.
  9. All other versions of the article remain in the article's history ... but you need not worry about that, because you won't be editing the article.
Please remember that Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers. I have volunteered as much help to you as am willing to give. If you would like further assistance, please ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is set up to help new editors.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Thanks for your reply.

The main important question that somehow was not answered is: Is it "allowed" by you and Wikipedia, that I might replace the content of Mr. Hetrick's Wiki page with the code that was there when I tried to edit? I saved a copy of the original material / content.

I realize you may have "resigned" from editing or "approving" whatever goes on on this page as you referred me to the tea party... feeling you've helped as much as you'd like.

So if no response from you arrives in the talk, I will replace what was there before I made any changes.

I can only imagine this would be acceptable, since it was written by an unknown author, and was previously Wiki "approved".

Thanks so much for all your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in New York City by year has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Establishments in New York City by year, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent categories[edit]

Hi BHG: The additions to crimes by country require adding categories to many crimes by year and country eg for Category:1948 crimes in Egypt the categories Category:1940s crimes in Egypt, Category:1948 crimes in Africa and Category:1948 crimes in Asia. Many of the country categories pre-2010s lack these categories, and it is quicker to add these categories in a batch which involves going back and adding them. PS: Crime in South America lacked even more categories! Hugo999 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hugo999
That's good work fixing that, but there's no point in adding non-existing categories from new series. Many of categories you added were decade categories, which may be a useful addition, but not unless the page is created. That's why I reverted.
If you're going to go back and create the new cats, that's fine ... but it's best to cleanup at the end of each run, rather than leave it until another time.
BTW, have you noticed the oddity that we go from Cat:Crime in Country to Cat:YYYY crimes in country?
e.g. Category:Crime in Canada → Category:Crime in Canada by year → Category:2011 crimes in Canada
That's the naming convention for a set category, but it seems to me to be better to have a set+topic category, so that it could include e.g. anti-crime laws and police activities. Any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
You became involved in a bit of drama recently, as did I. I do not wish to grave dance, nor rehash the controversy, so I will refrain from naming names or specifics. Regardless, it was important that an editor of your magnitude stood up for the idea of civility. Too often, we're forced to choose between respecting serious but uncivil content contributors and respecting the ideal of civility itself. You demonstrate an exemplary stance that the two sides are not irreconcilable. You stood up for what was right in the face of controversy. Additionally, while you technically were in the right in terms of policy, you demonstrated that you were able to accept criticism that you likely didn't agree with, and overturn your own administrative action. This demonstrates wisdom, restraint, and a balanced temperament, which are important qualities in an administrator. So, in sum, I just want to recognize you for both your assertiveness in standing up for what's right, and your restraint in not unnecessarily escalating an already-heated situation. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swarm
Sorry for a slow reply, but thank you very very much for your kind words and for the barnstar.
Sadly, the policy of civility is too often treated more as a forlorn prayer than as actual policy, and this was one of those occasions. But from time to time I do try to do a wee bit about it.
As I expected, one of the miscreant's friends took me to ANI over it, and intends to proceed to arbcom. Hey ho; it goes wth the territory. And that territory was mapped out brilliantly over 3 years ago in an op-ed at the signpost. That piece is mostly about sexual harassment, but there is one sentence fragment which neatly encompasses the problem which recurs time and again: "a swaggering atmosphere of faux-intellectual machismo, and they think it's their due as macho content creators to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of women editors."
I wish we had made some progress since 2015, but I'm not seeing much sign of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that I was impressed by what you wrote at AN and that I take your remarks very seriously. I will think much more about your words in the days to come. An interesting (to me) footnote to the incident is that I originally intended to block for 72 hours and had already typed up my block notification (which is not my usual practice). Before blocking, I decided to review the editor's block log, and was surprised to discover that it was quite short for such an aggressive editor with well known civility problems. At that moment, I relented a bit and selected 31 hours instead. I discussed this on my talk page with another editor the other day. Perhaps this indicates that I am a coward or a wimp. On the other hand, there are plenty of other administrators who could have acted while I was working that day, but didn't. You indicated that all this crazy aggressive behavior might be fodder for sociological research, and I agree. But I am an old construction worker, not a young sociologist. I operate pragmatically, by the seat of my pants, trying to do the right thing, as each incident crops up. Thanks again for the clarity with which you explained your thinking. I appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks v much for that, Cullen328. My ANI response[4] is how I see this incident in the context of a wider problem, and it's good to know that it made some sense.
I certainly don't think you are a coward or wimp. Quite the contrary; you did the really important thing of actually blocking them, when others prevaricated. That was the single most important step in the whole thing, and I am very glad you did it.
I don't think that length of that initial block was much of an issue. What matters is that there was any block, rather that yet more debate with the enablers. Looking at now, with all the benefit of time to reflect and the 20-20 vision hindsight, I think that the ideal block was in the range from more than 24 hours (to indicate that this was more than a std block), but no more than 7 days (because this was the first block in this episode).
To my mind, the point of that block was to make it abundantly clear that this editor needed to make a clean break by backing off hard from this conduct, and that what mattered most was their response to it. The ideal response would have been along the lines of "sorry, I deserved that; will sit out the block", and I would have hoped for at least an unblock request which expressed some sort of acknowledgement that the conduct was out of order, or an indication that there would no be repetition of the outburst.
In this case the user spectacularly failed that test, and it all went the way it went.
So please don't put yourself down. You were the admin who made a good call when it was needed, and that's a crucial talent in an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (passer-by) Found myself reading into the history of the above event and wanted to leave a note on your talk page for great work you have done. Not only were your actions appropriate, but ironically, had your ban been supported, then the editor in question would probably have fully "powered down" and might still be editing today. However, your decision to withdraw your action on the basis of community consensus, speaks even more to your credit and that you are able to make rational decisions in difficult situations.
I myself have been subject abuse by such characters in WP, which almost led me to leave WP.
I have also seen the support that these characters receive to "compartmentalize" their poor behavior as temporarily acceptable. The logic is that WP needs such characters to protect it (like the "The Magnificent Seven") from the bad world. However, WP already has the policies to deal with bad behavior; we just need people like yourself to "press the button" and enforce it. Maybe we need a period of "hyper-blocking", where lots of people get a time-out, but it would change behaviors, and ironically, would probably prolong the ability of such characters to contribute to WP (as they all seem to blow-up in the end anyway, and end up like "Colonel Kurtz"). thanks again! Britishfinance (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mango (poem)[edit]

Hi,

Isn't the poem also about the poet. When you talk about a poem, you are also talking about the person who wrote it and what he is trying to express through the poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmedHermit (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArmedHermit
Of course, there will be some discussion of the poet.
But Mango (poem) is not about the poet; it it about the poem. That is why I removed it from Category:Malayalam poets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you. I am new to this so just getting used to everything. Thanks again.

Vivienne Ming[edit]

Discussion moved back to User talk:Oakknoll11, to keep it one place. As per the editnotice at the top of this page, and the red floating note at the bottom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

I hope this message finds you well!

I see you may have reservations with my edits to this page. I'd love to clarify what you feel may not appropriate, in the meantime please find the rationale for my edits/ interventions below: · Sincere apologies for not following the protocol...this is my first experience working with collaborators on Wikipedia; · I have no affiliation with V. Ming with regards to: financial; employment; contractual agreement; friendship; a colleague in any way or enterprise; · I'm covering AI advancements and people I feel are leaders coming from the Bay Area (I also reside in the Bay Area); · My intervention is solely based on the premise to increase a knowledge base to a wider group and add information as a credible reference provider. · My research comes solely from Google, attending conferences, academia and AI networks in the SF Bay Area.

I would be happy to hear from you and how we can best collaborate!

Thanks so much and looking forward to hearing from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakknoll11 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from new editor trying to understand review process[edit]

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor and I wrote this page (La'Shanda Holmes) because I really admire with La'Shanda has done, but I didn't realize it would be looked at so quickly! I'm trying to figure out what brings an editor to a new wiki page - how they know a new page has been created and how it gets reviewed? I know some pages can take a long time to be reviewed, which is why it surprised me that this page was reviewed so quickly. Any suggestions that will help me with future work would be so appreciated. Thanks! Fonduechocolatelove (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fonduechocolatelove
There are lots of tools and processes for monitoring new pages and recent edits. For example, Special:NewPages and Special:RecentChanges.
Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol has a large team of people monitoring the flood of vandalism and spam which hits wikipedia around the lock, and they have special tools for that. Then there are bots which monitor these things in various way, such as User:AlexNewArtBot, which placed your new page on User:AlexNewArtBot/MilitarySearchResult.
I found the article because it was categorised in a non-existent category, which I monitor through Special:WantedCategories and other tools.
You made a nice start on that article, and that's what really matters. The most important thing on Wikipedia is those who create properly-sourced, neutral content ... and you clearly have knack for that. So, personally, I hope you won't get sidetracked into the other processses.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for answering my question. Wow this all sounds complicated! I'll definitely be sticking to looking for interesting edits and people to write about! Fonduechocolatelove (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another template in need of fixing[edit]

BHG- Category:Film festivals established in 2011 has a film festival template {Film festivals by year of establishment cat|2011} that categorizes Film festivals established in- Music festival established by year- which is kind of silly because Film and music festivals establishments are categorized separately....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in fixing this? I will just remove the templates from all the category pages and hand put in relevant category links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WilliamJE
Sorry for the slow reply. Yes, I will do it. Just finishing a few other batches first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

How to I publish to remove the page from saying draft? LuckyDog19981114 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LuckyDog19981114
See Wikipedia:Articles for creation .... in particular Wikipedia:Articles for creation#Review_and_publishing.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using existing categories instead of surreal ones…[edit]

Hi there.

Thanks for cleaning up after me (1, 2). I agree that always using proper categories would be better. I try to be careful about the changes I make but with manual editing it's hard to avoid the odd mistake. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Robby.is.on ... but it's actually not hard to avoid.
Simply preview the page before saving, and check the category list displayed at the bottom: redlinks there are an error.
Or, if you prefer, save and then what they PgDn key to scroll to the bottom and see if there are any redlinks, then edit again to fix them.
We all make mistakes in editing. But the important thing is to identify them and fix them before leaving the page, so that others don't have to clean up after us. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do preview my changes. But I – sometimes – miss my mistakes. I usually change a bunch more things than just the category so there are lot more things to look out for… Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Mam! I made edits on the page of Mughal-Maratha Wars. I added new content out of which some is copied by article Aurangzeb, a protected page. My content has also references. As well as I also removed some content which has no reliable references and seemed as a blog not a content of wiki-article. On the other hand, a someone making edits firstly with unknown IP address and then by account of "User:Rajesh.KN 89"....He is again and again reverting my edits.. Please watch this matter. I shall be thankful to you for this act and guide me. Thanks DdBbCc22 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DdBbCc22
Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and start by discussing it on Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars with the other editor(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm with ducks unlimited Canada[edit]

How am I causing vandalism to a page that DUC wants created. What violation have I committed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.4.193 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are User:Lowedwayne, then please log in before posting.
Quick answer to what you did wrong: WP:EDITWAR, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Since you say you are "with ducks unlimited Canada", you have a WP:Conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?[edit]

Can I get specific info on what I'm doing wrong? I'm not selling anything. I'm just trying to put up ducks unlimited Canada wiki page. I'm not trying to vandalize. I'm trying to put info out there on DUC. Thank you. I just want to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.4.193 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above, and also the warnings at User talk:Lowedwayne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

striking item from RM[edit]

Hi, I've been tracking down what's been causing the RM bot to stop working. It had stopped updating the current move discussions and was throwing incorrect notifications out (see Template_talk:RMacedonia-bio-stub for example). I narrowed it down to this strike-out of an item. After moving that struck item below the proposal, the bot started working again. Obviously no way you could know that'd happen, but just wanted to inform you, in case you want to strike out something like that in the future. -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now User:wbm1058 had removed the blank parameters, so maybe that was the actual problem? -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops!
Sorry, Netoholic. Sounds like I have wasted a chunk of your time in tracking down the problem.
Thanks for being so nice about it. As you guessed, I had no idea that would happen, and will take care not to do that again.
However, I'm a little unclear how best to handle this sort of thing if it does happen again. Have you unravelled it enough to give me some guidance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Bot operator here. The bot was caught in a loop trying to process that. I tried tweaking the code to get it out of the loop, but that only made it worse (spamming incorrect notices). Sorry about that. Removing the parameters entirely fixed it. I need to still patch the code so that leaving blank parameters doesn't break the bot's processing. wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi wbm1058. I'm sorry for breaking the bot, and glad the problem has been isolated.
After removing that template, I didn't want to renumber the next 20+ sections, and thought it was better to leave a blank like rather than remove it completely. Looks like I got that the wrong way round. Sorry
When you have time, it would be good patch the code. The situation seem to me to be likely to arise again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed See User talk:RMCD bot#Bot not working? I realized that renumbering 20+ items was a bother, so last September in response to another edit similar to yours, I enhanced the bot to accommodate removal of item(s) from a multi-move request, so that this didn't result in the request being deemed as "malformed". That was somewhat tricky to implement and made the code a little less elegant and easy to maintain. So rather than try to accommodate the undefined parameters left behind, I just made the bot report this as malformed, as it's relatively easy to remove the parameters vs. needing to renumber the items after them. wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVK1994[edit]

Please try to give focus to the pages which are edited by some people's with specific agendas. For example Iravikutti Pillai page still have many issues please verify the old records and do the needful — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVK1994 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AVK1994: see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia[edit]

We are in the process of moving all Macedonia categories to North Macedonia. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Current_requests. When you alter templates it makes the moves all the more difficult. I shall revert Template:User in North Macedonia. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proposed that they be moved. The requests remain open for 48 hours to see if there are any objections.
Please wait until the processing starts before you alter the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are what populate the categories.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, @Buaidh. That is precisely why I asked you to wait.
If you change templates before the 48 hours are up, the templates populate non-existent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headaches. I coordinate 6,825 regional user templates which populate about 1800 user categories. I am 70-years-old and I have a fatal blood cancer. I am anxious to get these regional user templates and categories straightened out before I go. Thank you for your understanding. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh, one of the consequences of creating such a huge and complex nest of interlinked templates is that maintenance becomes near-impossible for anyone else. It looks to me very like a closed platform (aka "walled garden").
The fact that you don't trust the experienced admins who process WP:CFDS to modify it accurately in the case of a simple country renaming seems to me to be confirmation of that. Admins such as @Fayenatic london, Ymblanter, Black Falcon, and Tim! and myself who regularly process that page are some of en.wp's most experienced admins in the intersection of categories and templates, and if we can't be relied upon to do this accurately, then the fault is in the structure.
Countries being renamed, achieving independence, or united with a neighbour is something which happens nearly every year. Over the last three decades, we have had a flurry of such changes in the former Yugoslavia, in central Europe, in the horn of Africa, and in the Caribbean, plus the renaming of Myanmar and of some African countries (e.g. Zaire, Swaziland). The next few decades will likely see some of the following: the breakup of the United Kingdom, further changes in Caribbean and in Africa, new states in the Caucasus, the Czech Republic being more widely known as Czechia ... and plenty more which I haven't considered.
So this needs ongoing maintenance. The list of countries has never been a static set.
If there is to be any chance that nest of templates and categories will stand any chance of being maintained when you are no longer around, then it needs to be both radically simplified and heavily documented. Otherwise it will become such a drain on editors' time and energies that it will have to be dismantled one way or another (probably by some combination of substing the templates and deleting many of the over-nested categories).
In the meantime, while you are maintaining this walled garden, please please please try to keep changes synchronised, to avoid cluttering Special:WantedCategories and its analogues with mismatches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my current activity is to enhance documentation so these templates and categories can be maintained more easily. These templates and categories are intended to encourage participation of users, particularly users in small and non-English-speaking countries. What may appear to be a nest is actually the use of common parameter and documentation elements for each country or region. Changing one of these files changes all dependent templates simultaneously. I've been coding professionally for 48 years, so I do know a wee about maintenance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  (GreyHairedLad) talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it ironic that with BREXIT, Ireland will become the last English-speaking EU member state.  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Brexit is bringing a wealth of ironies for many.
Look, I know that you are skilled at coding. But remember, this is a Wiki, which is supposed to be easy to edit. Most editors and admins are not professional coders, so the more complex and interdependent you make the code, the less likely that it will be maintainable. It seems to me that what you are creating is a structure which would be fine in a professional coding environment, but en.wp is not a professional coding environment ... and as you acknowledge above it is not maintainable by the editors who actually need to maintain it.
I remain unpersuaded that these categories and userboxes have any meaningful impact on participation. In the course of admin work, I visit a lot of userpages, and AFAICS userboxes are a form of decoration which some users enjoy ... but in my experience there is a some sort of roughly inverse correlation between the number of userboxes and substantive content creation.
I have no desire to interfere with what editors do with their userpages, but if that decorative stuff imposes maintenance headaches on others, then we have a problem which will likely be resolved by simplifying the maintenance issues.
The common parameter and documentation elements thing is fine in theory, but in practice it only works if editors who need to make changes can quickly and easily find what changes are needed. On a wiki, most changes are handled simply by editing the pages directly. It works because nearly anyone can fix it easily, and while more edits may be required, the result is achieved quicker than reading piles of docs. That's why the wiki-coded category system works anyone can easily fix it.
You have created a structure in which that is not possible, and where as you have acknowledged, the editors who usually handle these issues can't figure it out. For example, the wiki approach is that it should be possible to handle the name change of these categories simply by editing the category pages. The fact that doesn't work is a major design flaw which will be rectified some day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is easy to edit and easy to corrupt. What I have created can be easily maintained and modified by any user. Some of my projects have survived unmodified for 28 years, and some were only designed for a few weeks. I have no desire for a lasting legacy, only short-term utility. Here today, gone tommorow.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Buaidh, but I think you identified the problem correctly the first time when you wrote if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headache. This system is maintainable only by you.
Today, those Macedonia categories were renamed. It too me >20 minutes to figure out what changes were needed where, which is ridiculous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You corrupted Template:User in North Macedonia, but I fixed it. Hopefully you will not encounter this problem again, but if you do, just ping me please.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh, thanks for your fix[5].
But the nature of the fix reinforces my point that this whole thing is ridiculously complex, and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to fix anything that I've worked on in the past ten years.
I don't want to take more of your time, but all of these 6,825 regional user templates can be deleted and we can just notify linked users to link directly to their regional user categories. This is not article namespace. It is not that important. The only reason I took on this project is because I was tired of being bullied in article namespace. Wikipedia is terribly ageist. I wish I'd told everyone that I'm 19. Anyway, best of luck to you and I'll see you around the campfire.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Buaidh, or BrownHairedGirl please fix Category:North_Macedonian_Wikipedians. Wikipedians in North Macedonia, regardless of their ethnicity, do not identify as "North Macedonian", and even by the Prespa agreement which changed the name of the country, they never agreed to be referred to as such. The nationality remains Macedonian. This is a sensitive issue, currently debated in a RfC, I guess there will be this type of problems for many categories, but this particular one can piss off a lot of Wikipedians. I don't think that anybody would like to find out he is a "proud North Macedonian" on his user page. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlavrSavr, that sounds like an error.
But you would do better to post on Buaidh's talk page. Per the discussion above, the templates which create those categs are a mystery to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, bad link. OK, thanks, I will talk to him. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I have this fixed. If anyone has a problem please post to my talk page. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY[edit]

Hi BHG – thanks for putting the list of names on the talk page. I saved it and will be adding it to List of black quarterbacks shortly. Cheers! Leviv ich 04:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: wow that gave me a headache - does this mean: "To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you"? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:, I wouldn't even have tried to decipher that without @DannyS712's help!
Anyway, sorry that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Category:African-American_football_quarterbacks didn't end up the way you wanted. But I think that WP:EGRS is clear.
I'm glad the list helped. (WP:AWB is great for that: it grabs the list, saves it formatted, making it a 30-second job to publish the list. If you use AWB for absolutely nothing else, and don't want to edit with it, then it's still worth getting AWB just for the list-making.)
So ... TYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl and Levivich: or just use User:DannyS712/Cat links. Also, "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'"? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TATD4DMTYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTYHFCWKTG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: no --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks also to Danny for" DM? "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'" HFCWKTG? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha – yup, that's exactly what it meant. I'm fine with the CfD outcome, a list article is a better way to present this information anyway. Honestly, I find the category policies incomprehensible; diffusion confusion twists me around until I can't tell upmerge from downmerge. But they are very useful for finding stuff, so I'm thankful there are other editors who take care of it all so I don't have to worry about it :-) Thanks also for the suggestion about AWB, I'll check it out. Leviv ich 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MMR vaccine controversy CfD[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:MMR vaccine controversy, the reason that there have been no further RM discussions is that there is consensus for the current name. JzG's bold move has stuck. There have been a few misguided attempts to open a formal RM at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism, but none of them actually contained arguments for a new name or gave any reason why it needed to change. Instead they were predicated on the idea that the current name is only temporary, and that they were helping by "closing" the discussion. To close the CfD with the rationale that the former name is the consensus version is to misread that talk page (which I acknowledge is easy to do).

I'm not sure what to do here. All the oppose votes in the CfD were from a month ago when the name was still in limbo, but it's stabilized now, as evidenced by the fact that all the comments in the past month have been in support of renaming the category. Do we need an RM discussion to endorse the current name? Bradv🍁 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: It didn't stick. It was contested by another editor, whose move was reverted by JZG.
As to your next steps, I suggest that you
  1. wait 6 months to see if the current title is still stable then, then try another CFR, when the claim of stability would be more plausible
  2. administer a large WP:TROUT (or preferably a {{Whale}}) to JzG for performing what you rightly call a bold move on a contested topic
  3. liberally administer more WP:TROUTs to all the other editors who participated in an informal discussion instead of holding a formal, properly-notified and independently-closed RM
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, the other editor's move was not contesting JzG's move, it was a misguided attempt to close an RM discussion. I too wish that JzG hadn't reverted it himself, but this was already brought to ANI and dealt with there.
The reason for the long and retracted discussion over a new title was because there is a solid consensus that the old title was completely unacceptable, but no agreement on what further change needs to be made, if any. By any reading of that talk page, the consensus version is now the current title, not the POV title implying that there is a controversy. That title is completely unacceptable to all participants, and to settle on that here is thoroughly incorrect. I don't agree that we should be incorrect for another six months. Bradv🍁 20:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
JZG and others botched the renaming discussion. JZG botched the page move, and then botched the CFR nomination. His conduct was way below that expected on of an admin, and that is what has caused his mess.
There are three ways out now:
  1. Leave it 6 months, as I suggested. No work, no drama
  2. Take my closure to to WP:DRV.
I don't see any other path.
However, I do urge you take a long, deep breath and some decent period of time to reflect very carefully on your claim that the current category title is a POV title implying that there is a controversy. The current may or may not be a good title, but a claim that after 25 yeas of high-profile debates and disputes it is POV to say there is a controversy? Wow! Just, wow!
I will be blunt, Bradv, because this is serious. You have just reinforced my long-standing concern that there is some really bizarre POV-pushing going on around these topics. That's why in these WP:BATTLEGROUND areas, I allow no wiggle-room on consensus-forming procedure. The only antidote to this sort of reality-denial is properly-followed and properly-notified procedures, where the fanatics can be joined by those not so deeply embedded in one world-view that they are willing to deny the very existence of a high-profile controversy. As a historian (initially of the 16th-century religious upheavals in Europe), I find that sort of attitude chilling. Its echoes in the 20th century were very loud too --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there's a difference in opinion about the meaning and implications of the word "controversy". To me, using the word on a scientific or medical topic implies that there are scientists and medical professionals on both sides of the issue. This doesn't appear to be the case here - science and medicine are on one side, and some minor advocacy groups are on the other. Describing this as a controversy gives equal credibility to both sides, which is a major concern specifically when one side actively engaged in fraud and disinformation to upset the scientific and medical consensus and to mislead the public.
I'm not sure whether you use the word "controversy" differently than I do or if you dispute some of the facts surrounding this account, but I would invite further discussion on the article talk page. You are entirely correct that this is a serious issue, and it is imperative that we get it right. Bradv🍁 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: that is one of the core the issues which you and a few other editors need to work on.
Try a dictionary, e.g.
  1. Merriam Webster: Definition of controversy: "1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : DISPUTE; The decision aroused a controversy among the students. 2 : QUARREL, STRIFE"
  2. Oxford dictionaries: "Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. e.g. ‘the design of the building has caused controversy’"
By all means, take whatever POV you choose on the merits of the controversy ... but denying that there is any controversy because one side lacks standing according to the definitions of the other side is precisely the sort of propaganda technique used by totalitarians of all shades for the last 500 years. It is a framing which was fundamental to the propaganda models of Calvin's Geneva, of the Spanish Inquisition, of The Terror in revolutionary France, of Stalinism and of 1930s Germany.
By your logic, there was no controversy over Trinitarianism in Geneva; just a lone miscreant with no theological standing, Michael Servetus. By the same logic, there was no religious controversy over religion in Spain, just a few heretics who were dealt with according to law. And of course there was no controversy over collectivisation in Soviet Russia, just a few million kulaks who criminally acted as enemies of the people and were dealt with according to law.
You are keeping some appalling epistemological company. This is as far away from the core policy of WP:NPOV as it is possible to get. Shame on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I should restate that I have no preference on the title of the category. But I really am appalled that you come to my talk page to claim that a title including the word "controversy" should not be allowed to stand because there is something POV about a failure to use Stalinist redifinition technique to deny the existence of a controversy. I am still horrified that anyone would seriously even try to approach a closer on that basis.
So by all means, have further discussions. But I have set out above the paths to changing the title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I "botched" anything. The article title had been contended for a long time on the basis that there was never any real controversy, the entire thing was ginned up by antivaxers for money and ideology. There is some disagreement over what the eventual title might be, but strong consensus that whatever that title might be, "controversy" is incorrect because it gives undue weight to a fringe view. B2C's attempted supervote only comlicated things because the moves he made were incorrect for multiple reasons. I don't have any strong feeling about which of the five or six alternatives might be better than the current title, though I suspect a title with "hoax" or "fraud" in it might be more contentious with antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 04:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JZG: I find it utterly extraordinary that you deny something was a controversy because you believe that one side was clearly wrong, no matter how much evidence the is to support that view. Using the word "controversy" may or may not be a good way of framing the title, but ruling it out on those grounds is a transparent attempt to erase the fact that it was a major controversy in public policy.
And, sorry, but you did botch the renaming. An RM with consensus would have been given stability to the article title, and settled the issue. Instead you have created a messy situation where there is no explicit consensus, and only time will tell whether the article remains stable at the current title.
I have v little time for B2C (who I'd happily have seen permabanned years ago for WP:TE), but the situation now is that both you and B2C have been operating without a clear RM consensus. That could all have been entirely avoided if you had simply opened an RM instead of making a WP:BOLD move.
If there had been an RM consensus, then the category could renamed at CFDS per WP:C2D. You've closed that door for some time by acting BOLDly, and by your botched CFD discussion without full disclosure where there wasn't a clear consensus in your favour.
Just for the record, I personally think that "MMR vaccine and autism" is good NPOV title. But my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Fixed ping: @JzG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so your close was based on your opinion of the subject. I understand that. But th3 truth is that if we cast this as a controversy, then we end up describing the earth geometry controversy and the moon cheese controversy. The title "MMR vaccine and autism" is neutral amd does not imply any judgment on the subject. Obviously we should not give charlatans the right to a casting vote on what is a controversy and what isn't. Other proposals include hoax and fraud, I do not advocate those either. But controversy? Well, only in as much as antivaxers literally paid to make it one. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, @JzG. As I stated above, my close was explicitly NOT based on my opinion of the subject
I explained my reasoning for my close in detail in reply @Bradv. My close was based on lack of a clear consensus, lack of a supporting RM, and yoir procedural failure to disclose key info.
In reply to you, I explained that my own personal preference is for the title which you proposed ... and that my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference.
Bradv had tried to persuade me to override all the other factors on the basis that the word controversy is POV, which I refuse to do. You have that tried again.
Even if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that controversy was based on fraud and deception and whatever, that does not cease to make it a controversy. I refer you to the dictionary definitions which I posted above for Bradv.
The use of the word "controversy" in such cases is a matter for consensus-building discussion to determine whether or not is appropriate. But what you and Bradv have been doing is to ask me to abuse my role as closer to overturn an outcome which reflects dictionary usage, on the basis that you two both reject the dictionary definition.
That is a disgraceful misrepresentation. You are an admin, and should conduct yourself much better than to invert someone's words like. I can respect honest disagreement, but that sort of wilful misrepresentation disgusts me.
Now get the hell off my talk page .. and stay off it unless and until you are willing to unequivocally retract that disgraceful inversion of my position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the issues on which I expected you to climb the Reichstag, this was about the last. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion since you don't understand my perspective and I sure as hell don't understand yours. Guy (Help!) 04:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG:: it's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very simple.
You and Bradv want to define a controversy as not being a controversy if one side are what you believe to be bad guys. It is not clear whether you apply that principle to bad by objective or bad by tactics, or both; but that distinction is not really important. Wat matters is that you you make a value on the relative merits or otherwise of the opponents, and choose a label on that value basis.
I do not accept that this is an NPOV position ... so I will not use my role as closer to impose that view on a discussion which has not reached a consensus.
It may be the consensus outcome of a renaming discussion, but it is not one which I will impose against a consensus or in the absence of a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, above you say there are three possible paths forward, but list only two. Did you mean to write “two”, or did you have a third possibility in mind? Also, I suspect that “WP:RV” may not have been the link you were looking for? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newyorkbrad
Sorry, I meant WP:DRV. Now corrected.
The third option I was going to suggest was a new WP:RM, but if there is such strong support for the current article title as claimed by Bradv, then I'm not sure how that could work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS @JzG, Newyorkbrad, and Bradv: I think I do see a third way out of this, as follows:

  1. Guy moves the pages back to its title before his bold move, to restore the status quo ante pending an explicit consensus
  2. An RM discussion then determines the title
  3. Whatever the outcome of the RM discussion, the category can be speedily renamed to match, per WP:C2D. (No need for a discussion).

That may sound perverse, but it does ensure that article and category titles are a) based on an explicit consensus, and b) are congruent. Isn't that what everyone wants? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Ming[edit]

Hello! And congrats on your new Wikipedia status :-) {{HelpMe}}

I need a bit of your help...regarding the V.Ming page. I'm wondering in ways we can collaborate information on the page. I would be happy to contribute all my research to you in advance. Please let me know what works best in your view.

Kind regards --Oakknoll11 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography articles needing translation from French wikipedia per region renaming and merging[edit]

Thank you for answering the entry, but this has lead to empty and useless categories as Category:Upper Normandy region articles needing translation from French Wikipedia, who now need to be deleted. I am sorry if this may not be the place to discuss this. Sadenar40000 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sadenar40000
Another admin deleted them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Francisco Artist profile[edit]

Hi My name is Kara, you left me a message about a page on Martin Francisco that I was trying to create, I have to admit that it is do hard to create a page or artist's profile on Wikipedia, that I have been looking for someone who can help me do all the necessary edits yo finish it and maybe someday see it published, like, I couldn't even figure out how to upload his picture to add it to his page, he has done a lot of auctions and sold some of his art mainly on ebth.com and his art is going to be included in the world of frida traveling exhibition by Bedford Gallery which will begin sometime in 2019 and last through 2022 and will be exhibited in different museums and galleries around the country!, so maybe I will find someone who can help me finish his page. Let me know what you think Thank you. Kara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara lswick (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Kara lswick, but I don't have time to help.
I see that on your talk page there is an invitation to Wikipedia:Teahouse. That's a good place to ask for help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center[edit]

Hello. Could you be so kind and explain to me what do you mean by „single source“ and „sources too closely associated with the subject“ tags you put to the article? Because in the External links there are four various and independent websites. I can put some more, if needed. And of course, I'll settle inline citations. Looking forward to your answer… --Silverije

Hi @Silverije, please do sign your posts. See WP:SIG.
The links you added are labelled as "external links", not references.
They are indeed from different sites, but all of them are involved in promoting the memorial centre.
So none of them are the independent, reliable sources required by WP:V, and also required by WP:GNG to establish notability.
Wikipedia is not a promotional website. If an article is based solely of affiliated sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the things like that, then every source or site is a kind of promotion of something, isn't it? Furthermore, I hardly believe that added links are closely associated/affiliated; they just talk about the same facts that perhaps could be looked at as a promotion. The most important fact is that the Memorial Center exists and operates (see plenty of photos!) and there is no doubt about its notability. Nevertheless, I found more sources, including scientific works, and I'll try to settle the matter, hoping that it would suit your requirements.
P.S. There is a huge number of articles with a single source (or maybe two or three of them) which has been existed for years (e.g. Oldest House Museum or Bankside Gallery or Kathryn Tucker Windham Museum etc. etc.). Should all of such articles be deleted? Or it's better to improve them? Regards, --[[User:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:purple; padding:2px 3px 2px 5px;">Silve</b>]][[User talk:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:blue; padding:2px 3px 2px 3px;">rije</b>]] (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverije, your sig is broken. Please restore the default sig, so that you don't splat talk pages with pointless markup.
Yes, some other articles have problems. But that is no reason to create or retain another problematic article: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The mere fact that the museum exists is explicitly not grounds to have an article on it. See WP:Notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barnstar award templates[edit]

Broken heading fixed. This refers to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Category:Barnstar_award_templates, and my close[6] thereof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you over your statement that there was "no consensus on whether to prefer Option A or Option B". To me, both participants expressed a preference for Option A. Black Falcon (talk · contribs)'s rationale included, "I have a slight preference for Option A," and my response included, "I think that Option A is better." Can you still move the categories to Option A? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Nth User
Yes, your response did include the phrase I think that Option A is better. However, that comment closed with a set of questions to which you did not have an answer, so your position was unresolved. @Black Falcon's reply concluded I, too, am struggling to decide which would be best.
You didn't reply to BF's response, and there was no further comment from either of you — or from anyone else — until I closed the discussion a month later.
If the participants are unsure and do not resolve the ambiguities and uncertainties in their positions, then please don't expect the closer to invent a consensus which doesn't exist on the CFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals RfC[edit]

Hi. I noticed you started a draft RfC, and I was wondering if I could get an invitation to the discussion (I found out about it since I'm a (talk page stalker)). Regardless of your answer, you may want to copy some of the ideas at User:DannyS712/rfc4. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DannyS712
Many thanks for telling me about that. Good work on trying to get the ball rolling, though I note that discussion on your page seems to have stalled.
I have three concerns:
  1. User:DannyS712/rfc4 is a very strongly directional proposal for a specific outcome, whereas per WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCST, RFCs should ask neutral questions, which is what am trying to do. So I don't think that our approaches would be compatible.
  2. You draft proposes a cleanup process, based on presumed support for some inclusion criteria. I think that's back-to-front, and that the community will be better served by first establsihing a consensus on which portals should exist, and then separately discussing processes for cleaning up any large sets of exceptions
  3. I invited 4 other editors on the basis of trying to create a balanced group of 5. Inviting someone else now, before the others have even replied, would not be a good faith way of treating the prospective group.
So I'll post a note at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, and see what the others think ... if anyone else does work with me on it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not at all tied to my draft - it was just a potential idea. I agree with you about point #2, and completely understand #3 - let me know if anything changes. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DannyS712. Will do! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROUT[edit]

Please show me how I can easily use WP:TWINKLE to upmerge a category to both of its parent categories as a target. I'd be interested in that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf:
  1. use WP:TWINKLE
  2. On the drop-don box where by default it says "delete", select "merge"
  3. Below that enter the first merge target
  4. Type the rationale
  5. Press submit, and you will be taken to the CFD page.
The above covers all cases where you want to merge one Category to one target.
For multiple merge targets, simply edit the nomination in front of you to add any further merge targets.
So there it is. Easy. Hundreds of other editors do it routinely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it's not possible. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: So you really find that not easy?
Really? Is that your idea of joke?
Or are you genuinely, honestly telling me that after two million edits you have such severe WP:COMPETENCE issues that you find it impossible to use the second option on a drop-down menu? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote: there is no way to choose both targets with Twinkle, so I'd have to manually re-edit it. Your concern that someone can't see the entire rationale from the category itself and has to go to CfD to actually read is... pointless? If anyone suggested a category I created for deletion and I cared at all, I would look at the CfD itself to read the discussion. Since there is no ability with the semi-automated tool to choose both parents as a target then I don't know why you're suggesting it, since I used Twinkle in the first place. Your suggestion is to use a tool that I already used to accomplish something that can't be accomplished with it to benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held? Is that your idea of a joke? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Please do grow up and stop nitpicking about whether Twinkle does every step for you. I never claimed that it does that: what I wrote[7] was It's really v v easy to use WP:TWINKLE to create a nomination which actually says "merge Cat:X to Cat:Y". AS above, you can use it to do ~90% of the job, and and then do one more easy step. The whole cycle can be done in 20 seconds or less.
This is all v simple. It's about communication, namely clearly signposting a proposal so that editors can make a rapid decision on whether they want to engage further.
You ask benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held?
Simple: because they want to make an early decision on whether it does interest them ... and provide accurate and complete info at the signposting stage helps them make that choice with minimum time-wasting. You contemptuously choose to give them inaccurate and incomplete info.
It's all a very similar issue to edit summaries. Yes, any editor can open up any edit and see what it did. But per WP:FIS, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." Clear CFD listings are just like that: they help other editors decide whether to read further. When an edit summary is missing or uninformative, every other editor who sees the edit (in a page history, watchlist, recent changes list, user contribs list etc) has waste time finding out for themselves what the editor could and should have conveyed in the summaries. Same with XFD listings.
You seem to have an active hostility to the very concept of effective communication, so I'm going to spell this out for you.
As I shown above, there is very simple and easy method by which you can:
A/ ensure that CFD tag is as clear as possible about what is proposed
B/ ensure that the summary at the top of the entry on CFD daily Log convey accurately what is to be done
This is not about other editors being lazy. It is about the fact that XFD listing discussion pages are long, so most editors speed-read XFD listing pages, skimming and scanning to make a set of triaging steps on each section. e.g.
  1. What categories are involved (the heading)
  2. What is proposed to do with them (in the listing)
  3. Why is this proposed (in the rationale)
  4. has there been much discussion? (see how big the discussion is)
  5. What arguments are being made? (read the discussion)
The sooner and more clearly the info is presented, the better they make an assessment of whether to invest more time going further into the listing. This is about how clear communication helps other editors to decide how much more of their limited time to invest. You description of them as lazy is deeply contemptuous of your fellow editors.
So look at that CFD for Category:American Jewish conservatives.
  1. The speed-reader sees the heading. Intersection of religion and politics: I might be interested. But what's involved? so proceed to read the listing
  2. They look at the listing. What? Delete? Why while Jewish Conserbvatives no longer be categorised as Conservatives? so read the nominator's rationale
  3. Read the rationale. It begins with "/Upmerge". WTF, I thought the listing says "delete"? What's this about?
    Glance back at the listing. Yes, it says delete. Nominator is confused, maybe the next sentence says more.
    So read on. But no mention of what those parent categories are. Grrr.
    So ctrl-clock tto open up the category page, and scan to the bottom to see the parent categories: Category:American Jews and Category:American conservative people.
    Ahh!!!OK, they will still be categorised by both attributes. I don't mind either way whether or not that merger happens, so move on.
All of that third step would be entirely un-needed if you had the basic courtesy to use the tools in front of you to spend only an extra few seconds of your time listing the actual proposed action and the merge targets. But because you are lazy and/or arrogant and/or contemptuous of your fellow editors, you force every single one of them of them to spend more time finding out for themselves what you could so easily have told them in a few seconds.
That applies to each person who assess that entry. So do a few sums.
That page has had 675 pageviews. Be generous, say each reader came back 5 times. So that 135 difft readers.
Say that half of those read beyond the headline, to figure out what that nomination was proposing to do.
It's likely to take each of them took 20 seconds to open up Category:American Jewish conservatives to check the parent cats which you say are the merge target. Maybe more, but let's take a short time. Multiply that out: 135 X 20 seconds = 45 minutes.
That's right. You refusal to spend a few seconds of your own time clearly conveying that proposal has wasted 45 minutes of other editors time. That's very selfish behaviour.
And that's 45 minutes for every single category which list with incomplete, or contradictory info.
I am very glad that you have no responsibility for motorway signage. Because if you were in charge, you'd be saying something like "why bother making these huge motorway signs like this? Why benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to leave the motorway to find out where the junction leads to?"
And you'd probably remove the smaller signs on local which show the name of the street, benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to get out, knock on a door, and ask "what street is this".
I just took a look at your latest 500 edits: almost zero non-automated summaries. So your are consistent in your non-communication ... but you have been on en.wp long enough to know the long-standing bolded guidance that It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. What a selfish attitude to bring to a collaborative project like Wikipedia . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is selfish about this? Why is it you think that you are the only person who writes this kind of stuff to me? What is it about you that in 2M+ edits, I only butt heads with one person? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as I expected: no substantive answer, not even an acknowledgement of the case I made. Just deflection.
(I did hope for better, which is why I took the time to reply, but my expectations were v low).
Why do you only butt heads with one person? As you know, that's not actually the case. But it seems that most others give up much sooner in the face of your sustained passive aggression, as happened here[8]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you get mad when I post an 89-word response on my talk for being too long and then you post a novella here? You surfaced this problem that I am "selfish" for not providing manual edit summaries. I am asking how that is selfish. You consistently apply some moral value judgement to my actions (lazy, selfish, rude) which is not exactly apparent. In spite of my better judgement, I am trusting that you are saying something meaningful with these claims: I am more concerned with being an ethical person than a good Wikipedia editor, so when you make these asides, I care more about that than about drop-down menus and efficiency in Twinkle. And please take your own advice and "grow up" and "stop whining": you know what I mean about butting heads and your link is not "butting heads" with this user; it's him saying, "that's enough" and moving on. You never do that ever and are the only person who needlessly hounds me about minutiae and makes some moral statement about my character. So forgive me for thinking that things that are more important are more important and taking stock in your judgement but my question stands as you couldn't be bothered to answer it. How are these edit summaries "selfish"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your selfishness and lack of communication make it very difficult to collaborate with you. I'm assuming that this will be another drive-by complaint that resolves nothing based on your personal preferences. But if you decide that you want to actually have a conversation (that you initiated), then please post to my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Koavf (Justin), you did not I posted a long explanation of why I reproached you. You did not even acknowledge the substance of it, and just dismissed it as novella.
Yet now you accuse me of lack of communication? That's an unjustified and childish parrot-like response which has no place in a consensus-based project.
You claim above that you are more concerned with being an ethical person than a good Wikipedia editor. If so, then I suggest you have a long hard ethical discussion with yourself about how it is ethical to participate in a collaborative project and systematically, deliberately fail to communicate in a way which makes your intentions clear ... and that you also think very about about the ethics of describing as lazy people who resent having to do extra research in order to discover core information which you could have added in seconds when you raised the issue.
You (lack of) edit summaries are as blatantly selfish as your failure to communicate clearly making XFD nominations for exactly the same reason: per Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it.".
Do you not understand that? Or do you simply not care? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I just think you are wrong. So I asked you to explain and you can't/won't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with this information. No one else has ever said these things to me in 15 years, so... . ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You asked me to explain, and I did at length.
I can only speculate why you claim others don't point this out to you. But as I noted above, another editor (Marcocapelle) did ask you to fix your CFD nom, and you ignored that too. So my working assumption is that you simply choose not to hear when people say these things to you, and that's why you make a your demonstrably false claim that nNo one else has ever said these things to me in 15 years.
But I note that you still have not responded to my substantive explanation of the problem other than to say that you think I am wrong. That's weird: do you think, for example that Help:Edit summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary is "wrong"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and AWB[edit]

I'm not a bot or AWB user but I appreciate the suggestion. At the bottom of this thread [9] Certes ran two reports. The first one is portals with less than 20 new articles (he's got a weird way of defining it). I'd like someone to MfD the whole batch of 435 with a link to his post and that whole thread. That will sweep up both some of TTH's and some creations by his followers. The sweetest part is these were identified as too narrow within the project's own existing guidelines by a project member. I've done a lot of portal MFDing so it would be better if someone like you could take the lead on this, especially since I don't have the skills to automate. TTH insists every portal needs a delete tag on it BTW. Direct link to the report [10] Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Legacypac, and sorry for being slow to get back to you on this one.
Many thanks for the pointers. I looked at that discussion, and also at the report: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/33923.
The result seemed odd to me, and I didn't think that it was a suitable basis for a mass nomination without further checking. (I'm not entirely sure that I understand what the @Certes's code was doing, and I note Certes's caveats about it not being a suitable basis for deletion selection. However, it would be very welcome of Certes and other members of WP:WPPORT devoted some effort to assisting the cleanup. I am extremely disappointed by the way in which that project has left the cleanup efforts almost entirely to editors who are not part of the project, and the project's collective failure to pro-actively help remove junk from the pages within its scope seems to me to an abdication of the WikiProject's responsibilities)
So I forked it to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34403, which omits the pages-in-another-portal test.
In ran it initially with a threshold of 20, which gave me a list of about 30 portals. About 15 of those formed the basis of my MFD nominations yesterday. (About half the list was dab pages, which I obviously excluded).
I have now raised the threshold to 35, which seems to be throwing up lots of portals which in reality have less than 20 articles. I am working through that list, which gave me e.g. Portal:Industry, California and Portal:Jambi, both now at MFD. I'll continue working though that list, one at a time. It's tedious and time-consuming, but so long as WP:WPPORT members don't assist, then that's where we are at.
BTW, Legacypac, it's great to find you and me in agreement. We seem to have been at loggerheads on most things for the last few months, so it's good to find an area where we do agree . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found the info helpful. I was wondering how you were selecting the random ones you are nominating. This will take forever one at a time, with the delete voters losing interest and the portal fans bringing in eafh other with notifications. We need to batch the noms somehow. There is plenty of bad behavior around portals. I've now been accused of "fraud" at the Small Cities Portals nomination while Northamerica1000 has been voting over and over in the same MfDs. I fail to see why anyone finds these pages useful. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac, I am suggesting doing thousands of them one at a time. But in the absence of clear guidelines, I think it's helpful to establish a few precedents before doing group nominations for clusters of similar portals.
In other words, test the waters with individual nominations of one or two, then group the rest of the set.
e.g. the set which you identified at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jambi would make an excellent followup.
However, I take your point about voter fatigue. So would you like to go through https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34403, and see if you can identify any more sets, like those Indonesian provinces?
If so, then we can write a suitable rationale for the group, and I can use AWB to tag them all so that they all link directly to the appropriate MFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see some Univ of North Carolina campuses to bundle there.

The benefit of grouping by topic is it also sweeps up a few portals by other random authors with the TTH mass creations. We can follow the list of portals groupings, though that page is quite incomplete I've learned. It excluded all the Indian districts, most of the small cities, US Counties, and others that have been deleted. Food portals would make one or more good groupings for example.

Another way that emphasizes the indiscriminate nature of the creations without getting into debates about the merits of this or that portal few readers look at anyway would be to bundle all portals mass created between Time A and B. Even one or two hour blocks will yield large groups, while one or a few days will still be large groups for some other periods. This will help directly justify X3 and result in slam dunk deletes rather than the portal by portal debates where I fear we will end up ruining the perfect delete track record to date. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Like the Indonesian ones near the top created between :24 and :42. It would take me longer to nominate them for deletion one by one than it took to create them. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi BHG. Thanks for pointing me here from a random MfD. Thanks for cleaning up the unexpectedly large number of TTH’s autoPortal creations. If feel a bit responsibly in that I may have encouraged him to have done this. My argument was that Portals are content forking, and that a better way to do Portals (if they are to continue), is to make them automatic, so that no Portal has its own creative history. Creative content should exist in mainspace articles. Portals should transclude selected content, not rewrite content. For me, this sounds like a huge coding challenge. I did not anticipate that TTH would create thousands unilaterally.
There are too many TTH/ portal discussions for me to keep up with. I am thinking TTH needs to be forced to only create portals with formally approved Bots. Bot policy is pretty good at holding back half baked ideas. Do you agree? How can we make it happen. Can you make it happen simply by threatening him with a WP:BLOCK if he again mass-creates Portals without an approved Bot? I think he and his colleagues should be limited to a maximum 50 autoPortals for demonstration purposes. I suspect that 50 might also be the final number. One portal for 100000 articles. Coded functionality should allow the browser to auto-browse deeper. I also think this may bring increased relevance to categories. Not holding my breath though, just ideas. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No threats necessary. See WP:MASSCREATION, recently revised. Now, any amount of portals over 25 to 50, created by semi-automatic means falls under the jurisdiction of BAG (Bot Approvals Group) and must get their approval. Anyone who violates that policy may be subject to a block.    — The Transhumanist   08:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TTH breached WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT before the rewording to make them more clear. The rewording is because you deny breaching them so we made it even more clear. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A crazy idea - the mother of all MfDs 3500-4500 automated Portals in one go in a collapse box. Getting X3 through is proving difficult because of off the wall objections and the idea of running it for two more weeks while we chip away at the list a few at a time. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe & @Legacypac, thanks again to you both for your comments. Since you are both warning off individual nominations, I will desist thefrom.

I don't think that a single mass nomination would work, and it could be regarded as wildly disruptive.

So I think the way forward lies in identifying clusters, as Legacypac has done already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m very happy with test cases, especially if clearly labelled as a test case typical of many others. You can’t just call it a test case after the fact, and argue for a CSD. I am against what looks like the start of the 4500 individual nominations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals/Assessment is useful - but they have not assessed 4,699 portals yet. Still...

It's kind of hard to argue that keeping pages the project assessed as "low importance" is important when lots of people want to ax all the pages. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close of RFC on mass creation of portals[edit]

this discussion relates to my close[12] of WP:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus_on_mass_creation_of_Portals

I'm very happy to discuss any close I make, but when words are put in my mouth, and bogus ad hominems are thrown at me, and maliciously false accusations of bad faith are made, the discussion stops right there.
Stay off my talk, @SMcCandlish:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

I'd suggest that much of this verbiage can be trimmed: "It is less clear whether that moratorium extends to all creations of new portals, or when and how that moratorium should end, but it is clear that there is no existing guideline which codifies the consensus here for a radical change of approach. So I urge that editors refrain from testing boundaries of community consensus by creating only those new portals which appear to them to be acceptable." The proposal was "mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools be paused until clearer community consensus is established", so manual portal creation wasn't covered in the first place. Your close kind of suggests otherwise and may "scare someone into silence", if you will, about a non-automated portal idea they've been working on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I see your point, but my aim was to reduce drama. The broad context is that the community's consensus on what portals should exist is unclear; the WP:WPPORT editors clearly have a different view to the views widely held elsewhere, and that underpins a lot of the recent drama.
The RFC proposal is indeed formally about "mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools", but it is very clear from the extensive discussion that concerns go much wider than that. That clearly indicates that this is a time for consensus-building rather than page creation, not least because it would be a great pity for any editor to put a lot of work now into building something which may soon be deprecated.
So I think it's unhelpful to characterise my comment as scare someone into silence. I have no desire to scare anyone, but I do think it would be irresponsible to close the RFC without saying something to the effect of "this whole area is up in the air, so please exercise caution". My aim was, and remains, to remind everyone of the importance of building a broad consensus so that we can move towards ending the drama.
In doing that, I was v conscious that the terse close of WP:ENDPORTALS had addressed only the narrow question posed, leading to wildly different assumptions about what it meant for other issues. For example, there was good grounds for saying that the mood of that discussion amounted to "no, don't delete them all, but there are too many narrow portals" ... but TTH and some others interpreted the RFC as a mandate to start mass auto-creation, leading to the current drama. In hindsight, I think that if @Cyberpower678 had noted in their close the need resolve the other issues on which there was such extensive discussion and such a wide range of views, we might have avoided the current ruckus.
So I think it would do the community no service at all to omit the reminder what we need now is to build that broad consensus.
Note that since no RFC has yet been started on the principles, I am now working with a few other editors of varying viewpoints to draft an RFC which would try to set guidelines on which portals should exist. See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, ? —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678, I commented on an action of yours. I don't like doing that behind ppl's backs, so I pinged you just so you were that I had mentioned you. I'm not seeking any response from you, but of course if you wanted to say something, that'd be fine too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, other than the "mandate" bit. Lack of consensus against something, on WP, is in fact permission to try it, per WP:EDITING policy. One doesn't need a clear "mandate" from the community go do something, or we'd never get anything done. The issue here is the scale of what's been attempted, questionable purpose of many of the micro-topical portals under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#INDEX policy, and the alleged maintenance costs. (However, some of these allegations are clearly overblown when it comes to automated stuff; the automation is the opposite of maintenance. The real maint. costs are going to be more subtle, like how many pages have to be edited if a portal-related category changes names; that sort of thing.) Someone else pointed out that not all of the MfD deletions were non-controversial. I would add that several are questionable, e.g. the ones on cities and larger regions, the ones on topics of clear encyclopedic interest and with numerous articles (e.g. jiu-jitsu/jujutsu), versus those that are too narrow like "spaghetti".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: please don't put words in my mouth. I neither used nor implied a need for a "mandate".
What I did try to do was to guide editors to avoiding controversy, per WP:RECKLESS ... and to build a WP:CONSENSUS.
And please don't try to drag this discussion into our personal preferences for the future. Those discussions are happening are happening elsewhere, and there is no need to replicate them here.
But if you think that some of deletions are controversial, that only underline the need for what I said in my close: that editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'll just quote you back to yourself: "TTH and some others interpreted the RFC as a mandate to start mass auto-creation, leading to the current drama." And "don't try to drag this discussion into our personal preferences for the future" doesn't appear to relate in any way to a single thing I said; I'm mostly agreeing with you that quite a few portals are problematic. I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent". Not helpful. Anyway, I agree that "editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist"; I've been saying this for a long time, and the reason I signed up for WikiProject Portals in the first place was to be involved in that (AFAIK, the only serious drafting of that stuff so far has been on a portals MoS page, which doesn't get to the meat of the current matter). I'm glad the RfC drafting stuff is open, and will comment on its talk page. I'll say first off, though, that options 5 and 6 are not actually possible under policy (namely WP:CONLEVEL and ArbCom rulings about it, and WP:EDITING, respectively).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: a thoroughly bad faith comment like that bogus allegation that I get angry because my close is criticised marks the end of our discussion.
I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance, but if you want to engage in that sort of smeary, twisted ad hominem, the discussion is over.
Given that you agree that we need a consensus of criteria for portals, I really wonder what on earth was the point of this whole discussion.
The RFC is not a public drafting process. I chose a small groups of people with differing views to facilitate quick progress. So the talk page is for that group only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal group (which SMcCandlish is part) ignored the widely held view that there were too many narrow topic portals. They breached WP:MEATBOT. They claimed we should not delete any portals while they came up with a new guideline, but then did not come up with a new guideline before creating or converting 5700 portals. TTH even admitted at AN that no one is following the existing guidelines in creating portals. One editor has been dismissing the 100% delete results of the MFDs as "controversial" but if you ignore the small group that is defending their breaches of policy and general community consensus that portals need to be well thought out, darn near every other MfD/AN/VP participant is against the massive increase in portals. I suggest drafting a guideline and running an RFC. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you review my own talk page discussions about portals, you'll see that I've strongly advocated merging "micro-topical" portals, and predicting that their separate existence would cause some backlash from various editors. However, that these various editors are lashing back (sometimes with a tone more like lashing out – lots of personally directed vindictiveness) does not mean in fact that a MEATBOT violation has occurred. That's a specific claim of editorial malfeasance you'd have to prove at a venue for examining user behavior (ANI, RFARB, AE, etc.). See also WP:ASPERSIONS (and ad hominem and guilt by association more generally); you cannot legitimately imply I have some kind of hive mind attitude about portals simply because I've signed up as a participant in the relevant wikiproject. The entire purpose of wikiprojects is to gather input from people interested in something, in whatever way, and build a broad-based consensus – not to forge lock-step thinking (a WP:FACTION), the opposite of the idea. If you want to allege the existence of a FACTION, that's another behavioral matter you'll have to present diffs to prove.

Moving on, several of the MfDs were in fact contentious, and multiple editors asked you to shelve your "MfD trophy case" stuff. It's simply divisive and pointless to try to make this a numbers game when everyone without really severe brain damage can immediately see that most of those MfDs were against worthless portals (and the edge cases, on topics that are arguably broad enough and of enough reader interest to justify a portal) were the ones that were contentious. If you started nominating less obvious deletion candidates, your success/fail rate at MfD would very obviously reverse itself immediately. There is no question, I think, that we don't need things like "Portal:E (mathematical constant)" and "Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn". If you try to turn this probable site-wide consensus into a "kill all portals" forum-shopping expedition, to overturn the VPPOL RfC last year, that's not going to work.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

technical matter about MFD[edit]

I disagree with the nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE of course, but as a technical matter doesn't your MFD about wp:ITSACASTLE require some notice at the essay itself? --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: (talk page stalker) It does, and BHG added a tag earlier. See Special:Diff/888263300. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh, sorry, there is notice there now. --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DannyS712.
Doncram, my tag was added to the so-called "essay" 38 minutes before you posted here[13].
And Doncram, your second comment here[14] removed Danny's comment.
This sort of high-frequency basic incompetence is a large part of why so many NRHP editors are fed up with you. It wears the patience very fast.
Do read WP:CIR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories Establishments in Portland, Oregon[edit]

There are these pages starting in 2000 and most were at CFD already, here[15] and here[16]. In light of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia results, I think the debate on those should be re-opened with a new CFD. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WilliamJE.
I reckon we should wait until the New York City CFD closes. That will be a good measure of where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additing A Biography : Support Request[edit]

Hello Brownhairedgirl Josh Eson (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, hello Josh.
Was their any purpose to your post, or is this just a social call? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

This is a social call to let you know that I for one appreciate all of the good things that you do here. If this was 160 years ago, I would leave a Carte de visite for you. Alas, it is 2019. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you. That's kind. I have been much encouraged by recent responses at ANI, and am now feeling a little more confident that this is coming to an end.
I love the notion of an old calling card. I once encountered a stash of printed calling cards in the papers of a long-deceased middle-class relative, from late Victorian Dublin. Below the name etc they had a whole sentence of ornate prose in a hideous italicised font expressing the depth and sincerity of their regret at the mutual misfortune at having called when the the other was not "AT HOME" (capitalised and scare-quoted), and the sincerity and constancy of their best wishes and deep regards. Wish I had kept one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lines[edit]

at the top of your draft t/p seems to be a bit OTT to me. Whilst you have your own choices about handling of user-space stuff, I don't foresee about how enabling a free-for-all discussion during the brain-storming-stage will lead to acute disruption. At any case, I made a comment over there but have self-reverted. Regards, ∯WBGconverse 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric, I'd love to agree with you ... but I kept it closed in part because of my experience previous discussions with on editor in this area who posted multi-screenful rambling replies to anything, and in part to try to get some initial work done quickly.
And I've already had one mega-drama of acute disruption from an angry editor looking for a fight. If that sorta stuff was kept, the page would be a mess.
I dunno yet if this exercise will work, but it seems to me to be worth trying to iron out the wrinkles in a draft before putting it out to open development.
It's a pity that you didn't respect my request to post here rather than on the draft talk, but thanks for self-reverting.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-screenful rambling replies? I checked the t/p but do not seem to locate anything. Sorry,I was unaware of the standoff between you and SMC. Sigh.
I did not spot the red lines at top of the t/p, when I got to the section directly (from Popups) and it was when the page reloaded, that I noticed it. An edit notice is more efficient for these purposes. ∯WBGconverse 11:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that was my experience previous of discussions with an editor in this area. Not on this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, brr, that would appear to be a creepy thing to do, under the circumstances. Maybe the user is fine with this, your explanation and self-revert indicates you thought it might be otherwise. So why insert yourself in this way? cygnis insignis 11:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC) my reply tool inserted this without me seeing there were already replies, and the explanation that WBG was unaware of "standoff". cygnis insignis 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cygnis insignis, sorry? ∯WBGconverse 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support your actions, but …nothing. So why am I am here? Maybe to point out that this backlash was a certainty, but would nevertheless be unpleasant to experience (or I would find it so) and not responding seems as undesirable as continuing to respond (or take the bait). I'm just recognising the bind you are being placed in. Regards, cygnis insignis 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @cygnis insignis.
It is the eternal dilemma on wikipedia. When some rude editor makes false accusations, rejects calls to back off, and then creates a shitstorm complete with diffs edited to misrepresent them, what to do?
I was tempted to ignore ... but then the crap and the lies become the new truth.
And yet, by engaging, I may be climbing down into the gutter with him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has blown any credibility on the portals topic already and they just sealed that. A little pushback is ok, but too much is like throwing oneself in the mud pit too. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"lies become the new truth." this concept has been test-marketed and shown to a populist and effective method of framing discussion and manufacturing consent. So it goes. We are here to use sourced information, facts in context, anything that doesn't use citations requires vehement defence. Those that wish to parasitise our content as community members ought to challenged, vehemently! cygnis insignis 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People will tell lies about you here. Remaining calm shows them for what they are and who you are. Start the IBAN now and be happy for it :) Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I stick my nose in here to ask if you plan on pursuing this at ArbCom, and if not, can I briefly (just once and then leave you alone) encourage you to do so, rather than settle for an uneasy truce and/or i-ban? This was bothering me last night, and (per User:Iridescent's comment at ANI), it is quickly becoming clear to me who is likely harassing whom via email. I am usually in favor of having quarreling people with different perspectives on who's at fault just leave each other alone. But if what you describe is accurate, it is really beyond the pale, and cannot be explained by different perspectives, especially going back to the ANI thread with fake accusations. I hope this isn't considered pot stirring, but that shouldn't stand.

My understanding per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE is that admins can't block based on private information - even if they immediately notify ArbCom. Please consider forwarding them the emails (if you haven't already). It need not be a full case if things are that clear cut. It's possible we annoy each other enough that you won't value this opinion; that's fine. And I'm obviously not the person who would have to deal with the stress and trouble, so I won't bug you no matter what you decide. But IMHO you shouldn't let this drop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floquenbeam, and thanks for your message.
I just don't have the stomach for a full-blown arb case. I think I have been through two of them, and they were horrendous timesinks. Even though this one has only two parties, the sheer amount of nonsense I have seen so far makes me think that this will be another impenetrable forest.
However, the worst bit of it all is SMcCandlish's accusation here[17] that engaged in offline harassment, to which I responded here[18]. That's a foul smear.
Would it really be possible to ask Arbcom to just examine the issue of that claim? If so how would I go about it?
Do I go to WP:RFAR and start a case, saying that evidence is in an email?
Sorry if that sounds silly, but after The Troubles case I have tried to avoid Arbcom, so I am not up to speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't silly; the ways of ArbCom are not clear and simple. I should be more confident about this, being an ex-Arb, but this is only my best guess:
  • Rather than continually hedging my wording to avoid being accused of stating as a fact that SMcC did something wrong, when I obviously can't prove it, just assume that everything I say below starts out "If what you describe is accurate..."
  • It really does meet the definition of harassment/pestering (unwanted aggressive emails after the thread close) and (much worse, IMHO) gaslighting/smearing (false accusations against the target made by the harasser, on-wiki).
  • In general, I very much doubt ArbCom wants to make it difficult for recipients of harassment to report it.
  • I think you can just email ArbCom with a brief summary of what happened (point them to the ANI close, and forward (not just a screenshot, but actually forward) all the emails, and ask them to investigate the claim of harassment.
  • It's based on fairly limited evidence, easily separable from the chaff of the ANI thread, and easily separable from personalities and perspectives and opinions. No guarantees, obviously, but I do think they would be willing to investigate privately, with no on-wiki full-blown case.
  • If they do, they will contact SMcC offline to get his side of the story. I very much doubt there would be anything on-wiki to blow up.
  • If they don't, then (a) sorry to give you bad advice, and (b) they will give you much better advice.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you, Floquenbeam. You clearly get what is going on. I did think of describing it as gaslighting, but feared that might be over-the-top, so it is reassuring to see you can spot that aspect of it.
In the meantime I had received an email from a checkuser who offered to help pass things on, so I sent stuff that way.
I will take your kind advice and send them an email directly, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.
This is great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I'm no expert in ArbCom things, but I can't help thinking this one should be relatively simple (and yeah, I hope that doesn't come back to bite me ;-). The evidence is off-wiki email, plus a single ANI section containing accusations. So no great list of participants, no public evidence phase, and all investigated in private. It shouldn't be anything like the great public drama fests that some cases turn into. As long as you're telling the truth (and I'm quite certain you are), I don't see that you have anything to fear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar[edit]

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
I felt this was an appropriate barnstar for keeping your cool - my initial thoughts on that ANI were a long way off, and I wanted to both apologise and thank you for keeping calm as it rolled on. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Nosebagbear. That's very kind of you, tho I'm not sure how calm I really was!
For what it's worth, I think that few of us get many things right the first time. The most important thing is being willing to change one's mind as the evidence changes, and you have done just that. That's gold-dust. Hang onto it!
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited private editing comment[edit]

In light of your recent travails, here is an unsolicited suggestion for keeping your drafts private until you're ready for public interaction. There are many ways to do this, here's a simple one I sometimes use. Save your drafts in a notepad document. Then, use the editors you are comfortable with, but always preview, never save. Keep copying your draft to the notepad document. When you are ready and willing for those who stalk your draft space to collaborate, save your edit. I apologize in advance if this is in any way annoying; I just thought you might find it helpful.Jacona (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacona, and thanks v much for that suggestion. But I won't be taking it up.
I did my initial drafting offline, as I often do ... but when I wanted input from others I was determined to do it openly. I really dislike offline plotting, and in 13 years on Wikipedia I have never to discuss any substantive policy or content issues by email. I use email sparingly (normally <10 emails a year), to sort out personal misunderstandings. If a discussion looks like getting into content or policy, I take it back on-wiki.
That actually worked well in this case. My draft page had 180 views in its first 3 days, and only one editor decided to ignore the invitees only notice. And that one seemed to be looking for something to have a fight about, so I suspect that if it hadn't been that page which provided the venue for the flare-up, it'd have been something else.
But thanks again for taking the time to write. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

The cfr tags have gone awry on some pages, eg Category:Places of worship in England by city, where a closing } is missing. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Oculi. I had spotted it, and am fixing them now.
Egg-on-face time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A(nother) barnstar for you![edit]

The No Spam Barnstar
This is the closest symbol to what I am looking for, since the portals have become spam as the Vikings are on the beaches of Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Robert! That's v kind.
I share your view of this forest of drive-portals (500 portals in 500–1000 minutes, according to their creator) as spam ... but I am ultimately less concerned about whether my view turns out to align with the consensus than that we do get some stable consensus. I think it's a v bad idea to have so many barely-used and almost content-free uncurated portals, but I think that the worst outcome would be a continuation of the current unresolved deep divide. The community really needs some sort of broad and stable consensus on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is even more important to arrive at a consensus. It won't be a broad consensus in that it won't have the support of 75% of the community, but it will be sufficient that it be agreed to be what we have agreed on. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. If two sections on a talk page have the same title, navigation goes to the first one, and the last one is usually what is intended. That's not a bug, and not a feature; it's just the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I work off a levels-of-consensus model which I first encountered in about 1982, from the Seneca Falls Peace Camp in New York.
  1. Endorse
  2. Don't endorse, but will support if group chooses it
  3. Don't endorse, and if group chooses it, I'll not help implement
  4. if group chooses it, I'll campaign against it
  5. If group chooses it, I quit
Sometimes, the best we can get is decent majority of ppl at level 3 or better. But I hope can do better than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Request[edit]

The majority of Wikipedians appear to be in agreement against expanded portals, so that you and the group will probably be at level 1 or 2, but at least 3.

If you file a Request for Arbitration, please notify me on my talk page, so that I can add a statement asking the ArbCom to accept it. I see several issues that should be considered by ArbCom (although ArbCom normally prefers to do as little as they can). The issues are not limited to conduct by SMcC. I think that it may be appropriate to authorize ArbCom discretionary sanctions for deletion discussions.

If another of the deletion discussions becomes unpleasant or there is another case at WP:AN or WP:ANI about portals, I will go ahead and file an Arbitration Request myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and offensive words from User:Calton[edit]

Hello, I have an issue with attack on me of User:Calton. Please find information here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please help.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this trolling, I think this guy lacks even the most basic competence to edit Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 10:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Calton, that report has already been resolved and closed. As I've also told you on your talk page, drop it now and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Boing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing The fact that *I* had to remove the trolling means, no, it WASN'T settled. Your contribution was to rev-del an edit summary and issue a cheap threat because I did your job for you. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Wow, @Calton. Wow. That's bizarre.
Obviously, Kamala Harris is just itching out take time out of her presidential campaign to go do something on behalf of someone who doesn't like what someone else said on a Wikipedia talk age. I'll tune in to CNN to hear their report.
Look, there's clearly competence issues there. So you were right to remove the trolling, but why did you go and use the edit summary like WHAT is your major malfunction?
You're the admin, not a counter-troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I hadn't seen that personal attack in the edit summary. I've rev-deleted it. Calton, you are -> this <- close to a block if you do not stop this now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing Personal attack, my ass. If you can't even be bothered to read the posting in question and if you can't be bothered to "resolve and close" something properly, maybe you shouldn't take it out on someone who does it for you.
You're the admin, not a counter-troll
I'm neither an admin -- if I were, I would have simply deleted the trolling and be done with, like an actual admin should have -- NOR am I a "counter-troll". Have the slang terms in my edit summary the English language suddenly acquired brand-new, secret meanings? --Calton | Talk 14:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calton is now blocked for 31 hours for refusing to drop the stick and insisting on escalating a 2-day-old closed dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_046&oldid=1031703733"