Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 064

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Nomination for Rollback right

[edit]

Hello. I am Wikipedia editor Chynapras. I requested for Rollback right few days back but a bot told that my request was an “Automated comment”. Now I don’t know what is a Automated comment. If you don’t mind, could you please nominate me for Rollback right as I think I am an experienced enough editor for this right and I am also fighting vandalism lately. If you want, you can also tell me how can I request properly. But if you don’t want to nominate me for the right or don’t want to tell me how can I request properly, it’s all right but just let me know. Thank you. Chynapras (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You still didn’t let me know whether you will nominate me or not. Can you inform me quickly? You can also give me advice on how to request for the right. Chynapras (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chynapras:
  1. Patience please. Like you, I am a volunteer editor. Demanding prompt replies when there is no urgency is unpleasant. You can see from my contribs that I made no edits between your two posts, so demanding urgency when I am not around is futile.
  2. No, I will not nominate you for anything. I don't know your work, so I have no basis to recommend you. I also have a general aversion to new editors fighting vandalism, because I have seen too many cases where lack of experience leads to poor judgements. Your editing history looks to me a bit slim to be making judgements on vandalism. (Others may take a difft view, but that is why I won't get involved).
  3. Your request[1] for rollback is still live: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=prev&oldid=1025809574. You have not been told that your request is an automated comment. What actually happened was that a bot made an automated comment when it reformatted your request.[2]
These errors by you are all part of the learning process, and I am sure that with more experience you will learn to avoid them. But the fact you are making such errors hardens my view that as of now, you lack the experience to judge what is vandalism and what isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities by country has been nominated for renaming to Category:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities

[edit]

Category:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities by country has been nominated for renaming to Category:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underlinked tag

[edit]

Hello, you marked approximately 50 articles on election results in Ireland and the United Kingdom with the underlinked tag. Could you please explain why you did this since these articles all have sufficient wikilinks? Thank you. Rogermx (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rogermx. I am not aware of having manually tagged any article as underlinked. However, I have been using WP:AWB for a few long series of edits, and AWB automatically adds that tag if appropriate, so I presume that is what you saw.
I have not checked AWB's criteria for this, but as usual a link is much better than a vague wave, so if you want to show me some actual examples te we can discuss whether the tag was justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found the documentation, at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#Tagger_(Tagger): Appends {{Underlinked}} if article has 1–3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise (comments, categories, defaultsort, Persondata, infoboxes, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} are excluded from wikilink and size count)..
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym

[edit]

Hi. Just as a heads-up, the demonym bit of Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym used by {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective}} doesn't seem to work. So for instance {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|Philippine}} and {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|Martiniquan}} work, but {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|Filipino}} and {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|Martiniquais}} don't. The Filipino one is annoying as it's widely used as an adjective.Le Deluge (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Deluge. Long time no talk, and I hope you are well.
{{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|Filipino}} shouldn't work, because Filipino is a demonym, not an adjective. I thought that the category system was fairly clean in that respect. Can you give me examples of categories that are causing trouble? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]

I just noticed you seem to be using a version of AWB that incorrectly locates {{short description}}. While you may be using the latest released version, there is a version that corrects this problem that can be downloaded manually. There is info on the TP. Thanks. MB 19:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @MB. I find it best to and easiest to stick with release versions, and avoid the bleeding edge.
I am aware of the issue with {{short description}}, but it's a very trivial factor which doesn't alter the display or (AFAIK) anything else. So when this was raised with me before, I decided it was best to just live with it until fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't affect the article. But it does affect the time of other editors. If I run AWB on an article on which you have recently placed the SD in the wrong location, then I will have to stop and look at the changes and decide whether to make or skip the edit. If that is the only change, I will skip it because it's moving it to the right location is "cosmetic". But this may delay multiple editors in the future. It's really easy to install the version with the fix. I hope you reconsider. MB 18:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @MB, but as I said, I don't do betas.
I am surprised that such a very trivial issue as fine-tuning the placement of {{short description}} causes such concern. So long as it is above any infobox, there is near-zero chance that its placement will ever have any effect on anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've acknowledged that the placement is cosmetic and of no concern. The issue is the affect on volunteer time. MB 20:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: And I have explained that in my view, any such impact on volunteer time is a consequence of some editors paying far too much attention to fine-tuning this. AIUI: a) right now the {{short description}} will work if it is anywhere at all on the page, b) the placement by AWB is in a zone which will never cause problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no choice of whether or not to pay attention. Because it is in the wrong place, my version of AWB moves it to the top and I am forced to decide whether to accept or skip the change. MB 20:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: I suggest that you do as I do: pay no attention to the WP:GENFIXes, and concentrate on whatever substantive task you are using AWB for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: This is probably the tenth thread I've seen on the short description layout issue. At this point, the #1 impact on volunteer time the issue is having is likely that we just keep on reporting and discussing it over and over without it actually fixing it. No one can be expected to use a beta version of software (that goes contrary to its definition), so the top focus should be updating the stable release version of AWB. I'm not sure why no one working on AWB has done that yet; it's been months. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Holy smokes! T247694 was resolved over a year ago! !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 00:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Does anyone have an idea about what specifically needs to happen to get that into the official release? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb An official release needed to happen in the first place. Luckily, it happened a couple days ago, for the first time in years. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, guys, please ... just go to the "skip" tab on AWB, and make sure that the "Only genfixes" box is ticked before you start use.

Then ignore the genfixes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Special:Diff/1028190391.
Message added Posting here because of my incorrect ping. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Drumcondra

[edit]

Moved here from userpage PamD 05:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of all places! Bit of an edit issue brewing here...not sure why. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorisation?

[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you, yours was the first account that came to mind in terms of categories. I came across some clear overcategorisation while looking through water polo players, so began this discussion at CfD for it. I definitely think the current level used for that sport: 'gender+nationality+position' is too much. I was also pushing for the deletion of a level up i.e 'nationality+position', but the creator of all of these has quite rightly pointed to the equivalents for ice hockey which have existed for well over a decade. I haven't checked every major sport but I was aware that football/soccer did not have such a level and have since confirmed that baseball and basketball don't either. So which is correct, this isn't really something specific to any one sport so I'm not sure why different rules seem to be being applied? Do you have any opinion on this, or are you aware of any recent discussion / consensus you could point me towards, I would imagine sports-related stuff like this gets brought up fairly often due to the level of interest? Thanks for any input you can give, please reply on whatever page you like and I'll link to any other relevant ones. Crowsus (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: thanks for your msg.
The level of categorisation for any topic usually depends in large part on whether there is an editor with the interest and energy to do a lot of categorisation. So progress is uneven, and in general there is a discussion on it only when someone reckons it has gone too far and brings it to CFD, as you have done.
As to which is correct, there are no hard-and fast rules, but there are two main factors at play in deciding how far to intersect categories by various attributes:
  1. the size of the resulting categories. A lot of very small categories can be hard to navigate, soo too much intersection can be a bad idea.
  2. simplicity of usage. If three categories can be replaced with one, that reduces category clutter on the articles (which helps readers), and increases accuracy -- editors are far more likely to get one category right than to correctly add all three.
I will say more at the CFD discussion hihch you started, but I hope that helps a little as background. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfallen

[edit]

Hi, thanks for joining the move discussion at Innisfallen Island. That discussion has been dragging on for so long that we really need someone to wind it up. Would you do that? I believe you have the necessary rights. There really is complete consensus that the present article name won't do, but there has been discussion about where to move it. Moving it to Innisfallen looks like it would satisfy most of us. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doric Loon: Sorry, but the answer has to be "no". See WP:RMCI#Who_can_close_requested_moves and WP:INVOLVED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I forgot that! --Doric Loon (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

[edit]

We had a conversation[4] last month about newspaper establishment and disestablishment templates and if you could please create them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi BHG, I am sure you know the answer, but is it possible for an admin to remove the IP address from edits without removing the edits itself? Or do you just redact the whole thing? It's based on an IP being paranoid (my interpretation) that they can be identified by the IP used. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Ww2censor: that is technically possible but not normally done unless there is an offensive username or the like. What they are probably wanting is oversight. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia

[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: This category has been emptied out-of-process, so I have opposed speedy deletion. There is some tool which shows the history of how a category was populated, which would help to identify who depopulated it. I can't recall what that tool is: do your perhaps know? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If you happen to get the answer, BHG, please ping me. I'm also looking for something like the tool you describe...--TheSandDoctor Talk 06:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: will do!
BTW, nice to hear from you. Long time no speak, and I hope you are well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doing good! I hope you are keeping well as well. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tool typically used for this is User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer, however it doesn't work for this category specifically because this is a container category formerly populated by other categories which were deleted as empty, and the original emptying of those subcategories occurred (per the history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) on April 20, which is more than 30 days ago and therefore outside the range of that tool. I was eventually able to figure out anyway that the emptying of the subcats was performed by Crowsus. Pinging TheSandDoctor as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Crowsus & thank you as well for the ping. Very much appreciated & now installed --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh....Pppery --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just checked, and found that Crowsus did a lot of categorisation of Spanish sportspeople which involved some good subcategorisation, but also a lot of systematic depopulation of categories: see e.g. these 500 edits, where contrib #73 onwards involves depopulating Category:Catalan female field hockey players, Category:Catalan women's basketball players, Category:Catalan water polo players etc (the full list of emptied categories is much longer).
Crowsus, if there was a consensus at CFD to delete these categories, a bot would do the job. So doing the hard slog of emptying them all manually looks like an end-run around the consensus-formation process. Please can you explain what was going on here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pppery, for all your wizardry. V much appreciated. (Sorry! I meant that to be my first comment on this, but it got lost in edit conflict). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just put entries in both this category and Sportswomen from. There are people to be sorted into both. Should we have these categories is another question. Just a note- I have created countless Sportspeople from categories and filled them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, WilliamJE. That at least staves off speedy deletion.
If there are reasons to not have the categories, the case should be made at CFD, so that others have the chance to object. Just as you have done with many hundreds of people-from-tiny-village-in-the-USA categories. Some get debated, but most are nodded through ... and everyone has a chance to comment if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first I apologise for not using the CfD, I thought something like BOLD could apply. Obviously not and as it's been made clear to me that this is considered disruptive, I accept any sanctions that may arise. It is my firm belief that these categories akin to those of a first-level nation did not need to exist. Catalonia is not a sovereign nation and unlike the UK countries, their sportspeople do not compete officially under the flag of Catalonia in any sport as far as I'm aware. It has no more status in this regard than any of the other 17 autonomous communities of Spain, which were not created although there would obviously be enough Sportsmen and Sportswomen to populate them both at that level and down through several sport branches in most cases.
At CfD (here), the relevant Spanish regional occupation cats were renamed to FOOers from Catalonia rather than Catalan FOOers for reasons of convention as, again, it's not a first-level nation. If you do a search for "Category:Sportsmen from..." it only returns the states of Australia e.g Queensland (also not first level nations, not sure why this is fine but at least it's fully maintained woh actually no it isn't, the above for Queensland has 126 pages and no subcats, if it was being used properly it would either have been subdivided into sport and the various male subcats contained there, or all sportsmen from Queensland should have the category which is clearly not the case - for a start there's 529 cricketers, almost all male); Georgia (for clarity vs the US state); and Northern Ireland (for, I believe, both display and political reasons). "Category:Sportswomen from..." has the above plus the states of India (e.g Bihar) and a couple of randoms: Réunion and Kentucky – the latter is certainly a rogue among US states, it's not like there wouldn't be enough articles there to split them but no other state has done this. So except for the aforementioned, Catalonia was an outlier more or less worldwide for being a subnational entity with its sportspeople divided by gender, even before forking them further into their sports. BTW I didn't delete Category:Catalan water polo players, it was re-named to Category:Water polo players from Catalonia by the bot following the CfD. I possibly depopulated gender subcats of that, but to be honest I've checked a couple of article histories and didn't find anything I had done there, so possibly some (most? nearly all?) of these deletions are actually renames (which WAS agreed at CfD) and that's why they can't be found, from memory there was maybe 10 'Catalan gender and sport' cats that I actually upmerged, including a few very obscure narrow ones which I thought were to be avoided. For instance, after I fiddled with the ski mountaineers there are now 10 articles in Category:Spanish female ski mountaineers and 14 in Category:Ski mountaineers from Catalonia (male and female) which could obviously grow slightly as time goes on but should remain at a manageable amount, no need to intersect further.
BrownHairedGirl has pointed out to me only two days ago (here, to which I took the huff tbh) that categorisation 'rules' for one sport don't necessarily apply to another (i.e I know how it works with football/soccer so tried to apply that to water polo) but when it gets to the level of Sportspeople, the different sports and their rules do interact, and this is where it can become a bit ridiculous, if we were to retain/restore Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia, the ski mountaineers (I think there was 6) would be safely in there assuming their subcat got restored too, but there would be no appetite at WP:FOOTY for creating Category:Male footballers from Catalonia, so the ~500 footballers (there's 568 in the cat but let's say 10% are women) would not appear in it at all, which is a significant omission from what is meant to be a catch-all overview. It also does not really assist editors to add cats when, like me, they may be familiar with one system but adding in another area, like if I was creating a tennis player, I know the tree doesn't go deeper than Category:Tennis players from Catalonia but applying these same rules could allow for Category:Female tennis players from Catalonia which I simply wouldn't search for – I don't think it ever did exist, but for consistency it really should have along with the others I emptied, there are a good few more notable female tennis players from Catalonia than ski mountaineers.
So in summary I believe these intersections were not necessary, but if it is deemed that they are, to be consistent and fair then male+female subcats should really be created for each FOOpeople from Catalonia parent (there's 19) and every article amended, and equivalents should be created for each of the sport subcats for each of the autonomous communities of Spain – and in my eyes that sets a precent for the same to also be done to (keeping focus on western Europe) the regions of France, the Länder of Germany, the regions of Italy. That all sounds like a lot of work (although you guys probably know how to program a bot to sort it) for little benefit, so keeping the level up at [Specific sport or generic] FOOers [of either gender] from BAH [region or city] and BAHish fe/male FOOers for Catalonia, the same as almost everywhere else, seems the simplest solution. Obviously you have my consent (if it was even required) to add all of the above to any CfDs (or block logs etc) that may arise from this. Crowsus (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male dancers from Catalonia has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Male dancers from Catalonia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note- BHG, I didn't know you created this category when I nominated it for deletion. The category Dancers from Catalonia is totally empty except for this subcategory. IMHO that category should be deleted too per SMALLCAT but we have this discussion first. Question- Could someone have depopulated these categories?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prob at all, WilliamJE. These decisions should be made on the merits of the category, not the identity of their creator. If it's empty, it's empty.
But in this case, it seems to be a part of the same issue were discussing above at #Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia, namely out-of-process emptying by Crowsus. I found removal,[5] and there may be more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I will take a look at Crowsus edits and your edits too at the time of the category creation. This will probably have to wait till tomorrow or even Friday. My wife is returning from out of town in a few hours and tomorrow is our 32nd wedding anniversary (Hard to believe there is someone who can put up with me that long?) and I have a doctor's appointment in the morning too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WilliamJE. Congrats on the 32nd anniversary! Hope you have a great celebration.
Good idea to check both our contribs, but be aware that mine may seem odd because I have done lots of categ creation as cleanup of Special:WantedCategories, so there are many cases where I have created a cat without any edits to populate it. I can't recall whether that was one of those, but wanted to alert you to the possibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to be fair, I don't think this was much to do with me, I did have the idea to check other Catalan FOOers having noticed they went several levels deeper than most other Spanish regions in some cases, but you can see here that I reverted myself on Caballero having seen just how many gender+occ cats there were so assumed there must be different rules for that 'genre' and decided to stick to the sports ones. If I had changed any without reverting back, they would have been at the non-gendered parent i.e now Category:Dancers from Catalonia. I have actually found three more males who should have been included at the Male dancers but weren't, now added. Crowsus (talk)

12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Thank you for replying and adding persons to the category. As such my deletion nomination rationale reply don't really apply now but is a subcategory for Male dancers needed when there are no females categorized. BHG, I'd like to hear your opinion before requesting that the CFD be closed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: my view is that dancing is an inherently gendered occupation, like acting and singing. So per WP:CATGENDER, the categories should be divided by gender. If there are cases where we don't articles only for dancers of one gender, then we still have a gendered category so that it fits properly in the cat hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn the nomination and asked that the CFD be closed[6]. No editor other I participated in it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832

[edit]

Hi, this is inapplicable, because it's not a category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reverted.[7]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with uncited categories) counter has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with uncited categories) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles missing payload orbit parameters) counter has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles missing payload orbit parameters) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Pages where template include size is exceeded) counter has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Pages where template include size is exceeded) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Issue

[edit]

Hey, I have an issue. 41 of my edits were Deleted but I don't have access to look at them can you help me. Brascoian (talk to me) 18:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Brascoian. Only an admin can view deleted edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
29 of those deleted edits are for a single page, User:Brascoian/Palauni Tapusoa, which was tagged {{Db-g7}} by Brascoian (talk · contribs) themselves and consequently deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs): I am sure that WP:REFUND can be applied for this page. The remaining twelve of Brascoian's deleted edits were to five different articles that were deleted for various reasons. Here are links to the logs:
None of these five were created by Brascoian, two of them were tagged for deletion by other people. Each of these would need a legitimate case to be restored: for the A1 and A7 cases, Brascoian should appeal to the deleting admin shown in the log linked above, but for the G4 case I suggest WP:DEL#Deletion review. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thanks you so Much. Brascoian (talk to me) 07:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC) yeah some of these page are which i Contributed to and I request my own SubPage to be Deleted. Thanks Again. Brascoian (talk to me) 07:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

Hey Genius64868 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this post? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revert at Direct Rail Services

[edit]

I partially reverted your edit as it broke a (ridiculously long) image caption (diff). Letting you know for information purposes, especially if it was an automated edit that could cause the same problem again. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles with outdated impact factors from 2018/2019

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles with outdated impact factors from 2018/2019 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A meatbot barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tag Horror Barnstar of Meatbot Madness
Yes, congrats BHG! You sure put the horror into Tag Horror!!

Keep up the ticking good work!!.

Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

[edit]

Ok, so we disagree on our approaches to this issue and I'm sorry to intrude your talk page. I wanted to take the opportunity to apologise for any boorish behaviour, and for anything that might be misconstrued. I hope you believe that all I have here is the project in mind: my focus is on making it a better place. I wholeheartedly, sincerely and without reservation apologise if anything I've said or done has deflected from that aim, especially if it has been upsetting or disruptive to you. Life is short, and my time here is is all about making the things I love better, and I'm sorry if I've messed up with interpreting your own way of doing exactly what I'm doing. We want the best here for the project, both of us. I'm sorry, once again, to go against your request for me not post here, but I felt one last chance was worth the risk. I may not be here long enough to make amends, but I hope in the short term my apology will go some way to saying sorry. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mail notice

[edit]
Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LaceyUF (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reFill

[edit]

Closed due to ABF --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Surely it'd be easier to run reFill than to tag all these article which then have to have reFill run on them in any case?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man. Long time no speak. Hope you are keeping well.
In my experience, the answer is no. I can tag the articles at a rate of about 20 per minute, whereas in my experience doing a decent job with reFill takes several minutes per article. Since I can tag about 50–100 articles for every article that I can fix in the same time, tagging is needed to alert other editors to the pages which need attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I have to undo your edits each time then run reFill though, so it seems like a massive waste of (AWB) time. But never mind, you're certainly racking up a lot of edits. Can't a bot just do this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: discussion closed until you withdraw the ABF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. I have to undo every single edit you're making, then run reFill. I don't see any bad faith there at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ABF is your suggestion that I am doing this to rack up edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 30 June 2021 (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.

Well no, you yourself said you were racking up 20 edits a minute. I just agreed with you and suggested a bot would be equally suited to the task. But sure, I'll just keep working on the stuff you're doing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I said that I could process more articles by tagging. You have twice ABFed and assumed that my goal was racking up edits. Enough.
  2. I am sorry that "The following discussion is closed" is somehow unclear to you. Maybe it would be clearer if I wrote "do not post here again about this", but that shouldn't be needed.
DO NOT REPLY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I guess there's a way of filtering out edits by username from one's watchlist? I just haven't figured it out yet. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Sorry, I dunno. I gave up on my watchlist years ago, because it got too big.
I am doing this tagging as an end-of-month batch, so in a few hours at midnight UTC it will be over for another month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "end-of-the-month" advice. It's a good job there's some football on (for a while anyway!) I got over the moment of "why are they editing all of 'my' articles" when I realised the 90% overlap was just coincidence. I guess at 13,722 pages my Watchlist is also a tad too large. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: To filter out the edits by a specific user requires javascript. But using CSS, you can make them take on a different background: 
/* make it easier to pick out edits by BrownHairedGirl */
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/User:BrownHairedGirl"],
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/User_talk:BrownHairedGirl"],
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl"] { background: lightblue; }
This goes in Special:MyPage/common.css. It alters the background colour of three user-specific links in a row - to alter the whole row again reqiores javascript. You can alter lightblue to any valid colour value according to how prominent you want those links to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Many thanks, Redrose. That's useful info. I think that might make things worse for me, unless "transparent" is a valid colour choice, lol. Looks like BHG is mercifully having a rest from the tagging for now anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst transparent is a valid colour keyword, it wouldn't make any difference - the default background would show through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. There's no escape!! yeah ok, maybe the problem is not quite as serious as that last link suggests... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bosphorus Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Istanbul Cup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't add that link.
In my AWB edit[8], the WP:GENFIXES just removed the redundant piping in [[İstanbul Cup|Istanbul Cup]], but didn't change the link target.
I have disambiguated[9] the link ... but @JaGa, are you aware of this wee glitch in the bot? No big deal, and I am happy to be notified that a fix is needed ... but the mistaken attribution could rile some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your AWB edit changed the link from İstanbul Cup to Istanbul Cup. Presumably AWB thinks Turkish letters are typos DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks, DuncanHill. So it did.
I will log that as an AWB bug. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent ages poring over some of my edits in the past before I realised the difference between I and İ! DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My eyesight isn't all it used to be, and the diacritic on that character is so fiendishly small that I can't readily distinguish it from a spec of dust.
Anyway, bug report filed at phab:T285941. Thanks again for your help, @DuncanHill. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signature typo

[edit]

I'm having a hard time making sense of this. Editing other people's signatures is also prohibited. If someone tampers with someone else's signature and it goes unnoticed until it's archived, it can never be fixed? How does that make sense? My username is not, nor did I write in my signature, "Nardogy", and I don't want that to be in the archive. It's misrepresenting the record. Nardog (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: an archive is just that: an archive. It includes, typos, mis-spellings, and things which editors (including me) may wish they had said differently or not at all.
The record is what was archived, complete with errors. I dont know how that typo became part of the page before it was archived, but it did. Your edit was an attempt to rewrite the record, which is why I reverted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the typo. Someone else did. The record was rewritten before it was archived. You wouldn't mind a message of yours being attributed to "BrownHairedGirly"? Which policy or guideline says it can't be fixed? Nardog (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: the archive is a copy of the discussion as it existed when it was archived. That typo was made before the page was archived, and since it wasn't corrected before the discussion was archived, it stands.
A character added mistakenly to the end of the username is a minor irritation, but it is no big deal,because the link remains intact. What is a big deal is that an archive should be a static page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, says which page? Would you say the same if someone made a message of yours say something you didn't say and no one noticed it until it was archived? Who decides what is or is not "a minor irritation"? Nardog (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise with my typos I don't particularly want typos in archives in my comments, the idea of archiving is that its not modified in the sense of making actual changes to the meaning as opposed to simple typos. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog and Crouch, Swale: an archive is an archive. It's a static copy, complete with any typos or other errors. Rewriting archives is what the Ministry of Truth used to do in George Orwell's "1984".
Thank you both for reminding me why I used to fully protect my archives. Time to do that again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adam johnson update

[edit]

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-transfers-roberto-mancini-20765553.amp

so not "former" yet, please fix page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.107.76 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrading protection of talk page archives

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you have several of your talk page archives under full protection. It is blocking maintenance edits. I became aware of it when I saw that my bot, which is doing a task of fixing html tag errors, is skipping the pages. Is it ok to reduce the protection level to semi or at least extended confirmed protection? That will prevent any concerns about vandalism from full unprotection. If you agree, I can make a request at RFPP. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: Perhaps BHG knows about your bot and what it does. Or, perhaps she doesn't in which case you should include a link to the discussion authorizing the bot. Is there an on-wiki page that lists skipped pages? If so, why not link to that as well so what is wanted is known. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is the bot task approval - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot. User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 023 and User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 024 are the pages the bot skipped due to full protection. If you click the "Page information" button in the sidebar and scroll to bottom, it lists html Lint errors in the page. Skipped pages are only from two users, the other was an inactive user and I got it directly unprotected from RFPP. Including the above two pages, there are 22 full protected archives that I have listed in User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ/sandbox. The other pages too have errors that may be fixed by other bots. Lowering protection level from Full to Semi/Extended confirmed will grant access to bots. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: my archives are protected because they are archives. They are not live pages, and as such they should not be edited, not even for "maintenance".
So, in short: No, it is absolutely not OK to reduce or remove the protection levels on any of them. Please do not try to modify my archives.
As Johnuniq kindly notes, a link to the bot's BRFA would help. I would hope that all bots would skip all user talk archives, and I am surprised that your bot is not required to skip all archives.
I find it very unhelpful that you post here without even including the name of your bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS Every one of my archive pages has at the top a prominent notice saying This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: is any part of that notice unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have included BRFA link in the edit above. None of the edits modify the actual comments and only broken html markup is fixed. More about this is given in WP:LINT. Gnomes and bots have been fixing Lint errors across Wikipedia for a long time and yes, editing archive pages is allowed for fixing Lint errors as long as it follows WP:TPO. It is necessary because some of these errors make the page unreadable (example). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: you included a BRFA only when asked. It should have bene there in your first post.
I have reverted all of you bot's edits to my talk archives: see these 7 diffs, which include 6 edits by your bot and 1 edit by someone else.
I am sure that your approach is well-intended, but is is seriously misconceived. In order to "fix" some trivial markup issue which causes no harm, you want me to lower the protection on my talk pages so that they could be edited by most editors. That would leave them wide open to abuse, for no gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting these edits will just add the page back to error reports and other bots will do those edits again. To avoid it, please add {{nobots}} to your unprotected archives so that bots will avoid editing it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These edits fixing Lint errors is primarily for the benefit of readers with older devices that will not be able to handle html errors. There are other technical benefits too, like HTML5 compliance. The edits follow talk page guidelines by not changing what users have said. Mine and other bots have made tens of thousands of edits to archives and only a few people have complained. Anyway you are perfectly entitled to prevent any edits to your archives, just add the nobots template to those pages and bots wont touch it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, one of your protected archive pages have been edited by Admins too [10]. You may want to discuss with them. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: I will add {{nobots}} to the older archive page, but I can't do it for the current archive (or the pages prepared for future archives) because that might deter the archiving bots. Now I will have to remember to add it to those pages in future, just because you choose to have your bot disregard the notice saying this is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page
So you have created another maintenance task for me.
I have had several edit conflicts in writing this reply to you, because you keep on posting additional smarty comments. Please just go away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you do seem to be quite dedicated to helping with backlogs, why wouldn't you want to reduce a backlog that causes problems for certain users and has no visual difference? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 10:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berrely: because:
  1. I am not persuaded that there is an actual problem here. A minor display glitch is a non-issue, so I am not persuaded that there is any actual backlog here.
  2. Because I take a firm view that an archive is an archive. Once you start allowing it to be edited, then the door is opened to editors such as those in the section below who want to make changes to the actual text.
  3. Because the bot owner is so focused on the trivial issue of an HTML glitch that they actually, seriously, wanted me to reduce protection to a level which would open up all my archives to edits such as those discussed below. That's a can't-see-the-wood-for-the-trees problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is outlined at WP:Linter. I've seen this kind of activity and I've seen some of the really bad problems which have been fixed by correcting lint errors. You will probably get more visits once the number of errors on other pages has been reduced since that will make your pages more visible. Fixing the problems is standard although it is very much better to have a clear explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to chime in here again, but just wanted to say that I have gone and added nobots template to all your unprotected archives other than the most recent one since the bot very nearly repeated the edits reverted yesterday. I have done this because I as bot operator am required per BOTPOL to sort out any inconvenience to users and you have clearly stated no bot edits are wanted for archives. I should have communicated better yesterday. Sorry for all the incovenience, I won't disturb you any further. Regards. --(don't ping on reply)ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: Many thank for doing that, and also for letting me know. I had meant to do an AWB run to add the {{nobots}}, but was short on energy and got distracted.
Sorry too from me about yesterday. It wasn't a great morning for me in meatspace, and I was still feeling bruised after Wednesday's drama. In hindsight I think I was more grumpy than i should have been. I know that running a bot is an onerous task done with the best intentions, and I am sorry that my responses didn't convey my respect for someone taking on that burden. It's a role which brings little praise from those who approve, but strident complaint from those who object to glitches or side-effects, and I sorry that I allowed myself to add to the heat.
Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are fine there in this horrible situation. I ask you this question because you are the Administrator and Template editor. For example: Ireland XI is a domestic franchise cricket league team founded in XYZ date and the Template called Ireland XI squad is created.For some reason Ireland XI were terminated from that particular league. At this time does the template called Ireland XI should be deleted or not.Please answer me.Thank you !(Fade258 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl/Archive:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Spaces before cite parameters

[edit]

Regarding your message "restore spaces before cite parameters to improve usability. @User:Uses x, please stop removing them". The Wikipedia:VisualEditor (an official tool developed by the Wikimedia Foundation) automatically removes the spaces in cite parameters when anything is done with the citation, including moving them. I'm not going to put the work in to scrub through the source to re-add them when that happens as it literally doesn't even matter.

Also, I'm not sure why you're adding archive links to literally every citation, as I've found that to be the greatest determent to usability (I've run into issues with it myself), while providing no benefit. NoMore404 (run by the Internet Archive) automatically archives a version of each page within 24 hours so adding the links isn't saving the information for the future, and when if the links go dead the Internet Archive Bot automatically adds the archive link and marks the link as dead. By adding them to every single citation, it just massively increases the page size making loading and rendering slower, it adds a bunch of useless information to go through in source mode, and it makes it harder for tools to go through the citations as they have twice the amount of links to deal with.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 17:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uses x
I had missed that you were using the Visual editor. WP:VisualEditor is explicit that the tool is in development stage: VisualEditor still has many bugs and missing features. It seems that unnecessarily mangling the formatting is one of its bugs.
This does matter, because it makes the markup harder to read. I understand now that you didn't do this intentionally ... but please can you try to avoid it in future?
As to archive links, my experience with the bots which handle archived links is that they don't catch all dead links and don't always handle them accurately. IAbot also handles only the IA, which does a poor job with newspapers. Additionally, the bots cannot deal with problem of pages which change, and not longer assert the facts which for which they were used as sources.
Adding the archive links when I create the archived copy avoids all those problems in future. I agree that there is a readability issue, but that applies even with a properly filled-out unarchived ref, and the archive links don't make that much worse. The solution is use List-defined references. When this article has stabilised, I will propose converting it to that form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The archive stuff makes sense, thank you. As for the Visual Editor problem, that's a design decision and not a bug (as you've said, there will always be readability issues in refs anyway).
You're free to leave feedback for the tool if you think that's something that needs to be changed, as the only "rule" in its usage is to have the pipe characters, so personally I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to do a thing.
Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 20:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: I see no evidence that the removal spaces in cite tags is a design decision. Do you have any evidence of that claim? And if so, do you have any evidence that there is community consensus for the tool to do that?
If I have missed something, please tell me. But so far it seems to me that you are making assertions which seem improbable, without evidence to support them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

[edit]

Hey. I ran into this in passing. You added {{Cleanup bare URLs|date=May 2021}}, but I didn't see any bare urls on that page. Error? Noting that I removed the tag prior to seeing that yours was the last edit (i.e. thinking someone had since fixed the issues). Regards, El_C 16:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C
It was kind of you to notify me.
They can be hard to find, but I track them down using a page search: press Ctrl+F, then enter the search term >http, which catches most cases. Sometimes they have a space of a bracket, so I also do a search for > http and for >[http
There was one on that page, which I have fixed: [11].
This is a good illustration of why I reckon it is helpful to tag these bare URLs. Even an editor like yourself actively looing for the bare URLs didn't find it (which is my own experience too), whereas my AWB code catches them all. Before I fixed it manually, I ran citation bot on the page and it also missed that one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eep, now I see it. And considering as there were only 16 refs, I really should have seen it. Thanks for the tip —I'll remember that!— and thanks (again) for being gracious. Kind regards, El_C 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, El C. My experience is the same as yours, that they are easy to miss.
That's why I accepted the advice to switch my AWB run to use {{Bare URL inline}} ... but that ran into the problem of reFill2 not handling that tag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least I learned something new (WP:REFILL). I'm far too incompetent to use it, but at least now I know of it! El_C 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: You don't seem to me to be at incompetent, but reFill2 is not highly competent. It's a useful tool, but in most cases when i have used it, the output is somewhere between sub-optimal and garbage. It can still help, but it usually manual work to clean up its output. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might be one of the few admins who hasn't customized anything, whatsoever. Joined 2004, +sysop 2005, that's it. Haven't touched anything. Default all the way! It also reflects in the lazy way in which I cite sources (example). Don't tell! El_C 21:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: that ref looks good to me! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for the Bare minimum! El_C 22:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: that example was well beyond the bare minimum. I prefer using the cite templates, because they make it easier to add extra detail or archive links — just add the parameters and the template does the formatting — but so long as the core details are there, the refs can be converted if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just set in my old ways — Old & In the Way but at least not yet Old & In the Gray! El_C 22:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Dublin Bay South by-election

[edit]

Regarding your opposition to my removal of citations which back-up information referenced in the other article, in order to prevent WP:OVERCITE; I removed one opinion piece that makes a passing mention of the relevant text while the other article gives a comprehensive overview of the information, and another which has three mere relevant sentences stating that the party is "expected to select" the candidate while the other citation is a comprehensive overview of when she was selected.

This information is again backed up in near every article, and so it only needs a single citation. I was the person who wrote those pieces of text, I know what citations apply.

As you're making simple thing a problem I'll go ahead and make a talk page comment to resolve this.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 20:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uses x: two points:
  1. The article is still under development. Removing refs while it is being developed impedes that development. Please wait for the topic to stabilise before removing any apparent redundancy. Extra sources may provide extra info or nuance which can be use d to improve the article.
  2. In that particular case, ISTR that there was extra info in the cote you removed. I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others.
  3. It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you removing refs from an article under development. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Who are the people doing the development (xTools; you're up there primarily because of the archive stuff)? That is the development. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: the article is being developed collaboratively. Please stop undermining the work of other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stop WP:OWNing every citation in the article. I'll continue to remove irrelevant citations, and I hope you no longer undermine those contributions as you've consistently done. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: There is no WP:OWNership. Please don't start that.
All I ask is that you please wait for the topic to stabilise before you remove citations. There will be plenty of time to remove any redundancy later, once the flurry of media coverage has subsided ... but re-adding citations later is a much more work.
And as to your allegation that I have undermined anything, that's wholly unjustified, and it is avoidably conflict-making. Please drop that hostility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop that hostility - I wish you would stop making more work for others., It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you ..., Please stop undermining the work of other editors.. Anyway, this'll be my last comment on the matter unless you revert more of my edits. Please take a look at my recent changes and if you're happy with those we can move on. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: WP:OVECITE is an essay. It is not a policy, and it is not a guideline.
Please stop using it as a hammer, and allow editors time to develop the article and explore the cited sources to decide whether they are redundant.
This topic is still live. Wikipedia's coverage of the by-election is still in a growth phase, where new info is being added from new reliable sources. When the flood of fresh media coverage subsides,the cited sources can be re-examined for unused detail and/or checking nuance. That process takes time and there is no rush, and no deadline to meet. Your attempt at immediate zealous enforcement of an essay is impeding that work.
Until the topic has stabilised, removal of valid refs (i.e. those to reliable sources which support the cited facts), is at best premature. Less haste, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little media coverage (it's a by-election). You can look at any Irish news site to see that.
The articles are also dated and all the useful information contained in them backed up elsewhere in more comprehensive and reliable articles. In the IT article you yourself identified the only useful information being the minor candidate saying they'd be "throwing the kitchen" at their campaign [12] (Comment saying this was the reasoning). You can take a look at the Independent article to see if you find any more useful information, because I know I couldn't.
When we don't have multiple citations to confirm a candidate is running, nor keeping open the opportunity of having the indiscriminate collection of all information from some opinion piece I'll consider this resolved. Uses x (leave me a message) 22:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discussing this here, on a user's talk page, rather than at the article's talk page, where other editors might see and participate in the discussion? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: Your statement that here's very little media coverage is demonstrably false. There are nearly 100 sources cited in the article, and I have just coted two published today.
Please stop being o conflictual, and please top making such extreme assertions. For example:
  1. above, you asserted that I identified the only useful information as being what i added there. That is false: I made no such claim. I added only one point of info, but I did not say or imply anywhere that it was the only item.
  2. Your revert[13] of my edit included an edit summary describing my contribution a vandalism. That is patently false: see WP:NOTVAND.
Again, please drop the aggression and the haste. You are relying on an essay, but using it as if it was a core policy like BLP. Your approach is contested, so please stop and discuss rather than repeatedly removing citations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have engaged with you on the talk page for each edit of yours I reverted, while you've just outright reverted 6 of my edits since yesterday. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing references, and discuss you desire to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses x, I'm not sure you realize this, but it is generally considered bad form to issue user warning templates, like uw-3rr, to veteran editors. The essay at WP:DTTR expands on this maxim. El_C 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C Thank you, you're right. I assumed it was alright because the prior discussion was made; I won't do that in the future. Do you have any opinion on this matter? Uses x (leave me a message) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses x, my opinion is that each contested cite should be discussed according to its own individual merits, preferably on the article talk page (rather than here) where other interested editors could also participate. El_C 22:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Uses x: without having studied the cites myself, wouldn't it be good to just accept BHG's explanation here thar she is keeping the extra refs in place for now, to facilitate expansion of the prose to cover material contained therein? It's one thing to remove duplicate refs if the article is very stable (although even then I'd hesitate, because often two sources can carry more weight than one), but for a heavily-edited work in progress it seems like keeping them in is helpful.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru I checked the citations in-depth and there was no useful information.
To prove there's useful information in a single one of them, she's added a campaign statement "He said that he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" right in the middle of a section merely stating who's running. It's completely out of place and undue. I tried removing that statement alone, but apparently now I'm taking a "battlefield approach" and was reverted. You can see it live at 2021_Dublin_Bay_South_by-election#Candidates
Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 23:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: please note that when Uses x removed the info which I had added, their edit summary described my edit as vandalism: see [14].
Per WP:NOTVAND, that is a blatantly false allegation. It is just one part of the battlefield conduct of Uses x. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Still, undo the text if it shouldn't be there. Uses x (leave me a message) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: I think that short sentence is the only coverage of Flynn other than the fact that he is standing. It belongs somewhere, and I don't see a better place for it.
I await your explicit retraction of the false allegation of vandalism.
I also note that you have now had two other editors asking that you stop removing references at this stage, and it would be helpful if you would agree to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be mentioned as it doesn't contain useful information. If the info was useful, a section for independents would be in order.
I stopped removing the references before they asked. I'm seeking consensus to have them removed for the future. Uses x (leave me a message) 23:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: again, more inappropriate absolutism.
A section in independents is needed if there the article contains enough coverage of them to make that a useful way or organising the coverage. But it is deeply unhelpful to remove cited content simply because it doesn't have a separate section.
If you had decided to stop removing refs, it would ben helpful to say so. Instead, you left your statements of intent to continue, while opening up new areas of conflict, such as your still-unretracted false allegation of vandalism, and your removal[15] of reports of the turnout. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one-week partial block I just imposed on Uses x is for the best. El_C 23:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I wish that had not been needed. But the battlefield conduct was becoming a real timesink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I just realized that you didn't revert 3 times but 6, and Uses x didn't revert 4 times but 7, both well in excess of the 3RR bright line rule. Needless to say, not good. El_C 00:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I stayed well clear of the bright line, and was reverting to prevent the loss of citations needed to source and improve the article. Instead of stopping the removals discussing, Usesx promised to keep on removing.
My reason for promptly reverting was that it was much easier to revert immediately than to re-add the refs alter after other changes had been made.
When other editors became involved, both of them opposed this rapid removal of refs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, that may well be so, but it still isn't one of the exemptions allowed for by WP:3RRNO. El_C 00:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: the problem here was one editor repeatedly removing refs from an article under development, which would be hard to re-add alter because subsequent edits would impede a revert.
They were aware that their edits were contested, but instead of awaiting the building of a consensus, they insisted that they would continue removal[16], which was exactly 20 minutes after they had opened an article talk page discussion on the issue[17]. So while apparently seeking consensus, Usesx was also committing on my talk to proceed before any consensus had formed. This amounted to creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI: to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.
I acted to prevent that fait accompli, and while I agree my response was not ideal, I believe that it was the least-worst option available to me. If there is in future a consensus to support the view of Usesx that more than one ref is excessive, they can be easily removed. Restoration would have been a massively more onerous task if not done immediately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, honestly, I don't think there's an admin that would sign off on a 3RR exemption whose basis was a WP:FAITACCOMPLI argument. Just seems too impractical. El_C 01:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: this was not 3RR. I didn't breach the bright line, because these were not all reverts of the same content.
It was a small bout of edit-warring as the least-worst way to prevent the creation of a fait accompli by an editor who had lost their cool and was on a bit of rampage, and who had pledged to continue even while the issue was being discussed at two venues.
Escalating to ANI would have taken too long; by the time I had written a coherent report, the fait accompli would have been achieved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, actually, the policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (underline is my emphasis). El_C 01:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: that was not my understanding of 3RR, but I hadn't visited the page for years. My bad, and thanks for the clarification.
Now, what do you think should have been to prevent the fait accompli? What was the better course of action? I am genuinely seeking guidance here, because all the alternatives that I can see look much worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, as I noted to Uses x, one thing that comes to mind would have been for the contested cites to be WP:HIDDEN. Then it'd be a simple matter of using Ctrl+F to identify the various <!-- at a time of one's choosing. I guess it doesn't matter now, though, as the mark seems to have been missed for that to serve as a possible compromise. El_C 02:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: that would have been a useful compromise for Uesx to follow. But since they choose instead to remove, that option was not open to me -- I couldn't comment out material that had been removed.
So I am still hoping for some guidance on how else I could have prevented a fait accompli being created by an editor who was repeatedly removing info even though their edits were contested and two discussions were open.
WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I'm not sure they even knew about the existence of HIDDEN. They only joined on March of this year. Them conflating the WP:PB with a WP:TBAN leads me to that possibility. And, hey, I did know about it, yet it didn't occur to me, either (at least not at a point when it could have made a difference). El_C 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Sure, newbie takes extreme stances while not knowing the rules. They were treating multiple issues as bright lines which must be enforced now, and were averse to nuance. So no surprise they didn't know HIDDEN.
But that's them. It doesn't help me to know what would be the recommended way to respond to prevent their antics doing long-term damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, they seem to have left the project over this, so any future concerns of that nature may now be moot. El_C 02:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I hope you are right that it is moot, but such flounces are rarely permanent, so a return wouldn't surprise me. Their other comments on their talk seem to be looking for more ways to stoke a conflict, and to be inventing more false bright lines to enforce ... so while I don't want to drive anyone away, I don't rule out a return in the same style.
But whatever about that particular angry editor, it seems to me that we do have a systemic problem here: that there are ways in which an editor can create faits accomplis, while those trying to keep the options open until a consensus is built risk sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, that's right. Uses x expressly said that they'll continue to edit war over removing the contested cites if they were to be unblocked. Not sure what the utility of blocking BHG would be right now, but I suppose that is an option which is at your disposal. I've since proposed hiding the cites, a compromise which BHG was receptive to. I also proposed it to Uses x, but they have not responded. El_C 03:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I don't think that hiding the citations is a good idea, just that it's less destructive than removing them.
What should happen now is that instead of either removing or hiding the cites, the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page to seek a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose blocking BHG would be nothing more than punitive, so I'm left with the somewhat pointless act of unblocking uses x, although they claim to have scrambled their password over this favoritism. What a depressing way to end the evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, BHG, I'm starting to find this a bit taxing. Floquenbeam, maybe you can take over from here, if you're so inclined (including any un/blocks)...? El_C 03:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the above. Floquenbeam, it's unfair of you to claim that I played favourites. I miscounted the reverts as Uses X = 4 and BHG = 3 — hours later, I found out it was actually 7 and 6, respectively. Stupid mistake to be sure, but not favouritism. El_C 03:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: I assume that you did not intend to endorse a flagrant attempt at WP:FAITACCOMPLI, but that seems to me to be the effect of your unblock. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mountains of Montgomery County, New York

[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Citation Barnstar
Thank you for fixing bare references. Grimes2 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case notice

[edit]

(this is a courtesy notice due to the filer's WP:IBAN with you)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Incorrect statements about myself, and hurtful comments about my mental health and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This case request has now been withdrawn. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if I should be insulted because I wasn't mentioned in that ArbCom request, because it was me who initiated that discussion. Maybe I'm just not that important of a person, just a guy who contributes content -- although I'm doing less of that. I've done what you wanted to do: cut back on my activity here & went back to writing. (An example can be found here.) I'm finding doing this more enjoyable. -- llywrch (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone who was wondering what this was all about, the TLDR is: unwell editor @Aussie Article Writer (formerly @Chris.sherlock), who has created lots of wild drama, made a very poorly-structured request to have his one-way IBANs with me and @DuncanHill upgraded to 2-way, on the grounds that we had been making nasty false statements about him last year. However, one of the arbs pointed out that the statements were actually true, and someone else noted that it was last year ... so it went nowhere.

Here is the Arbitration request, with all discussion before it was removed.

For some of the background, see the September 2020 ANI discussion Proposal:_One-way_IBAN_on_Chris.sherlock_concerning_BrownHairedGirl, and esp my comment here[18].

I am glad that on this occasion, Chris has not succeeded in creating yet another timesink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1753 in European sport

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1753 in European sport indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1754 in European sport

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1754 in European sport indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1755 in European sport

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1755 in European sport indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1753 in sports by country

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1753 in sports by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1754 in sports by country

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1754 in sports by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places

[edit]

Why have you changed the category names to "Villages" in for Turkey? Ser Amantio di Nicolao and myself worked hard years back to standardise it to Populated places in... by country and province because not all settlements in a given area are villages and may be small hamlets or towns. I would still argue that all settlements on wikipedia should be categorised as Populated places by area. Only the larger settlements categorize as "Cities and towns". † Encyclopædius 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Encyclopædius
I think that you misunderstand what I did. I did not change the category names; I populated sub-categories.
The villages were all in Category:Villages in Turkey, which was one vast category, and useless for navigation. (per WP:CAT,Wikipedia categories are primarily for navigation). They were also in other location-based categories. See e.g. my edit[19] to Esenli, which:
Now look at Category:Villages in Akdeniz District, which I created. It has three parents: Category:Villages in Turkey by district, Category:Villages in Mersin Province, Category:Populated places in Akdeniz District.
So Esenli is now in a sub-category of Category:Populated places in Akdeniz District.
I am sorry to say that I am unsurprised that SAdiN was involved in populating Category:Villages in Turkey as one vast sprawling blob. I have had extensive discussions with SAdiN about the core categorisation principle of WP:SUBCAT, and SAdiN either rejects it or misunderstands it. SAdiN prefers running an unauthorised bot with opaque edit summaries to rack up a huge edit count making vast numbers of unattended edits to populate ridiculously large categories which others then need to sub-categorise, as I did in this case.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Why do we need a village category by district as well as Category:Populated places in Akdeniz District? Sometimes big categories are useful, as with American films. I would be tempted to propose moving the villages into by province rather than district too.. There was a problem with calling small hamlets ""villages", and towns "villages", so there was consensus to simply categorize all settlements as "Populated places" by area and only have categories for more notable settements on towns and cities. I know in many places now people have gone and created village categories again, this site is too big to monitor everything!† Encyclopædius 12:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: because:
  1. as you yourself noted, not all populated places are villages.
  2. the intersection is easier to maintain and easier to navigate.
The village categories are not under-sized, so I see no reason to complicate the categories by upmerger. But if you do want to propose that, then feel free to make a big group nomination at WP:CFD, proposing to merge each of the Villages-in-Foo-District categories to Villages-in-Foo-Province and Populated-places-in-Foo-District. I can't imagine the idea getting any support, but you are free to propose it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: 376 categories for Turkish villages?? Category:Villages in Turkey. That's a nightmare for navigation. Can we perhaos just do it by province?† Encyclopædius 12:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: it is utterly perverse to claim that 376 categories for Turkish villages is a nightmare for navigation,when
  1. they are grouped by province: see Category:Villages in Turkey by province
  2. you appear to think that putting them all in one category of 13434 articles (see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=19572470) is somehow helpful.
  3. the arithmetic mean size of the villages-in-Foo-district categories is 35.7, which is well-populated
  4. as far as I know, no other country uses one-sprawling-category for villages
I suggest that you look at how the similar categories for other countries are organised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Larger categories have a browser index though, making it easy to sift through larger categories. The American film category has always been very useful to me and never found it too big.† Encyclopædius 12:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Encyclopædius: as I noted above, you are quite entitled to make a group nomination at WP:CFD.
I expect that your proposal would receive no support other than from SAdiN, because it has no basis in the categorisation guidelines ... but you are free to make the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this BHG! I personally prefer larger categories where I can find more articles in one place than having to sift through hundreds of categories. Navigation templates are the ones which are useful for navigating more specialised topics and areas. Oh well! † Encyclopædius 12:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: a navigation index is of help only if you already know the name of the article you are looking for. Smaller categories allow you to see all the categories in each group.
Your personal preference, like that of SAdiN, is not supported by the categorisation guidelines. (SAdiN creates WP:FAITACCOMPLIs by using his WP:MEATBOT). The only part of WP:OC which could theoretically be applied is WP:SMALLCAT ... but since the villages-in-Foo-district categories have an arithmetic mean size of 35.7, you'd be laughed out if you tried that, because the commonly-accepted threshold size is 5 pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been pinged by Encyclopædius, I will only involve myself in this discussion to say that I haven't given this much though one way or the other. Although looking at the category tree, I can't say as I have any particular issues with the current system: it seems clean and easy enough to navigate. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @SAdiN.
@Encyclopædius, since SadiN doesn't share your objection, I want to end this discussion here. You are entitled to your view, but you have not in any way persuaded me to agree with you or persuaded me that any categorisation guideline to supports your view, so we will just go around in circles. You have been a pleasure to talk to, but I now have other things to do.
As above, feel free to make a big group CFD to propose merger, or alternatively to open an RFC to propose some change to categorisation guidance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check in

[edit]

I was just checking this User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles with bare links and found that it lists Abdul Haq Dehlavi on it. Hoping to work on it in a few days, and atleast bringing it to DYK level. See my recent work, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, which I extensively improved and nominated for GA. I hope it is approved. I'd like to hear your suggestions if you can suggest anything. The review generally takes long, and I hope I can fix the issues as soon as possible. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by T. Guru Prasad has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Films directed by T. Guru Prasad has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ab207 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?

[edit]

I noticed a while ago that you and a couple other users were putting together a draft RfA for yourself, and I was planning to support it once it came to fruition. Nothing ever came of it. Did you just decide not to run? WaltCip-(talk) 14:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, @WaltCip. And many thanks for your support.
After reviewing the situation last autumn, I decided to postpone the RFA. I had intended to have another think about it this summer, but so far I don't see sufficient change in the climate to make me want to do another reassessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't blame you. Especially if you're referring to the climate surrounding RfA itself. The last RfA with BusterD was one of the most bewildering conflagrations I had ever seen, and that one passed with near-unanimous support. But all it takes is one bad actor (or act) with a stick up their posterior to make the process unnecessarily stressful. WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following recent RFAs, @WaltCip, but that sounds horrible. I am very sorry to hear that BusterD had to go through that.
My comment above was focused more on the wider problem that a significant minority of the body of editors seem deeply averse to the principle that we engage in reasoned debate to reach consensus, and they regard attempts to actually have a debate as both disruptive and nasty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for butting in. That was a very kind comment and ping, User:BrownHairedGirl. The RfA process makes it difficult for a candidate to meta-discuss any oppose/neutral issues without coming across as controlling/soapboxing, I believe. The softball Q14 lobbed by User:Beeblebrox was enormously helpful to me. For my part, I think Wikipedia needs BrownHairedGirl to possess the larger toolset more than it needs me to have the tools. I would support your run ifwhen you chose to run again. BusterD (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_064&oldid=1039681060"