User talk:BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

Merge Proposal

Hi there!

Rembrandt research in Australia

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie

Nikola Kicev

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Addition to list

Hi... Actress /Model Carmen Electra is From Ohio

👍

Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...

I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.

Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)

All the best,

Praevalebit

Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

Hello! You protected Languages of the Republic of Macedonia and maybe you are right. The North Macedonian language should not have been changed indeed. But the article should definitely be Languages of North Macedonia as should the "Republic of Macedonia" elements be replaced. thx! --APG1984 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of renaming and moving of articles and categories regarding Macedonia right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the main article move to North Macedonia see that talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page[1].

Please see my comments at WP:Requests for page protection#Languages_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia (permalink) about the need for less haste and more consensus-building here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A request

Could you please close this AFD[2]? I mistakenly started it. He does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: done[3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia CFD

Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination.

Apologies for any inconvenience. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89 I would add the 8 categories which include "Republic of Macedonia" in their title. However, sadly the CFD has been prematurely closed by non-admin @MattLongCT (see discussion below and at User talk:MattLongCT#CfD_Macedonia).

Would you be kind enough to revert that WP:BADNAC, and reopen the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened. Would you like to add the 8 categories or would you like me to? — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89. I have added the 8 cats to the CFD[4], and tagged them.[5]

Thanks again for spotting them, and for notifying me. It took me a few hours to build the list (because the category tree is heavily polluted), so I'd have missed them otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Legacypac, do read WP:MULTI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North Macedonia

Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't hate me. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but closed the WP:CfD just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be really bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MattLongCT, I agree with the comments on your talk page by @Marcocapelle[6] and @Oculi[7]. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (see WP:BADNAC#2), because it is a controversial closure.

The article name of the country has already been agreed at Talk:North Macedonia#Requested_move_8_February_2019, where the closer @MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.

The adjectival forms are indeed being discussed at the RFC, but they have been explicitly excluded from the CFD. So the CFD and RFC can run in parallel. Please revert your closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PS See also WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question".

So far as I am aware, you don't have that extraordinary experience of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Another request

Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek[8] who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here[9] and here[10], he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern.

I've tried asking this editor myself[11] and a few other occasions and been ignored[12]. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here[13] and here[14] for two recent examples. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clothing companies

Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of the roof?, who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Wikipedia category at [15] you have chosen to revert only me for--see Category:Clothing companies established in 1958, Category:Clothing companies established in 1959, Category:Clothing companies established in 1960, Category:Clothing companies established in 1961, Category:Clothing companies established in 1962, Category:Clothing companies established in 1964, Category:Clothing companies established in 1965, Category:Clothing companies established in 1966, etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and the roof? have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Wikipedia categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Wikipedia, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at [16] consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. Doprendek (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the above is not a tu quoque argument. By singling out one category year (1963) to differ from the ones directly preceding and following it is to break the logical structure of the existing categories. Any application of a rule such as WP:SUBCAT must be weighed against producing such inconsistencies. And there should presumably be discussion and a plan in place to address the subsequent inconsistencies in existing categories if the change is put forward. This is not a trivial operation. It deserves discussion and a plan of action, not cherry-picking me as some miscreant who needs personal attention. Doprendek (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please consider what a good faith reversion per WP:SUBCAT of these categories might look like. Many of these "Clothing companies established in year XXXX" categories were created by user User:Look2See1. (Please note: No criticism implied. Thanks for your work, User:Look2See1!) So if one was, in good faith, trying to correct subcat errors, one might notify this user as well as me for a discussion. In fact, a general discussion of this--how does one systematically change subcategorization issues across horizontally-organized categories such as "in year XXXX"? and how does one do it?--IMO needs to be done, but hasn't been. Then, one could presumably come to a conclusion and divide the labor to make the changes. Or, one might WP:BEBOLD and just go ahead and change the whole category one by one by oneself, although this is very labor intensive, as someone who has done such work before can attest. But it should be clear that what one would NOT do--if one was actually interested in solving a subcategorization problem, rather than targeting a particular user--is single out only one of the horizontally-organized categories for change and leave the others directly adjacent (presumably equally incorrect) intact, which actually WORSENS the existing situation. Doprendek (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who is taking it personal and taking the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach rather than still adding shit to category pages when you know its wrong. I have been cleaning up behind Look2See- who got indefinitely blocked for the messes he was creating- and Hugo999 not just you. I didn't cherry pick. You are refusing to stop this bullshit so I came here because nothing else (Multiple messages on your talk page) was working....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Doprendek a little more WP:AGF would help a lot. As would less verbosity, and more focus on the substantive issues. (BTW, I have changed the heading of this discussion to a more descriptive and less accusatory title)

I know that @WilliamJE can be an acquired taste, but that doesn't mean he is wrong; best to evaluate his comments on their merits. And User:Look2See1 has been indef-blocked since 2017 for repeated disruption, so we can ignore that editor.

So, to the substance.

Why do you think that it is insufficient for clothing companies to be categorised under both manufacturing and design? Why do you think that they also need to be in the undifferentiated parent cat "companies"?

Or is your objection simply about consistency, that that they should all be either included in the parent or all removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

He never did reply to you. Not surprisingly, because there is no logical explanation for his edits. Just personal attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your fork

About Special:Diff/883889340 - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run #REDIRECT [[User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js]] as javascript code. See User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DannyS712. I learnt the hard way that it broke, so the next edit[17] changed it to importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' ) , which works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Critics of transhumanism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Critics of transhumanism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112|Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen]] Geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/113|Francophone Women]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman]]
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|talkpage]] Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sindbad edits.

Hello I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaboi1956 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mediaboi1956: are you referring

1. to this edit[18], which I reverted in this edit?[19] ... or
2. to these edits[20], which were reverted[21] by User:Dl2000? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How To Make Edits That Are Acceptable

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Hi @Wikiwunderkind

Sorry to use numbered points, but I think it's clearest:

1. I keep discussion about Wikipedia articles public on Wikipedia, so I won't be emailing you.
2. Wikipedia articles must use relaible sources. You didn't; your edits[22] used unreliable sources including Wikipedia and IMDB
3. Since you say that All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistant, you have a Conflict of Interest, and therefore you should not edit the page See WP:Conflict of Interest

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I see that I had already left a note[23] on you talk page about the Conflict of Interest. Please read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHariedGirl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again Wikiwunderkind.

I'll try to explain this very simply.

1. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia. This is, a reference work which summarises knowledge published elsewhere by reliable sources
2. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. If anyone wants to promote Hetrick online, they can set up a blog or website, or use social media or buy advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service
3. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality. So an article should not edited by anyone with a conflict of interest. That means that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits on to articles about him.
4. You or Mr Hetrick or anyone else is free to edit Talk:Glenn Hetrick to request edits to the page
5. To request edits, follow the instructions at Template:Request edit.
6. Note that any changes will rejected unless they are sourced to independent, reliable sources. So, for example, a scholarly book or a newspaper article is appropriate; a blog or a press release or a company website is not suitable.
7. Your requested edit will be reviewed by independent editors, who will decide whether the change improves Wikipedia.
8. The previous edits which you made contained copyright violations, so have been removed.
9. All other versions of the article remain in the article's history ... but you need not worry about that, because you won't be editing the article.

Please remember that Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers. I have volunteered as much help to you as am willing to give. If you would like further assistance, please ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is set up to help new editors.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Thanks for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination for merging of Module:See also if exists

Module:See also if exists has been nominated for merging with Module:Category see also if exists. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Pppery it would be great if you could divert your energies to adding functionality, instead of these ill-conceived merge proposals. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Irish problem...

I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. GiantSnowman 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

You became involved in a bit of drama recently, as did I. I do not wish to grave dance, nor rehash the controversy, so I will refrain from naming names or specifics. Regardless, it was important that an editor of your magnitude stood up for the idea of civility. Too often, we're forced to choose between respecting serious but uncivil content contributors and respecting the ideal of civility itself. You demonstrate an exemplary stance that the two sides are not irreconcilable. You stood up for what was right in the face of controversy. Additionally, while you technically were in the right in terms of policy, you demonstrated that you were able to accept criticism that you likely didn't agree with, and overturn your own administrative action. This demonstrates wisdom, restraint, and a balanced temperament, which are important qualities in an administrator. So, in sum, I just want to recognize you for both your assertiveness in standing up for what's right, and your restraint in not unnecessarily escalating an already-heated situation. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Swarm

Sorry for a slow reply, but thank you very very much for your kind words and for the barnstar.

Sadly, the policy of civility is too often treated more as a forlorn prayer than as actual policy, and this was one of those occasions. But from time to time I do try to do a wee bit about it.

As I expected, one of the miscreant's friends took me to ANI over it, and intends to proceed to arbcom. Hey ho; it goes wth the territory. And that territory was mapped out brilliantly over 3 years ago in an op-ed at the signpost. That piece is mostly about sexual harassment, but there is one sentence fragment which neatly encompasses the problem which recurs time and again: "a swaggering atmosphere of faux-intellectual machismo, and they think it's their due as macho content creators to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of women editors."

I wish we had made some progress since 2015, but I'm not seeing much sign of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I was impressed by what you wrote at AN and that I take your remarks very seriously. I will think much more about your words in the days to come. An interesting (to me) footnote to the incident is that I originally intended to block for 72 hours and had already typed up my block notification (which is not my usual practice). Before blocking, I decided to review the editor's block log, and was surprised to discover that it was quite short for such an aggressive editor with well known civility problems. At that moment, I relented a bit and selected 31 hours instead. I discussed this on my talk page with another editor the other day. Perhaps this indicates that I am a coward or a wimp. On the other hand, there are plenty of other administrators who could have acted while I was working that day, but didn't. You indicated that all this crazy aggressive behavior might be fodder for sociological research, and I agree. But I am an old construction worker, not a young sociologist. I operate pragmatically, by the seat of my pants, trying to do the right thing, as each incident crops up. Thanks again for the clarity with which you explained your thinking. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks v much for that, Cullen328. My ANI response[24] is how I see this incident in the context of a wider problem, and it's good to know that it made some sense.

I certainly don't think you are a coward or wimp. Quite the contrary; you did the really important thing of actually blocking them, when others prevaricated. That was the single most important step in the whole thing, and I am very glad you did it.

I don't think that length of that initial block was much of an issue. What matters is that there was any block, rather that yet more debate with the enablers. Looking at now, with all the benefit of time to reflect and the 20-20 vision hindsight, I think that the ideal block was in the range from more than 24 hours (to indicate that this was more than a std block), but no more than 7 days (because this was the first block in this episode).

To my mind, the point of that block was to make it abundantly clear that this editor needed to make a clean break by backing off hard from this conduct, and that what mattered most was their response to it. The ideal response would have been along the lines of "sorry, I deserved that; will sit out the block", and I would have hoped for at least an unblock request which expressed some sort of acknowledgement that the conduct was out of order, or an indication that there would no be repetition of the outburst.

In this case the user spectacularly failed that test, and it all went the way it went.

So please don't put yourself down. You were the admin who made a good call when it was needed, and that's a crucial talent in an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• (passer-by) Found myself reading into the history of the above event and wanted to leave a note on your talk page for great work you have done. Not only were your actions appropriate, but ironically, had your ban been supported, then the editor in question would probably have fully "powered down" and might still be editing today. However, your decision to withdraw your action on the basis of community consensus, speaks even more to your credit and that you are able to make rational decisions in difficult situations.

I myself have been subject abuse by such characters in WP, which almost led me to leave WP.

I have also seen the support that these characters receive to "compartmentalize" their poor behavior as temporarily acceptable. The logic is that WP needs such characters to protect it (like the "The Magnificent Seven") from the bad world. However, WP already has the policies to deal with bad behavior; we just need people like yourself to "press the button" and enforce it. Maybe we need a period of "hyper-blocking", where lots of people get a time-out, but it would change behaviors, and ironically, would probably prolong the ability of such characters to contribute to WP (as they all seem to blow-up in the end anyway, and end up like "Colonel Kurtz"). thanks again! Britishfinance (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia

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

You have just proposed that they be moved. The requests remain open for 48 hours to see if there are any objections.

Please wait until the processing starts before you alter the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The templates are what populate the categories.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, @Buaidh. That is precisely why I asked you to wait.

If you change templates before the 48 hours are up, the templates populate non-existent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headaches. I coordinate 6,825 regional user templates which populate about 1800 user categories. I am 70-years-old and I have a fatal blood cancer. I am anxious to get these regional user templates and categories straightened out before I go. Thank you for your understanding. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh, one of the consequences of creating such a huge and complex nest of interlinked templates is that maintenance becomes near-impossible for anyone else. It looks to me very like a closed platform (aka "walled garden").

The fact that you don't trust the experienced admins who process WP:CFDS to modify it accurately in the case of a simple country renaming seems to me to be confirmation of that. Admins such as @Fayenatic london, Ymblanter, Black Falcon, and Tim! and myself who regularly process that page are some of en.wp's most experienced admins in the intersection of categories and templates, and if we can't be relied upon to do this accurately, then the fault is in the structure.

Countries being renamed, achieving independence, or united with a neighbour is something which happens nearly every year. Over the last three decades, we have had a flurry of such changes in the former Yugoslavia, in central Europe, in the horn of Africa, and in the Caribbean, plus the renaming of Myanmar and of some African countries (e.g. Zaire, Swaziland). The next few decades will likely see some of the following: the breakup of the United Kingdom, further changes in Caribbean and in Africa, new states in the Caucasus, the Czech Republic being more widely known as Czechia ... and plenty more which I haven't considered.

So this needs ongoing maintenance. The list of countries has never been a static set.

If there is to be any chance that nest of templates and categories will stand any chance of being maintained when you are no longer around, then it needs to be both radically simplified and heavily documented. Otherwise it will become such a drain on editors' time and energies that it will have to be dismantled one way or another (probably by some combination of substing the templates and deleting many of the over-nested categories).

In the meantime, while you are maintaining this walled garden, please please please try to keep changes synchronised, to avoid cluttering Special:WantedCategories and its analogues with mismatches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of my current activity is to enhance documentation so these templates and categories can be maintained more easily. These templates and categories are intended to encourage participation of users, particularly users in small and non-English-speaking countries. What may appear to be a nest is actually the use of common parameter and documentation elements for each country or region. Changing one of these files changes all dependent templates simultaneously. I've been coding professionally for 48 years, so I do know a wee about maintenance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  (GreyHairedLad) talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do find it ironic that with BREXIT, Ireland will become the last English-speaking EU member state.  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Brexit is bringing a wealth of ironies for many.

Look, I know that you are skilled at coding. But remember, this is a Wiki, which is supposed to be easy to edit. Most editors and admins are not professional coders, so the more complex and interdependent you make the code, the less likely that it will be maintainable. It seems to me that what you are creating is a structure which would be fine in a professional coding environment, but en.wp is not a professional coding environment ... and as you acknowledge above it is not maintainable by the editors who actually need to maintain it.

I remain unpersuaded that these categories and userboxes have any meaningful impact on participation. In the course of admin work, I visit a lot of userpages, and AFAICS userboxes are a form of decoration which some users enjoy ... but in my experience there is a some sort of roughly inverse correlation between the number of userboxes and substantive content creation.

I have no desire to interfere with what editors do with their userpages, but if that decorative stuff imposes maintenance headaches on others, then we have a problem which will likely be resolved by simplifying the maintenance issues.

The common parameter and documentation elements thing is fine in theory, but in practice it only works if editors who need to make changes can quickly and easily find what changes are needed. On a wiki, most changes are handled simply by editing the pages directly. It works because nearly anyone can fix it easily, and while more edits may be required, the result is achieved quicker than reading piles of docs. That's why the wiki-coded category system works anyone can easily fix it.

You have created a structure in which that is not possible, and where as you have acknowledged, the editors who usually handle these issues can't figure it out. For example, the wiki approach is that it should be possible to handle the name change of these categories simply by editing the category pages. The fact that doesn't work is a major design flaw which will be rectified some day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is easy to edit and easy to corrupt. What I have created can be easily maintained and modified by any user. Some of my projects have survived unmodified for 28 years, and some were only designed for a few weeks. I have no desire for a lasting legacy, only short-term utility. Here today, gone tommorow.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, @Buaidh, but I think you identified the problem correctly the first time when you wrote if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headache. This system is maintainable only by you.

Today, those Macedonia categories were renamed. It too me >20 minutes to figure out what changes were needed where, which is ridiculous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You corrupted Template:User in North Macedonia, but I fixed it. Hopefully you will not encounter this problem again, but if you do, just ping me please.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh, thanks for your fix[25].

But the nature of the fix reinforces my point that this whole thing is ridiculously complex, and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I try to fix anything that I've worked on in the past ten years.

I don't want to take more of your time, but all of these 6,825 regional user templates can be deleted and we can just notify linked users to link directly to their regional user categories. This is not article namespace. It is not that important. The only reason I took on this project is because I was tired of being bullied in article namespace. Wikipedia is terribly ageist. I wish I'd told everyone that I'm 19. Anyway, best of luck to you and I'll see you around the campfire.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Buaidh, or BrownHairedGirl please fix Category:North_Macedonian_Wikipedians. Wikipedians in North Macedonia, regardless of their ethnicity, do not identify as "North Macedonian", and even by the Prespa agreement which changed the name of the country, they never agreed to be referred to as such. The nationality remains Macedonian. This is a sensitive issue, currently debated in a RfC, I guess there will be this type of problems for many categories, but this particular one can piss off a lot of Wikipedians. I don't think that anybody would like to find out he is a "proud North Macedonian" on his user page. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr, that sounds like an error.

But you would do better to post on Buaidh's talk page. Per the discussion above, the templates which create those categs are a mystery to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Argh, bad link. OK, thanks, I will talk to him. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully I have this fixed. If anyone has a problem please post to my talk page. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category|Controlled lakes

Greetings User:BrownHairedGirl. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the Control Lakes listing at the {{NYCwater}} template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page Controlled lake and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100

I did ping you![26]

However, I was working off the latest update of my list of redlinked cats, and had forgotten that having whittled down the 100 other entries which were there earlier today, the latest update was mostly going to be v recent edits. Looking at the page history, it seems I jumped way too quickly (only one minute after your last edit). I should have left it for longer; sorry about that.

I hope that my edit summary didn't come across as sarky. I have taken to trying to be more informative in edit summaries, so that's one of my new std summaries for these cases. I used to just write "category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT)", but that seemed a bit terse. Maybe the terse form is better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant ping me before ;) , a little heads up like "Did you mean to create this category? If not, I'm going to delete it." But I suppose that would take a bot to keep you from slowing down, then you'd get gummed up most the time waiting for someone to reply that may or may not get right back to you, ending up with an extra To-do list for you of categories you're holding off deleting awaiting word from the front. Or not.

Not so workable, I see now.

As for your edit summaries, the 2nd actually is much more helpful, even if may rub the over-sensitive user the wrong way a bit. It's more informative, and provides a better roadmap for the pingee to potentially follow.

I confess to a possible touch of such over-sensitivity on two grounds: one, in general, I am a very good and well-informed editor, with (shockingly, to me, anyway) a resume of writing for publication in one form or another over some six decades; in a single scant year seven. Consequently, I tend to get riled when other less thoughtful editors than yourself take their shoes off and tap out (something very close to) "I reverted Wikiuser100 because theyr a moran and deserve to be publically dumped on". (And because I can, I am.)

I'm not so crazy about having my username bandied so in edit summaries for others to see and think, "Gee, maybe he are right?" Or even, "Perhaps he's correct? I'm going to keep my eyes open for that guy." It didn't take you a million edits to run into or experience that.

And, two, it seems way too much of the last couple of days has been spent fending off reverts by users gifted with unnatural opacity of expression, blind obsession with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, stubbornness, cussedness, both, or pick any three out of four. It gets tedious. I apologize for snapping back. I saw a red ping and I wasn't a very good Pavlov's doggy. Keep up the good work. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification

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

BrownHairedGirl, I stumbled over this after it had fortunately blown over at AN, and I'm not about to spend time forensically analyzing precisely who said what in a sorry episode. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to drop you a note of thanks for your intervention, for your cogent explanation at AN, for deferring to apparent consensus by unblocking, and for standing up to attempted bullying in the aftermath. All too often, the actual working atmosphere at en:wp is remarkably at odds with our Civility pillar. You point to this as an important obstacle in being more welcoming to women. This is doubtless true, but it's worth stating for the record that it's not just women who are put off. I'm a (as it happens, male) genuine expert in one field and fairly knowledgeable in a few others, who happily contributes my professional expertise in several collaborative online communities, but stays on the fringes at Wikipedia for these and related issues. From discussions with peers, I know I'm not alone. Your approach, while somewhat controversial, is very defensible (with reference to wikipedia's pillars and values) and worth trying. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Martinp.

Standing up to the enablers can feel a bit lonely sometimes, so support is very welcome.

You're right to point out that it's not only women who are put off by the aggression of big beasts. There are so many ways in which this sort of thing has negative impacts, and it's very sad to see how much talent is not available to en.wp because of these antics.

I'm glad that you have niches which work for you, but it is v sad that Wikipedia is not a place where you feel comfortable sharing your talents. I wish I could say that I see signs of improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the big beast here. I've been reflecting on it, and I want to apologize to you for not discussing my concerns with you at your talk page before going elsewhere. My opinions remain the same, but I was wrong to go straight to AN, so I apologize for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Tryptofish.

I still think that your priorities are destructively wrong, but I guess we will continue to disagree on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing

Hii, I recently edited a page in which I add refrences but you removed that reference. In that reference I also mention the site so you must check this site before you remove it. I hope you should not have to do this type of irrelevant thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketkumar.sk (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Saketkumar.sk

Please see the edit summary on my revert[27]: Category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT), unlinked see-also, etc.

Please see WP:CITE for how to add references properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your user talk page

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

Hi Diannaa

Sorry it isn't working for you. It's fine on all my browsers (Opera, Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge), but I haven't tried it on a phone.

It was v kind of you to make a modified version, but unfortunately it breaks on my browsers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at it on an Acer Chromebook running chrome, and on an old Samsung phone. Ah well, food for thought anyway. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to say, it's not the browser that causes the issue; it's the width of the monitor. Try narrowing the width of the window in which you are viewing the page, and perhaps you will see how it looks for me. Also, clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says "mobile view" and narrowing the window to about 3 inches wide will reproduce how it looks on a phone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Diannaa.

I was able to replicate that, and I hope that this fix [28] has cured it for you.

Please could you let me know if it's OK now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The new version works really well on the phone, and works on the chromebook unless I take the zoom to 125%, at which point the archive box overlaps with the table of contents (I normally use 110% zoom). So that's a good fix; most people will not zoom at all. Thanks. Now I am working on converting the table at the top of my userpage to a navbox. The table gets all truncated on the phone and makes me look bad to all the savvy mobile younger set — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad that, worked, @Diannaa. Thanks again for the pointers.

Good luck in tweaking your page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:1736 in the French colonial empire‎

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

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

@Canti60: I am doing some big AWB runs. Is that a problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience --Canti60 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Canti60 No inconvenience --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

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

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

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

Non-existent categories

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

Hi Hugo999

That's good work fixing that, but there's no point in adding non-existing categories from new series. Many of categories you added were decade categories, which may be a useful addition, but not unless the page is created. That's why I reverted.

If you're going to go back and create the new cats, that's fine ... but it's best to cleanup at the end of each run, rather than leave it until another time.

BTW, have you noticed the oddity that we go from Cat:Crime in Country to Cat:YYYY crimes in country?

e.g. Category:Crime in Canada → Category:Crime in Canada by year → Category:2011 crimes in Canada

That's the naming convention for a set category, but it seems to me to be better to have a set+topic category, so that it could include e.g. anti-crime laws and police activities. Any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mango (poem)

Hi,

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

Hi ArmedHermit

Of course, there will be some discussion of the poet.

But Mango (poem) is not about the poet; it it about the poem. That is why I removed it from Category:Malayalam poets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Vivienne Ming

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

---

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

I hope this message finds you well!

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

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

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

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.

Another template in need of fixing

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

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

Hi WilliamJE

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

Question from new editor trying to understand review process

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

Hi @Fonduechocolatelove

There are lots of tools and processes for monitoring new pages and recent edits. For example, Special:NewPages and Special:RecentChanges.

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol has a large team of people monitoring the flood of vandalism and spam which hits wikipedia around the lock, and they have special tools for that. Then there are bots which monitor these things in various way, such as User:AlexNewArtBot, which placed your new page on User:AlexNewArtBot/MilitarySearchResult.

I found the article because it was categorised in a non-existent category, which I monitor through Special:WantedCategories and other tools.

You made a nice start on that article, and that's what really matters. The most important thing on Wikipedia is those who create properly-sourced, neutral content ... and you clearly have knack for that. So, personally, I hope you won't get sidetracked into the other processses.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for answering my question. Wow this all sounds complicated! I'll definitely be sticking to looking for interesting edits and people to write about! Fonduechocolatelove (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Abonnieren
• Archive

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

Draft

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

Hi LuckyDog19981114

See Wikipedia:Articles for creation .... in particular Wikipedia:Articles for creation#Review_and_publishing.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

striking item from RM

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

Oh I see now User:wbm1058 had removed the blank parameters, so maybe that was the actual problem? -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ooops!

Sorry, Netoholic. Sounds like I have wasted a chunk of your time in tracking down the problem.

Thanks for being so nice about it. As you guessed, I had no idea that would happen, and will take care not to do that again.

However, I'm a little unclear how best to handle this sort of thing if it does happen again. Have you unravelled it enough to give me some guidance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Bot operator here. The bot was caught in a loop trying to process that. I tried tweaking the code to get it out of the loop, but that only made it worse (spamming incorrect notices). Sorry about that. Removing the parameters entirely fixed it. I need to still patch the code so that leaving blank parameters doesn't break the bot's processing. wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi wbm1058. I'm sorry for breaking the bot, and glad the problem has been isolated.

After removing that template, I didn't want to renumber the next 20+ sections, and thought it was better to leave a blank like rather than remove it completely. Looks like I got that the wrong way round. Sorry

When you have time, it would be good patch the code. The situation seem to me to be likely to arise again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed See User talk:RMCD bot#Bot not working? I realized that renumbering 20+ items was a bother, so last September in response to another edit similar to yours, I enhanced the bot to accommodate removal of item(s) from a multi-move request, so that this didn't result in the request being deemed as "malformed". That was somewhat tricky to implement and made the code a little less elegant and easy to maintain. So rather than try to accommodate the undefined parameters left behind, I just made the bot report this as malformed, as it's relatively easy to remove the parameters vs. needing to renumber the items after them. wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Using existing categories instead of surreal ones…

Hi there.

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

Thanks, @Robby.is.on ... but it's actually not hard to avoid.

Simply preview the page before saving, and check the category list displayed at the bottom: redlinks there are an error.

Or, if you prefer, save and then what they PgDn key to scroll to the bottom and see if there are any redlinks, then edit again to fix them.

We all make mistakes in editing. But the important thing is to identify them and fix them before leaving the page, so that others don't have to clean up after us. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I do preview my changes. But I – sometimes – miss my mistakes. I usually change a bunch more things than just the category so there are lot more things to look out for… Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Request

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

Hi DdBbCc22

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

Hi. I'm with ducks unlimited Canada

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

If you are User:Lowedwayne, then please log in before posting.

Quick answer to what you did wrong: WP:EDITWAR, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

PS Since you say you are "with ducks unlimited Canada", you have a WP:Conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war?

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

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

AVK1994

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

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

CfD

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

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

@Bradv: It didn't stick. It was contested by another editor, whose move was reverted by JZG.

As to your next steps, I suggest that you

1. wait 6 months to see if the current title is still stable then, then try another CFR, when the claim of stability would be more plausible
2. administer a large WP:TROUT (or preferably a {{Whale}}) to JzG for performing what you rightly call a bold move on a contested topic
3. liberally administer more WP:TROUTs to all the other editors who participated in an informal discussion instead of holding a formal, properly-notified and independently-closed RM

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the other editor's move was not contesting JzG's move, it was a misguided attempt to close an RM discussion. I too wish that JzG hadn't reverted it himself, but this was already brought to ANI and dealt with there.

The reason for the long and retracted discussion over a new title was because there is a solid consensus that the old title was completely unacceptable, but no agreement on what further change needs to be made, if any. By any reading of that talk page, the consensus version is now the current title, not the POV title implying that there is a controversy. That title is completely unacceptable to all participants, and to settle on that here is thoroughly incorrect. I don't agree that we should be incorrect for another six months. Bradv🍁 20:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

JZG and others botched the renaming discussion. JZG botched the page move, and then botched the CFR nomination. His conduct was way below that expected on of an admin, and that is what has caused his mess.

There are three ways out now:

1. Leave it 6 months, as I suggested. No work, no drama
2. Take my closure to to WP:DRV.

I don't see any other path.

However, I do urge you take a long, deep breath and some decent period of time to reflect very carefully on your claim that the current category title is a POV title implying that there is a controversy. The current may or may not be a good title, but a claim that after 25 yeas of high-profile debates and disputes it is POV to say there is a controversy? Wow! Just, wow!

I will be blunt, Bradv, because this is serious. You have just reinforced my long-standing concern that there is some really bizarre POV-pushing going on around these topics. That's why in these WP:BATTLEGROUND areas, I allow no wiggle-room on consensus-forming procedure. The only antidote to this sort of reality-denial is properly-followed and properly-notified procedures, where the fanatics can be joined by those not so deeply embedded in one world-view that they are willing to deny the very existence of a high-profile controversy. As a historian (initially of the 16th-century religious upheavals in Europe), I find that sort of attitude chilling. Its echoes in the 20th century were very loud too --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a difference in opinion about the meaning and implications of the word "controversy". To me, using the word on a scientific or medical topic implies that there are scientists and medical professionals on both sides of the issue. This doesn't appear to be the case here - science and medicine are on one side, and some minor advocacy groups are on the other. Describing this as a controversy gives equal credibility to both sides, which is a major concern specifically when one side actively engaged in fraud and disinformation to upset the scientific and medical consensus and to mislead the public.

I'm not sure whether you use the word "controversy" differently than I do or if you dispute some of the facts surrounding this account, but I would invite further discussion on the article talk page. You are entirely correct that this is a serious issue, and it is imperative that we get it right. Bradv🍁 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: that is one of the core the issues which you and a few other editors need to work on.

Try a dictionary, e.g.

1. Merriam Webster: Definition of controversy: "1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : DISPUTE; The decision aroused a controversy among the students. 2 : QUARREL, STRIFE"
2. Oxford dictionaries: "Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. e.g. ‘the design of the building has caused controversy’"

By all means, take whatever POV you choose on the merits of the controversy ... but denying that there is any controversy because one side lacks standing according to the definitions of the other side is precisely the sort of propaganda technique used by totalitarians of all shades for the last 500 years. It is a framing which was fundamental to the propaganda models of Calvin's Geneva, of the Spanish Inquisition, of The Terror in revolutionary France, of Stalinism and of 1930s Germany.

By your logic, there was no controversy over Trinitarianism in Geneva; just a lone miscreant with no theological standing, Michael Servetus. By the same logic, there was no religious controversy over religion in Spain, just a few heretics who were dealt with according to law. And of course there was no controversy over collectivisation in Soviet Russia, just a few million kulaks who criminally acted as enemies of the people and were dealt with according to law.

You are keeping some appalling epistemological company. This is as far away from the core policy of WP:NPOV as it is possible to get. Shame on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

PS I should restate that I have no preference on the title of the category. But I really am appalled that you come to my talk page to claim that a title including the word "controversy" should not be allowed to stand because there is something POV about a failure to use Stalinist redifinition technique to deny the existence of a controversy. I am still horrified that anyone would seriously even try to approach a closer on that basis.

So by all means, have further discussions. But I have set out above the paths to changing the title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think I "botched" anything. The article title had been contended for a long time on the basis that there was never any real controversy, the entire thing was ginned up by antivaxers for money and ideology. There is some disagreement over what the eventual title might be, but strong consensus that whatever that title might be, "controversy" is incorrect because it gives undue weight to a fringe view. B2C's attempted supervote only comlicated things because the moves he made were incorrect for multiple reasons. I don't have any strong feeling about which of the five or six alternatives might be better than the current title, though I suspect a title with "hoax" or "fraud" in it might be more contentious with antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 04:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• @JZG: I find it utterly extraordinary that you deny something was a controversy because you believe that one side was clearly wrong, no matter how much evidence the is to support that view. Using the word "controversy" may or may not be a good way of framing the title, but ruling it out on those grounds is a transparent attempt to erase the fact that it was a major controversy in public policy.

And, sorry, but you did botch the renaming. An RM with consensus would have been given stability to the article title, and settled the issue. Instead you have created a messy situation where there is no explicit consensus, and only time will tell whether the article remains stable at the current title.

I have v little time for B2C (who I'd happily have seen permabanned years ago for WP:TE), but the situation now is that both you and B2C have been operating without a clear RM consensus. That could all have been entirely avoided if you had simply opened an RM instead of making a WP:BOLD move.

If there had been an RM consensus, then the category could renamed at CFDS per WP:C2D. You've closed that door for some time by acting BOLDly, and by your botched CFD discussion without full disclosure where there wasn't a clear consensus in your favour.

Just for the record, I personally think that "MMR vaccine and autism" is good NPOV title. But my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Fixed ping: @JzG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so your close was based on your opinion of the subject. I understand that. But th3 truth is that if we cast this as a controversy, then we end up describing the earth geometry controversy and the moon cheese controversy. The title "MMR vaccine and autism" is neutral amd does not imply any judgment on the subject. Obviously we should not give charlatans the right to a casting vote on what is a controversy and what isn't. Other proposals include hoax and fraud, I do not advocate those either. But controversy? Well, only in as much as antivaxers literally paid to make it one. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No, @JzG. As I stated above, my close was explicitly NOT based on my opinion of the subject

I explained my reasoning for my close in detail in reply @Bradv. My close was based on lack of a clear consensus, lack of a supporting RM, and yoir procedural failure to disclose key info.

In reply to you, I explained that my own personal preference is for the title which you proposed ... and that my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference.

Bradv had tried to persuade me to override all the other factors on the basis that the word controversy is POV, which I refuse to do. You have that tried again.

Even if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that controversy was based on fraud and deception and whatever, that does not cease to make it a controversy. I refer you to the dictionary definitions which I posted above for Bradv.

The use of the word "controversy" in such cases is a matter for consensus-building discussion to determine whether or not is appropriate. But what you and Bradv have been doing is to ask me to abuse my role as closer to overturn an outcome which reflects dictionary usage, on the basis that you two both reject the dictionary definition.

That is a disgraceful misrepresentation. You are an admin, and should conduct yourself much better than to invert someone's words like. I can respect honest disagreement, but that sort of wilful misrepresentation disgusts me.

Now get the hell off my talk page .. and stay off it unless and until you are willing to unequivocally retract that disgraceful inversion of my position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Of all the issues on which I expected you to climb the Reichstag, this was about the last. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion since you don't understand my perspective and I sure as hell don't understand yours. Guy (Help!) 04:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG:: it's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very simple.

You and Bradv want to define a controversy as not being a controversy if one side are what you believe to be bad guys. It is not clear whether you apply that principle to bad by objective or bad by tactics, or both; but that distinction is not really important. Wat matters is that you you make a value on the relative merits or otherwise of the opponents, and choose a label on that value basis.

I do not accept that this is an NPOV position ... so I will not use my role as closer to impose that view on a discussion which has not reached a consensus.

It may be the consensus outcome of a renaming discussion, but it is not one which I will impose against a consensus or in the absence of a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi Newyorkbrad

Sorry, I meant WP:DRV. Now corrected.

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

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

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

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

WP:TROUT

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

@Koavf:

1. use WP:TWINKLE
2. On the drop-don box where by default it says "delete", select "merge"
3. Below that enter the first merge target
4. Type the rationale
5. Press submit, and you will be taken to the CFD page.

The above covers all cases where you want to merge one Category to one target.

For multiple merge targets, simply edit the nomination in front of you to add any further merge targets.

So there it is. Easy. Hundreds of other editors do it routinely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not possible. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: So you really find that not easy?

Really? Is that your idea of joke?

Or are you genuinely, honestly telling me that after two million edits you have such severe WP:COMPETENCE issues that you find it impossible to use the second option on a drop-down menu? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote: there is no way to choose both targets with Twinkle, so I'd have to manually re-edit it. Your concern that someone can't see the entire rationale from the category itself and has to go to CfD to actually read is... pointless? If anyone suggested a category I created for deletion and I cared at all, I would look at the CfD itself to read the discussion. Since there is no ability with the semi-automated tool to choose both parents as a target then I don't know why you're suggesting it, since I used Twinkle in the first place. Your suggestion is to use a tool that I already used to accomplish something that can't be accomplished with it to benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held? Is that your idea of a joke? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Please do grow up and stop nitpicking about whether Twinkle does every step for you. I never claimed that it does that: what I wrote[29] was It's really v v easy to use WP:TWINKLE to create a nomination which actually says "merge Cat:X to Cat:Y". AS above, you can use it to do ~90% of the job, and and then do one more easy step. The whole cycle can be done in 20 seconds or less.

This is all v simple. It's about communication, namely clearly signposting a proposal so that editors can make a rapid decision on whether they want to engage further.

You ask benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held?

Simple: because they want to make an early decision on whether it does interest them ... and provide accurate and complete info at the signposting stage helps them make that choice with minimum time-wasting. You contemptuously choose to give them inaccurate and incomplete info.

It's all a very similar issue to edit summaries. Yes, any editor can open up any edit and see what it did. But per WP:FIS, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." Clear CFD listings are just like that: they help other editors decide whether to read further. When an edit summary is missing or uninformative, every other editor who sees the edit (in a page history, watchlist, recent changes list, user contribs list etc) has waste time finding out for themselves what the editor could and should have conveyed in the summaries. Same with XFD listings.

You seem to have an active hostility to the very concept of effective communication, so I'm going to spell this out for you.

As I shown above, there is very simple and easy method by which you can:

A/ ensure that CFD tag is as clear as possible about what is proposed

B/ ensure that the summary at the top of the entry on CFD daily Log convey accurately what is to be done

This is not about other editors being lazy. It is about the fact that XFD listing discussion pages are long, so most editors speed-read XFD listing pages, skimming and scanning to make a set of triaging steps on each section. e.g.

1. What categories are involved (the heading)
2. What is proposed to do with them (in the listing)
3. Why is this proposed (in the rationale)
4. has there been much discussion? (see how big the discussion is)
5. What arguments are being made? (read the discussion)

The sooner and more clearly the info is presented, the better they make an assessment of whether to invest more time going further into the listing. This is about how clear communication helps other editors to decide how much more of their limited time to invest. You description of them as lazy is deeply contemptuous of your fellow editors.

So look at that CFD for Category:American Jewish conservatives.

1. The speed-reader sees the heading. Intersection of religion and politics: I might be interested. But what's involved? so proceed to read the listing
2. They look at the listing. What? Delete? Why while Jewish Conserbvatives no longer be categorised as Conservatives? so read the nominator's rationale
3. Read the rationale. It begins with "/Upmerge". WTF, I thought the listing says "delete"? What's this about?
   Glance back at the listing. Yes, it says delete. Nominator is confused, maybe the next sentence says more.
   So read on. But no mention of what those parent categories are. Grrr.
   So ctrl-clock tto open up the category page, and scan to the bottom to see the parent categories: Category:American Jews and Category:American conservative people.
   Ahh!!!OK, they will still be categorised by both attributes. I don't mind either way whether or not that merger happens, so move on.

All of that third step would be entirely un-needed if you had the basic courtesy to use the tools in front of you to spend only an extra few seconds of your time listing the actual proposed action and the merge targets. But because you are lazy and/or arrogant and/or contemptuous of your fellow editors, you force every single one of them of them to spend more time finding out for themselves what you could so easily have told them in a few seconds.

That applies to each person who assess that entry. So do a few sums.

That page has had 675 pageviews. Be generous, say each reader came back 5 times. So that 135 difft readers.

Say that half of those read beyond the headline, to figure out what that nomination was proposing to do.

It's likely to take each of them took 20 seconds to open up Category:American Jewish conservatives to check the parent cats which you say are the merge target. Maybe more, but let's take a short time. Multiply that out: 135 X 20 seconds = 45 minutes.

That's right. You refusal to spend a few seconds of your own time clearly conveying that proposal has wasted 45 minutes of other editors time. That's very selfish behaviour.

And that's 45 minutes for every single category which list with incomplete, or contradictory info.

I am very glad that you have no responsibility for motorway signage. Because if you were in charge, you'd be saying something like "why bother making these huge motorway signs like this? Why benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to leave the motorway to find out where the junction leads to?"

And you'd probably remove the smaller signs on local which show the name of the street, benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to get out, knock on a door, and ask "what street is this".

I just took a look at your latest 500 edits: almost zero non-automated summaries. So your are consistent in your non-communication ... but you have been on en.wp long enough to know the long-standing bolded guidance that It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. What a selfish attitude to bring to a collaborative project like Wikipedia . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What is selfish about this? Why is it you think that you are the only person who writes this kind of stuff to me? What is it about you that in 2M+ edits, I only butt heads with one person? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly as I expected: no substantive answer, not even an acknowledgement of the case I made. Just deflection.

(I did hope for better, which is why I took the time to reply, but my expectations were v low).

Why do you only butt heads with one person? As you know, that's not actually the case. But it seems that most others give up much sooner in the face of your sustained passive aggression, as happened here[30]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY

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

@Levivich: wow that gave me a headache - does this mean: "To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you"? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:, I wouldn't even have tried to decipher that without @DannyS712's help!

Anyway, sorry that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Category:African-American_football_quarterbacks didn't end up the way you wanted. But I think that WP:EGRS is clear.

I'm glad the list helped. (WP:AWB is great for that: it grabs the list, saves it formatted, making it a 30-second job to publish the list. If you use AWB for absolutely nothing else, and don't want to edit with it, then it's still worth getting AWB just for the list-making.)

So ... TYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and Levivich: or just use User:DannyS712/Cat links. Also, "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'"? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

TATD4DMTYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTYHFCWKTG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: no --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Thanks also to Danny for" DM? "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'" HFCWKTG? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Haha – yup, that's exactly what it meant. I'm fine with the CfD outcome, a list article is a better way to present this information anyway. Honestly, I find the category policies incomprehensible; diffusion confusion twists me around until I can't tell upmerge from downmerge. But they are very useful for finding stuff, so I'm thankful there are other editors who take care of it all so I don't have to worry about it :-) Thanks also for the suggestion about AWB, I'll check it out. Leviv ich 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks, @Sadenar40000

Another admin deleted them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Vivienne Ming

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

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

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

Martin Francisco Artist profile

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

Sorry, @Kara lswick, but I don't have time to help.

I see that on your talk page there is an invitation to Wikipedia:Teahouse. That's a good place to ask for help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center

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

Hi @Silverije, please do sign your posts. See WP:SIG.

The links you added are labelled as "external links", not references.

They are indeed from different sites, but all of them are involved in promoting the memorial centre.

So none of them are the independent, reliable sources required by WP:V, and also required by WP:GNG to establish notability.

Wikipedia is not a promotional website. If an article is based solely of affiliated sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the things like that, then every source or site is a kind of promotion of something, isn't it? Furthermore, I hardly believe that added links are closely associated/affiliated; they just talk about the same facts that perhaps could be looked at as a promotion. The most important fact is that the Memorial Center exists and operates (see plenty of photos!) and there is no doubt about its notability. Nevertheless, I found more sources, including scientific works, and I'll try to settle the matter, hoping that it would suit your requirements.

P.S. There is a huge number of articles with a single source (or maybe two or three of them) which has been existed for years (e.g. Oldest House Museum or Bankside Gallery or Kathryn Tucker Windham Museum etc. etc.). Should all of such articles be deleted? Or it's better to improve them? Regards, --[[User:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:purple; padding:2px 3px 2px 5px;">Silve</b>]][[User talk:Silverije|<b style="display:inline; color:orange; background:blue; padding:2px 3px 2px 3px;">rije</b>]] (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bots and AWB

I'm not a bot or AWB user but I appreciate the suggestion. At the bottom of this thread [31] Certes ran two reports. The first one is portals with less than 20 new articles (he's got a weird way of defining it). I'd like someone to MfD the whole batch of 435 with a link to his post and that whole thread. That will sweep up both some of TTH's and some creations by his followers. The sweetest part is these were identified as too narrow within the project's own existing guidelines by a project member. I've done a lot of portal MFDing so it would be better if someone like you could take the lead on this, especially since I don't have the skills to automate. TTH insists every portal needs a delete tag on it BTW. Direct link to the report [32] Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)