Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 070

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

thanks for your accidental help

[edit]

some of your DMY edits are surfacing articles from before the temp watchlist where I made an edit eons ago but not one where I cared to "maintain" the article. Probably wikilink or other gnoming. They're low traffic so hadn't bubbled up on my watchlist since so with your edits, it made for an easy unwatch. And of course thanks for the actual work behind these edits! Star Mississippi 12:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @Star Mississippi. You is very kind.
Even tho I turned off default add-to-watchlist over a decade ago, my watchlist has grown so huge that it is useless. I can't even recall when I last looked at it.
But I am glad to have helped you clean your watchlist. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently become active in AfC and use a new to me script to close AfDs. So much watchlist clutter if I don't immediately go through my contributions and un watch pages where I removed a deleted subject. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 13:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A technical question

[edit]

Hi, i was trying to create new categories, but something didn't quite add up. I need help. I have already red the guidelines but i didn't quite get how to order the categories in a tree. I do well in new category see here,and here, but as you can see here my subcategory "Defunct tennis tournament in Czech Republic" got enlisted alphabetically and not in the hot categories at the top of the same page. Any suggestion on how to do it would be helpful. Cheers.

ps: it looks like i needed to wait some more time for ... an update of the page, but anyhow i would appreciate if you could take a look at it and share some of your advices on how-to-do-it better. --Opencross (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencross: sorry, but I am kinda overloaded right now. I suggest that you ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick answwer. And no problem at all, i understand. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Skelly (disambiguation)

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Michael Skelly (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error message from my app

[edit]

Hello BHG,

I hope you can help, as I know little about Wikipedia errors.

I get this message from my music scraping app: 

  phaseThree bad HTML at:: Index 58 of 58: 'Category:2010 establishments in the United States"}}}]}}}}'

"phaseThree bad HTML at ..." is from my app when it senses something wrong with the html, perhaps imbalanced brackets, etc., but I'm not sure. I get this message only once, as if this is the only category that has whatever the problem is. My scraping starts at 'Category:Musicians' and descends to every leaf.

Can you explain and fix whatever the problem is?

Thank you! -Ron Ron (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ron!
I am sorry, but without knowing what your app is trying to do, I can't begin to find the problem. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to track it down, I found the problem (missing ']]' pointing to the above category) on page '808 Mafia'. I fixed it. Now I know where to look! Thanks! Ron (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Price - Doctor Who

[edit]

Do you know how to create a page for Richard Price and link it to legend of the sea devils and all his other doctor who monster roles ? 86.172.22.195 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McGarry Township

[edit]

Hello. Your help is greatly appreciated over on McGarry Ontario page. It is on a couple editors watchlist, whom jump all over me and I feel picked on, bullied , and alone. Thank you. 2605:B100:D34:2E29:C936:82F7:47DC:606F (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are being an utter nuisance at McGarry, Ontario, and you are probably a block-evading sockpuppet.
You are not being picked on, and you are not being bullied. The reality is that a group of other editors (esp @Meters) are upholding Wikipedia's quality standards by reverting your incompetent edits. They have shown great restraint as they have undertaken the unpleasant task of responding to your follies. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use dmy dates on disambiguation pages

[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I've noticed your AWB job has added 'Use dmy dates' to some disambiguation pages such as Negative and Issue [1][2]. To me those seem like false positives as disambiguation pages are not articles, very few would ever contain dates, and could you classify them as dmy vs mdy anyway? Just wanted to find out your thoughts. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tassedethe, and thanks for your msg.
I agree that these are false positives, for all the reasons you set out. I can't see anything other than highly exceptional cases where these these tags would be helpful.
When I add them, it is an oversight. I make my lists using WP:PETSCAN, and embarrassingly only discovered a few days ago that it can filter out dab pages. I have been using that filter since then, but I can't re-apply it to lists I made earlier; and sometimes I just forget to use it.
So I reckoned that the best way to proceed was to wait until I have finished this bout of tagging, and then cleanup by using Petscan to find any dab pages with {{use dmy dates}}. How does that sound to you? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. They're not causing any harm so nothing needs to be done immediately. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Tassedethe. Waiting until done also helps to avoid repeating the cycle. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Thanks for all your hard work with adding {{Use dmy dates}}. I wondered how long your project will take, as my watchlist is currently clogged with all these additions. Can I filter out all your edits for a while? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: thanks for your friendly msg.
I am sorry about the watchlist flooding, and understand how annoying that is. See my discussion with @PamD above at #Watch list filter?: the short answer is no, you can't tell the watchlist to ignore edits by named editor(s). (I think that's a bug, but there it is).
What you can do is to filter out minor edits. However, that won't work if I forget to enable the "minor" flag on AWB, as I did with my most recent batch. Facepalm Facepalm Sorry about that; I have now turned it on for further edits, and have made a note to self to check that more rigorously.
As to how long this goes job will take, I am not really sure. The difficulty with this task is that most category trees are heavily polluted, so making list is quite complex, requiring lots of exclusions. (For example, yesterday I was making lists relating to medieval Scotland which I hoped would be quite clean; but instead spent hours filtering out various stray Norsemen and clumps of fiction related to sub-topics. and writers of that fiction who are often North American and hence used mdy dates.
I have had several trips around a cycle where I think that I have exhausted my ability to find significant sets of articles to tag where I have high confidence that there are few false positives; but every time I think I am down to the scrapings, I find some other combination of Petscan and Wikidata which lets me make another long list.
I think that it should start to slow down in the next day or two, and I hope that it will be wrapped up well before the end of the month. Sorry I can't be more precise. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for clarifying. By all means feel free to work solidly without a break for the next 48 hours or else just work between the hours of 24.00 and 08.00 BST! :) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University Page Help

[edit]

Our institution has large gaps missing on our Wikipedia page in comparison to our local competitors. A Wikipedia editor continues to delete any of our updates stating POV. How do we go about finding someone willing to volunteer to update our page? 38.123.35.131 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

our Wikipedia page???
See WP:OWN. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a metaphor, we all just highly frustrated over here we just want the page to be accurate. 38.123.35.131 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a metaphor, it was very poorly chosen.
There are several major issues here:
  1. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform: see WP:PROMOTION. If you want to advertise yourself or your company or products or services, then go and buy an advertisement.
  2. You have a conflict of interest (COI). For how to proceed, see WP:COI and especially WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI ... and do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
  3. Again: do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
  4. The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference; not promote, whitewash, or sell.
  5. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable: see WP:V.
  6. The sources used in Wikipedia must be independent and reliable: see WP:RS.
So the best way for you to proceed is register an account, then declare your COI on the article's talk page. Then you may use the article's talk page to suggest changes based on independent reliable sources. Those suggestions will be reviewed by editors who do not have a COI.
Please respect the volunteer community's time; avoid making protracted or repeated requests. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles on similar or related topics may be at widely different stages of development. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Note that this all appears to relate to Daemen University. This IP has edited that article, and the university has employed a paid writer: ManHV1S1on (talk · contribs).

I hope that this newly-created university will clean up its promotional act. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been abandoned

[edit]

Hello BHG,

I hope you are doing well. I know the bot request has been approved for some time. Note that I have not abandonded it, I have been away from Wikipedia for a while due to IRL stuff and as such i havent' been doing much editing compared to usual for a better part of late March/early-mid April. But now I should have some free time, so I will work on getting the bot tested and trialed soon in the next couple of days. Sorry for keeping you waiting! Rlink2 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, @Rlink2. It's lovely to hear from you, and very kind of you to update me.
I had seen your note at BRFA about real life stuff, so I knew that there was going to be a delay. When I saw things dragging on, I wasn't concerned about the delay, but was worried about you, concerned that you might be in some difficulty. I made a post-it-note to email you to send some support, but I never got a round tuit. Sorry.
Anyway, lovely to see you back. Please take good care of yourself.
Whenever you get back to work on the bot, just let me know and I will be delighted to give what help I can, if you want it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Archived copy" in title

[edit]

This looks like a problem (example here). I'm seeing it elsewhere. There's lots of manual work involved in reacting after-the-fact, digging the titles out then, and fixing this. Could that work be done concurrently with these sorts of fixes? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: please can you clarify what exactly you think is a problem? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, following on maint message in header on editing the previous version -- title taken from the linked archived copy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: again, please can you clarify what exactly you think is a problem? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be pointing out that title is a boiler plate "Archived copy" rather than the actual title of the citaiton, which is available from the archive. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Ferret. That's what I guessed, but I was hoping that @Wtmitchell would explicitly say what they meant, so that I didn't risk wasting time replying to something other than what Wtmitchell meant.
But it's what the edits were designed to do. When InternetArchiveBot adds an archive link to a bare URL, it uses a citation template with the placeholder value of |title=Archived copy. This task starts with a bare URL archived link and adds the missing original URL, wrapping both URLs in a citation template with the placeholder value of |title=Archived copy.
In both cases (IABot's edits and my AWB job) the actual value of |title= is not available to the tool doing the work. My AWB job is simply a clever set of regex replacements; it knows nothing whatsoever about the content of URLs. In each case we have an incremental improvement, not a full solution.
Filling the |title= is a much more complex task which needs to be done manually. Some of the work could in theory by done by a sophisticated bot which does not yet exist. I did propose such a bot, a User talk:Citation bot/Archive_30#Feature:_usurped_title, and found a talented programmer who was willing to try taking this one ... but the whole thing ran into the sands due to one excitable editor demanding that any such bot respect some bizarre hobbyhorse of theirs. It all became too much grief to continue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand all of that. That understanding is not new to me, though its particular application here is. I guess this, which came up following on my action responding to error/maint messages following an edit by BrownHairedGirl. The final paragraph of the above probably says it all Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Wtmitchell.
I should probably have been clearer about why I do these edits:
  1. Because they do most of the tedious clerical work of adding and filling the citation template. Anyone wanting to complete the task manually just needs to fill the |title= parameter, and optionally add |work= and/or |date= parameters.
  2. Because this way, pages with this issue are categorised in Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title. So anyone wanting to cleanup such refs in their area of interest can use Petscan to find them. E.g. https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=21975504 finds 130 articles on Political office-holders in Scotland with |title=Archived copy.
Hope that helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for all of that. I will slog away with the manual work in my own inefficient manner in some of the cases I happen to stumble across. The above from me was not in any way intended as criticism. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dmy dates

[edit]

Hope you are well. Just stopping by to say thanks because you've sent my watchlist into overdrive. Much appreciated. Schwede66 08:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schwede66! Long time no speak, and I hope you are well.
You're welcome to the help. It was a much smaller job than I had expected, 'cos so many of the articles which I scanned with WP:PETSCAN already had the template {{Use dmy dates}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, what is driving the addition of this tag? I'm seeing Use dmy dates being added to multiple video game articles that currently utilize mdy. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ferret
It's a continuation of my work over the last 2 weeks to drive consistency of style per WP:DATETIES, by adding {{Use dmy dates}} where appropriate. In this case, a bunch of about 30 video games ended up in my list because they are in Category:Video games developed in New Zealand, including Hot Wheels Battle Force 5 (video game) which you reverted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As information, we do not usually consider developer to be a strong national tie within the WP:VG space due to the international scope of video gaming and the fact that many studios are owned by large international companies, unless a game is particularly known for having been developed in a particular nation. Would you mind reverting the 30 video games? No comment on any other articles. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or I'm happy to go through and review all 30 to unify on existing style, if you provide the list. I'm dumb, it's a category. I'll review. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: sorry for the delay. I was checking.
A review would be great. Many tanks for taking that on.
Here are the 30 articles which I tagged:
  1. Ashen (2018 video game)
  2. Azurian Attack
  3. Bloons TD 6
  4. Bloons Tower Defense
  5. Bloons
  6. Casebook (video game)
  7. Chocolate Castle
  8. Chopper (video game)
  9. Cube: 3D Puzzle Mayhem
  10. Distant Worlds (video game)
  11. Gloom (video game)
  12. GripShift
  13. Guardian (video game)
  14. Hot Wheels Battle Force 5 (video game)
  15. Into the Dead
  16. Laser Hawk
  17. Living Dark
  18. Madagascar Kartz
  19. Platypus (video game)
  20. Poly Bridge 2
  21. Poly Bridge
  22. Ready or Not (video game)
  23. Rugby League (video game)
  24. Rugby League 2: World Cup Edition
  25. Rugby League 3
  26. Samsara (video game)
  27. Seek and Destroy (1996 video game)
  28. Shatter (video game)
  29. Sparx (video game)
  30. Speed Racer: The Videogame
Hope that helps! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm going through the whole category just to sweep. Please exclude video game developer country as a source for Date Ties :) Sometimes we do use it, but usually we're looking more for thematic ties or strong cultural ties (I.e. a game about a nation). A good example is that Tomb Raider always uses DMY/British English due to Lara Croft's clear British background, but the games these days are actually developed in the US. And Watch Dog (1 and 2) are in MDY/American due to being based in Chicago and San Fran, despite being developed by a Canadian studio. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, @Ferret, esp for the v friendly and collaborative way you are handling this as a mutual cleanup issue. It makes a welcome contrast to the heat which two editor generated last weekend.
I will try to exclude video game developer country as a source for Date Ties ... but unfortunately they pop up in many unexpected categories, so there will be some glitches.
Out of curiosity, I did a pair of Petscan searches for articles on dmy/mdy tags in video games (Wikidata property Q7889):
So ~80% untagged.
However, if I could figure out how to make 1,000 clones of you, we could have the backlog cleared in half an hour. And if I made 1,001 clones, it could all happen while you take a well-earned rest BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newer articles are more likely to be tagged than old ones, as the date unification scripts have improved over time. In many cases, for lots of older games, the release date is usually what drives adoption of a format and so many early games have Month Year, with no known day, that they end up just remaining untagged. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I converted about 10 over to DMY fully and cleaned up in general on the whole category. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful quick work, @Ferret. Thank you! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this edit to Jacky Hunt-Broersma is the same issue as the video games above or adjacent thereto. She was born/raised in South Africa, which is why she pulled in your list to work through. What she's actually notable for is her running career, which is entirely in the US. Just flagging so you know why it was removed. There's nothing you can fix since it's one of those context ones. Thanks again for all the clean up Star Mississippi 14:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Star Mississippi -- both for the fix and the headsup.
I try to exclude cases such as that. I try to do biogs separately from other topics for that very reason, so that I can exclude emigrants and expatriates.
In this case, my set of South African biogs excluded Category:South African expatriates and Category:South African emigrants, plus their subcats to a depth of 15. However, that didn't catch Jacky Hunt-Broersma because she was not properly categorised
I have followed up on your good work by this edit[4] adding Jacky Hunt-Broersma to Category:South African expatriate sportspeople in the United States. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that on my watchlist. Thanks for the edit and category lesson. So much nuance in them but so worth it so the reader can find the content appropriately. (Which always sounds better than filing human beings!) Have a great day. Star Mississippi 14:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Square

[edit]

Since you changed the {{dead link}} tags in the Adaptations section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Square_(novel)&action=edit&section=4), neither of them show in the article anymore and one has disappeared entirely for reasons I can't fathom. Can you please take another look at them? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username: neither tag has disappeared. My edit[5] caused them to appear in the refs section, where they are suposed to be. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For footnote 12, yes. For cite 11, I see the tag in edit mode, but not read mode. Both links are dead. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: footnote 11 was not tagged as dead. I just added the tag[6]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Bot

[edit]

18:35, April 28, 2022 diff hist +824‎ Antonella Tosti ‎ Alter: template type. Add: journal, date, title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 1034/2847 current [rollback] [vandalism]

The above might be the last edit from that run, and you might have to start over from that point. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: Thanks for the headsup ... and for all the great work you do to keep Citation Bot running. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hilton College (South Africa) has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hilton College (South Africa) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events

[edit]
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your sober judgement wanted in a CfD case

[edit]

I was surprised to see that you seem to have resigned as admin. It's a pity, I liked you being around and contributing and administrating cases at CfD in former times. Looking you up I was as well impressed about your huge collection of barnstars. Such a mass of them seem to relativize their value a bit, or do I see that wrong in your eyes?

Well, the proper reason to approach you is a case about the apparently most important person at CfD (for some years as it seems): Marcocapelle. As you resigned no other admin seemed to be interested to replace you as admin in that section. So he developped the 'emergency' habit of using the possibility of 'non-admin closures'. In most cases that was okay with me. But then I found cases like the following one which I protested against. Protest against evidently wrong non-admin closure decision by user Marcocapelle. But no response was given. At almost the same time I discovered that I have lost most delight to participate any longer in a Wp section that doesn't give a damn on my protest. It's just like in George Orwell's Animal farm parable: All are equal; but some are even more 'equal' than others. And those don't respect equality just if they like. Today I decided to ask someone of longtime experience, exactly: you, to speak out. Do you think that a 'top dog' like Marco in CfD can be easily convinced to revise this case and do as I proposed: no more 'non-admin closures' in controversial cases?! What do you think about that? The voting was clear and his closure decision was not at all adequate to that evidence. Which is the hard-edged way to get the correction and the serious promise of him to do no more abuse like that? (You might eventually prefer to send me a Wp e-mail. It's a thorny, not an easy question. And I'd like to have a honest answer about the non-formal aspect of it (or else your denial).) --Just N. (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justus Nussbaum: You wrote a "protest" on a CFD talk page, which no-one would normally look at, and you did it without even pinging the closer. If you disagree with a close – and apparently you think this one should be "keep" rather than "no consensus", not a big difference in practice – the first step should be asking the closer on his talk page to reconsider. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (WP:TPS)[reply]
@Justus N.: thank you for your msg and for your kind words about me.
Most of the main points I would say in reply have already been covered by the highly-experienced (and wonderfully collaborative) admin @Fayenatic london (FL), whose prompt reply here is very helpful. Thanks, FL!
However, there are a lot of things I want to add, so I think that this merits a long reply. I am a firm believer that discussions about Wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, so I don't use email for this sort of stuff.
The first thing is that FL is entirely correct that the proper procedure is to start with a message on the talk page of the closer, i.e. @Marcocapelle. Then, if you dont reach agreement, you can take it to WP:DRV ... but you need to start at User talk:Marcocapelle.
I just took a quick look at WP:CFD/2022 March 16#Category:Films_shot_in_16mm. It seems to me that "no consensus" was probably the right close, because there were policy-based arguments on both sides, but no compelling policy-based argument to favour one side. WP:NOTAVOTE, so counting heads would not be an acceptable way to close such a discussion, esp since the set of !votes was accompanied by a number of well-informed comments by editors who did not express a !vote.
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 5 5
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 0 24 24
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
I think that there was a case for relisting in the hope of a consensus developing, but only a weak case: the discussion was polarised, and I doubt that further discussion would have bridged the divide between two reasonable cases.
Given all that, it would have been ideal for the closer Marcocapelle to provide a longer rationale for their close. But we do not live in an ideal world, and one of the non-ideal aspects of it is that not enough admins are closing CFDs. As you can see from the table to the right, the result is a huge backlog of CFDs. (BTW, thanks again to @Pppery for working with me back in 2019 to make that XFD backlog dashboard. It is very useful). Given that backlog, and the scarcity of closers, the only way to make progress is is for closers to work quite fast, without many verbose closes. In the days when I closed CFDs, that was often the way I worked: close quickly, but be willing to expand and explain (and possibly revise) in the small minority of cases where a close is disputed.
For several years now, Marcocapelle has worked hard to try to fill that gap with non-admin closes, and I for one am very grateful for that work. I don't agree with all of Marcocapelle's closes, but from about ten years of interacting at CFD with Marcocapelle, I hold him in very high regard as an exceptionally conscientious and diligent editor. One of the things I most value about his approach is that I have many times seen him re-evaluate a firm stance of his when presented with a strong counter-argument, and I consider that to be one of the most valuable attributes in any editor. I this case, it seems to me that Marcocapelle was facing a similar trade-off between the desirability of verbose closes, and the practical need to make big inroads into the backlog ... so he made a reasonable close with a terse statement.
So I am upset to see the closer attacked in the way that @Justus N. did here, both onthe CFD talk page and here on my talk. In both cases you directly accuse Marcocapelle of abuse. That is a very strong allegation for which I see no supporting evidence, and such a grave allegation should never be made without compelling evidence.
The first step in such a case is to ask the other person to explain their actions. Such an approach should be made politely, assuming good faith: the aim is to start a friendly dialogue, not a shouting match.
If you start with a friendly query such as "Hi X, please can you explain your close at CFD/123", then there is a good chance of a friendly dialogue, and some possibility that you might reach agreement. And if the pair of you don't find some consensus, then a DRV can be opened amicably.
But if your first step is to make accusations of abuse in multiple venues, the chances of productive dialogue are low. I don't like seeing any closer attacked in this way, but I am particularly sad to see to see a hard-working, conscientious editor like Marcocapelle maligned like this.
Please @Justus N., can you take a few hours away from Wikipedia, and then reconsider how you are approaching this? You seem to have somehow gotten into a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance, which is not nice for anyone, especially yourself. I think that your usual friendly self would handle this very differently, and it would be great to see that friendly JN back on this case
Hope this helps!
Best wishes from BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Justus Nussbaum: a small clarification
I did not resign as an admin. I was desysopped by Arbcom two years ago, in their spectacularly bad handling of the Portals case. As I explained immediately after that in a statement in my talk page, I decided to quit Wikipedia in response. However, a lot of wonderful people persuaded me to stay, so for now I am still here, albeit pessimistic about Wikipedia's future.
In late 2020 I did nearly accept a nomination for a fresh WP:RFA. However, I eventually decided against that. And I am sorry to say that when I look at the hassle landed upon those who do admin-style tasks such as closing discussions, I feel a lot of relief that I am well out of it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one question

[edit]
ENOUGH! GO AWAY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to know why the page I wrote last month does not appear in Google search! I asked you before but you did not give a convincing answer. Ljvdp (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljvdp: time to be blunt.
You have had all the answers you are going to get, because your failure to identify the article gives me no way to find out what happened.
I have told you this several times before, and have had enough. GET OFF MY TALK PAGE! And stay off. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2022 (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.

Some baklava for you!

[edit]
Troll indeffed, please take a rest if you feel too stressed. PAVLOV (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And welcome back after a short break if you are stressed out! PAVLOV (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @PAVLOV.
I was on a roll doing some useful work, but the troll sabotaged my worklflow. Glad that is over, and thanks for your warnings on User talk:Ljvdp. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcomed. Thank you for your contributions PAVLOV (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]
Brain bleach
Check out this cute cat playing with a lizard. It's adorable! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, @MJL.
That's lovely, and just the reset that I needed after the drama. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars and academics has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Scholars and academics has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family

[edit]

Hello would be good to connect, are you related to the Macdonald's 2A02:C7C:C23:D200:10B1:C4AA:B79B:E627 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related? I am a burger, and you can't get closer than that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Always seeing you on Recent Changes. Really appreciate the hard work! Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 01:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks @Taxin609. That is v kind of you.
I kinda found a groove today, and got a lot done. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Assembly (1973)

[edit]
Another nuisance editor who failed to read, comprehend, and respect a simple request to "Get off my talk page, and stay off it", and had to be reverted.[7]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

It’s simple. The reason I reverted the edit is because it disrupted the article structure, similar to vandalism. The content had moved out of the table and been dropped further down the page. Although I respect editors who add maintenance tags, I don’t think that should include disrupting formatting or dragging content out of boxes and so on. I added the tag back, as the point probably needs to be fixed anyway, (Kreb (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)) Screenshot[reply]

Hi Kreb
if you revert an edit, as you did[8] at to my edit[9] at Northern Ireland Assembly (1973) ... please can you leave a note in the edit summary to explain why?
:::: In this case you did a partial self-revert[10], but again no explanation. Why not a full self-revert? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, Kreb.

I posted a question on your talk page. Why not answer it there? There is a big edit notice at the top of this page saying To reply to a message I left on your talk page, then please post the reply on your talk page, and use {{ping}} to notify me. What part of that is unclear?

Then when you do post here, why post your reply before the message you are replying to?

The substance of your reply could and and should have been explained in your edit summaries at Northern Ireland Assembly (1973). Please go read Help:Edit summary, and start using edit summaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your notice probably isn’t clear enough because I still haven’t seen it. Some people like new posts at the top of the page, some at the bottom. IME, it’s only editors that feel "challenged" that get upset at these things. (Kreb (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
No, @Kreb, this is a matter of very basic on-wiki communication practices.
You failed:
  1. to use informative edit summaries
  2. to answer a question where it is asked
As a result we have two bulky discussion sections where none would have been needed if you had simply had the decency to use a meaningful edit summary in the first place, per WP:REVEXP.
A your snark about editors that feel "challenged": what nasty remark. How dare you try to depict your abysmal communication skills as some sort of failing on my part.
Enough. Get off my talk page, and stay off it: I have zero tolerance for people who play the sort of bitchy games you are playing here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 May 2022 (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.
[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have been using User:Dispenser/Reflinks, which has been leaving some urls bare after a visit. I ran Zhaofeng_Li/Reflinks on a few that you marked "bare" and it seemed to be a deeper metadata trawler, finding data for almost all of them. -- Ohc revolution of our times 21:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ohconfucius.
I haven't investigated that script properly, but from a quick inspection it appears to be an unmaintained fork of the buggy WP:REFILL, which I use very sparingly: see User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks_websites#Reference-filling_tools. (User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks is a redirect to Wikipedia:ReFill). Basically, I use WP:REFLINKS because while there are many sites it won't get anything from, it has a low error rate: i.e. it is much less likely than than other tools to spew out junk or to mangle existing refs.
Instead of this proliferation of unmaintained flaky tools, we need WMF techs to take on the task of writing a more solid tool to tackle the key task of ensuring that citations can actually be verified, and editors don't have to choose between a set of badly-broken tools. WP:V is a core policy, so this should be a WMF priority.
Sadly, my proposal at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations/New reference-filling tool ended up at #51 on the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Results, and didn't make it onto the leaderboard of projects which might get done.
All of which is unsurprising. Fluff gets higher priorities than core tasks, and coding these tools gets less cash than the so-called "WMF chapters", which allow a few people in each country to play committee games and attend conferences rather than edit the 'pedia. Meanwhile, WMF sits on humungous piles of cash. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. We have buggy tools and have to make do with sticky tape. There ought to be better. Fucking politics. -- Ohc revolution of our times 22:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohconfucius: there was some excuse for this back in 2006, when I started editing here. WMF had little money, and as en.wp became one of the world's biggest websites, its total income was less than the lunch budget of the managers of similarly big websites.
The WMF techies of that time did a brilliant job of keeping the servers alive as load spiralled, and to their credit they did great work to improve the core software and make it scalable to a robust new hardware architecture.
But that was a decade ago. WMF is now a decade out of poverty, and its executive director gets paid nearly twice as much as the Taoiseach and only 9% less than the POTUS ... but it still commits only the square root of bugger all to making tools for the poor bloody infantry.
Troughers everywhere. Oink oink. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sigh -- Ohc revolution of our times 22:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
501 just means only the company don't make a profit. -- Ohc revolution of our times 09:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ringing Bell

[edit]

Out of five references on Ringing Bell, only two are using the cite web templates. The other three only have the titles listed manually. I was hoping you could fill the rest of them in properly with reflinks. Also, on Gordy, I am suspicious of the recent edits to the home media section; however, I found out that there is now Paramount Global era of Miramax. But on the other hand, it said 49% was sold, so that leaves another 51%. I don't know which one is true regarding Gordy. I flagged the statement for needing citation, but I don't know if it is true and sourceable or not. Otherwise, it might be challenged. If you know what to do or who to ask, please tell me. Meanwhile, I will start a discussion about Gordy at the talk page. Thank you. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:D438:2B7E:AEF7:4F8 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I am working only on WP:Bare URLs, unless the topic falls within my areas of interest, which these don't.
The other refs on those article are not bare, just crudely filled, so they fall outside the scope of my bare-ref-filling work. WP:REFLINKS doesn't touch non-bare refs, so it is no help there. Converting them manually to use cite templates is not a big job: see the guidance at WP:HOWTOCITE.
As the correctness of that assertion about Gordy, I can't help directly. Not my topic. However, you are taking the right first step of asking on the talk page; if that doesn't get a response, try leaving a brief note at one the relevant WikiProjects (WP:WikiProject Film or WP:WikiProject Disney) asking people to join the discussion.
Hope this helps a bit. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A gift

[edit]

Recently, I took a Wikibreak. It's not the first time. I find when I get fed up with Wikipedia, it's the best thing to do. Wikipedia can be a toxic place. You take a lot of guff, but people do recognize your value. I was perusing your user page, and was amazed that you didn't have that many awards. Poking around a little further, I realized that you have not updated this page, User:BrownHairedGirl/Barnstars. Our colleague, @Gerda Arendt: does a great job letting people know that they are precious. I'm not going to start giving out precious awards, but I wanted to do something else to let you know you are esteemed. So, I went through and culled the barnstars and other awards that you have been given, and I updated your awards page. I did not include kittens, or puppies. Thanks again! --evrik (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah bless you, @Evrik. All of that is very very kind of you, esp updating my long-neglected barnstars page. That was a big job.
Huge big thanks to you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ☺ Inoxent AR (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brown girl i need help 😐 Inoxent AR (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inoxent AR: you are in luck!
Please go to WP:TEAHOUSE, where there are skilled editors ready to help beginners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Malian expatriates in Japan

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Malian expatriates in Japan 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. LucasKannou (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment as third party in arbitration case

[edit]

Hi, I would like to request for your comment on an Arbitration case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dispute on Portal:Iceland, since you had some involvement in the case. Thanks. Snævar (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snævar: Sorry, but I have no choice here. I have to decline, because Arbcom has banned me from making any comment on portals. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Irish newspaper sources

[edit]

Hi BHG - hope you are well. Do you have access to Irish newspaper sources that may or may not help with this AfD? Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lugnuts! I am doing fine, and hope you are well too.
I took a quick look at the AFD, and it seems that other editors have already mentioned the two main sources I would commend: the Irish Newspaper Archive, and the British Newspaper Archive. Sadly, as noted, both are paywalled, and I have no sub.
However, I also commend the Irish Times Archive. The paywall there is only partial, so some good stuff may be accessible.
Sorry I can't help more. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes, I'm good thanks. No worries - thank you for having a quick look. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and rule

[edit]

I think that we are broadly on the same side so let's not let the frustration goad us into taking it out on each other. My reference to bottom trawling was aimed at Abductive, not you. (That article is far too npov. Bottom trawling is a nasty and destructive method of fishing, very high impact for very low reward. ) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: we are indeed broadly on the same side about the damage done by overload of Citation bot.
So please will you finally STOP demanding measures which would sabotage the work of those of us who put a lot of effort into building highly-productive batch jobs?
The reason I let rip this time was that it is about the 4th or 5th occasion when you attacked all of us who do batch jobs, and I am fed up with it. If you agree that the problem is Abductive, then say so directly ... but if you keep on making discriminate attacks on all batch jobs, you will continue to impede a solution. And if you propose solutions which will completely f**k those of us doing productive batch jobs, you will get a hostile response.
Your call. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't know that it is Abductive although I have sufficient confidence in your judgement to take it as a reasonable starting assumption. But the reality right now is that I have a very low expectation that a one-shot request will succeed – and I believe that the reason for that effect is batch runs. Your campaign to get Abductive to behave has been running now for over a year with no results. Putting a volume restriction to throttle batch runs (I believe! don't know!) in the meantime advances my objective of getting a working ☑ Citations service for the majority of us. I respect your work but unless and until serious action is taken to control 'road hogging', I will have to continue to fight my corner.
I do hear you. I understand your perspective and consider it a valid one. But fundamentally, batch work should always take second place to real-time work, it should occupy otherwise idle time. Yes, my 'solution' is treating the symptoms not the disease but so too, I think, is yours. For as long as the bot fails to prioritise between types of load, we will continue to collide with one another despite our desire to cooperate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, if the problem is just with Abductive, then I don't see why everyone needs to be impacted by the behavior. There were no complaints about the button or anything when Abductive wasn't putting in his batch jobs, as far as I am aware. If there was a core problem with the bot's design and implentation then maybe a limit for everyone would make sense, but that is not the problem. The problem is a user that is apperently sabotaging the usability of the bot. Rlink2 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: This is still exasperating.
I entirely agree that the bot should have a better queue management system. I proposed that at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations/More capacity for Citation bot and notified CB users at User talk:Citation bot/Archive_30#Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022:_More_capacity_for_Citation_bot.
Sadly, that proposal didn't make the action list, due to lack of support. I see now that you didn't support the proposal, so that makes me even more annoyed that you repeatedly advocate measures which would sabotage my work. WTF?
So we continue with the present inadequate queueing system.
But so far as I am concerned, you continue to miss the very simple fundamental point: that whatever queueing system Citation bot has, the bot will still have a finite capacity that is less than demand. So we still have a need to prioritise productive use over unproductive use, and especially to prioritise productive batches over unproductive batches. What part of that is complicated?
Eliminate the unproductive use of the bot, and the clogging problem is resolved.
As to you not knowing that the problem is Abductive, that can only be because you have chosen not to check. It's not hard: the methodology is set out repeatedly in the threads I started last year.
But you choose not to do those checks, and instead you repeatedly propose changes which would utterly sabotage my highly-productive work. Basically, to facilitate a few dozen single uses per day, you choose not to tackle the editor wasting the bots resources, but to sabotage the work which has filled about a million bare URLs in ten months.
I despair of your approach. Please do not reply unless you are willing to stop being so destructive. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hey. I noticed a few days ago you filled in a bare reference on [[Bisexuality]. I was wondering why you used Template:Cite web and not Template:Cite book. The Google Books link itself seemed broken, insofar as it's returning a page that says "No preview available" with no obvious way to clear it. Does reflinks only output "cite web" citations? I've fixed it now by grabbing the correct info from Worldcat and Citer, but I know you do many such edits and was wondering if this might be impacting elsewhere on your workflow? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sideswipe9th!
You got it: WP:REFLINKS only does {{cite web}}.
My work using REFLINKS is a sort of first-aid process: a quick way of making the ref better than a WP:Bare URL. In every case, the ref can be significantly improved beyond what REFLINKS has done, and in some cases such as this there errors in the liked page which REFLINKS can't fix.
Thanks for improving the ref. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah cool, that's good to know!
I'm very slowly working through the bare URL backlog, barely made a scratch but if I can at least clear the May 2021 list I'm off to a good start I think. Unfortunately with so many dead URLs, it's a pain having to search each of the archiving sites. I may catch up with the articles you're tagging now sometime this decade! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Sideswipe9th, it's great to hear that someone else is on the case! I populated that category last year with about 16K articles, and it's great that it is almost done: down to 320 articles as of now.
@Storchy has done a lot of work on this category (and other sets of bare URLs), and I nibble away at it in between feeding Citation bot. We are nearly done with that category, and the big picture good news is that in my year of hammering away at bare URLs through difft methods, the total number of bare URLs (tagged and untagged) has fallen from just of 470,000 (start of May 2021) to about 140,000 today. (I will have full figures after the 20220520 database dump). Note that new bare URLs are added at a rate of over 300 per day, so we are doing well to be moving forwards rather than backwards.
As to archiving, are you using InternetArchiveBot (IAbot)? It is a HUGE timesaver.
Getting IAbot running is at first a bit confusing, but I would be happy to help if you like. It's well worth the pain! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo! I am not using IAbot, however that looks like it will be very very helpful. Looks like there's a Docker container for it now, so set up of the bot itself shouldn't be too difficult. Only thing I can't gleam at a glance of the instructions is whether or not I need special permission flags on my account, or if I just need to create the OAuth tokens it needs to access it? I should be able to get a look into that in more detail in the next day or two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: AFAIK, you just need to create the OAuth tokens when asked. But I may have forgotten something.
When I first started using it, I got nowhere until I went to some obscure menu to tell it to use en.wp, not some other-language-wikipedia. I was stumped for weeks until I asked.
What is a "Docker container"? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Docker (software) for more technical details. It works kinda like a virtual machine does, only instead of giving you a full OS, you use it to "containerise" a single application. It allows you to package up and isolate different applications and their dependencies from other applications, each application behaves like it is the only thing installed on the OS, so if one application misbehaves it won't bring down or be able to effect everything else. Oh and if the developer of the application provides a "docker compose" script, which IAbot have, installing the application and all of its dependencies is as simple as running one or two commands! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th
You shouldn't need to install it locally unless you have your own wiki. You can access the enwiki IAbot here: https://iabot.toolforge.org/ Rlink2 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! That'll teach me not to check if it's already on Toolforge! Thanks @Rlink2:! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Rlink2.
@Sideswipe9th: That's what I do: just go to https://iabot.toolforge.org/ and paste in the article title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you! I'll get familiar with this over the next day or two, really need to go to sleep now as it's 4.15am! Although I think I can already see a way to get this to speed up my workflow after filling in the bare URLs! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: for dead URLs, what I do is to use IAbot first, then fill in the details after IAbot has done most of the clerical work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me because I'm filling in bare URLs, I suspect my workflow will be to fill in the bare URLs first and then run IAbot after to ensure all the archiving is correct. And then do any manual cleanup if there's issues or missing details on other references. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: you gotta find the workflow that works for you.
For me, the workflow I have developed over the last year is:
  1. Run Reflinks
  2. If that has not filled everything, run Citation bot (if it responds promptly)
  3. Check for any bracketed refs, and quickly convert them to a cite template (cos otherwise IAbot will use a {{webarchive}}
  4. Rin IAbot, with archive-all on
  5. Manually fill any refs with "Archived copy" as the title.
  6. Do any further polishing manually.
That way the tools do most of the clerical work and some of the research. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @User:Sideswipe9th, I did wonder who was dropping the article count in the May 2021 category. Thanks very much for all your work on this.
Now we know that there are at least three of us doing this, well, three is sort of a faction, isn't it. :-) If either of you are interested in calling for more editors at WP:WCC to work on this, one subcategory at a time, I'd sign up.
BrownHairedGirl, please feel free to move this post anywhere you like: I couldn't work out where best to reply to you both. Storchy (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category closed incorrectly

[edit]

Hi, the discussion you participated to was closed without having any correction to it, just cancelling the proposal. You left a comment about having the name of the category "..in Czech Republic" listed alphabetically correct using "sort keys" so as people looking for it on HotCat won't have to scroll down counterintuitively to the bottom of the list to find "...in the Czech Republic" between "Vietnam" and "in the Dominican Republic". Can you follow up on that and make the change you talked about? Thank you. --Opencross (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencross: Done. See Category:Defunct tennis tournaments. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change of plan. I created the new Category:Defunct tennis tournaments by country, and moved them there. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i very much appreciate your contribution. Opencross (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Albania

[edit]

Hi! You may want to run your tool/script over this page again the next time you do a run where it fits the criteria. A handful of your URL clean up edits were casualties of a massive sock reversion (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoni98). Hated to lose your work but this was the simplest way to de-sock. Hope you're well! Star Mississippi 01:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Star Mississippi. I am doing grand, and hope you are too.
Thanks for the headsup. My bare URL tagging mostly works off lists made by my scans of the latest database dump, and any changes needed to those pages will show up in the 20220520 database dump. So they should all get fixed sometime in he week after that.
But it was kind of you to notify me. Good work on the sock cleanup, but what a pain that it is needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're up early or late! Hope you're able to get some rest. All is relatively well here too, thanks.
Glad to hear you have a preocess that identifies updates such as this. I cannot wait for this master to find a new hobby! Star Mississippi 01:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't get distracted; you may find this useful

[edit]

Here's how to look at user contribs and page histories in a big way; in the contribs or history select 500. Then in the url change where it has &limit=500 to a larger number. My old computer can easily handle 3500 (takes a few seconds), but struggles with 5000. Then use 'Ctrl F' to search for the desired text; most browsers will return a number of instances of that text appearing on the page, usually up to 1000. If needed, you can even click on the link for next 3500 and get taken to the next 3500. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, @Abductive. Are you trolling me?
I know how to do that. I have done it dozens of times while documenting your abuse of Citation bot for low-return speculative trawls, and in each case I posted the links. All documented in the Citation bot archive.
But in this case, you claimed[11] that I had made a low-return bot job ... yet you posted no links to support that claim or to allow me to identify the job.
I asked you for the links,[12] but instead you basically came here to to tell me to "go fish". Stuff that.
There are two possibilities:
  1. You are bluffing. You did no research, but made the claim to troll me.
  2. You did the research, but instead of posting the links to the data you found, you decided to wind me me up by playing a snarky little passive-aggressive same of making me redo the research.
Either way, sod off. Your time-wasting games of counter-attack have no play in a collaborative project.
If there was a low-return job in my bare-URL-filing work, I am willing to investigate and to explain what happened. But I am not going to fishing for evidence that you have chosen to withhold from me.
Do not reply unless it is to post the links which support your claims. (I am serious: links, or stay away). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I didn't want to crash your computer. Here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Citation_bot&offset=20220515081310&limit=3500&target=Citation+bot. It seems that I was wrong and the job was a good performer, but it took 49 hours and was spread out on two of the 'view 3500' pages. I only captured 399 of those edits and I am sorry. I will correct the thread. I stand by my statement which is that I don't care what people's returns are, but that if we are arguing about them, mine are above average. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely typical @Abductive.
An allegation made with abysmally bad research, but shouted at length with great certainty, and without producing the evidence until you are asked three times ... and then it does not support your claim.
And that claim about didn't want to crash your computer is yet more of your self-serving nonsense. A page of 350 contribs would not crash my computer, even if it did cause problems, those probs would be no greater if I had follow a link instead of doing my own research. Please stop wasting y time with your absurd games.
You waste Citation bot's time with your low-return speculative trawls, and you have now wasted lots of my time with these bogus complaints as the latest round of your attack-and-deflect attrition strategy.
GET OFF MY TALK PAGE AND STAY OFF. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive
Ah, I see. I didn't want to crash your computer. I tried opening the link on multiple devices ranging from 1 year old to 10+ years old, multiple operating systems (mac, windows, linux, openbsd, freebsd), and multiple browsers (chrome, safari, firefox, pale moon, and even text-based browsers) and it worked on all of them. So i don't know what computer is going to crash from sharing the link.
Even if you thought it could crash her computer, you could say something like "this is the link, but be careful, it might be slow to load or crash your computer". That is no reason to withhold evidence.
It seems that I was wrong and the job was a good performer, but it took 49 hours and was spread out on two of the 'view 3500' pages. I only captured 399 of those edits and I am sorry. I will correct the thread. I know the discussion is over and I would like to keep it that way, but "evidence" like this seriously puts into question literally everything else you are saying. How are we supposed to believe that mine are above average when you've shown that your way of determining things is wrong in the first place? In the future, make sure the evidence is correct without a doubt before trying to stand by it 100%. And always support the evidence with links and diffs in the first post, not at the end. Its a common but costly Wiki blunder.
Again the discussion is over so you shouldn't need to reply. Its just food for thought. Rlink2 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosaic (vocal band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Caribbean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.[13] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torque

[edit]

I hope I did not hurt you. If I did, it was not my intention. Perhaps I am too sensitive to some irregularities which sometimes seem susspicious to me. All irregularities will be handled by ... nevermind. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolas Ojala: no you didn't hurt me. But you did annoy me.
An allegation of sockpuppetry is a serious thing, so care should be taken before making it. You didn't take that care, and when the facts were demonstrated, you just repeated the question. What annoyed me was that you seemed unable to unwilling to say something like "ah, sorry, I made a mistake. Thanks for the explanation". The we could all have moved on promptly.
I just revisited WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Infinite_torque_at_zero_rpm in order to copy-paste the link here. There I saw a new reply by you: [14], on 22:02, 17 May 2022.
That reply is very clearly intended to hurt. There is no other possible purpose to it. So your post here is utterly false.
I have been been around here too long to actually be hurt such low-level nonsense, but I am annoyed by the intention to hurt rather than to resolve. And now I am annoyed again that you come here to insult my intelligence by denying your clear intent.
This is very basic human interaction stuff: see for this list of the example Five Elements Of An Apology. Your responses include none of those five elements.
Now, you have had enough of my time. Communication with you is unproductive and unpleasant, so do not reply. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. That was humour. Although you did not get it, I meant it to be kind of ridiculous. Anyway, not offensive. I don't know if you know someone who talks like that seriously. But I don't. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikolas Ojala: that was no time for humour, unless it followed a clear apology. And given the context of your several rounds of obnoxiousness, there was no indication that any humour was intended.
Anyway, after 5 rounds, it is clear that you are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively. I do not know which part of do not reply was unclear to you, so I will simplify it: sod off. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assist you?

[edit]

If you fill a sandbox page with a couple thousand of pages to run the bot on, I can do that for you, outside of the web interface. I can post the Zotero worked/failed files afterwards. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: many thanks for that kind offer. You are a joy to work with.
That would be a brilliant way of identifying the Citation-bot-cannot-get title websites. I can make a list of the all the pages with potentially-bot-fixable bare URLs (i.e. without known PDFs, images etc), and use shuf to get a pseudo-randomised sample.
Three issues:
  1. What format is easiest for you?
    I can make a sandbox as suggested, or would an emailed zipped list be better? I will do whichever you prefer.
  2. what sample size do you want?
    The total number of articles with potentially bot-fixable bare URLs is currently somewhere the range of 107–112K, so a sample of say 5K pages would give us a sample rate of about 4.5%. I am not a statistician, but I think that should be a reasonably useful ratio for this simple random sampling.
  3. I think it would best to wait until I have data from the 20220520 database, which I should have processed by the evening of Saturday 21 May.
    I can easily make a list tagged bot-fixable bare URLs using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=22127087, but that is a very unrandom sample. Similarly, my regex search for untagged bare URLs is only a rough approximation of the set, and I can get a list of only the first 1,000 results, which is not random. To get the full set, I will need to combine it with my list of "Articles with non-PDF untagged bare URLs", which is the first scan I make of each database dump. The latest scan is now 18 days old, and in that time about 20–30% of its bare URLs have been filled, so I would prefer to use the cleaner fresh list.
Thanks again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me 5,000 to start, and just a list of page names. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AManWithNoPlan: OK, will do. It will be on Saturday evening or Sunday morning, Irish time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Newspaper Archive subscription

[edit]

Hey BHG, I was wondering if you currently have a subscription to BNA. If you don't I'd be willing to gift you one since I have a feeling you'd get a lot more use out of it for Wikipedia than I would. Mesidast (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template: Is country an EU member state

[edit]

Do you have plans to use {{Is country an EU member state}}? I've been going through a list of templates with no transclusions, nominating them for deletion, but knowing that you are a competent editor, I thought I would ask first. If you don't need it anymore, you can tag it with {{db-author}}, or I'll be happy to nominate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same question applies to {{Is valid full month name}} and {{Is valid month name}} and {{Is valid short month name}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Portal:Iceland declined

[edit]

The case request that you were a party to, Dispute on Portal:Iceland, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You can view the declined case request through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the 1st Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Members of the 1st Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the 4th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Members of the 4th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexing revert

[edit]

May I inquire about the reasoning behind this revert of Citation bot's edit to Marie Curie? The only changes made by the bot were a cosmetic template-call-name change and the addition of a (correct, according to my checking) publication date for a referenced webpage, which doesn't seem to me like it warrants reverting. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Whoop whoop pull up: oops! It was a mis-click, which I have now self-reverted.
My trackpad was misbehaving and the cursor was jumping around. It tried to revert the bot's contribs list, and I thought that was the only glitch. Sorry for not checking more thoroughly, and thereby wasting your time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.  :-) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 21:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so nice about my idiocy BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Archived Copy

[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I saw a diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tooms_Lake&curid=19278627&diff=1089253924&oldid=1087854900 where AWB filled in a bare url that was archived. But it said title=Archived copy. That is not a useful title, and if you see this, you have better take a look at the URL manually to determine the title, and whether indeed there is a copy and not an error screen. AWB needs checking for this sort of modification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Graeme Bartlett, and thanks for your msg.
That edit was not a glitch. It was the intended output of an AWB module which I wrote a few months ago, and which I run after every database dump. In all, probably over 15K+ edits like this, maybe as many as 30K. Since my scans of the the 20220520 database dump got underway yesterday, I have done about 2,000 such edits, which is probably all until the next dump on 20220601 (unless I can resolve an edge case that I found on about 500 pages, and which my module currently skips).
|title=Archived copy is more useful than it first appears. If you look more closely at that edit, see how it did all the tedious clerical work of filling the cite template, including the messy bit of extracting the original URL from the archive URL. That's quite slow work to do manually: I used to allow two minutes per ref to do that and check its accuracy, before adding the actual titles. On some pages with many such refs, that clerical part of the task could take ten or twenty minutes. But my AWB module can do it in seconds, with much higher accuracy than a human. (Certainly more accurate than this human )
The title is a placeholder, which can be replaced by any editor to add the real title in one easy edit .. . which is exactly what @Oculi kindly did to that page in this edit. Note how Oculi did not need to fill a cite template or even add a parameter name: his edit was a very simple one, changing |title=Archived copy to |title=Tooms Lake suburb profile ... and hey presto, we have a fully-formed cite.
A lot of en.wp progress is incremental, and having one step of that incremental progress done automatically is a handy way of making life easier for editors.
That particular placeholder |title=Archived copy is used because it is the same one as used by @InternetArchiveBot when it archives a completely bare URL: see e.g. this demo edit on my sandbox. The result of my module's edit is designed to be very similar to IAbot's, with the key differences being that:
  1. I add |status=dead, because the use of a bare archived ref by the editor who added it is a clear indication that they intended the archived copy to be used.
  2. I add and fill the |website= parameter, 'cos the module can so that easily.
Also, |title=Archived copy is tracked in Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, allowing all sort of ways of identifying its usage within a topic area, and possibly using other tools to fill it. See for example https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=22153143 which finds 40 articles on members of the Oireachtas which currently use |title=Archived copy.
Hope this helps clarify what I am doing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite twitter event

[edit]

Hi BHG! We should probably have something like Template:Cite Twitter profile for Twitter events. Chris Packham is an article where it would be relevant. I've reached out as you are the one who figured out how to put the profile one together...would you mind creating one for events and pinging me, please? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheSandDoctor! Hope you are well, and that you received my email with the lists for use by @TweetCiteBot. Sorry for hiatus in sending the lists.
I had not heard of twitter events before, but now I see the example on that page: https://twitter.com/i/events/920211990739587073?lang=en
They are not very common: only 44 on Wikipedia, of which only 3 are currently bare, but I agree that it probably does need its own template.
I will investigate later on how to do his BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in standard edit summary

[edit]

"Canonicalie" could do with an "s" perhaps? (But it's working: I'll fix Transport in Leeds when not on phone). PamD 06:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @PamD!
I was concentrating too much on debugging my regex, an missed the edit summary glitch. I have fixed the settings now for the next run, tho I think this is always going to be a low-volume job. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Since you are a glutton for punishment , I thought maybe you [or someone you know] might have A Cunning Plan to solve this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Dead links for 2011 census. Feel free to totally ignore if it doesn't interest you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John, you are a divil
I took the bait, and have offered[15] my services. Glutton indeed! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped you might just have something you put in the oven earlier.
Now I wish I hadn't had that thought! Now forever BHG is a sultry young Nigella Lawson. 😈 John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More of that "young" stuff, please, @John.
I am not much younger than Nigella. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Allan

[edit]

Hi there I noticed you edited “Eric Allan” recently. The actor of 82 years of age who was in such shows as “Tell me Lies”. This man is my grandad. I don’t understand wikipedia text, but his photo has been changed very recently to the wrong Eric Allan. I wondered if this was you and if you could change it back if it was/if you could help me change it back? I have access to the previous picture as it is on google if his name is typed in. Its a photo of a clearly much older gentleman. Im sorry to bother you with this but it is something that means the world to me. My email is bradley.allan@hotmail.co.uk If you could contact me there I would be must appreciative Kind Regards Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyAllan97 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BradleyAllan97
I keep discussions about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. So no email.
The article Eric Allan has no picture, and as far as I can see it never had a picture. So I don't see how I can help. Sorry. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has always had his photo. It hasn’t been edited by anyone other than yourself in over 6 months prior. So you must have removed it. This was incorrect to do so BradleyAllan97 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BradleyAllan97: no, I did not remove any picture. See my only edits to the page: [16], [17].
A I noted above, I have not found any version of the article which had a picture. I cannot help you any further. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Is country an EU member state

[edit]

Template:Is country an EU member state has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Is valid full month name

[edit]

Template:Is valid full month name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Is valid month name

[edit]

Template:Is valid month name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Is valid short month name

[edit]

Template:Is valid short month name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick request and question on categories

[edit]

Hi, i was wondering how "tennis tournaments in Portugal" is present as single page on category, but not in the HotCat list.

Also i would like to know if you have some kind of bot which can fill up the ref, since i saw a lot of bare or essential links on tennis pages (some have just the url, others also the title, and less the date too, and very few the website mentioned). In case of positive answer, can it be run over all the subpages of a wikipage like this ?
Thanks for your consideration. Opencross (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencross: your first para makes no sense to me. Please link the page and the category, as requested in the big editnotice at the top of the page.
As to your second para: I do use a variety of tools to fill bare URL refs. I am trying to cleanup the historical backlog, but sadly tennis is one of the problem areas where there are one or more lazy editors adding lots of bare URLs every day. It's very tedious trying to keep ahead of this, and it takes a lot of work.
I suggest that you try using WP:REFLINKS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On first matter: the link of the category is this. HotCat ignore its existence, apparently. Now it's visible on the HotCat list.
On the second matter: i know, i tried to nudge on how to proper fill the refs, giving example, posting the wiki template, etc. Apparently there is no "mandate" to fill the ref, so i cannot enforce it on admin side. But those links are still.. unwatchable, with no website to check reliability and date to check if they are updated, and so on. It's a cumbersome situation, lately out of proportion. This is why i was thinking about the recurring use of some bot to circumvent if possible the problem altogether.
Hmm, i tried reflinks over this and it gives zero needed results ( no subpages, then?!?). I also tried it on a single page like this (as you can see there is a bare link at its bottom) and, well, the bot says it's ok as it is. Am i doing something wrong? Opencross (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your pronouns say "her" did you forget she? That one is also a pronoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.0.144 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June events from Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Category:Leisure activity vehicles has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Leisure activity vehicles 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. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization

[edit]

Hello, hello, hello! Do you have any idea why the number 1983 at this category page is not being put in alphabetical order with the other numbers? Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Anythingyouwant: Because the 1983 article has a DEFAULTSORT of "United ... " which makes it file under "U", and the others don't. PamD 22:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay if I get rid of the default sort, or should I just leave it as-is. I think it would be kinda nice if it got listed with all the other numbers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant I've over-ridden the defaultsort for this one Category. Looking at other cats like Category:Crimes in Washington, D.C., filing by the word after the year seems more common. PamD 22:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pam, much appreciated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @PamD, for yet again giving a prompt and helpful reply while I was offline. It's v kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way to freeze archive dates?

[edit]

In this edit you processed a bunch of archive.org links into {{cite web}} invocations, which did preserve the archive dates, but I am wondering if this will bring it in conflict with other scripts? For example, is there anything that will try to "auto-update" archive URLs to the most recent? If so, is there a way to "lock in" the current URLs and prevent such updating? The reason I ask is because the cited archive URLs are being used to cite statements about what was on the website during particular periods of time. jp×g 18:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I think we are probably coming from a similar place. I absolutely share your desire to cite the version of the page which was consulted.
In my view, the only acceptable form of reference on Wikipedia should be a completely filled cite template where the primary form of any URL is an archived copy of the actual version of the webpage as consulted by the editor who added the ref. That is the only way in which the cite can be fully verifiable.
But instead of that, we tolerate vague waves at sources: bare URLs, non-specific URLs (example.com instead of example.com/articles/5a3wp901), cites of PDFs and books without page numbers, and refs to repeatedly-updated pages with no indication of which version was consulted.
This problem is so deeply embedded that we do not even have a mechanism within the cite templates for clearly indicating that the archived copy is there to allow verification of the version of the URL on which the cite is based. I raised this in June 2021 at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78#Current_version_of_page_no_longer_contains_cited_facts._url-status=? in respect of a URL where I needed to cite an old version of a politician's autobiog page, because it contained info which was (quite reasonably) no longer in the current version. The only way to do that is to use |url-status=dead, even tho the page is not dead.
So, for all that WP:Verifiability is a core policy, the actual practice of Wikipedia is that very few articles consistently use refs which actually allow verification of web sources by identifying the version consulted. The community's approach to verifiability is at best half-hearted. It's like Saint Augustine's prayer "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."(Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 8:7.17).
That need to verify the actual version of the webpage as consulted by the editor who added the ref is so little understood that one experienced editor actually spent a lot of time removing[18] a large set of archive links which I added to an article I wrote which got promoted to Featured List status. In subsequent discussion, that editor claimed that they wanted a more "dynamic" relationship between citation and source, which is of course the precise opposite of the snapshot-in-time that is needed for verification.
So, back to your example. You did the right thing by citing a specific archived copy. However, you failed to fill the citations, leaving bare URLs. At best, that leaves a lot of work for some other editor(s) to add all the data which you had to hand when you added the refs; at worst, it leaves them guessing what your intent was, and possibly getting it wrong. Grrrrrrrr: please, please, use complete citations.
For the last year, my work has been focused almost exclusively on filling bare URLs, i.e. converting them to citation templates and filling out as many of the parameters as the tools allow. None of the tools do anywhere near a complete job, but they do make the citations less bad and/or more easily-completed.
The example you give is one of a large set of AWB edits which I do on an ongoing basis (v rough average ~1,000 per month), taking a bare URL ref to an archived copy, and formatting it in {{cite web}}. That's a clerical task which my AWB module can do with complete accuracy, avoiding the clerical errors which may occur when it is done manually. It still leaves the task of filling the |title= parameter etc, but some of the tedious work is done.
I am not aware of any tools or regular jobs which modify archive links. @InternetArchiveBot adds archive links, and cunningly uses the archived version most likely to have been that consulted when the ref was added (it appears to check the page history to find the ate of addition). The main case I can see is that there might be a task which removes or replaces archive-links which are dead, or where the archived copy is just an error page. (@GreenC and @Rlink2 do a lot of good work on archives, so may know more). And of course, this is a wiki, so any editor may do anything, which means that there always a risk of cases like my example of the editor who thought that it was a good idea to removed archived links.
Sorry that's a long reply, but I hope it helps. And please please please please please please do fill out any citations which you add: the more complete you make it, the less likely that anyone else will modify it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker here. I'm fairly certain, from testing, that setting |url-status=deviated also triggers the archive-url to become the live url. The documentation at {{cite web}} supports that by saying to use that parameter when the original URL is 'live' but no longer supports the article text Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Sounds good, I'll try it out :) jp×g 02:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, @Sideswipe9th. This is great news.
|url-status=deviated is just the sort of thing that I was looking for in that discussion in June 2021 which I mentioned above.
It was one of the ideas mentioned in that discussion, but I was not aware that it had been implemented. Thanks to you, I do now know that it is available. I wish I had known of it before, 'cos there are thousands of refs which I edited in the last year where I would used it if I had known. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you very much for the reply! I was actually wondering this when I originally put those refs into the article -- I had initially tried to use citation templates, but I couldn't figure out how to do so in a way that protected the archive URLs from getting overwritten or messed up. I think I will give the deviated parameter a shot the next time this comes up. Hopefully, everything will become less completely fucked up in the future ;) jp×g 02:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining archive links is WP:WAYBACKMEDIC. -- GreenC 02:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki page about my father

[edit]

I want to know who you are and how you received all this information on my father most is public knowledge but some is not if you could email me at glitterandglam1522@gmail.com that would be great. 2600:1017:B020:A8C3:D0E2:7F61:56FD:2540 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what article you are talking about, so I cannot comment.
I believe that discussions about Wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, where they are publicly visible. So I will not email you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another template problem

[edit]

Template:YYYY crimes in countryname category header is used on the likes of Category:1921 crimes in Turkey and populates Category:1921 in Turkey when it should be populating Category:1921 in the Ottoman Empire. My attempt to add the redirect resolve failed miserably. Are you able to sort out the template? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering: Surely the problem is that Category:1921 crimes in Turkey is misnamed? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try renaming them but given that the Ottoman Empire was often called Turkey it's a problem that could reoccur and more generally the templates need to be adaptable. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering: my general philosophy with those templates is to minimise adaptability, to allow simple (parameter-free) usage and to maintain consistency. Without the templates, most by-year categories were a hideous mishmash of inconsistent parenting.
In this case, I just spotted that Category:1921 in Turkey is a redirect. That made the problem easily solveable, by this edit to {{YYYY crimes in countryname category header/inner core}}, making it use {{Resolve category redirect}}. You may wish to reconsider your proposed speedy renaming of Category:1921 in Turkey: it is no longer needed to solve the parent cat problem, tho a merge may be helpful due to the small size of Category:1921 in Turkey.
In most cases like this, the template just needs to be upgraded to use {{Resolve category redirect}}. If that doesn't solve the problem, it is nearly always because some category is misnamed or a redirect has not been created. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_070&oldid=1096217546"