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
Hi Elanna, I see that you have changed the indexing of surnames of people called McX. Where they hve been indexed as Macx, you have changed it to Mcx: [1], [2], [3], [4]
In the article, under "Other exceptions," the last in the list is:
The first letter of each word should be in upper case, and all subsequent letters should be in lower case, regardless of the correct spelling of the name.
How is this NOT in the guideline? And how can it not be easily construed to apply to Mcx/MacX when nothing in the article says otherwise? It also much more authoritative than the "telephone listing" of the articles changed, since my local telephone book does NOT add the A. Wiki Manual vs someone's local version of a telephone book - I'd be damned for BAD editing if I let that reason fly in something that had NOT been discussed (yet how was I to know it had been discussed in the first place?).
If you don't want semi-intelligent editors to read that entry and do the exact same edits I did, blame the entry in the article, not the editors. And please don't damn me with the faint praise of "good-faithing editing, bad-faith citation" when I do have a citation AND the logic to back up the edits. Elanna-RoseTalk03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I think I've probably used "otherpersons2" instead of "otherpersons" in a vast number of pages, not just the Paul Andersons you've just found. This is because the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Other_people doesn't make it clear that "otherpersons" works this way - it looks (to me) as if it can only be used to point to a "Paul Anderson (disambiguation)" page, not just to "Paul Anderson". I wondered, but didn't experiment enough. But having worked through a batch of Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, I've now moved onto a new game: ridding WP of one of my pet hates, people using "is been" when they mean "is being". Or sometimes "has been". Or "is". Inspired by Wikipedia:Typo. PamD (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all that, I'm getting myself confused. But, it would be useful if there was a template to create a link "For other people called X Y, see [[X Y]]", for cases where the dab page is just called "X Y" and not "X Y (disambiguation)" - not relevant in this Paul Anderson case, but, as far as I can see, a gap in the range of templates. PamD (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages.
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article John Carroll (Irish politician), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here when you say "Contested prod, with explanation offered for removal of prod tag", did you mean to say "... no explanation..."? PamD (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References should be listed in a specific references section, and should contain only sources actually consulted in writing the article. There may be other material on the person, but that should be listed in a "further reading" section
To establish Nóirín's notability, you need substantial coverage in sources which are independent of the subject (see WP:BIO). It's not clear whether any of the sources listed meet that test
Hi BHG happy new year to you just wondering did you get the email I sent you regarding the new article I am working on still having trouble with a couple of math formulas thanks. BigDunc (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think that's OK so long as the edits are trivial and uncontroversial 'and the editor is not more broadly involved in the content dispute. The edit you point looks trivial and uncontroversial to me, but I think it's bad practice to continue editing when the page is protected as a result of a content dispute to which the admin is a party, as seems to be the case here. I don't think that it would help for me to intervene individually, so may I suggest that you raise it at WP:ANI? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brown Haired One -- It was good to see your name turn up again in a few CFD discussions, though you seem to have shifted your priorities to other areas of late. All the same, you might want to take another look at the CFD for Category:Cultural Enthusiasm, where some interesting -- but very obscure -- names have been proposed. I've signed on in support of one of your suggestions, and I think the discussion would benefit from your input at this juncture. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I know you had a lot on your mind a few weeks back, and probably a goodly number of concerned inquiries besides my own -- but I'd sure love to know if you actually received the email I sent you (two messages). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about that, very careless of me. It was an honest mistake and I'll try to avoid making it again. Thanks for correcting it. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated 1248 in Ireland, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging there is indeed a logic for having these cats separately - one refers to the whole island (ie including Northern Ireland), the other refers to the state of the Republic of Ireland only. To merge them means if you want to find out only about the Republic in one cat, you can't. I accept there is as yet no full separation of all cats in this way, but I have been trying to get them separated for some time. It's the right thing to do, so lets not do the wrong thing, just because we haven't got all cats right yet. Help us get all the other relevant cats separated instead.Ardfern (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG - Exceptionally cool and professional - excellent - you have been working hard! Wondered if the map was a bit ragged though - Dingle peninsula and Inishowen seem to be wandering a bit. But minor point only - happy to see it applied throughout, especially if you can do it automatically. It should also really piss our current critics off - bonus!! Any chance you could do one similar for Northern Ireland, in due course etc etc. Same thing but just with NI map (not in orange or green) and would only have to be applied from 1921 onwards!! Ardfern (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to endorse everything Ardfern said here; it really is a great template and we should have an equivalent for the sundered six from 1922 :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) The ParserFunctions for templates are a bit of pain to work with, but I think I have finally figured them out enough make it possible to create some halfway-decent templates (my previous efforts required a horrid mishmash of parameters). I'll have a go a Northern Ireland one later this week, once I have cleared my latest round of work on the Seanad. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Ardfern doesn't want the NI map in orange or green may I suggest blue? Or else the colours lifted from a topographical OS map? Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. I'm not great at finding graphics, and the only remotely suitable image I can find is Image:NIShape.gif, as used by the {{WPNI}} template. If the green map is acceptable to WP:NIR, I'm not sure that I see the problem, but I'll go with whatever you and Ardfern want. Just find me the image, and I'll use it! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, glad you like {{YearInIrelandNav}}! I first promised to do this almost a month ago, so I felt a bit guilty about taking so long to do it. As you may have noticed, it auto-calculates the decades etc, to make it easier to use, and it only links to categories and years-in-NI articles if they actually exist. (Wish I had figured out before how to do this for other similar templates!)
scaleable map Not sure there is much I can do about the map. Image:IrelandShape.gif a GIF, which is bit-mapped, and therefore doesn't scale neatly. I did find a scalable map on commons (see Image:Ireland.svg, thumb at right) but it has two problems: a) a mid-blue background, which wouldn't fit the template's colour scheme, and b) a line marking the border, which would be an anachronism on the pre-1922 articles. I'm not great at graphics, but if anyone could edit it to make the background transparent and remove the border, it'd be great to use it.
In case anyone is looking for me, I thought I should explain I'm afraid that I don't I don't expect to be around much in the next few days.
My laptop has chosen to develop a severe disabillity in its power supply just at the point when I was rebuilding my desktop, so I currently have access to the web only in the laptop's increasingly rare moments of lucidity, or temporarily in test builds of the desktop.
Please visit the Sima Mafiha page and help to extend the article. I found little info about her. I am afraid that she could be forgotten at all. I think she desrves much more attention. What do you think of that?--Faikpro (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. We're talking about divvying up Portal work over at WT:GS#Portal proposal. User:Grrrlriot said she'd take feminism or Portal:Women, but I thought since you voiced interest in the Women portal, maybe you'd like to start that (no obligation), Grrrl could do feminism and I'd start Gender studies. What do you think? Phyesalis (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the direction that I was planning to head with it, as you probably were guessing looking at my profile. I know that my statement doesn't mean much without being backed up. I'll work on it, so please give me some time to address these issues before you nom for its deletion. Royalbroil22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YDone I think that my using a RS to cite that it is the largest Christian retailer in the world should easily meet the notability standards, so I removed the notability tag. I found 2 other sources that call it the largest Christian retailer in the U.S. and they can be found in the article's history. I used 3 high profile reliable sources to source everything that remains. I added the article to my watchlist. Royalbroil03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have a history of working on the article George Fletcher. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I trust that your master has given you permission to return to our conversation in that little siding we were talking about? For I am on the verge of archiving it, and that could complicate things a little. By the way, I hope that the evil specimens of technology in your possession will not create any more problems with regards to your editing.
I saw those two different spelling articles some time ago but was not sure which was correct, as seems to be the case even now, and left it for someone else to do. I was not bold enough. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ,didn't realise the bot couldn't do that , is it your just bot what isn't authorised or bots in general ? Any way thanks for all the great work. I agree the categories where a mess been working on them all night to still lots too do Gnevin (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difft bot are authorised for difft tasks, and my BHGbot is authorised only for wikiproject tagging. I coukd ask for permission for other tasks, but not much point until it's running again (if/when I get a windoze PC again).
I have done some tweaking of parent categories (some cats were only single-parented), and when I see where we end up, I think that on balance I'd be inclined to leave it. I know that there are no-other by-sport subcats of Category:Sport in Ireland by county, but the GAA is organised on a 32-county basis, so it does seem to me to have a certain logic to it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Hello BHG. I noticed your comment in this discussion. If you prefer not to go into this on your User talk, there is no need to respond. But, due to my concern that the thread we had both joined there was not working at a very collaborative level, I started to wonder if any more factual points could be mustered. This puts me at a disadvantage since I hardly ever use any of these map links. I just remember my own annoyance and personal experience with the ISBN situation, which I circumvent with my own monobook. If you use maps, do you think it might be possible to prepare some more convincing examples, that we could put in front of the participants at WT:EL? Otherwise it'll probably come down to a war of personal preferences, and lead to a non-terminating discussion. I agree 100% with your point about usability, but don't know how to exhibit that in more precise detail. In particular, I didn't understand why you said:
Don't get me wrong, this system is a great idea; it's just that it still has such poor useability that it is grossly premature to force its use to the exclusion of all other methods..
Thanks for your msg. I have commented further at Wikipedia talk:External links, where (as you can see) I have become very exasperated at Para's repeated and arrogant dismissal of user feedback.
I'm not sure what i can come up by way of more examples, other than what might arise out of systematic usability testing, and it's not my job to organise that!
I think, though, that we are in danger of inverting the burden of proof. Para insists that the GeoHack system is so good that it should replace all other external links to map services, and so far there are no other users supporting that view. That's my main concern in this discussion: not how to perfect the GeoHack system, or whether there is a definitive account of its failings, but the fact that the feedback is that the GeoHack is not yet sufficiently usable to justify the removal of all other map links. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! I just spotted this revert. Personally, I believe the previous edit was correct: the coordinates both within that section as well as inserted at the top-right of the article provide the necessary links and do not lend any explicit preferance to one service over another. In my opinion, keeping the Terraserver link is a slippery slope to a complete enumeration of Google Maps/Earth, Yahoo, MS Live, etc... Your thoughts? Just to make sure I notice the response, I would appreciate a response on my user page. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the lengthy discussion at WT:EL#Links_to_map_services, where there is no consensus for the mass removal by User:Para of all direct links to maps (so far as I can see, there is clear consensus against doing so unless and until the usability of the GeoHack system is improved). In this particular case, the GeoHack link does not appear to allow me to replicate the aerial photo shown in the Terraserver link, so it seems to me to be both a useful addition and a handy alternative to the badly-designed GeoHack system.
I am aware of the slippery slope arguments, and find them unpersuasive: there is only a single link here, and I have yet to see any evidence that including one map/aerial photo link is leading to a massive listings of all possible services. (I suspect it has probably happened on a few occasions, but if so they are rare). While the GeoHack system has such poor usability, there is clear user benefit in having one or two direct links, to help the reader access a map or aerial image without having to confront a unexplained and badly-designed 13-screenful list of links. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading AN/I, I am even more puzzled by your edit diff at Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre. You seem to have wanted to change the scale of the map from showing where AECC is in Aberdeen to showing where it is in Aberdeenshire. Was this your intention or were you attempting to change on grounds of a perceived policy? Thincat (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was solely to revert the Para's removal of links to external maps. There was no indication in the edit summary that any other change had been made by Para, and I was not aware that the resolution was affected. I have reinstated the "|type:landmark" parameter to restore the change in resolution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But so far as I can see he had not removed a link to an external map. All he had done is add a scale to an existing link and you reverted the scale. However, his edit summary was misleading (for other reasons). The coordinates had been added much earlier diff by someone else. Perhaps you had only looked at his edit summary and not read the article. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, and my apologies. However, you in turn removed the scale specification which Para had uncontroversially added to the pre-existing coordinate template reference. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this yesterday and assumed that as it had not been reverted it was a good edit. So I started, using AWB, to remove the links to it from various articles. I did 100+ before stopping and followed up with another 90 today before I noticed that the link was working again. I checked the template and saw this. At that point I saw the above, the ANI and the EL discussions. I can't just roll them back as there were other valid edits made to some of the articles. Fixing the "coord" template, references, spelling, etc. However, I do have the list of the ones I did and am willing to restore the WikiMapia template if you think it would be best. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla20:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are all put back. This certainly shows that there is a problem with WIkipedia being too spread out. I made over 400 edits to remove/replace that template and only one person asked what I was doing. There needs to be some way for editors to see what is being discussed without having to look across multiple pages but I couldn't say how to do that. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, have a look at the long running argument between ScottHatton, myself and Para/SEWilco on the GEO talk page. Completely unrelated debate but seems to have followed much the same lines as yours. :/ Orderinchaos11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you've a moment, can you take a look at this article? This was just created tonight, and I know that it's author did not create it as a joke---it was created more to prove a point (if you look here [[5]], you will see what I mean by that). Though not intended as a joke, I certainly do not believe this is anything that can be taken seriously. Before I prod it or take it to AfD, I would like the opinion of an uninvolved party. Thanks for your time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'03:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! There simply is no such literary subgenre called Weedpunk. This is just made up nonsense, and most of the content of the article has nothing to do with the putative subject. Does this qualify for a speedy? Or does it have to go to AfD? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who changed this but here is my response: Please look at the facts. Many movements, specifically within the spheres of drug and counterculture, were not defined by any of the sources that contributed to the movement. For example: Jack Kerouac, the Beat Generation, and more issues within 1960s counterculture. The same thing applies to literary works such as news fanfiction, where the author takes on the role of a reporter during a specific fictional story. Perhaps the most famous example of this is in the now mainstream The Onion, but even it goes back as early as the first (literally translated) 'role story' of Walther von der Vogelweide's Lied under Linden. Of course, other editors can help me better than me a lone and further improve the Weedpunk article, but I do not believe it should be 'speedy' deleted. --Banime (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I was most stuck by Google only finding 8 hits for Weedpunk none of which gave any support at all for this being a literary genre. - Galloglass14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about sock puppet central! I've never seen so many being created by one individual. At least the centenarian puppets were generated by more than one person. Is it possible to expedite the AfD as its now an obvious hoax BHG? Or do we have to let it run its course? - Galloglass00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without checkuser, it;s hard to be sure that they are socks. They could be meatpuppets.
Sorry, I wasn't v clear in my last comment. I don't expect any refs either ... it's just that my evil twin likes the idea of watching Banime offering every possible keep reason except the references which are the only thing that could save the article. It doesn't matter how many SPAs pitch up, no refs=no keep. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Sinn Féin politicians is for those 'who were members of the original Sinn Féin party in the early 20th century (1905–1926)' and Sinn Féin politicians is for those 'who are, or were, members of the Sinn Féin, an Irish republican party in Ireland, originally founded in 1905 and established in its present form as Provisional Sinn Féin in 1970.'
Category:Irish Sinn Féin politicians is one a series of poorly named categories which were created two years ago by a clueless newbie who should be suitably chastised; they all used the format "Irish foo politicians", even though the "irish" was in most cases tautological (FF, SF, FG etc don't organise outside Ireland). Most of them were renamed at CfD on 10 Nov 2007, but I omitted "Irish SF politicians" from that nomination partly because I hadn't thought through the solution.
It might be best to start with identifiable separate periods and see which could be combined.
1905-1922, which can be straightforwardly called Sinn Féin, but needs some dismabiguation
1922-23 what the Oireachtas calls Sinn Féin (Anti Treaty)
1923-26 what the Oireachtas calls "Republican"
1923-1969 what the Oireachtas calls Sinn Féin
1969-1977, when there were Official SF elected politicians (such as Joe Sherlock); can't remember whether the Provisionals were contesting elections in that period
Post 1977, after OSF became SFWP, when there was only one body calling itself plain SF
I note that the Wikipedia article Members of the 4th Dáil calls the anti-treaty TDs just "Sinn Fein", which seems at odds with the Oireachtas database's uses of "Republican".
Don't be too hard on clueless newbies, they can turn into fine Wikipedians over time! I wonder why the Oireachtas db calls the ant-Treaty faction from 1923-26 Republican? Surely they were still Sinn Féin (or Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin)? Anyway please repost this at WT:IE in order to canvass more opinions. Snappy56 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, not much interest there, so we better sort it out ourselves. Any renamings will have to through WP:CFD, but new categories can just be created, so I suggest that you and I continue the discussion at WT:IE and see where get to. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. Well, I've never really left, as I still use Wikipedia, The "Free" Encyclopedia which only Admins like you have a voice in and the rest of us just create stupid little stubs, for school projects etc.
Where should I begin? First off, I want to wish you a HAPPY GROUNDHOG DAY from Pennsylvania (though nowhere near Punxatawney). Second I appreciate your recent edits to -- except a certain group. A very large group.
You know what I'm referring to. And I'm sure you are thinking "Better block this sock immediately." (Hey - it rhymes!) That's the position of other Administrators who look at my block log, see that I created a sockpuppet, and automatically block me without a reason. (I'm talking about you, Sandstein.)
I could have chosen him to send this message to. But he isn't the main case involved in this bizzarre wiki-drama. And with my indefinate block by Luna Santin, most of it stopped.
But this is far from over.
Robert Young still is disrupting Wikipedia through Bart Versieck. And I wouldn't blame him. He is indefinably blocked and he has no chance of being unblocked--UNLESS you listen to this.
He was blocked for disruption. He disrupted Wikipedia. I was blocked for sockpuppetry/disruption. The sockpuppetry will be discussed further down, and I disrupted Wikipedia. You, however, have disrupted Wikipedia about as much as we have and you have not been blocked. Interesting.
I consider myself calm now. We are all here trying to build Wikipedia. Young and I have just got furious over you (and others) destroying some of our well-sourced content that we spent a while on TRYING TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
This is one of the most unusual and little-documented chapters of Wikipedia history. The first AfD at the List of <insert nationality here> Supercentenarians atracted far too few editors for such an important case that it should have remained open until actual consensus was reached. (Note: you deleted several of my articles claiming that consensus was reached to delete. Since so little editors contibuted in the discussion -- and I know if Robert Young could edit that he certainly would have pushed it to a keep-- it was actually a no consensus, default to keep.)
To the sockpuppet stuff: I did create sockpuppets after my block. YGM and IBYB were two of my friends sharing my computer. I created the sockpuppets because my talk page was unjustly protected. (Hey, what else am I supposed to do besides post the unblock template on my talk page when I was unjustly blocked?) Besides, people keep telling me to email you. I CAN'T! There is something wrong with my e-mail stuff. Therefore, this is the only way I can get my thoughts out.
My point is: It's been a month, I'm willing to contribute constructively again (I really never did stop), and at the very least can you unblock my main account so I can file a request for arbitration agaist you. Sure, I could use this account, but it probably wouldn't be taken so well. Delete this, block me, but please understand that this will still appear in the edit history.
Kitia, you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Continuing to create new sockpuppets doesn't help your case.
If you want to be unblocked, try emailing your request to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. However, be sure to follow the detailed instructions on what to include in your email at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, or your request will be ignored.
Hey, thanks for all your help earlier on weedpunk. Too bad it didn't work out. Anyway, could you look at Fat Acceptance Movement. I think it should be up for deletion, there is no sources that mention the movement, few sources in general, and what I believe is original research or at best non-notable neologism. Thanks! --Banime (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have just read the article, and it's not quite the same situation as the weedpunk article. The Fat Acceptance Movement article does show some evidence in secondary sources of advocacy for obese people, but not enough, and I don't see references offering evidence for the use of that precise term.
A google search for "Fat Acceptance Movement" -wikipedia gives over 12,000 hits, which is quite a contrast with the single-figure results for weedpunk. So I think it's likely that that this could be made into a properly-sourced article which demonstrates notability, but it's not there yet. I would suggest for now that article be tagged with {{notability}}, and that the unreferenced assertions in the opening section should be tagged with {{fact}} tags.
Obviously, you are entitled to make an AFD nomination if you prefer, but since there does seem to be a reasonable possibility of notability, I suggest that it would be much better all round to start by tagging the article for improvement. An AFD nomination at this stage, without giving time to at least check out those 12,300 ghits would probably be seen as some sort of sour grapes from you over the Weedpunk deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to both of you. Banime, I realize you are new but you should really start out on Wikipedia doing more minor things, or working to expand articles. You are too new to go looking for articles to question or delete. You are taking an article that has existed since 2002, and for which there is a good deal of research, time, edits through the years, a reading list and bibliography, that is part of an infobox template, and for which there are numerous hits. You are googling "Fat Acceptance Movement" and you are finding plenty of hits, but you need to be googling "Fat Acceptance" where you will find organizations, websites, news stories, blogs, etc. BrownHairedGirl, could you please coach Banime more into doing things that won't be disruptive here on the Project - otherwise, he is bound to get his hand bitten by someone with less patience if he goes around questioning whether long, old, sourced articles should be deleted. --David Shankbone19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again thanks for all the help, sorry David Shankbone that I was so negative, I just saw a lot of problems with the article and wished for them to be noted. I shouldn't have advocated deletion right away. Thanks again --Banime (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BH, why is this still open? It is an obvious FAIL due to 'no consensus' with a strong 'keep' majority. Yet is is still open while those all around it are closed. I am suspicious that something may be afoot. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's me, the anon who edited the Bill Phillips disambig to include a William Phillips.
I agree that you were totally justified in deleting it. The only reason I added that William Phillips is that I have actually met him, and he was referred to exclusively as Bill. Should I suggest a move? Or do you think that info is too unsupported. Anyway, thanks for your time, and thanks for cleaning up any confusion I produced!--66.65.125.206 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so nice about my removal of yr addition :)
As to whether the article concerned should be renamed, I think that the important question is what he is known as to the general public, because that's how people will look for his article. If he is called Bill by his friends and family, but William in his professional life, then William is the name to use. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you've already done it thanks :-), I was going to say you don't have to - just do the Ireland one and I'll be able to figure it, but thanks again. One question though why is the Ireland template protected? - I can't see any vandalism on it? *Curious* Pahari Sahib16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to why the Irish template is protected, it's as protective measure, something often done for high-visibility templates (see Wikipedia:High-risk templates). An edit to a template such as {{YearInIrelandNav}} affects hundreds of articles, and if the edit broke the categorisation it would remove all the year-in-Ireland articles from the appropriate categories. Better to protect templates such as this rather than leave them open as a damage-lots-of-articles-in-one-edit target for vandals. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd just like to say thanks for disambiguating Andy O'Brien to Andy O'Brien (EastEnders) after you moved the page, especially on image description pages. Most people simply move a page and create a disambiguation page in its place without considering the consequences, so it was very much appreciated. anemone│projectors10:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! I sometimes think that a rare pedant on this issue, because there are so many times when I find that a page has been moved without any tidyup afterwards. It says clearly on the move screen that "You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go", and I think it's a great pity that more attention is not paid to enforcing that. Thanks for reassuring me that I am not alone in thinking that disambiguation does actually matter :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the same side there - yes, disambiguation matters! I'm alarmed at how many times I find there's a dab page at "name1 name2" or "name1 name2 (disambiguation)", but which doesn't include several of the people who've got articles at "name1 initial(s)/middlename name2" or "name1 name2 (description)"! (And of course the cases where there isn't a dab page, possibly the odd hatnote, but instances of the name are out there as article titles which can't be found from the "name1 name2" article). Without having a link from the raw name, readers looking for info aren't going to find it, and editors about to create a new article are more likely to create accidental duplicates. I've been doing some of the work suggested at Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, but for every name listed there there's likely to be another one I can find by Searching, to add to the dab or sort out by hatnotes.
Is it time to revisit the debate about whether it's useful to add hatnotes to point to dab pages from unambiguous names (eg from "Joe Bloggs (footballer)" to "Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)")? I tend to add them, occasionally they get deleted, I think they can help especially given that someone might find a Wikipedia page via a Google or other search and find they've got the wrong Joe Bloggs - if we can point them to the dab page, they might find the right chap (especially if we remember to link that dab page to the one for Joseph Bloggs...). Anyway, keep on disambiguating! PamD (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think it's worth revisiting. The case for removing the hatnotes which point to the dab page is based on a whole series of flawed assumptions, and it's very teduious to find these unobtrusive little navigation aids removed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own principle in applying the guideline could be summarised as "enough to clearly distinguish, but no more", e.g. "Ian Wall (politician)" and "Ian Wall (congressman)" are not clearly distinguished, but "Ian Wall (Texas politician)" and "Ian Wall (Idaho politician)" are clearly distinguished ... and if they were both Democrats it would be inappropriate to include "Democrat" on the disambiguator, because that is not a characteristic which distinguishes them.
In this case, the word "British" shouldn't be part of the disambiguator, because it doesn't distnguish them. PamD is right that the gender-neutral term actor is preferred these days, but I would also add that the year is used in the disambiguators in a way that's unclear — Olivia Grant (1983 British actress) could refer to some whose notability is based on an event in 1983.
So I would suggest that if disambiguation is needed, then the two articles should be called "Olivia Grant (actor born 1983)" and "Olivia Grant (actor born 1996)". I say "if", because as the notability of these actors has not yet been established by reference to substantial coverage in reliable sources. If either or both of the articles is deleted, then do disambiguator is needed. If only one article is kept, it would be sufficient to have a hatnote in that article noting the existence of the other (non-notable) Olivia Grant.
Sorry, I realised afterwards that I was talking a bit of nonsense her. The word "actor" applies to both of them, so it shouldn't be part of the disambiguator & mdash; the articles should be named "Olivia Grant (born 1983)" and "Olivia Grant (born 1996)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, date of birth is generally a deprecated disambiguator, but in this case I can see nothing else that would do. Two british actors of the same name, both of whom have worked in television; date of birth is about the only defining characteristic distinguishing them, apart from race, which we don't do. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about using a main production they're credited with? (Lark Rise) and (East Enders)? Or, could we say (actor) and (child actor), leaving the second one to be renamed if still notable when a few years older? PamD (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AnemoneProjectors is right about the actor/child actor problem, and the general principle is to name biographical articles by profession rather than job (so use "politician" rather than "MP", "journalist" rather than "Times editor" etc). Of course in a case like this we have to break some rules, but naming actors by their roles seems like a generally poor idea, especially this early in their careers. Year of birth seems more durable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the brainstorming is a good idea — it's helped me focus my mind a bit on how I approach disambiguation, so I've learnt somethings from it all. Thanks for giving the chance to do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been rather a lot of it, so I have semi-protected the page for 3 months. My guess is that as with some other historical articles, the Inca Empire has ended up on some school syllabus and is being vandalised by bored teenagers, so I hope that 3 months will be long enough for them to move on to another topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. I think you might be interested in the following edits by a new user called Crazy Eddy who created a new centenarian article yesterday. The article itself on a Mariam Amash looks fine as the lady might actually be the oldest person in the world and is sourced. What struck me however was the comment by Crazy Eddy on the article talk page here [7] and one made by Kitia in his edit summary a few hours later here [8]. At a guess our young friend has not noticed he's been unblocked and has decided to carry on with his puppetry. If course I could be wrong but I don't think so. I leave it in your capable hands. Cheers - Galloglass12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a sock, it's a mighty good one as the account is two years old. I think it's just someone who saw a current news story (check the dates on the refs) and wrote an article, the same way I did with Jay Lee (although that needed a bit of research in addition). That's my opinion anyway, but I don't know that much about detecting sockpuppets.... ;) One Night In Hackney30312:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like ONIH, I doubt that it's Kitia (talk·contribs). Apart from the age of the account, there are several issues of editing style and subject matter which distinguish the account from Kitia (including some rather well-done referencing). And Mariam Amash's case has been getting a lot of publicity recently, so I'm not surprised that it would prompt a dormant editor to get to work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Oireachtas-database-member requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
The text which you added in this edit read: "but he subsequently failed. He was widely respected by numerous organisations, such as the Sunday Tribune Ireland|Sunday Tribune]] as being one of the more 'effective' independent TDs. Unfortunately, he failed in his primary mission to reform the Irish Health system which had been furthered by Mary Harney and the Fianna Fáil Coalition and failed to get re-elected in the Dublin-Monaghan constituency (No Independents were elected from that region in the most recent election)"
Let me analyse that:
"He was widely respected by numerous organisations, such as the Sunday Tribune Ireland|Sunday Tribune]] as being one of the more 'effective' independent TDs." -- no source for that wide-ranging claim
"Unfortunately, he failed in his primary mission to reform the Irish Health system which had been furthered by Mary Harney and the Fianna Fáil Coalition" -- again no source, and the word "unfortunately" is POV (failure in a political objective may be a good or bad thing depending on POV) . That's what I meant by "unsourced commentary"
"failed to get re-elected in the Dublin-Monaghan constituency". -- There is no such constituency (I presume you meant Cavan-Monaghan), and the fact that he lost his seat was already included in the article.
I'm sure that edit was well-intended, but I'm afraid that it was entirely flawed, which is why I removed it all. You may well be right that he was well-respected, but you need a reference back up that claim.
As it says on every page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I know that you are a new editor and may be unfamiliaar with how things work on wikipedia, so please take a few minutes to read some of the relevant core policies and guidelines, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw that you are ranked number 6 according to this with a grand total of 109,418 (holy sh**!). But anyway, I noticed that you hadn't updated your userbox. I was going to do it, but I think it's bad form to modify other's userpages so I am just going to write it in here! Cheers!--Sallicio16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
holy sh**! indeed — I'm spending way too much time on wikioedia :(
I couldn't think of any boy victims of wicked stepmothers in the Grimms fairy tales! Sorry, I'm being very flippant (I'm not really all that wicked and I hardly ever kill anyone, at least not on sundays), but if there's any help or advice or second-opinions you'd like, just ask. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. Could you take a look at the above article when you have time? It looks like it was created by the person themselves. I have no idea if the person actually meets the notability guidelines as I have no idea what Otolaryngology actually is. It looks a bit iffy to my untrained eye but you're a better judge of these things than me. Thanks - Galloglass22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this message, reviewed the users contributions, and applied an indefinite block as a vandalism only account. I assume BrownHairedGirl meant to do the same, but did not. I sometimes do that myself, I once had a person I thought I blocked brag to me on my talk page that I did not really block them, guess what happened next? (1 == 2)Until01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might remember we had a little to-do about years in Ireland. I was wondering if you were meaning to change the templates, or whether I should go ahead and inflict my (arbitrary) fix. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I have rarely seen such a blatant and persistent refusal to work within WP:V, so I am glad to be able help. My watchlist is huge and rather busy, so please keep me updated on any developments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, I took out the name of the officer under investigation because he was still under investigation. The user here added the officers name back. Isn't there something about living persons and pending cases...it just seems a bit off to me. Another editor has already reverted the change, but I was just curious. Thanks!--Sallicio06:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi son! ;)
I think that the first relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. If there was only the YouTube video, then the incident should not be mentioned in the article at all, because YouTube is definitely not a reliable source. However, in this case there is also the ABC News story, so we do have a reliable source, which does allow the case to be mentioned.
In general I think that the wording of the section is fine (though the ABC News reference should be formatted using {{cite news}}): it's neutral, refrains from judgement, and — most importantly — does not go beyond what is covered in reliable sources (with one exception, which I'll come back to).
Since the officer's name is clearly included in the ABC News article, it seems to me to be fine to include it here, as long as the coverage doesn't prejudice any charges or proceedings against the oficer. (Irish law and UK are much stricter than US law on that point, because of the 5th amendment, but since there are apparently no criminal charges I don't think that the name would have to be withheld even if the incident had occurred on the civilised side of the Atlantic <evil grin>)
All the same, I think that you were right to remove the officer's name from the heading, because there were two parties to the incident, and it seems unbalanced to put only one in the heading. Your change of the heading to "Skateboard case" seems to me to be a useful improvement — concise, clear and neutral.
The one remaining problem I see with this section is this edit by an anon IP, which adds the text "As of February 19th, he is till suspended with pay". That is unsourced, and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. When an unsourced negative comment is made about a living person, it should be immediately removed rather than just tagged with {{fact}}, and that applies in this case. (see the very strongly-worded quote from Jimbo Wales in WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material
Good work. Just for future reference, it's a good idea in such cases to include a link to WP:BLP in the edit summary, particularly in instances like that edit where you are revering an anon IP, who is probably less likely to be aware of BLP. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But the problem is that having been a political campaigner for a long time, I have accumulated enough enemies that I'd probably find the cave being sealed up and a "beware of the old cow" notice placed outside. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, my enemies include the bosses of my local police; I have been in their bad books since I once spent a whole day doing the rounds of the local radio stations denouncing them for wasting money and managerial time on a very expensive court case (which they lost) while their officers' morale was collapsing. I hope you guys are well-armed :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you were talking to the wrong people. If that were the case here, the length of a pointless, drawn-out trial would have rested on the shoulders of the State's Attorney/District Attorney's Office (depending on the state one lives in) or the US Attorney (for federal crimes). In the US we're completely independent from the SA's Office. (If the story was that juicy, it could've been a good WP article! Did you write one?)--Sallicio03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a civil case, not a criminal prosecution, and police structures are a bit difft in the UK — as a civil case, this one was the responsibility of the local Chief Constable.
It would indeed make a rather good WP article, but as the key strategist for the litigant in the case, I'd have too much of a COI for it to be fair for me to write it, and in any case I try to keep my former public identity well divorced from what I do on wikipedia. Best to stick to things I can most easily be neutral, and retain my privacy in the process :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you have proven your wisdom! You're like Superman...mild-mannered strategist by day, then...BAM, Wikipedia superhero by night! :) --Sallicio03:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, mom... this user here is starting to be uncivil (about the aforemention article and may need to sit in the "time out chair" if he can't control his/her behavior.
Hmm, the uncivility doesn't help, but I'm not so sure that it was a good idea for you to revertthis edit by the IP. As above, I think that it's OK to include the name, my BLP concerns related to the unsourced inclusion of the claim that the officer was still suspended. To be honest, I'd suggest partially reverting to the last edit by the IP, but removing the link to the letters page (I don't see what purpose it serves). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am in favour of good writing, but not of unsourced commentary. You are a new editor, so please please please do take the time to readWP:V.
"Common knowledge" is not acceptable as a source for wikipedia articles; they must be referenced to reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source for the claim that Mary Harney was reluctant to resume the leadership (and it seems to me to be likely to be true, so a sou8rce is probably available if you go searching), then that point should be included, but per WP:BLP it should not be part of the article unless it is referenced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just what is going on with the Barnsley East/Barnsley East and Mexborough articles? I have amended the former to include confirmed candidates, so this redirect issue is rather confusing! Do you have any ideas what is going on, and why we cannot have the Barnsley East article standing alone? And Sheffield South East, too - there are candidates selected (see http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/sheffieldsoutheast ). So I wondered if we can "release" these articles for use?
Se my comment at WT:UKPC, We have long tried to apply a one-name-one-article rule to all the constituency articles. Barnsley East should be a separate article to Barnsley East and Mexborough, and the 83-87 period should be covered in BE rather than in BE+M. Similarly Sheffield South East should a separate article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pól Ó Foighil , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi BHG. I just wanted to let you know that I found your comment very unhelpful and have asked you to clarify what exactly you think I should do in future, the next time another admin asks for my help on a problematic article. The statement that I am perceived as biased by Sarah and certain unnamed other editors is a very serious allegation. Please provide diffs or evidence to support what you said there, or else retract the statement. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, to some degree it does. I am strongly of a view that, as Tyrenius says, we should not allow the most troublesome users to dictate our policies here with regard to CIVIL, NPA etc by accusing others of being biased. I am always open to criticism, but I have not seen an example in recent months where I have ever been accused of bias, by anyone other than the most biased editors with the longest block logs. I know you have suffered from this yourself. If I thought there was ever an occasion when I was perceived as behaving in a biased way by an editor in good standing and I had not addressed the concerns, I would certainly want to know about it. We need to be open to genuine charges of admin abuse, without leaving admins like myself or yourself powerless to intervene to solve disputes and improve articles for fear of spurious accusations. This, in my view, is what I have helped do on the article Sarah is upset about, and I view her complaint as spurious. Please, if there is ever anything I do which you are unhappy with, let me know directly in the first instance, and tell me specifically what you think I have done wrong. That way I can perhaps learn and improve, even if it turns out I disagree with your criticism. Best wishes. --John (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you have a moment to look at Roosky please? Looks to me like User:CianDiffl has added a whole bunch of content which might be fluff and is probably not encyclopaedic, but I'm no expert. Would appreciate your opinion, please. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed :( It's a pity in a way: at first glance I thought that it might actually be a rather good expansion of the article on Roosky, which has always been one my favourite villages in all of Ireland ... but there's so much nonsense in the midst of the plausible stuff that I wouldn't trust any of it :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched you in the ISBN discussion, and I started questioning myself elsewhere. I f I promise to explain to you the origin of the word pedant, would you care to look over another discussion and offer a comment?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm afraid that CfD gets rather mind-numbing and I have been suffering fron a bit of CFD-burnout. Between the deletionists-with-a-mission and the ignore-all-guidelines people, discussions there can be pretty frustrating. Sometimes it is possible have a sensible discussion which does actually address the issues, but too often it's less of a discussion than a dialogue of the deaf.
I may decide at some pint to pop my head back in again, but for now I'm getting much more satisfaction out of creating content rather than organising it. I have been doing a lot of research on Seanad Éireann, which I have really enjoyed, and which has allowed me to hugely expand coverage of that subject and create some articles along the way which I'm rather pleased with, two DYK-featured articles this week. The Seanad has been very poorly covered in wikipedia to date, and researching it brings back some interesting memories of a times in my youth when I spent spent a week stuffing 100,000 envelopes with a candidate's election address!
Appreciate you have other things to do, but I need some sort of idea on how you want things done. A simple if < 1100 would be easiest, but if you've got a better plan I'd like to hear it. Thanks, Angus McLellan(Talk)20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The admin who closed the deletion review either didn't even bother reading the discussion carefully enough to actually see the problems that were explained, or else chose to ignore them. That's about par for the course in the fanatical deletion of these categories, but I haven't the energy to spend more time trying to argue against this sort of thing :(
Anyway, as closing admin, please can you confine yourself to just merging the categories; the redlinks can remain for now. I will start a discussion at WT:IE on the options for restructuring the templates to deal with this situation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something's amiss with the red block of text at bottom of the page - it's obscuring the last message, so presumably will now hide part of this one! PamD (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just changed archivebot, and one of the side-effects was that this talkpage is no longer categorised, and I needed to change {{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=yes}} to {{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=no}}. Seems OK now :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just suffered a 24 hour block (which I managed to get lifted) for being disruptive in Years in Ireland. See my talk page - makes you glad to be a part of this. Ardfern (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Old form Execute.jpgWikipedians enforce justice on a miscreant who flagrantly creates content relating to human history, rather than concentrating on fiction.
Oh dear :( As I wrote 6 weeks ago, when the articles were under attack, there's a bizarrely screwed-up sense of priorities at work here, where this sort of historical work gets attacked.
The deletion of the years-in-Ireland categories does not create a new policy, it just creates a precedent for AfD ... and AfD is not bound by precedent. It would have been entirely in order for Ardfern to have been warned that further such categories were likely to be deleted, but moving so quickly to a block was simply vindictive. Furthermore, if such a block were justified, it should not have been imposed by the admin who closed the DRV without bothering to read it properly.
However, please folks, don't go getting yourself further (probably longer) blocks over this. Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.
It's quite clear that this sort of thing is not going to stop soon, and that for the moment deletionists have the wind in their sails. I will try to find the energy later today to raise Ardfern's block at ANI as a misuse of admin power, but we aren't going to be able to deal with stuff if the key editors are blocked, or if their contrubutions to discussions are disparaged on the grounds of a bulging block — even if the blocks have been unreasonably imposed, mud sticks :(
The situation now is that, however perverse the situation is, several dozen categories have been deleted, and the deletionists will likely return soon to start deleting the others. At this point, we need to figure out how to cope with the effects of this, and I will post some suggestions to WT:IE. Please don't leave me as the only one still standing to carry on the work! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm afraid that the Windows computer on which I run the bot is still not very well (power connection prob on the motherboard). I'll see if I can coax it into running for long enough to do a bot run, but no promises.
There are already hundreds of GAA articles which were automatically classed as stubs, but which have no importance assessment: since this list generated by CatScan. As you can see from that list, there is already a backlog of over 400 articles needing manual assessment. I have just manually assessed about fifty of them, but do you or anyone else from the GAA project have the energy to do more?
<noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude>{{portalpar|Sports and games|Sports and games.png}}{{portalpar|Ireland|Four Provinces Flag.svg}}
'''[[Gaelic games]]''' in the year '''[[{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}}]]'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gaelic games}}
{{year by category
|m={{{m|}}}
|c={{{c|}}}
|d={{{d|}}}
|y={{{y|}}}
|cat=in Gaelic games
|sortkey=Gaelic games
|parent={{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} in sports
|subcat={{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} in Ireland
}}
{{ #ifexist: Category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} in Northern Ireland | [[Category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} in Northern Ireland| Gaelic games]] | }}
<includeonly>
[[:category:{{#expr: {{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}} - 1}}0s in Gaelic Games|{{#expr: {{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}} - 1}}0s <<]] — '''[[:category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}0s in Gaelic games|{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}0s]]''' — [[:category:{{#expr: {{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}} + 1}}0s in Gaelic games|>> {{#expr: {{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}} + 1}}0s]]
<!-- [[Category:{{#expr: {{{m|}}}{{{c|}}} + 1}}{{ #ifeq: {{{c}}}|0|st|th}} century in Gaelic games|{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}}]] -->
[[Category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}0s in Gaelic games|{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}}]]
</includeonly><noinclude></noinclude>
The direction this seem to be going is not what I thought was the intention when I suggested you be contacted to see if your bot would do what they wanted. I understood the GAA project wanted the GAA articles tagged with their GAA tag, not with our Ireland project tag, which they should be anyway. Sorry to hear the PC is not in good form; that's why I use a Mac! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it was a matter of someone getting tangled in the powerlead to my laptop and pulling at it rather than disentangling themselves, with the effect of breaking the cable (which was easily replaced) and the straining connection between the 19Volt socket and the motherboard (which will require a soldering iron). Since the person entangled has a more senior position in the household (on account of having learnt how to walk on all four legs rather than balancing precariously on just two), I just have to accept this as one-of-those-things and put up with it. And while IU dunno if Macs are more dog-proof, my friend's mac laptop collapsed and died pretty quickly when his water bottle leaked all over it, and the replacement cost three times as much as my laptop. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvarkytojas is removing (at speed) a lot of articles and sub-categories from Category:Protestant Reformation. I'm no expert on this but suspect these (and other) edits are often dubious. T is also putting categories in alphabetical order ... is this recommended somewhere? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category removals look v dodgy to me, and I suggest raising this on the talk page of Tvarkytojas (talk·contribs).
User:Tvarkytojas doesn't respond (or stop) - see his talk; and is also allegedly a sock of someone else (the blocked user:Pionier) - see his user page. I'm not sure that I've yet found a definitely useful edit of his. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the best way forward would be to raise this at WP:ANI. It looks to me like a sock-block might be in order, but that may require a checkuser and so far I haven't seen the evidence for the sockpuppetry allegation (checkuser requires evidence). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too didn't find the evidence compelling; apparently it is a spillover from Lithuanian wiki where there is evidence (which is all Dutch to me). Anyway people seem to be sorting it out, to some extent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! It was an interesting exercise, but I jumped in because I thought that despite various tangles on the debate, it would be unsatisfactory to simply close it with a one-line "no consensus" comment, as happened to the first AfD. When I started, I thought that my closure was likely to be a verbose "no consensus" which would be little better, but the debate had achieved more than I initially thought. I dunno if you noticed, but I was asked over to the article's talk page to discuss the closure, and have been pleasantly surprised to find that discussion quite constructive. There may even (touch wood) be an emerging consensus on a very precise set of inclusion criteria! (see Talk:List of events named massacres#Explanation_and_question_from_AfD_closer).
If that happens, there will obviously still be room for argument about the inclusion of individual events, but at least there will be an agreed mechanism for assessing them. I think that the AfD debate will have been very useful if it helps to stabilise the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 2 March 2008 (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 BHG. I wonder if you will reconsider your message to me left on Sarah's talk page for a number of reasons. Firstly, shouting doesn't make your point any more germane than typing in regular text. Secondly, I have my own talk page where you can draw attention to error you may think I have made and thirdly, last time I read WP:NPA and WP:CIV, it didn't permit name-calling, so I politely reminded Sarah of that, asked her to stop, warned her what would happen if she continued along those lines and informed her of the due process to express her grievances. I have quite a good relationship with Sarah, and as it has in the past, had hoped that my discussion with her may prevented this from escalating further. I didn't block her and had no intention of blocking her. So if you consider those actions be "victimisation" and "too trigger-happy" then what exactly do you call your message to me?
Furthermore, clearly Sarah herself didn't consider that I was "victimising her" [9] and your less-than-helpful message was set after her apology and unblocking, so exactly what purpose is is supposed to serve? Sheesh. Rockpocket17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rock, may I ask you to step back a bit here and look at what's happening?
Sarah had yet another block imposed on her for an outburst, in this case a rather mild one. I don't like being called a "fascist" either, but it's a fairly common occurrence when taking any sort of authority role online, and I see similar epithets being attached to admins on a fairly regular basis; as SlimVirgin pointed out at ANI, far worse things are said every day.
The reason I commented there was that the whole episode looks to me very much like a punish-the-usual suspects exercise, and I wanted to add a clear note for anyone who reads that section in the future that Sarah is being unfairly treated. No, it wasn't you who blocked Sarah, and you weren't advocating her blocking, and the real problem there is Tyrenius wading in yet again ... but there was something about your msg that looked to me like the latest in a pile-on, where the outburst gets taken very seriously but no attempt is made to deal with the reasons for it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made it perfectly clear I would help her deal with the reasons for her outburst of she queried them in the appropriate manner. Sarah is an adult (and, from what I can tell, she is a pretty bright one at that). She is more than capable of writing in a neutral manner when she wants to, but if editors see that name-calling and personal abuse achieves results then they will continue to use that tactic. So if and when Sarah phrases her concerns in a civil way, I will help her address them, but I will not respond to accusations of fascism and I don't think anyone else should either. While I also don't think one should be blocked for making a comment like that, one should be aware that if it becomes habitual, then it will lead down that path. That is a fact (borne out by the discussion at AN) and telling Sarah that is not inappropriate.
The message that you took issue with was in reply to a question from Sarah (as noted in my edit summary [10]). You will also note that was my last edit for a period of hours during which time the drama unfolded, so I was entirely unaware she was about to be blocked. Therefore it was not "piling on", it was directly addressing her query. If you are unhappy with Tyrenius' block, then by all means bring it up with him but I strongly object to you tarring me with that "trigger-happy" brush, simply because I happened to be having a parallel, but completely independent, discussion with Sarah. I'm sorry if I appear curt in discussion with you, but I am very disappointed by this. I have had faced enough unfair accusations from Vk et al about victimisation without expecting something similar from an admin. Rockpocket02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the issue I am trying to focus we have here is that is that whenever Sarah raises a problem, the responses are focusing on the way she expresses herself rather than on the underlying issues. This is creating a vicious cycle where Sarah makes an outburst, admins pile in to condemn the outburst, and the underlying problem is never considered, which merely builds up a problem for the future. As you know, I too have frequently advised Sarah to tone down her language, but I remain convinced that we are not going to break this cycle unless the problem of the inappropriate language in Sarah's outbursts is separated from the substance of her complaints, and both are addressed.
I hope that Sarah's promise to try restraint works for her, but I also hope that you to have noticed that it followed the intervention of a previously uninvolved admin (SlimVirgin). That's why I think that it would be far the best for the troubles-related admins to take a step back — we already have the evidence that outsiders are producing better results. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And would you include yourself in that group of "troubles-related admins" who should "take a step back"? If not, why not? --John (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If SV is willing to keep Sarah's tongue in check, then that is perfectly fine with me. I can't help contrasting your response to this with the incident where you blocked Vk after clashing with him over baronet renamings. You were happy to block him then, despite being "directly involved", and his underlying issues didn't seem to factor into it [11] Was that victimisation? In contrast, my position now is consistent with my position then: I am always happy to address underlying issues when they are presented in a civil way. The comment you took issue with made that very clear. Feeling hard done by or the victim of perceived injustice is not an acceptable justification for being disruptive or abusive. Your actions seem to suggest you think it is (in this instance, if not when Vk was the subject).
Your comments over the last few days clearly suggest you give mileage to the idea that nationality and/or politics is an issue here. Notwithstanding you have no idea what my nationality is, I second John's call that if anyone should "take a step back" then you should consider your own position, because you are the only admin, among all who have commented, that sees a conspiracy here. I'll continue to enforce our policies as I see fit, with discussion and polite requests. If you consider that to be "trigger happy" then I ask that you seek wider input from the community before issuing accusations in future. The irony here is that Sarah and I were, and remain on, perfectly good terms. Its only your accusations that have led to any bad feeling here. Way to go in calming things down.
I think I have said enough on this, because it has angered me more than all the abuse that has come my way on this issue. That I expected, this I didn't. I have a huge amount of respect for you, BHG, but I think your post was rash, showed very poor-judgment and a lack of understanding of what was actually going on at the time. Rockpocket18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, your points are rhetorical but not validated with evidence. The point Sarah was making about Ardfern's block had been addressed before her remarks: he was already unblocked, when she made them. You say univolved admins have produced better results. An univolved admin Rjd0060 reviewed the block and endorsed it, but I don't think you are saying this is a better result. Naturally User:SlimVirgin's suggestion to unblock is going to get a positive response—that would happen any time someone is unblocked. However, it was not unilateral: it was done in liaison with an "involved" admin, me, and it was a collaborative decision.[12] Your statement that I am "involved" as regards Sarah is not validated by the clarification discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Request_for_Clarification_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FThe_Troubles. According to your suggestion, none of the admins listed at the troubles ArbCom should sanction any of the editors listed there. Is this seriously what you are suggesting? The description "punish-the-usual suspects exercise" is not true. No one is being sanctioned because they are a "usual suspect". They will be sanctioned if they offend. If they don't, then they will not be. I strongly object to your pejorative "the real problem there is Tyrenius wading in yet again." Perhaps you would provide proof of this, rather than just making groundless accusations. Otherwise, withdraw your statement. This is the first time I have blocked Sarah. Do you think that Alison was wrong to have previously blocked Sarah? If not, why not? If not, then you are applying inconsistent standards. I have made a full reply to your points at Wikipedia:An/i#Response_to_BrownHaired_Girl, which you have not acknowledged. Tyrenius (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see zero support for your position at the AN/I discussion BHG. Perhaps it would be better to answer the points made there before "wading in" again. I found your intervention on this issue very unhelpful. We expect abuse from abusive editors, that is part of the job. Very few problematic editors are grateful to be sanctioned in my experience. So it goes. What we do not (and should not) expect is an admin throwing around accusations against other admins who have made a good faith attempt to resolve problems, after the original problem has been solved. Please consider the feedback you have been given here and at AN/I before getting involved again in a situation where you could be seen (I am sure it was not your intention) as supporting and enabling the abusive behaviour of another editor. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there's a whole bundle of things here, and I'll try picking up on a few of the points, but I don't have the time to write an essay in response.
First, Tyrenius's claim that Ardfern's block had been addressed before Sarah's outburst. Actually, it hadn't: he had been unblocked, but there had been no follow-up on why such a bad block had been imposed in the first place, and why an unusually hard-working and stay-out-of-conflict editor had been pounced on so rapidly and blocked as if he had violated a policy.
Secondly, both of you are missing the point that there was no suggestion that Sarah was herself engaged in anything disruptive in relation to content of wikipedia, or disrupting any discusion process: her offence consisted solely of sounding off on her own talk page and on mine. Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and I fail to see why there was a pressing need for Tyrenius to block Sarah at 00:28[13], when Rockpocket had left a warning half-an-hour before[14] and there had been no further comment from Sarah. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Recurring_attacks:
Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.
Note that last bit "immediate administrator action is not required". Yet in this case, it's what happened, and as result a huge amount of energy has been displaced into discussion of the block rather than the underlying complaint.
This doesn't help, and that's why I have objected: one bad block (on Ardfern) produced an outburst, which was then followed up with another bad block, and objections to that block then produce another storm :( Rather than reaching for the block button, we would all save ourselves an awful lot of energy to devote to content if there was some effort to divert Sarah777 into effective use of the dispute-resolution channels ... but that isn't going to happen so long as the response remains a pile-in.
Rockpocket draws a comparison with my block of Vintagekits over the baronets renaming. If you check back on that saga, you will find a crucial distinction: that block was placed to stop an ongoing disruptive pattern of editing the content of the encyclopedia, when requests to desist had been unsuccessful. The situation was complex, and the explanation was necessarily long, which is why I blocked first and explained later: not as ideal thing to do, but as the lesser of two evils, to stop immediate and ongoing disruption of content. That wasn't the case with Sarah: her offence consisted solely of inappropriate adjectives on her own talk page, and I have seen no suggestion that she was in any way editing content disruptively.
I'm not now going to spend another huge chunk of time engaged in collecting diffs and trying to match the output of the three other admins. My main interest is in content, and that's where I want to devote my energies. I have raised this problem because, with regret, some admins who I have previously respected appear to have become overly focused on the single issue of Sarah's outbursts, and are not helping to divert those grievances down the proper channels.
Please, rather than engaging in further piles of diff-collecting, can we try working together to assist Sarah777 in using the dispute-resolution processes when she feels aggrieved? It would be far more likely to produce satisfactory results all round than focusing solely on the incivility, and if we can show Sarah how dispute resolution can produce mutually agreeable outcomes, we can all get away from this increasingly circular argument about language and about who said what when. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as an alternative, I would be ready to take up John's suggestion for all four of us recuse ourselves from further admin dealings with Sarah. I would prefer that we actually worked together to find a solutions, but all of us stepping back would be a better path than the present one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation and self-justifications. One small correction; I did not suggest that you (or we) recuse from anything, I asked you to clarify whether you included yourself in the call to pull back from certain unspecified areas of Wikipedia. I will take it that you do not. Re "some admins who I have previously respected"; I'll be up front and admit I have lost a lot of respect for you over this matter and your ways of dealing with it. However, I now consider the matter closed and I agree with the conclusion you make above, although not with much of the rest of what you have said. All the best, --John (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comparison with Vk's block was to with respect to Fram's block of Adfern (not Sarah's). As far as I can tell Fram considered there to be an ongoing disruptive pattern of editing to the content of the encyclopedia, when requests to desist had been unsuccessful. He said in justification:
"You didn't feel the need to discuss or appeal, but continued to add the categories to numerous articles, and to create the articles. The sensible discussion was the CfD and the DRV: the consistency was being applied now, but you tried to disrupt this, despite the CfD, the DRV, and the two messages above. If you stop creating these categories, I have no problem with you being unblocked. If you intend to continue editing like you were doing before the block, I see no reason to lift it." [He lifted it a short time later, when Adfern agreed to discuss the issues]
That seems to be pretty similar to your reasoning for blocking Vk and hence not "grossly unfair and out-of-process" (your words). Now, there my be more to it than meets the eye as I'm not familiar with the background, but the reasoning behind it appears sound and pretty damn far from "fascist" behaviour.
Finally, I assume as you did before, you are again referring to me among "admins who I have previously respected" who "appear to have become overly focused on the single issue of Sarah's outbursts, and are not helping to divert those grievances down the proper channels." Did you actually read the message that you made that accusation in response to? [15] Because the whole point of that reply was to direct Sarah's grievances down the proper channels. So I understand you wish to get back to content writing, but I would very much like you to tell me what I did that justified your accusations because all you have offered so far was that a "bad block" was made (that had absolutely nothing to do with me and was made after I went off line) and that I was not helping to divert Sarah's grievances down the proper channels (when that was exactly what I was doing). If you don't wish to waste your time doing that then at least have the good grace to withdraw your accusations. Rockpocket23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not going to go round and round in circles raking over the coals on this. I have said what I meant to say, and I don't see any need to withdraw my observation that the interventions pouncing on Sarah's intemperate language had the unneccesary effect of turning a drama into a crisis.
However, I will note that Fram had made policy on the hoof, in deciding that creating pre-1100 categories was a blockable offence. Creating the categories did not disrupt any existing content or break any links, as Vk's efforts were doing.
So far as I am concerned, the situation remains that a quite unnecessary wikidrama was created by responses which focused solely on the expression of Sarah's complaint, rather than on the substance. I think we have established that we disagree on this, so I am now closing this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like to see hassle between two Admins I admire, Rock and BHG. (And Rock is correct that we have no issues - he seems to come closer than anyone at understanding where I'm coming from). But I must record that that isn't to say I am happy or feel that the blocks on Ardfern or subsequently myself were right. (In fact were it not for my attempts at civility I'd need to accurately express my true views and feelings on on both in very uncivil terms). I feel the agreement to compromise by my blocker after the intervention of Slim was due to the fact that the intemperate circumstances of the block would likely lead to embarrassment should this go to Arbcom rather than any sense of fair play. (This is my reading of the situation and I realise that the mere explanation of it leaves me open yet again to accusations of incivility; so please appreciate that my comments here are very measured. (Read the comments of the said editor at the ANI as to his preferred "solution" to the "problem" - aka, me - to understand why I feel as I do). And I realise that I'm not "tuned-in" to the dominant Wiki-culture but I must say that I find the characterisation of BHG's comments as "unhelpful" (code for what?) and demands for explanations sounds to me as somewhat intimidating to BHG; which I assume isn't the intention? Sarah777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 29 February 2008 (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.
Hi BHG -- It's not a CFD but this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization about use of HIDDEN to conceal some "intersection" categories has, I think, very broad implications for categorization policy. If you haven't looked at it yet I think you'll want to. Cheers, Laura Q / Lquilter (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see the earlier discussion here has been archived, but your restoration of Template:WikiMapia on January 31 was removed on February 10. I just noticed this today and have restored it again. As I mentioned in my edit summary, although I support the GeoHack effort, I feel that the WikiMapia template has its uses. Also, I've seen a lot of discussion at Wikipedia talk: External links but have not seen any consensus to disable the WikiMapia template. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note and welcome to the minefield. Outstanding analysis, very clear indeed, if I may say so. The effort probably drained you of spelling energy - still a nice Freudian slip in your post: "altough"! Tyrenius (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a good speller, but a lousy typist, so if that's the only typo I was doing well! Anyway, glad you reckoned my comments helped, and as you can see I have added some more, in search of precision. To my surprise, it does seem that it may well be possible to reach agreement on a clear and policy-based set of inclusion criteria. Alhamdulillah! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was restuarant, but I've just changed that for you. Your latest proposal looks even better. I can't wait to get out of there! Tyrenius (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often look at these cases and decide to stay clear unless I can see an exit strategy. In this case, I think that all we can do is try to nail the list down as securely as possible to reliance on reliable sources, NOR etc, and beyond that its up to the editors involved to decide whether they want to make it work or to drag it back to a battleground by reintroducing subjective criteria. If that happens, then I think that a return to AfD would be inevitable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too wish to congratulate you on your close and subsequent clarifications. It is good to have the benefit of your involvement there. --John (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. I should point out that it's all built on the heavy-lifting which Tyrenius did at AfD, by explaining the revised criteria. Without that, the closure would have been "delete" ... which would have saved a lot of ongoing work, but would have left a lot of editors unhappy. We still don't quite have an agreed solution, but, we might be getting there .... fingers crossed! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, saw Ty's work there. What say we jointly award Tyrenius a Barnstar? Sorry for disagreeing with you over the Sarah777 incident; on reflection I admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up and defend a problematic user with good intentions, strong views and an intelligent mind. A large proportion of the oppose votes in my RfA were cast on a similar basis, because of a situation when I tried to defend someone who was trying to refresh things and got (in my opinion) unfairly treated, and it was felt that I had criticised admins, who were, looking back on it, probably just trying their best as I was, to act fairly as they saw it, support each other, and improve the project. Anyway, all water under the bridge in both cases I hope, and keep up the good work. Get back to me on the Barnstar proposal if you will. Best, --John (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar for Ty sounds like a great idea -- count me in. (tho do we actually have a walked-across-a-minefield-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale barnstar? <grin>)
As to Sarah777, I think that one of the ironies was that we all seemed to pretty much agree of the basics — that Sarah is a valued contributor, an original character, and filled with good intentions, but with far too short a fuse — but differed on the path to a solution. I came away feeling a bit fed up with having found once again myself in a minority (my friends are forever advising me to stick my neck out less often!), but I still think that it was a discussion worth having, even if it was painful for all involved, and I'm glad that you too know that feeling. I do hope that it won't impede us working together again; I think that while supporting other admins is important, the best results in any team come when people are prepared when necessary to question a course of action. (One friend describes this process as an endless cycle of "forming, storming, norming, performing", and insists that all the phases are necessary). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The minefield comparison is well-merited. I propose the Surreal Barnstar, on the basis that first of all and most importantly I think Ty will appreciate that one, and secondly it is somewhat surreal what actually happened, I hope you'll agree. See also my proposed message; if you agree please add your own and then either move to Ty's user page or else I will. As to working together in the future, I look forward to that; two such prolific Wikipedians (I have almost half your edit count!) are bound to bump into each other again. --John (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post here to endorse the "moving on together" conversation above, which has, I feel, already happened anyway in advance of the discussion (a novel eventuality on wiki). I'm posting now also to thank you for literally surreal star, by which I am honored and highly amused also, as predicted. I shall try to summon up the energy to have a look at the current state of the debate. Ty00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fraid it's not one letter at a time, though it is boosted by some big AWB runs, which probably accounts for 15-20K edits, and a lot of minor edits cos I'm a pedant about disambiguation (as well as many other things).
The rest is accounted for by obsessiveness, and getting stuck into too many big projects (Irish politicians, and British ones, and their associated constituencies), and way too many CfDs. I'm sure its all in the DSM IV somewhere ;) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I read the DSM regularly (be honest; almost continuously) on SDM's and I'm pretty sure the DSM does not cover your case. Perhaps your proximity to the Blarney Stone is the root cause. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been assured on excellent authority (i.e., after several glasses of Irish whiskey, the good stuff, not the cheap stuff that's shipped overseas) that the influence of the Blarney Stone does not wear off with time. It's like riding a bicycle. Wanderer57 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'll be very disappointed if you don't ask what SDM's are.
I'm disappointed. I thought it meant something exotic like Sex with Dead Marsupials, and it feels like a real let-down to find that it's something as tame as self-diagnosis missions. ;) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BHG, A previously deleted page has been recreated, how can I find the previous deletion debate? I looked at articles for deletion but there doesn't seem to be a way to search and I really don't have the time to trek through all of 2007 archives. The page itself, regrettably, doesn't have any clue either that it's a recreation of a deleted page. Valenciano (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which page this is, so that I can take a look?
Could you help me with the formatting though please on the AFD discussions page? I just can't get it to show up like the others. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. FYI. Wanting to alert you to a discussion where I mentioned you by name. I'm still too involved, but I'm still following the various discussions around age-related and longevity and supercentenarian articles. I'm off to comment in the RfC on Ruby Muhammad now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please would you speedy delete this redirect. The "political activist" appears to exist, though in my opinion he is nn. The baronetcy and son of Lord Brown stuff is total nonsense. - Kittybrewster ☎15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was known by that title until earlier today, I think it's fairer to leave the redirect in place until the AfD closes, to help locate the AfD. But even the article is kept for some bizarre reason, the redirect should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
clarification of your ruling on a recent AfD debate
Editors are debating the following: 1) the name change means that an event that is cleary named "massacre" in reliable sources can be included, or 2) the change means that only events that are named "massacre" in their Wikipedia articles (ie in the title or in BOLD in the lead) are to be included.
The prime example of this debate is whether to include the Tiananmen Square Massacre... called such in numerous reliable sources, but not called that in the lead of our Wikipedia article on the topic - Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (note, however, that it is called a massacre later in the text.)
It would be helpful if you, as the closing admin of the AfD, were to pop over and clarify your intent as it relates to this issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One issue on which you didn’t comment was the merits of the article for navigation purposes. I feel that more navigation aids are needed, but that we wikipedians are having trouble with summary articles for contentious subjects. Other examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse (second nomination), which in the end was judged too much a POV target, and Animal testing, which through the controversy is coming along pretty well. Search functions are of limited use when you don’t know exactly what you are looking for. Categories are a rather dry way to browse. Navigation boxes are good if you are already close to where you want to be. Pages like List of events named massacre, to me, serve usefully like navigation boxes for broad subject areas. I’d be interesting in your thoughts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Joe.
I honestly don't think that there is any easy answer to that one, because the usefulness of navigational aids may conflict with the policy of WP:NPOV.
Lists like this can end up being rather useless as navigational aids, because their selection criteria are somewhat arbitrary. Whatever the arguments for keeping List of events named massacres, I don't see that it's much help as a navigational aid; it's more an object of curiosity, a pointer to one aspect of the issues around naming of mass killings, focusing solely on one particular emotive term amongst many possible labels, some of them similarly emotive. For example, List of events named massacres omits all of the incidents known as Bloody Sunday, which makes it pretty useless for anyone looking for a navigational aid to the subject of mass killings.
I hope that helps. I'm all in favour of navigational aids, and WP:CLS rightly stresses that all the different tools can have their uses. But editors building these tools do need to be careful to construct these navigational aids in ways that are clearly neutral and not arbitrary, otherwise their work risks being deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The boxes were very nearly perfect; the only tweak was to pipe the Lemon Baronets link to "Baronet" rather than to "Lemon", i.e. [[Lemon Baronets|Baronet]] rather than [[Lemon Baronets|Lemon]]
I also did a few minor tweaks, such as converting dates to UK format and placing footnote refs before punctuation (rather than after it) ... and added the succession boxes to Charles Lemon for his time as MP. Those are a poin-in the neck in multi-seat constituencies :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot stress strongly enough that Bots should never be hardblocked. Aside from the fact that you will autoblock non admin Bot users who run them from their own IP, the damage that can be caused by blocking the toolserver IP is considerable. If you do accidentally hardblock a Bot, please lift the autoblock as soon as possible as well as reducing the block to a soft one. I have done this for the BetacommandBot autoblock - [16]. Thanks, WjBscribe13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hardblock was unintentional, and I promptly replaced it with a softblock. Thanks very much for stepping in so promptly to help fix my mistake by lifting the autoblock. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note of acknowledgement for your diligence - if I may - in helping to bring Betacommand to heel. I'd leave you a barnstar, but that seems to be debased coin. Thanks and good luck. Wiggy! (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's very kind of you.
Now if you could tell me how to I could learn to walk away from hornet's nests, that'd be even better than a barnstar :) I woukd like a quiet life, but don't often seem to manage to achieve it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's very kind of you. This hasn't been a fun few days (though I did have a bit of a giggle about being called a "dick"; my name ought have been a bit of a clure about that one!), but I hope that we may be able find some way of diverting all this conflict into some more constructive process which could produce solutions rather than more heat. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think arbcom is the only logical next step. RfC would simply devolve into ... never mind. You know the old saying about "nothing nice to say." Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to prod BC into some constructive changes, and I am truly sorry that you've had to deal with the base incivility that he tends to dish out when challenged. You didn't deserve it. BTW, many thanks to Maxim for the barnstar template... ;) BellwetherBC06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate my position here that an arbcom case would not be helpful before the deadline of 23 March. We should all work towards ensuring that the deadline passes peacefully and that there is not abrupt change of policy after that date, and that the non-free content criteria compliance planning and work continues. If incivility, disruption and failure to work with others (whether in non-free image work or in other areas) continues in the month after that deadline has passed, then I will personally file the arbitration case (or at least support anyone who does). But I will not support an arbitration case before 23 March (though I will provide evidence if one is filed and accepted). Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, BellWether, for the nice comments. As to arbcom, I see where Carcharoth is coming from, and I personally don't want this to go to arbcom, because it's such a time-intensive process, and it rarely seems to breed any goodwill. However, I think that our success in avoiding that will depend to a certain extent on how BC conducts himself, and I rather despair on that front: the people issuing him barnstars despite his misconduct are entrenching him in his incivility and failure to work collaboratively, and the permanent-critics are goading him. The only potential good point on the horizon seems to be the long-overdue new bot, which should at least shield him from some of the random abuse. (HOW DAIR YEW FASHIST DELEAT MY IMAGE!!!!!!!! ITS A HUGE BAND And the HOTTEST GARRIDGE-PUNK GREWP IN SOUTH EEST DULUTH SINCE .... YOU ARE AN IGGGGNORANT ....) etc --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems is that he takes the last type of criticism personally, and then lumps those who legitimately criticize him into that same category. I've done a bit of FUR image work in response to the mass-taggings, trying to bring some clearly compliant images in line with BC's "letter-of-the-law" tagging, but I just got discouraged and overwhelmed with the mass of images there are to look at, and I finally stopped. For awhile, I attempted to engage him at his talk, but that was met with resistance/hostility, so I stopped that as well. Anyways, since two of the most coherent critics aren't willing to go the arbcom route (I really have admired how both you and Carch have "carried yourselves" through this fiasco), I guess we've sixteen more days of incivility to get through. I may just leave the issue alone completely during that time, as I'm growing more than a bit weary of it. Regards, BellwetherBC12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can take a very long time to learn how to insulate oneself from that sort of tirade. I was in a position for a few years where I was a public whipping post, getting a steady stream of hate mail and a few death threats -- only from my own side of course, per the old rule that the people opposite are your opponents, but your enemies are behind you -- and on several occasions I just flipped with it. Frankly, when the sh1t is hitting the fan all the time, it's very hard to resist the temptation to just take no prisoners, and shoot on sight. When 9 out of ten criticisms are unfounded, it can feel like too much work to try to filter out the ones that are genuine.
I see you are following up some of what has been happening with BetacommandBot. It is a complete mess at the moment, partly I think because some people are reacting very defensively. I was surprised though to see the reaction to your comments, as I know you are active in category-related matters (hence you noticed what was going on) and you don't seem to have been involved with BetacommandBot issues before. In other words, you were a newcomer to these latest debate, and you got treated very shabbily in my opinion. I had previously thought that the defensive attitude of Betacommand and others only occurred with non-free image work or those that had annoyed them, but it seems that there is a real disconnect happening here, a failure to engage with others, and to recognise genuine criticism and to respond politely. MickMacNee, who made some very strong criticisms earlier, seems to have been blacklisted and gets warned off regularly despite making valid points in an OK manner. As I said, a complete mess. Do you have ideas for what to do? Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's eerie: I was just thinking of messaging you in a similar vein, because you see,m to be one of the few other voices there who has managed to retrain some perspective on it all.
What to do? Easy — run away, fast, stick our heads in the sand, and avoid all the time commitment, hassle and enemy-making that will inevitably come from getting involved in an issue as messy as this one. (As Percy French said, "best be a a coward for 5 minutes/than a dead man all your life")
OK, I don't actually mean that -- that's my self-protective self speaking to the try-to-fix-the-problem me, and I'm afraid that the easy-life me has already lost my internal argument about this. I do have a few ideas, and I'll try to set some of them out in a few minutes, but first I need to replenish my flask of tea. Back soon! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what we do other than, at this point, go to arbcom (in my mind, specifically about chronic incivility, not so much about bot issues). But, frankly, I hate the idea of touching the tar baby. Nandesuka (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain that I have spent most of the last two decades involved pretty much full-time in various political or semi-political campaigning activities, where there are a lot of people heavily committed to things they feel very passionately about, and plenty of opportunities for disappointment, misunderstanding and conflict.
One situation which regularly occurs is where the leadership is forced by circumstances to pursue a course of action which will be controversial with the members/supporters, but which has to be done. Sometimes these are internal issues, such as budget cuts, and sometimes they are related to the organisation's goals, such as a choice having to be made between priorities. I have been sucked into countless bitter disputes in such matters, and they are always pretty horrible for all concerned. However, I eventually began to realise that since this sort of thing is pretty much inevitable, there's no point in simply bemoaning it: it's important to learn how to handle it in an effective way.
This situation seems pretty similar. The fair use image problem had to be dealt with, and it was inevitably going to cause a lot of very bitter objections. However, so far as I can see, there was very little effective planning on how to handle all those inevitable protests, and minimise the damage caused by the process.
I have not read little of the history, but from what I can see of how things are being handled now, the fundamental problem was that the fair use issue seems to have been approached primarily as a technical problem — how to identify, tag, and if necessary remove non-free images — when some minimal hazard analysis should have shown that the community-anger problem was in fact going to be much more serious.
That set off a pretty much inevitable cycle of a necessarily-hyperactive bot starting work, massive howls of anguish, too many of them turning into very unpleasant attacks ... leading to defensiveness and counter-attacks by a bot operator who must have felt with full justification that he was being savaged by a million mad dogs.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for Betacommand in this, who seems to have been ill-equipped and under-supported in this. He ended up an appallingly exposed position, and it must have been absolutely horrible for him.
I think it's quite unfair to pin all the blame for this on Betacommand: in many way, he has been hung out to dry. He clearly has great programming skills, but his communication skills seem poor (at least by now; he may simply be burnt out after too much flack); but above all, he simply didn't have enough backup, and enough supportive people to help him distinguish effectively between shooting-the-messenger abuse and valid criticisms of the processes in use.
The whole process should have been differently structured from the outset, with Betacommand concentrating on his main skill (programming), and a team of other editors to take the flack and -- crucially -- do the painful and difficult job of both defusing the attacks rather than escalating the responses, and taking great care to try to see whether the torrent of abuse and complaints included legitimate criticisms of the process. That last bit is vital: in these situations, many people who have valid complaints do not make them politely or constructively, but if the situation is going to avoid descending into a brawl, it is really important to accept that a person who is behaving in a hostile and unreasonable way may still have a genuine grievance.
Trying to find those genuine grievances takes a cool head, which can be hard to maintain under fire, which is why it's important to have a team of people taking the flack, who can take a break when it gets too much and who can remain open enough to keep on looking for ways to improve the course of action.
That doesn't seem to have happened here: so far as I can see, there was plenty of scope for improving the way the bot worked, with more conciliatory and informative notices, and perhaps a dedicated noticeboard for user grievances with a team of people trained to handle them, but that too much energy was spent on firefighting the protests rather than improving the process.
So we got into a deadly cycle where user complaints were not always effectively addressed even when there was scope for improvement, partly because Betacommand (the person who should have been implementing the fixes) was getting too scarred because he had been too exposed, and those who supported the work were too quick to rush to defence of BC's inevitable lapses, rather than trying to both support the bot operator and maintain high standards.
I know that this must read so far as a don't-start-here comment, but bear with me. I am sure that the flaws in process design which led to this situation were as usual the result of cockup rather than conspiracy, and that the very loose management structure of wikipedia makes it very hard to plan for and co-ordinate the handling of a situation such as this; most wikipedia processes are ad hoc and unstructured, and formal processes such as RfC, XfD, arbcom, etc, have evolved slowly over a long time to deal with issues where experience has shown a need for careful handling, and a lot of time has been available to buikd consensus on an appropriate process.
There's no point in crying over the fact that this could have been handled better; what matters is learning from what's happened, and improving the processes.
One of the necessary steps is already underway: taking Betacommand out of the front line as the operator of the non-free image bot. That should have been done a long tine ago, but notwithstanding concerns about he details, the fact that is being done now is a very welcome development.
That process has starkly revealed the other major flaw in the process: that bot approval and bot management is being treated as if it were a solely technical task. Your have rightly pointed to a need for BRFA reform, and I think that's crucial, because it seems clear to me that most of the problems with Betacommand's bots have not been technical, they have social. We need some structure for ensuring that impact of the bot on collaborative efforts can be reviewed before authorisation is given, because that collaboration is at the core of wikipedia. The intentions of Betacommand's bot have been generally good (with a few lapses), but as BAG's instant-approval of the new bot showed, there simply isn't any effective mechanism for examining the effect of bots on collaborative work, and on the techniques and patterns of work which editors have developed. That's a recipe for trouble, because it simply means that problems are not addressed until they become conflicts, and the ANI ends up becoming a forum for (largely unsuccessful) attempts at conflict resolution.
I think it's important to acknowledge that BAG does a fine job of technically assessing bots: assessing their suitability for the task, setting their edit rate, imposing limitations on their scope, etc. The fact that there are so many bots operating with so few technical problems is a credit to their work.
However, just as you or I don't have the technical savvy of programming and server technologies to assess the technical side, it's unreasonable to expect the technical wizards in BAG to be familiar with all the processes and conventions at work amongst editors. That's no criticism of the BAG people, just a reflection that of the fact few editors (if any) understand the whole of this huge and diverse project.
The problem now is that the storms seem to have left BAG feeling very defensive, and I don't know how it will be possible to reopen dialogue. But if that can be done, the best suggestion I have so far is that BRFA should be explicitly cast as a two-part process:
technical assesment of a bot's suitability for its task, as at present
a fixed period of community consultation on the merits of the bot, where input is specifically sought from interested parties -- whether that's relevant wikiprojects, WT:CFD for CFD-related bots, WT:CAT for other category-related bots, etc. Sure, there will inevitably be some excess noise, but better noise before a bot starts work than after editors find it causing unwanted ill-effects.
In addition to this, I think that there needs to be some lightweight process for discussing issues which arise with a bot, something without the intensity of RfC or the raucousness of WP:ANI. I didn't know whether WP:BOWN might fit the bill, but if a bot could be improved there doesn't currently seem to be in practice any intermediate step between a private note to the bot owner and a complaint at ANI (which is inevitably taken as an accusation). Take as one example the issue I raised wrt to BetacommandBot's edit summaries being so much less informative than Cyedbot's: there should be somewhere that this sort of thing could be raised in a constructive atmosphere, but in a placed where discussion is centralised.
That's pretty much all I can suggest for now. The one issue I haven't really touched on is Betacommand, because it's a difficult one to see solutions. I fear that it is headed to arbcom, which I think is unfortunate, because arbcom tends to polarise, at least until a case is settled. All I can suggest for now is that Betacommand should be moved into a much less exposed position wrt to non-free images, but the problem remains that his bots do many other tasks and however it has happened, he is now in no mood to hear any concerns about their operation as anything other than nonsense or personal attack. I don't know how that can be addressed without confrontation; arbcom is now areal possibility, but will polarise. I wonder if there might be consensus for some sort of diplomatic and neutral task force to review BC's authorised tasks and how they are run, and see if it can come up with a set of proposals for reducing conflict?
However, I'm afraid that I don't have much confidence that Betacommand can avoid arbcom. He seems to focus on the technical abilities of his bots, and is comparative weak in the collaborative aspects of understanding the potentially huge effects that these tools can have on wikipedia's very fragile ecology, and these problems are longstanding, predating the nonfree image cleanup. Would mentorship be appropriate?
If someone comes to my talkpage with a civil, non-aggressive comment/request I do respond to them and try to be as helpful as I can. As for BAG and this new bot, BAG does not normally do that, I had conducted a lot of private discussion to line things up. had the NFC bot followed normal process within 12 hours it would have been bogged down with trolls and others trying to just stop the handover. in any discussion that I get involved with (for the most part) turn into a flame war and a pissing match. In an attempt to actually improve the encyclopedia Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls. just look at the talk page for an example. If a use comes to me with a comment/question/suggestion, and they dont post directly to AN/ANI or some other flamefest I gladly listen and do my best to address their issue. see the recent posts to BCBot's talkpage. there was an issue with redirects it was brought to my attention, I addressed it and reverted the edits in question. no big deal. βcommand17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not the case. See User talk:Betacommand/20080301#Removal_of_redlinked_categories: two hours after asked not to remove redlinked cats without authorisation[17], you resumed that work[18] , and continued when challenged again two hours later[19]. You continued for a further 80 minutes until challenged again, and when a further challenge[20] did not produce an immediate stop [21], the bot was blocked (4 minutes after the request). By the time it was blocked, you has actually stopped, but by then the matter was on its way to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Categories.
At that point, it would have been very simple for you to say something along the lines of "Sorry, I thought that this was part of CfD work. There seems to be concern that it is not, and since it does not seem to be unambiguously viewed as part of CfD work, I will not resume that task unless there is explicit authorisation from BAG to do so. In the meantime I will revert the redlinked-categ-removal edits which the bot has just made - please may I have rollback privileges to do so".
That sort of assurance made promptly, up-front, would have been a wonderful assurance of good faith. Unfortunately, you didn't make any such offer, and that's why things spiralled. You didn't acknowledge that this was an unapproved task, you didn't offer to seek explicit approval for this task in future, and you didn't offer to revert despite numerous requests.
You run one of the most active bots in wikipedia, and there are bound to be objections to some of its work. If you are going to be the person to run this bot, you really do need to make sure that you look carefully at objections, making absolutely sure that the bot's task is authorised, and leaving no-one in any doubt that if there is any question about the effects, that you will back off — in other words, when you are this exposed, set yourself the highest possible standards. That has not been happening, and that's why the objections to your not are not confined to those who simply dislke nonfree content compliance. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
On the test page User:Kitty53/Test page, I am working on creating an article on Louis Chirillo. He is going to have his Wikipedia article ready in the future. Brown Haired Girl, you may help me with the article if you have time, or have another user help me. Thank you. Respond on my talk page if you can't do so.Kitty53 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty, I'm sorry that I am not really in a position to give this much time, but the main point I would urge you consider is the need for references in reliable sources, and the need to use footnotes. WP:CITE explains how to do this, and WP:BLP explains why it is particularly important to do this for an article on a living person.
You should also consider WP:BIO, which explains the importance of demonstrating taht the person is notable. In general, it will in most cases be more than enough to cite two items of substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of Chirillo. However, note that while a directory listing such as IMDB can be a good way of referencing some points of fact, this sort of listing does not establish notability.
OK, that's done. The syntax is pretty horrible, but do you think that if you used that one as a model you might be able to try making one yourself next time? Obviously, I'd be happy to look over it and suggest changes if you like. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
Done I think that my using a RS to cite that it is the largest Christian retailer in the world should easily meet the notability standards, so I removed the notability tag. I found 2 other sources that call it the largest Christian retailer in the U.S. and they can be found in the article's history. I used 3 high profile reliable sources to source everything that remains. I added the article to my watchlist. Royalbroil 03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Any chance you could semi-protect this page for a while BHG to discourage the vandals? Thanks. - Galloglass 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
--HOWDY!--
