User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 077

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

Withdrawal from the SmallCat case[edit]

I have withdrawn from the SmallCat case at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. I will not be presenting evidence, and will not participate in any of the discussions.

This is for two reasons: not being allowed to make my case, and prejudicial framing.

Sifting through masses of evidence, I realised that I would way overrun the allotted 1,000 words. By Saturday, I had put in about 80 hours of work and my draft evidence has exceeded 10,000 words, so I emailed Arbcom to say that I would probably need to request a final tally of an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 words. I offered to send my latest draft.

After ~48 hours the Arbs replied to say that they were unsure, so I sent my latest draft. After a further 24 hours I had no response, and since I had slowed down while awaiting a response, I requested an extension of at least days 5 to the evidence phase of the case.

Soon after that, I got a reply to say that Arbcom to say that they are "unwilling to entertain any request for an extension beyond 5,000 words and would encourage you to consider how close to 2,500 words you could get". The reply also deprecated my inclusion of an analysis of the radical contextomy deployed against me, which I regard as a key reason for how this case escalated into a big storm.

That makes it impossible for me to present my case. So I replied to say that I will not participate any further.

I then took the time to review the case parameters, noting how the broad scope of the case had allowed non-parties to raise a range of matters unrelated to SmallCat, which would need a lot of space ro reply. I also spotted at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence a comment by Arbitrator Silk Tork at 17:53, 24 July 2023 which says in part that "We are not here to assess the rights and wrongs of the SmallCat guideline, or decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline." (That's a whole sentence from a post of 6 sentences. The relevant part here is the second clause, to which I have added underlining).

This strips from the case of the core of the dispute: the systematic misrepresentation of the guideline SMALLCAT to achieve arbitrary deletion of categories.

The lead of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) requires that "all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces" will "Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work". The central issue of conduct in the dispute is therefore whether editors did indeed "strive towards accuracy and verifiability" in their use of SMALLCAT.

WP:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent says "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat.". I had assumed this means that Arbcom is not free to cherrypick which parts of the UCoC it seeks to uphold, but it seems my assumption was wrong.

I would have much preferred that the community direct its efforts to making any needed clarifications to SMALLCAT, rather than into weeks of diff-farming and finger-pointing which cannot bring any resolution to the substantive dispute. At RFAR, I used a significant chunk of my word limit to make that point[1], trying to find a solution rather personalise a dispute.

But Silk Tork's comment sets a deeply prejudicial framing which gives a free ride to those who have misused the simple guideline, and problematises those who did indeed "strive towards accuracy and verifiability" in it use. That seems to wholly invert the priorities of encyclopedia-building. I have asked Arbcom to publicly explain whether it is indeed a collective choice to exclude the central issue, and if so, why they have done that. But that email was sent only 5 hours ago, so understandably there has as yet been no response.

In the meantime, I have published the latest draft of my evidence, at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case. It is far from complete, but I have now stopped working on it. I am tired and upset, and unsure what to do next. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-retired[edit]

I have semi-retired from Wikipedia, because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless quote-mining in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process. Full my full reasons, see [2] ... but in a nutshell, I am fed up with and exhausted by the stress of being dragged through broken "dispute resolution" processes which amount to stitch-ups.

That means that I may do occasional drive-by small edits, at a much lower rate than I did over the last winter (see the "Statistics by months" at https://en.wikiscan.org/user/BrownHairedGirl), but nothing substantial.

After more than 17 years here and nearly 3 million edits, I still have a huge personal commitment to the magnificent goal of Wikipedia and to the great innovation it brought to human knowledge-building. But I have concluded that continuing to participate when it has turned so sour would amount to a sunk cost fallacy. It seems that being here means that I am required to indulge and devote enormous amounts of time to blow-by-blow debating of the false assertions of people who in any other context I would rigorously avoid, who are permitted even during an arbitration process to hurl insults, and who are actively encouraged to deflect from the substance by quote-mining. That doesn't advance the goals that brought me here, and it damages my health and well-being.

So it's BHG out. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for everything you've done over the years. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
And another barnstar: I'm sorry life has been so tough for you recently. Thanks for all you've done for the encyclopedia. PamD 16:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One task to finish[edit]

While cleaning up my files now that I am semi-retired, I found one half-completed task: WT:WikiProject Ireland#IMOS_COUNTIES_cleanup (permalink)

It took a lot of work to get the list down to one with a low level of false positives, and if anyone else took up the task they'd have to wade through all those thousands of false positives again. So I am going to finish that job, before packing up.

My list is down to 1,229 articles, so that probably means somewhere between about 500 and 900 edits. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I know this is long overdue, but I stumbled upon this and wanted to thank you for creating it. I think it's really cool. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @FatalFit. But I just copied it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Albert Fitzgerald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TCD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.[3] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider these pieces of advice about keeping your evidence brief[edit]

With the utmost respect and consideration, I think it is still possible for you to get a good outcome from this case. Please carefully consider [4] from me and [5], [6], [7], and [8] from Wugapodes, Barkeep49, CaptainEek, and MJL. I think for you to condense your evidence down to the style I suggested would not take you much time and would satisfy the committee. It seems like you could readily make it through this without any burdensome sanction. Again, with the utmost respect and appreciation for your work on Wikipedia, this would be a good time to demonstrate some flexibility and willingness to listen to and accommodate others. If you've decided you don't care enough that's fine, but I don't think this move of refusing to shorten the evidence will serve as any kind of dramatic statement against the process. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @DIYeditor.
Those comments did indeed make sit down and think. In particular, the comment[9] by Wugapodes clarified the issues for me. I will post a full reply at the /Workshop page, but I will probably sleep on my draft response before posting anything.
Please don't take the above as any hint of what I have decided. I think it's best to keep the substantive discussion in one place. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no-one in this "Smallcat" case has discussed Smallcat. I hope that my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Evidence#Smallcat appears to be being misinterpreted was helpful. It might possibly be useful as something to link to as an example of the context of this mess of a case. Good luck with it all and Illegitimi non carborundum. I don't know why I gave it such a pussy-footing title: Smallcat just plain IS being misinterpreted and misused. PamD 16:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @PamD!
@DIYeditor I have posted[10] my reply to Wugapodes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you aren't (completely) wrong[edit]

But you are getting far far more consideration than most people do. I somewhat agree with you about word limits *but* that point is being completely lost because you keep saying you are quitting, then talking some more. As somebody who avoids you because you act like this, but nonetheless has been in exactly this sort of pile-on, I want to tell you that unless your goal is wiki-suicide and providing a fine example of What Not To Do, the best possible thing you can do is make a post, right now, saying "I have been asked to take 24 hours to consider how I can help prevent this sort of drama in future, and I know I could answer that question better if I had had a good night's sleep." And then shut up for at least those 24 hours. Think of it as proving that you can in fact shut up and listen, which is currently very much in question in the bystander commentary. I just hate to see this; it's so preventable. I know none of the other people involved and have no dog in this fight. I'll probably be sorry I spoke up, but that's my middle name really, and maybe I am just hoping for good karma.

Oh and: nobody except the parties to the dispute gives any kind of an expletive about small cats and the incomprehensible nature of the dispute is part of what is making you look cray-cray. Since I really don't have the slightest interest in the actual dispute I have no ideas about what you should do after those 24 hours, but at a superficial skim it looks to me like someone in a post above is trying to help you focus, so maybe take a look at those diffs? I come in peace and post with concern. Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think there's been a metric shite-ton of pop psychoanalysis of a real person here who none of use know IRL, and if I were subjected to that sort of mob onslaught of second-guessing my true nature, I'd probably quit myself. In fact, I have a few times - as in, just shut the effing tab and leave WP behind for a few days or weeks, and come back with a clear head. But what works for me is not necessarily what works for someone else. I hope BHG doesn't leave permanently, that's pretty much all I can say. And I'm a largely disinterested party in any of this, only having happened across some of the various shitstorms. The respectful thing is to just leave BHG alone at this point. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion but I am not jeering at her, at all, merely pointing out, out of a sense of concern for her, sometimes a break is good. I didn't like it when someone said that to me once, but they were right, and I am doing my. best to give good and imho badly needed advice. I note that she says something above about going to sleep and that's a good start; perhaps she will then have that talk with the person above who is also trying to help. Or not. I don't have strong feelings about any of this but it is true as she said that when multiple people accuse you of multiple things, it us very hard to answer effectively. In any event, as one person who gave a damn to another person who gave a damn, peace out. 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only tangentially referencing your comments; as it stands, yours were meta comments, as mine were meta-meta comments. It can iterate endlessly. I just hope she can take care of herself, I've been through hell in my life (hell, most of my life), and suffer from "toxic empathy" - paralyzed by feeling other people's feelings. I have now moved us into meta-meta-meta comment territory, and will bid peace out as well. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy pages on categorization[edit]

Hello, BHG,

I noticed tonight in the Move log that many of the policy pages on categorization were merged, renamed and moved around a lot, along with all of the archived talk pages. You are the editor that I know who has the deepest knowledge of categories and the category structure on Wikipedia so I thought I'd alert you in case you had an opinion about these changes. I don't believe this was part of any proposal that was being discussed, it was an individual editor/admin who thought they'd consolidate different policy pages.

Any way, I hope you are having a good summer. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Liz. I can see some of it at Special:RelatedChanges/Category:Wikipedia categorization.
Yes, it seems to be one admin on a solo run, which seems highly problematic for an area that has become so contentious.
However, I have long founds that attempts to engage with that admin are unproductive, so I wouldn't bother challenging even if i was still active. And in any case I am now semi-retired: I have closed my open tasks, and will in future make only occasional minor drive-by edits.
I have again been thoroughly piled on by quote-miners, and have had enough, so I'm out. All that remains to be seen is whether the door gets locked behind me to prevent me even making even occasional minor edits. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My appreciation for 17 years of common sense[edit]

The Special Barnstar
Yet another Special Barnstar: It seems the dysfunctional Arb/Mod system I encountered many moons ago has not improved. Thanks for persevering so long.

Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, @Sarah777. That's very kind of you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small cats[edit]

DIYeditor has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

Small cats don't give up. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @DIYeditor. That's very kind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org courses, University of Texas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org courses, University of Texas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Politics of Kyoto[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Politics of Kyoto indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian election result/top/ElectionYearTest[edit]

Hey BHG, I came across Template:Canadian election result/top/ElectionYearTest. Is this test completed? Are you planning on doing anything else with it? Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I am now semi-retired, so I won't be doing anything with it.
I wondered whether it might be of use to someone else, but when I checked the histories I found that I created[11] Template:Canadian election result/top/ElectionYearTest at 14:16, 26 June 2019‎ ... and then at 16:27, 26 June 2019 I did this edit[12] to Template:Canadian election result/top, implementing the issue I was testing for.
So as far as I can see, I should probably have deleted it later that same day, along with Module:CanElecResTopTest, after removing it from Template:Canadian election result/top. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Template:Canadian election result/top/ElectionYearTest from Template:Canadian election result/top.
When the trnsaclusions have purged, Template:Canadian election result/top/ElectionYearTest and Module:CanElecResTopTest can be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: the transclusions are all purged. The tracking cats should also be deleted: Category:CanElecResTopTest + subcats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, @Gonnym. Thank you for spotting this stale kitchen waste. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you[edit]

I hope you don't feel that I've taken too adversarial of a position. If I understand correctly, your argument is that all your strong accusations of malfeasance in each instance are actually justified, but the justification couldn't be explained in a single line with diffs for context.

I do not understand how this could be so. I've never been involved in an Arb case before, and in fact I don't think I've ever been taken to ANI, so I may not know what it is like to be accused in this manner. Still, in cases at ANI, it always seemed like any sound argument could be made just with a brief explanation and the diffs that prove that summary. Anything I can think of that I have done or might do could be explained in a sentence or two, with appropriate diffs. If there are separate accusations/incidents, they could be handled the same.

I also am unclear why you didn't respond to the ABF accusations and at least directly say: these are all justifiable behavior and not in violation of AGF or CIVIL or NPA.

At any rate, it is all academic at this point. Good luck and hope you get a fair outcome. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes, @DIYeditor. But if you look at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case, you'll see that large chunk of it are not based on diffs, and cannot be based on diffs.
As to the rest, I am simply worn out from having a mob invited to hurl muck at me. It's like being put in the stocks. I dont have the energy to write the detailed responses to every bit of quote mining. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, in the open SmallCat dispute arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary completeness - questions, questions[edit]

Hi Bhg, Do you know how far back we are complete for Westminster MP bios? Is work ongoing to push further back? Presumably US congresspersons are complete all the way back, but has anyone looked at other countries for a comparative completeness excercise? Thanks if you know, Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnbod
That's hard to answer. Off the top of my head, I know from the Irish constituency articles that there are missing Westminster MPs for Irish constituencies in the late 19th century and maybe early 20th. But it's 7 years or more since I did much about Westminster as a whole.
The two places to start any check are the lists (e.g. List of MPs elected in the 1885 United Kingdom general election) and the cats, e.g. Category:UK MPs 1885–1886. However, a lot of the lists are incomplete: e.g. the complete List of MPs elected in the 1832 United Kingdom general election which I created in 2010 has not been replicated for other years, where the lists are more ad hoc.
I see e.g. that Category:UK MPs 1885–1886 has only 663 pages (including the list), but there were 670 seats, plus at least 9 by-elections in which new MPs were elected (the rest being ministerial by-elections), so Category:UK MPs 1885–1886 should contain at least 680 pages. I dunno whether the shortfall is due to missing articles or to incomplete categorisation.
Sadly, the UK politics WikiProject is not an impressive place these days; my most recent forays there found few editors with a scholarly mindset. And of course there is a long-term prolific editor who creates sub-stubs for MPs, but whose grasp of the concepts is so low that their work is full of errors and omissions ... so as we go back in time, the proportion of junk sub-stub articles becomes high.
As to other parliaments, the only one I know well is Ireland, where the Oireachtas is complete: we have had a full set of articles Teachtaí Dála (TDs) & senators for about ten years, thanks in large part to the exceptionally hard work of @Spleodrach. But that's a smaller set: only ~1,350 TDs since 1919, of which ~20% are stubs. Similarly, the wee House of Commons of Northern Ireland is complete, but with only 222 articles.
Other comparators are difficult, due to political upheavals. It surprises many British people that the Oireachtas is now one of the oldest parliaments in Europe with an uninterrupted history, the rest of Europe having been much more war-like than Ireland. The Westminster Parliament had about a 600-year history before it finally got one-person-one-vote in 1950, and those six centuries of a pre-democratic parliament are a unique case of a regime which never had a sustained democratic revolution (the 1640s upheaval was short-lived, and more anti-monarchist than democratic), and where the parliament survived a successful foreign invasion (in 1688).
In general, the most stable set of other parliaments are those which developed in the UK's white settler colonies: Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand. none of which has been successfully invaded or overthrown. That set have all had unbroken existence since the 18th or 19th century, dispossession/genocide of the natives being a sadly successful recipe for political stability. The Swiss National Council has an unbroken history since 1848; at the other extreme, Poland's Sejm has its origins 300 years earlier, but has a very complex history with many gaps. I haven't studied the parliamentary history of those unstable parliaments, but I assume that documenting their membership is more challenging than in the more stable places ... and of course the English-language Wikipedia has an obvious systemic bias towards better coverage of English-speaking parliaments.
Hope that helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks very much - I'll do a longer reply later. I'm asking in the context of gender balance - my guess is that, as for Fellows of the Royal Society female MPs etc are complete but male ones not (at around 50% since 1660). On the other hand we have List of members of the Parliament of Finland, 2011–2015, where "The Parliament has 115 male MPs and 85 female MPs" and a category with 171 of them. But, as far as one can tell with Finnish names, both genders are incomplete. Category:Members of the Bundestag 2009–2013 has 448 bios, for 622 seats. The only research I'm aware of was into European Parliament members, I think on Danish WP, which showed a slight "bias" towards female members having wp bios, perhaps as more recent sets were more fully represented. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see@Johnbod, if you're looking at gender balance among Westminster MP articles then it's a lot easier.

The first woman elected to the UKHoC was Constance Markievicz at the 1918 UK general election. I am highly confident that we have 100% coverage of Westminster MPs from 1918 onwards: if there are any exceptions, they will be so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. So, post-1918 we have 100% coverage of both genders in the UKHoC. And before 1918, any coverage is 100% male.

Here are some Petscan searches:

Link Search Article count
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25713906 All Westminster MPs 14,551
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25713986 Male Westminster MPs 13,988
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25713965 Female Westminster MPs 563
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25714013 Male Westminster MPs since GE1918 4,708
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25714024 Female Westminster MPs since GE1918 563

My guesstimate has long been that a full set of all Westminster MPs will be about 20,000 articles. So the women are 563 out of 20,000, i.e. ~2.8%.

If we take a crude short 20th century (only MPs elected 1918–2001, i.e. before GE2001), there are 241 women and 4,121 men.

Hope some of that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that's bang-on. I just found, fairly quickly, the official HOC list of all female MPs ever. They have 562, but presumably have not updated since the last by-elections. The men are harder to find. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06652/ seems up-to-date. So I reckon that the discrepancy is is a glitch in Wikipedia categorisation or in the Wikidata properties which I used. male (Q6581097)/female (Q6581072)
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25714390 found me the error: Nicholas Baker (politician), listed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7025006 as both male and female. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ho! Better not tell the Daily Mail. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I dunno @Johnbod. They pay well .
(Seriously, I wouldn't go near them. But their cash talks to a lot of people.) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

The Purple Barnstar
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I am not very active at this project but it is impossible to work in Ireland-related topics without noticing your work. I am sorry to see that you are once again entangled in an arbcom case and just want to express my gratitude for your contributions and your endurance to withstand all this madness for such a long time. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AFBorchert. That's very kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the barnstar. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @BD2412 -- both for our support and for all your tireless, skilled hard work.
You are one of the people who I will really miss. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Irish Sen table Sen vacant seat[edit]

Template:Irish Sen table Sen vacant seat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

We've never interacted - I'm much more of a reader rather than a writer on WP - but I've always admired your work here. Thank you for your dedication to the project. Stanstaple (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Stanstaple. That's very kind of you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reitrement or banning or whatever[edit]

I came across this purely by accident, so whether you decide to formalize and finalize your retirement from en.wp or you're banned or whatever, if this is the last that you're on this site, thanks for all your contributions and for times that you've said some nice things to me. I have no perspective on the conflict above, etc., but I hope that if you end up moving on to other things, that it's for the best. You've done some fine work here that will live on. Cheers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the person who has the second-highest edit count on Wikipedia, only behind Ser Amantio di Nicolao, with just shy of 3M edits. I hope that you'll find some ways of relaxing in real life and not a bad-mooded person. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

The Template Barnstar
Belated thanks for the work you did on the TD Navboxes templates, taking a piece of work nobody wanted to touch with a bargepole and coming up with an efficient, elegant and easy-to-use solution. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Project Table[edit]

My world is falling apart! Weird stuff happening at the project...Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: What? Where? Link? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - it appears the Project Table is being loaded with "drafts". Is that current practice? Example: [13] Sarah777 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hasten to add that I've nothing against the Derry Senior Football Championship - even the 2022 edition! Sarah777 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah777: what Project Table? Link? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one -
here
Ireland articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 6 3 26 29 64
FL 2 6 8
GA 1 10 61 167 239
B 29 191 421 779 1,420
C 28 205 904 4,219 5,356
Start 2 210 2,290 27,647 30,149
Stub 3 430 26,388 6 136 26,963
List 28 315 2,923 9 3,275
Category 1 5 25,840 25,846
Disambig 1 2 176 179
File 175 175
Portal 26 26
Project 1 19 20
Redirect 8 57 941 1,468 2,474
Template 1 3,148 3,149
NA 1 1
Other 85 85
Assessed 66 659 4,508 63,107 30,953 136 99,429
Unassessed 174 174
Total 66 659 4,508 63,107 30,953 310 99,603
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 338,671 Ω = 5.28

Assessment Log

Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah777: I want to help, but you are making this hard work for me. I see the table, but I still don't know what problem you see with it.
Please, if you do want my help, take a few minutes to explain in detail what problem you see.
I am tired and sad, as I prepare to leave Wikipedia after 17 years. If this was from anyone other than you or a v few others, I'd say "no longer my problem". I don't have the energy to keep on pushing you to explain to someone who rarely uses that table. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again BHG - I thought you were more familiar with the table. If you click on the column NA where it intersects rows NA, Stub, Other etc a list of "draft" articles comes up. They never use to be included in the table. Very sorry to hear you are leaving Wiki, wasn't aware. This is a very minor issue - forget I mentioned it.
As a "semi-retired" editor myself, who only occasionally edits nowadays (mainly in relation to this table) - I've lost contact with the "old crew" - many of whom have also retired permanently. After your gargantuan contribution to Wiki is disheartening to hear you are sad and tired. Sarah777 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Sarah777. You're right, we are some of the last remnants of the "old crew". Wikipedia was fun in those days!
Thanks too for that helpful info, which lets me see the issues in the table. I took a look at the banners on two of the articles in the table cells you mentioned Draft talk:2022 Derry Senior Football Championship and Draft talk:Michael Collins (athlete). In the first case, the banner has no parameters; for Collins, the banner is set as {{WikiProject Ireland|importance=NA}}.
I looked at the revision history of the {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner, and saw that the most recent edit[14] as on 4 August 2023 by MSGJ. It seems to have been intended as a technical simplification, but I wonder whether it may have introduced some unintended change of behaviour.
Even if I wasn't retiring, I wouldn't want to take a view myself on how the {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner template should handle drafts, or how that table is built. My attitude is that these tools should support the work of those who actually do the very valuable but largely thankless task of assessment which you and I think @ww2censor have been doing for years, so they should do whatever you guys need in your work.
If you and ww2censor can agree how that table should handle (or possibly exclude) drafts, the maybe MSGJ might able to help you get there or point you towards someone who can help get the output you need. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I changed anything which would affect this. Where should draft articles appear in the table? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ, I can't answer that, so I'll ping @Sarah777. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not simply add a row to the table entitled "drafts" and put them all there? Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah777: this edit[15] to the {{WikiProject Ireland}} got the drafts out of the rest of the table.
I dunno how to make a row for the drafts. It doesn't seem to be a very helpful addition ('cos the drafts are now all in one cat: Category:Draft-Class Ireland articles of NA-importance). But if someone wants to add such a row, I won't be around to do it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent solution! Sarah777 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): @MSGJ and Sarah777: it appears that drafts, that have an unassessed {{WikiProject Ireland}} template added appear under the heading "Other" but those that have a Stub quality rating show up as Stub NA. Some of that BHG mentioned above. Those results appear to come from an inconsistent rating addition by editors so I doubt anything can be done to combine them under one "Draft" heading unless we get rid of Drafts altogether as it used to be, because they are not in use in mainspace. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor, @Sarah777 & @Sarah777: I have asked for help at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#How_to_ignore_quality_and_importance_on_draft_articles.
I hope have summarised things correctly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented a crude fix. I hope that solves the problem.
Here's the explanation I posted at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#How_to_ignore_quality_and_importance_on_draft_articles:
In this edit[16] to {{WikiProject Ireland}}, I have done a crude hack to Force all {{WikiProject Ireland}} banners on pages in the draft talk namespace to be processed as if they have |class=Draft ... and no value for |importance=
Any values supplied for those parameters will be ignored unless the page is moved to another namespace.
This is a working solution, but not an elegant solution. If the same result can be achieved via some parameters for the module, please implement that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

I was surprised to learn through a notification above that you're winding down your activity here. You really have made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia as a whole over the years, and in particular from my perspective as an Irish editor, to a whole scope of articles part of the WP:IE project. Whatever the reasons for this (I haven't delved into them at all!), hopefully you can treat this as a well-earned rest, and come back from time to time on areas of special interest. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In light of our prior, mostly negative, interactions, I've stayed out of the latest drama. But as someone who's done a fair bit of gnoming, I have a great deal of respect for the countless hours that you've put into doing mostly underappreciated, behind-the-scenes stuff. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian men's volleyball championships has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Asian men's volleyball championships has been nominated for merging. 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. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 01:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian women's volleyball championships has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Asian women's volleyball championships has been nominated for merging. 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. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 01:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed[edit]

The SmallCat dispute arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies has been enacted:

  • BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Laurel Lodged is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from pages, and moving or renaming categories.
  • Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.
  • Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

Best wishes to you[edit]

Good evening BHG. I just caught wind of your retirement, and wish you the best with all that you are planning. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth[edit]

🏵️Etrius ( Us) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

There's an old saying here at Wikipedia, you either die as an inactive account or live long enough to see yourself get banned. While we've only interacted briefly in the past, I want you to know how much I have respected and admired your work over the years. Best of wishes.

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 03:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your contributions throughout the years. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 05:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Thank-you for all your work here on Wikipedia. I only wish you could have left on better terms. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear![edit]

Sorry to see that wikipedia has taken its toll on you after the enormous effort you have put in over the years. Perhaps after you step away for a while you might reconsider becoming active again, even if not at the same level. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ww2censor. I will miss you and your undramatic diligence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double dear!! (!) I already miss your presence, and was stricken to see your name greyed out in my edit histories. We haven't interacted much recently but I have unending respect for your transformative presence, you have often been the deciding voice in setting things on a warm path. If you ever want to chat or imagine alternate futures, I am here for it. – SJ + 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another One Bites the Dust[edit]

Sorry to see you go. You're reasoning, though, is very sound; and your mental health important. Just so sorry that the insistant, time-wasting bastards have driven another good one away. I fear the writing's on the wall for me, too. Best of luck in your off-line endeavors. GenQuest "scribble" 16:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over and out[edit]

A majority of the Arbs have now voted to indef-ban me, so I guess that is what will happen. Ever since I was quote-mined into an ANI storm, I assumed that this was where it would end. I tried to present evidence of how SMALLCAT had been abused and how my work targeted in revenge, and of the quote mining, but it was disallowed. So, those who abuse the guideline and targeted my work will get not even a finger wag. But I objected to the disruption, so I get banned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to see this - I only became aware of the Arbcom case halfway through, & I try to keep out of that area, but now I feel guilty I did not say anything there. All the best, and thanks for your fantastic work over so many years. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Johnbod. I'll miss you too.
And no worries about avoiding that sewer. I too have always avoided it as much as possible. This case was framed before it even opened, so your time and energy was much better directed elsewhere. The vindictive bunch were going to get my scalp one way or another.. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sad to see this. The encyclopedia will be a poorer place: not only less well categorised, but losing a friendly and intelligent editor with whom it has been a pleasure to interact since I first copied your user talk footer many, many years ago. I hope you can find another field for your skills and energy, with a better ambience. Good luck for the future, you will be missed. PamD 06:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @PamD. I have enjoyed working with you and your calm rigorous diligence.
But the culture of Wikipedia has shifted massively. One of the most striking things about WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Proposed decision and its talk page is the complete absence of any concern that we actually had a sprawling dispute about whether "small with no potential for growth" means the same thing as "small". Wikipedia has declined to being a place where we cannot easily and rapidly resolve even a basic reading comprehension issue. Worse still, those who cannot or will not read and understand six words have been allowed to quote mine their way to a storm, and claim the scalp of the editor who can read.
Wikipdeia is now a place where gross incompetence is welcomed and empowered, wasting huge amounts of the time and energy of competent editors. But it's not just that time-wasting: the incompetents are also highly vindictive, and get huge support. Randy in Boise is now in complete control, using WP:Civil and WP:BLUDGEON hunting down those who dare wrote a competent analysis of any issue.
The 2019 Portals saga left me shocked by the sheer number of the vindictive mediocrities. My wiser real-life friends reminded me that "if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room".
I am far from being the smartest person in my friend circle, and when I joined Wikipedia it was a stimulating place with a lot of editors who were smarter and more knowledgeable than me. It was an intellectually stimulating place, where we could and did have thorough and rigorous debates.
But a decade-and-a-half later, the climate has changed radically. The smart editors ave mostly gone, and the anti-intellectuals are in control. They don't just dominate many discussions; they actively persecute anyone who tries to challenge their incompetence. Briging detailed analysis or evidence to a discussion is no longer welcome; on the contrary, it is denounced as "bludgeoning". How DARE anyone challenge glib assertions!
Sadly, Wikipedia has no filter or qualification requirement for participating in consensus-forming discussions. So in many places, consensus is built by editors who have little or no experience of the core intellectual task of writing articles. In one recent example, my entire set of opponents had almost no experience of article-writing, and no experience of having their work scrutinised at DYK, GA, FA, FL etc. The encyclopedia's decisions are being made by people who have not demonstrated any ability to make an encyclopedia, and who hate reasoned debate.
There unqualified participants are still labelled editors. But because they do little substantive editing, they are free to devote their energies to pursuing their resentment against those who can and do make an encyclopedia. It has been fascinating to watch in the smallcat drama just how much energy some of them put into pursuing their grudges and leveraging every last drop of procedural advantage.
I came to Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia. I didn't come here to debate with people who can't read, and to be monstered for offending them if I challenge their antics. (Some of them are outraged that I used the parliamentary-acceptable word "disingenuous", and at least one of the arbitrators share that fury).
I didn't come here to deal with these absurdities, let alone to have it suck so much of my time and energy. So I won't be appealing the ban.
It was long past time for me to go. Maybe I should have stuck to my original decision to quit after the portals case in early 2020.
But OTOH, I think that it may be useful to historians of the Wikipedia project to see in the smallcat case a stark illustration of how vindictive anti-intellectualism took control. Maybe there's a low-budget mock-horror movie in the saga of Can't Read Six Words, But Want Revenge.
e BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that you try out the Simple English Wikipedia? We do not usually have those problems over there. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @QuicoleJR, but no. I don't enjoy writing simple English.
Good luck and best wishes to those who do enjoy building that valuable resource, but it's not for me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the Arbs have now voted to indef-ban me
Surreal. Does Jimmy not get involved when even the most senior editors are victims of a bizarre Kafkaesque bureaucracy that has always been a stage for power-hungry imbecils, but has now redefined "dysfunction" - and not in a good way. You were, and are, one of the wisest and best here. God speed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that we've ever interacted in a serious way, but I've been aware for many years of your valuable contributions to this project. I'm very sorry to see the result of the Arbcom case, but I do hope that you will consider asking to come back after a year off, refreshed and ready to edit again. Losing good editors is always bad for us, but losing top quality editors such as yourself is really painful. Good luck IRL, I very much hope that you will be back, and look forward to it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah bless you, @Beyond My Ken. That's very kind of you.
    But I doubt I will ever return. My understanding of how a encyclopedia can be built is radically different from what I have seen here in recent years. I can't take the pile-ons, the quote-mining, the vicious anti-intellectualism, and the sheer vindictiveness of a class of editors who display very low skill levels and seek revenge on anyone who challenges their follies. Dealing with that nonsense is a huge timesink and a highly stressful experience which damages my health.
    Far from offering any shield or remedy, Arbcom makes it much worse. In this latest case they don't even reproach any of the destructive editors who targeted my work for deletion in revenge for challenging their misuse of the smallcat guideline; instead the Arbs are delighted to find reasons to hang me for having dared object. (One of them is outraged that I used the parliamentary-acceptable term "disingenuous"). And the Arbs are hard at work devising restrictions to ensure that if I do return, I will be trussed up like a turkey from the moment I step back, subject to a sort of outlawry with a target on my back and no recourse even to the usual remedies.
    There's no point in kidding myself: those who hold power here want me gone, to make Wikipedia safe for the sort of editors who can't or won't understand even something as simple as the fact that the 6 words "Small with no potential for growth" do not mean the same thing as "small". I can't work in this sort of environment, and I can't take the hate. So I'll take my labours elsewhere, to some of the many places where my skillset is not treated as a vice.
    Thanks again for your kindness. Please take good care of yourself. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite both being Irish, I don't think we ever interacted all that much over the years, with the exception of the recent TD/constituency navboxes - where you did stellar work in short order, turning what would have been a task so tedious I frankly wouldn't have even attempted it, into one that became so efficient it was literally impossible to find "still to be done" pages after a couple of days! But I have seen your activity and positive contributions all over the project in my 15+ years here, and the project will be all the poorer without you. Best wishes for the future. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bless you, @Bastun. That's very kind.
    It was a great pleasure working with you @Iveagh Gardens and Spleodrach on what became {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}}. You rightly raised a long-standing problem, and we all worked together to devise and refine a solution, and then deploy it fast. Everyone was focused on error-finding and problem-solving rather than on the offence-taking so prevalent elsewhere, which allowed us to build and deploy a solution that none of us could have achieved alone.
    I am delighted that my last big dose of work on Wikipedia was that very effective and enjoyable collaboration. It was a wonderful reminder of how much fun Wikipedia was back when I first joined, and a great memory to take away with me.
    Best wishes to you in your ongoing good work on Irish topics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS @Bastun one of the things on my to-do last was to implement a similar set of auto-generated navboxes for the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (NIA). They currently have a lot of the one-to-one succession boxes, and as you rightly noted when you started[17] the discussion that led to the {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}} solution, those are plain wrong in a multi-seat constituency.
    It's a smaller task -- only 18 constituencies and 225 MLAs -- and someone with templating skills shouldn't find it hard to adapt for the NIA the combo of {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}} and the {{Irish TD table begin}} series of templates. Maybe the highly-skilled @Pppery might be able to help. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, what a shame that you have been hounded off Wikipedia. You have contributed so much to the project over the years. I have enjoyed working with you, mostly on Irish politics articles, while we didn't always agree, it never came to 'blows'! In my early days as an editor, I learned so much from watching you in action. Our most recent collaboration on Constituency TDs navbox was a wonderful example of wikipedia community spirit. I hope you find piece of mind away from WP, and something that your prodigious talents are suited to. Take care, Spleodrach (talk)
Hi BHG, from another ageing, fellow Irish editor who has seen you around for almost two decades and always held you in high esteem; very sorry to see how this has worked out. Take care And hope your post wiki projects are less frustrating. Ceoil (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, crap. Thank you for your service, contributions, commitment, dedication, productivity, tenacity, and much more, all of which shone through up to the last moment before this extremely unfortunate ban was enforced coldly (and communicated sillily, "Discuss this at blablabla" isn't helpful when the recipient is banned and not even able to post on her talk page). You will be missed (and I will miss your sense of humor). You will also be welcomed back, should that chance arise for Wikipedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "discuss this at" comment could be interpreted as directed to BrownHairedGirl's hundreds of talk page stalkers (not an exaggeration), not BrownHariedGirl herself. But I do agree that it does come across poorly, even though it's part of the standard template for ArbCom notices. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to speedy rename[edit]

Please see myproposal to speedy rename Category:Ukrainian rail workers to Category:Ukrainian people in rail transport. Hugo999 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post anything here, unless its an acknowldgement. No work requests. The editor has been indefinitely blocked. scope_creepTalk 15:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Garhwali Wikipedians[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Garhwali Wikipedians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_077&oldid=1197817667"