User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 045

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

IPA-arn[edit]

Perhaps it's early or late where you are, but your recent edits to {{IPA-arn}} are rather perplexing. Mapudungan and Mapuche are synonyms, which is why Mapudungun redirects to Mapuche language. As you can see from the article Mapuche language, "Mapudungan" is a bolded term in the lede, which means that they refer to the same thing.

Your revert prompted me to notice that Mapuche is apparently the more common term, which is why I changed the template accordingly. This is what you should have done rather than revert. Yet you've now reverted the template to again refer incorrectly to Aragonese (the ISO code for Aragonese is an or arg. The ISO code for Mapuche/Mapudungan is arn which is an error that my edit fixed and your revert restored) with the nonsensical rationale that Mapudungan doesn't exist, even though it does and, more importantly, my new edits don't mention Mapudungan. It looks a lot like you're not paying attention to your edits, which is really a poor practice because you'll make stupid mistakes like that. Please slow down and pay closer attention. I'll give you time to fix your error. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeusoes1: my only interest in this is that the template has been placed in a non-existent category, which is always an error per WP:REDNOT.
I explained that in the edit summary of my latest revert[1].
I did not say that Mapudungan doesn't exist. I said twice that Category:Mapudungun language does not exist ... and in my latest revert I wrote explicitly If it should exist, please create it. Which part of that is unclear to you?
So ... please slow down and pay closer attention to what you are doing and to what has already been explained to you.
Feel free to fix your error whenever you are ready to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to throw my words back at me like I'm not paying attention won't work. What part of this edit mentions Mapudungun language? What sort of sense does it make to address a non-existent category by making a blanket revert, rather than removing the mention of the category? You've been here long enough. You should know better. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: this would be a very good time for you to take a break and reflect a little.
Then come back and actually read what was written. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit[2], @Aeusoes1. I'm glad to see that you did finally read the edit summaries.

Best wishes for a happy new year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I was able to figure out what you wanted. But in the future, please try to be less disruptive in your approach. Removing a category that you didn't think should be there is a much more amenable solution to the issue you were having than reverting to an even worse version. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: So much for my happy new year wishes
In future, please do try to
  1. actually read what is written in the edit summaries of reverts
  2. if you are unclear about the issue, or surprised by it, then trying making your initial approach in less hostile terms. You will find that it helps considerably in resolving an issue
  3. When an editor offers you an olive branch please consider taking it
That way you will much less disruptive than you have been here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I can explain how it looks to me. I made an edit that you felt had the problem of creating a red-link category. If this was your only issue, then a blanket revert is not part of good-faith editing:
  • WP:QUO recommends that, rather than completely revert an edit that has a problem, "make a good-faith effort to reword" the edit.
  • WP:REDNOT (which I know you're familiar with) says that, when there is a red-linked category "the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists."
In this case, properly addressing the issue you had would be a matter of changing a single word. You did not make that good-faith effort. That's problem number one on your part.
The second problem comes in your poorly worded edit summary. Your first edit summary said that "Mapudungun redirects to Mapuche language" which now seems to be a red herring if the issue is just about the category (prompting me to erroneously think you thought Mapudungun didn't exist). You then said that "Category:Mapudungun language" didn't exist but didn't make reference to WP:REDNOT, which made me think you were using that as evidence that Mapudungun didn't exist.
Given the poor wording, I misunderstood your issue and attempted to address my own concern (that IPA-arn should make reference to the correct language) while also hoping that referring instead to Mapuche instead of Mapudungun would address what I thought was your concern (again, given your poor wording). Your second revert again made reference to there not being a category titled "Mapudungun language" even though my second edit made no reference to such a category. If this second edit summary had said "Category:Mapuche language does not exist either", then I would not have gotten the impression that you weren't paying attention.
So it seems to me like you did a poor job of explaining reverts that you should not have made in the first place. On top of all this, you've approached the matter with a strange defensiveness, acting as though I am being hostile by providing constructive criticism. I thought I was being generous by suggesting that you were just not paying attention, but your behavior here tells me that this sort of bad-faith editing and antagonistic talk-page behavior might be more an entrenched feature of how you normally act here, which is concerning. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1, enough already. I got bored with your drama a long time ago, and I am not even going to read this.
You didn't read what was written, got angry, and eventually read and sorted it. Done. Time to drop the stick.
Now please go off and have a very happy new year.
Seriously. Go be happy. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. How can I be angry with such rich irony? You have a happy new year, too. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fungus - needs for a new category[edit]

A large number of fungi are global in their distribution - placing them in such a category would obviate the need to laboriously list individual countries by name Cheers Paul venter (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) There is Category:Cosmopolitan species and a new category could be created under that and Category:Fungi by location. Note: We have generally been moving away from categorizating organisms (e.g. birds) by individual countries (in favour of larger regions) - e.g. see my notes at User:DexDor/BioGeoCat. DexDor (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colombian expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom[edit]

Evening, it was my understanding creating cats like the one above was to be avoided as too specific (in theory there would be 150+ for Colombian sportspeople in X country, 150+ more for X sportspeople in Finland, and every other combo (22,500 categories if my very unreliable arithmetic is right!). So the combo of Xish expatriates in Yland, Xish expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] and Expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] in Yland would suffice. However, I can't think where I read it (probably WP:FOOTY but that's a big project to search through) and not sure if it is still current, and could be wrong altogether! Maybe double-check with someone more credible than me? Thnaks, all the best. Crowsus (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Crowsus, and thanks for your message.
Two points:
  1. The actual number of potential categories involved is much less than the maximum you suggest, simply because we don't have articles on expatriate sportspeople from each country in every other country. I have already done a lot of work on Category:Expatriates by country of residence+subcats, Category:Expatriates by nationality+subcats, ensuring that each of them is parented in a bilateral relations category (per Category:Bilateral relations by country) e.g. Category:Ruritania–Xanadu relations. I think we now have a comprehensive set of bilateral relations categories, so that each "Cat:Foo–Bar borders", "Cat:Foo–Bar military relations", "Cat:Ambassadors of Foo to Bar", "Cat:Fooian people of Barian descent", "Cat:Fooian expatriates in Bar", etc, is parented in a Cat:Foo–Bar relations. But as of a few minutes ago, we have only 7,770 Cat:Foo–Bar relations. So I am confident that the set of "Cat:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar" to amount to much less than that. My current guesstimate is around 3,000.
  2. The reason I am doing this is that en.wp's systemic bias towards sports biogs combines with the globalised nature of the market for professional sportspeople to ensure that in nearly every one of the hundred-plus "Cat:Fooian expatriates in Bar" which I have checked as part of this exercise, over 90% of the entries have been for sportspeople. This overwhelms all other types of biography, which is why i think it's worth subcatting the sportspeople.
I stumbled into this because in working on Special:WantedCategories, I have found repeated examples of redlinked categories in this area, and notice that there is an extensive set of "Cat:Fooian expatriate basketball people in Bar", few of which were parented by a "Cat:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar". So I started by fixing that parenting in a big AWB run, and in doing so I checked out the expatriates categories, which is when I spotted the mostly-sportspeople issue.
Anyway, let's discuss more if you like.
Either way, happy new year! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, totally see your point about such a large percentage of the bios being sportspeople. It just stuck my mind that soon after I started editing properly two years ago, someone had advised that was a bad idea, but can't remember if that opinion was directly to me or I just read it in a discussion, or where that was, or if it was someone with actual expertise on the subject or just someone making bold pronouncements (I am a bit better at telling them apart now). I don't have any need to debate it further, whatever you think is fine by me, and I'll try to spot new additions and get them on relevant articles. Happy New Year when it comes! Crowsus (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Crowsus.
Here's one example which I am just about to tackle now. Category:Brazilian expatriates in South Korea contains 295 pages. Petscan says that 293 of those are in Category:Brazilian sportspeople+subcats.
There have been a lot of discussions about this over the years, but I think that subcatting the sportspeople fits all the categorisation policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

The Socratic Barnstar
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written argument against some of the nonsense masquerading as research that is invading our lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing categories[edit]

Thanks for the tip on the Olympic categories. TBH, I'd just copied the last one that was used that had the individual events pages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, @Lugnuts:.
I made a lot of Olympic templates earlier this year, and finished deploying them on Winter Olympics categories. But I didn't finish the job on the Summer Oly. So it's my fault for leaving an unfixed cat lying around to set a bad example.
Anyway, happy new year to you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And a happy new year to you, too. Gold medals all round! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For You Help[edit]

You helped me edit my first page submission https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ramon_Rivas_Musical_Artist_Audio_Engineer&action=history and I just wanted to say thank you and ask a question. Was that the only error you noticed? Do you have any other recommendations? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingfreeman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wanderingfreeman
I am sorry to say that there are still many problems there. Rather than list them all, I will ask you to focus on the most importnat: there are are no references to any independent reliable source. Without those, WP:GNG is not met, so there can be no articles.
Please take some time to study WP:V and WP:RS.
Hope this helps!
Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages/articles including recorded pronunciations[edit]

Hi, I see that you have created Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories, and Dreamy Jazz also has moved Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. to Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. But there are still Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories. Do you think that these should also be renamed "Pages...", or should we have separate "Pages..." and "Articles..." categories?

I'm of the opinion that these should only be added via templates such as {{IPA-de}} and {{Audio-IPA}} (otherwise it'd be really hard to maintain) and I'm for having only "Pages..." categories and getting rid of "Articles". Nardogy (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: Hello. I had moved the categories as portals started being placed in them as these portals were using the template. Because portals are not articles, I moved the category to reflect this. I did not know about the other categories; if they do include portals I would advise that they are moved to reflect this. We could instead have separate categories for articles and portals but this seems unnecessary. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, I assume you don't disagree with Dreamy Jazz? (Not pressing you, just asking since you seem active now. Also pinging Timrollpickering, who edited Template:Audio-IPA.) Nardog (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I didn't take a view on which form is best.
I just spotted the redlinked category at Special:WantedCategories (or my own fork thereof), and since a redlinked category is always an error per WP:REDNOT, I created the cat pages as tracking categories since that was what the seemed to be.
Looking at it now, I can see a case for categorising them all as pages, or alternatively for using one of the namespace detection templates to put articles in an article cat, and others in "pages". This is a simple case, so {{Category other}} should be enough for the namespace detection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I'm planning on an overhaul of IPA templates anyway, so I'll unify them as "Pages..." and make it so that they will be added only through those templates and on non-talk/user pages, if that's okay. Nardog (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I am a new Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persononthinternet (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev/Kyiv in proper names[edit]

Dear BrownHairedGirl, thank you for your attention to the Ukrainian names. I know about big battle for keeping the precedent of russified spelling of two particular Ukrainian cities in Wikipedia. And I have no intention to put an overnight edit just for the principle. But... there is a nuance. All proper names of institutions, sports teams, companies etc, containing names of places, are written according to their official English names ie Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany) (placed in Kiev), mobile operator Kyivstar, soccer club FC Dynamo Kyiv with home field in Kiev, and number of other. As I understand, WP:P-NUK does not go as far as changing official names of universities, businesses and sports teams. Also, there is an official policy of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to promote correct non-russified spelling abroad. I just try my best to work in that small split of legal ambiquity. There is also an informal campagne #KyivNotKiev in media. I hope this will increase the presence of the new form and will make it more common. The whole issue is very traumatic because every day some Ukrainian people are killed, kidnapped, tortured by Russians. I hope, this will end sooner or later, but Ukraine will never return back under Russian rule, so there is no big sense in keeping Kiev instead of Kyiv. Will be glad to hear your thoughts in this matter. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mykola Swarnyk, and thanks for your message.
I am not sure why you have written to me about this. I done very little editing on Ukraianian topics.
So, I have not formed any substantive view on which names would be best. I know too little about the topic, and while I might read up on it some day, I have not done so yet.
The only edits I recall in this area have been correcting categories where someone had replaced "Kiev" with "Kyiv", and thereby placed the page in a non-existent category. Per WP:REDNOT, that is an an error which needs to be corrected.
In contentious areas such as this, it is especially important to work within consensus and not make WP:BOLD changes of names where there is contoversy. Sometimes the consensus can be frustrating, but consensus can change. If editors reach a consensus at a WP:RM discussion to rename an article, then the corresponding category should be speedily renamed to match (via a WP:C2D nomination at WP:CFDS)... but simply changing the category entry at the bottom of a page does not rename the category.
Hope this helps. And happy new year!
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for prompt and fast answer. I only asking about one revert of the name of the Kiev National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University, which proper name, according to its official web-site starts with Kyiv. Please help me with this particular category, let have it named by the official name of the University. With best wishes, Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's the page. I had forgotten about that.
@Mykola Swarnyk, please see the edit summary which I used when I reverted your undiscussed move: revert undiscussed move by User:Mykola Swarnyk, contrary to WP:P-NUK. If you want to move it, open a WP:RM discussion.
I have nothing to add to what I wrote then. If you want to move the page, open a WP:RM discussion. You don't need my help to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lukas Graham[edit]

@BrownHairedGirl, I already created the Category of Lukas Graham. So I have put the category back to this portal. Thanks Happypillsjr ✉ 00:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another brown haired girl really needs your help[edit]

Hi there!

I noticed on this page that you made two revisions to Eric Corley's page today. This is of huge interest to me because Eric is entirely responsible for me being arrested at Stony Brook University on Friday the 13th of April last year, and who knows what else.

I have the most important story this world will ever know. I put [REMOVED] in hopes of getting someone to hear me.

I have my 7th court date on Monday, but nothing will change until I get the media attention I deserve.

Mindy ;) --Mindology18 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mindology18.
I am sorry to hear of your trouble. Being arrested sounds horrible.
However, I don't think I can help.
The edits which I made to that page were purely technical, relating to the categorisation of the article. I know nothing about Eric Corley beyond what I read today on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's policy is very clear: it is an encyclopedia, which publishes only content which has already been published elsewhere in relaible sources. Wikipedia does not publish original material. Policy is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
So I suggest that you contact local journalists, start a blog or website, use Twitter and Facebook, etc.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your millionth edit.[edit]

The Very Special Barnstar
Congratulations on your millionth edit! ϢereSpielChequers 05:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @WereSpielChequers!
Some part of the software gave me an automated notifiucation when I hot the number, but it's lovely to get a human note too. (And I know you are a real human, not a meatpuppet for CMU's Facebook-funded social experiment! ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that was an interesting discussion, glad to see they listened a bit and stopped their project. I still hang out on the research mailing list, but it is a fruitless endeavour, lots of academics who are obsessed with running their own experiments rather than measuring things that are already there. I wish all experimenters had a more rounded education with a few weeks on an archaeological dig using a trowel and their own eyes. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WereSpielChequers. more rounded education is needed in so many spheres. It is depressing that ethics and philosophy of science are barely addressed in most science degree courses. I would like to see them compulsory and central. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations and thanks as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there[edit]

You are a amazing admin!!!!! Be happy for years to come!!!Inalol (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Inalol[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Just found you making a minor edit on Mashrafe Mortaza. Ended up being a creep and appreciating your work as a veteran. ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding nut[edit]

Hey BHG, when you have a moment, could you please look at Category:Skateboard shoe companies? It was created by a new account and both the cat and the articles they've added to it look wrong. I edited it but only to remove the unnecessary intro and the alleged subcats. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bbb23, and sorry for the slow reply. But time to wish you a happy new year!
Anyway, i took a look at the category, and it seems broadly ok to me. It seems that Skateboard shoes are a genuine speciality, and when I checked the first 4 pages in the category, they do indeed seem to major in that market: Circa (company), Converse (shoe company), DC Shoes, DVS Shoes. So making skateboard shoes seems pretty much a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
So I have restored the parent categories and trimmed article-lede-style the intro down to a brief {{catexp}}.
The one tweak I would suggest is a WP:C2D renaming to Category:Skate shoe companies, per the head article Skate shoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England, 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. EchetusXe 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I was using my sandbox to show an in-process page to a friend, did not think about category implications. Appreciate the little how-to. Jessamyn (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jessamyn, and sorry. Looking at your userpage, you seem v experienced, so I was probably teaching you old tricks.
Hope your friend wasn't put off by the intrusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I seriously didn't know that bit of information and was happy to learn it. I'm always trying to "step up my game" here and that will help. Happy new year. Jessamyn (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks + invitation[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

E futbolistas Miguel Ángel López Mérida Merida Lopez (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Ángel López Mérida futbolistas retirado militó en club jaguares de Chiapas México club atlas 17 club tigre 18 es un ex futbolistas mexicano en la década 2000 milito en club Cartagena de costarrica se le recuerda por su habilidad con el balón y sus gambetas hacia los contrarios lamentablemente sus lesiones constantes lo marginaron de grandes competencias en el fútbol mexicano y en el fútbol internacional seleccionado mexicano sub 15 🇲🇽 Merida Lopez (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RonBot help[edit]

Could you stop User:RonBot? The bot is malfunctioning, see WP:ANI#Malfunctioning bot. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Stanley Cup Finals ECP[edit]

I notice that you applied extended-confirmed protection to 2000 Stanley Cup Finals. Was this in error? I can't see any bad edits by autoconfirmed-but-not-extended-confirmed accounts. Is the edit-warring on categories a pattern of behaviour that you expect to escalate to the use of such accounts? --Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaris678
Well-spotted, ad thanks for your msg.
Yes, I meant it to be autoconfirmed. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new pep[edit]

hi brownhaired girl im new here and was wondering if u have any tips for me so that its easier for me to get around here-plz reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLACKINKHEART, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I have left a message on your talk page with a set of links about how things work, and also an invitation to the WP:Teahouse, which exists to help new editors talk with more experienced editors.
Hope this helps ... and happy editing.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i have recieved the links those really helped — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

welcome[edit]

so when i like make a page everyone can access it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on deleted T.S. Eliot "Jacob Epstein" sub-section[edit]

I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.

Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994

Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein

WikiParker (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, @WikiParker. However, my edits to that page have been trivial technicalities, and I don't want to get involved in the substance.
But good luck in building a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Autism quackery[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Autism quackery. 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. Hhkohh (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Category:FC Lokomotiv Tashkent seasons[edit]

Good morning. I see that you fully protected this category as a high-risk Lua module. I assume this is not what you wanted to do. Could you please have a look? (Nothing urgent, I tagged it now for speedy move).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mornin, @Ymblanter!
Oops! I meant to protect it against move-warring, but mislabeled the protection. Sorry.
The threat seems to have passed, since the editor did take it to WP:CFDS. I have lifted the protection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-posting articles that have been deleted[edit]

Hi, what are the rules for re-posting articles that were deleted. Does on have to wait a certain amount of time to re-post or give a valid reason why they did so? Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidgoodheart
Time is not an issue. The question to be asked before recreating a deleted page is whether the issues which led to its previous deletion have been resolved. See WP:Deletion policy for an explanation of policy.
If there is a particular page which prompts your question, then if you point me to that page, I could use that example to illustrate some of the issues.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. One does have the right to re-post if one wants to do don't they, that is not against the rules. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Davidgoodheart
It is a very bad idea to look at editing Wikipedia as a matter of rights.
It is much better to see it as a matter of responsibilities, e.g.
.. and so on.
In this case, you have a responsibility not to re-post deleted material unless you have resolved the issues which led to its deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey finals articles[edit]

Hi BHG, there's been a request at WP:RFPP for 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, 2000 Stanley Cup Finals, and 2020 NHL Winter Classic to be unprotected. Your input would be welcomed as the protecting admin. Cheers, Fish+Karate 14:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the msg, @Fish and karate
I have replied[3] at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin González[edit]

Darwin González is signed for etoile sportive du sahel teame of Tunisian league going from deportivo de la Guerra Venezuelan team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.159.150.222 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that grand for him.
But I have no idea why I needed to hear this news. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought on submission replacement[edit]

Dear Administrator,

I have been attempting to replace or complement a defamatory article on Dan Dale Alexander. More than two years ago, I submitted a 15 page paper which I believed was to be published with one minor change. It was not. Recently, I submitted a three page article with 32 references, which was printed, then retracted, then printed, then retracted. A supportive statement was also submitted by Ronald Frank, D.H.M. My recent submission and the statement by Dr. Frank address issues raised in the original Wikipedia article. My scholarly paper cites the work of many respected physicians who similarly claim the benefit of Omega 3 essential fatty acid on arthritic conditions. Please let me know what my next best step might be in assuring that my viewpoint is published with full protection.

I would greatly appreciate your response to my email address.

Sincerely, Dean Alexander, Ph.D.

deanalexanderphd@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.76.210 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dean
I will discuss the content of Wikipedia articles only here, on Wikipedia. That way all the discussions are publicly visible.
At Talk:Dan Dale Alexander, there is a note[4] that you are a relative of Dan Dale Alexander. If that is the case, then you have a Conflict of Interest. That means that you should not edit the article directly: see WP:COI.
Per WP:COI, you are welcome to post concisely at Talk:Dan Dale Alexander describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made.
Note that all Wikipedia content must be verifiable in published reliable sources which are independent of the subject. If you are aware of such sources which may be relevant to the article, please post those on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikIProject Country templates[edit]

You applied some non-existent WPbanners. See WP:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Please fix --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the pointer, @Redrose64. After my latest tagging run, I had intended to keep an eye open for an update of that Database report, but your reminder was v helpful.
I have created redirects or wrappers for all of those templates, except for the one which was based on a typo in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
So the immediate issue is resolved, and any other editor wants to do mass tagging will find that the templates are available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category page up for deletion for perhaps too long[edit]

Hi, this page Category:American Christians has been up deletion for a while now, most people want to keep it. When will this be resolved? Isn't there a time limit for this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart, WP:CFD discussions are eligible for closure after 7 days.
However, admins are volunteers like every other editor, so like any other discussion it will be closed when an admin feels like closing it.
There is currently a significant backlog of unclosed CFDs. See WP:CFDAC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for responding to me so quickly lately, and that I think that you are a very good administrator. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse at CfD[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I should have better explained my switch of Collapse to Hidden. You might not be aware, but even though these templates look similar, they work quite differently, and that has a big impact on WP:Accessibility. Collapse uses a wikitable, and hidden uses "div". While collapse is fine for collapsing big things like whole sections or tables, when it is used in the middle of section of regular text, it interrupts the text with what for visually impaired Wikipedians using screen readers is a largely inaccessible and "expensive" table. Because Hidden uses div, it doesn't have this "showstopping" effect on screen readers, so it is much better for collapsing text in the middle of a discussion. Regrettably, like most accessibility issues on Wikipedia, this distinction is not well documented, although you can see it in Template:Collapse Templates, which distinguishes Collapse as "basic" and Hidden as for "discussion". Would you mind if I switched it back to Hidden? --Bsherr (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsherr: sorry, but I would mind.
I wasn't aware of that accessibility issue, so thanks for telling me about it. Accessibility is obviously important.
However, {{hidden}} lacks the contrasting bg colour, which removes the coloured bar which provides a clear indication that there is a large block of hidden content. Due to established usage of {{collapse}}, editors at CFD expect such a visual indication when a list of categories is hidden, and removing that is disruptive to the discussion.
I obviously want to assist visually-impaired editors, and have no desire to impede them, but that should be done without such significant degradation of utility to the majority of editors who are not visually-impaired.
So using {{hidden}} in the way that you used it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_January_20#Expatriates_from_Georgia_(country) was a significant net negative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just about the color? Because Hidden has a parameter to set a background color. (I note it's used elsewhere on the page without the background color). --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: For me, yes. I haven't seen {{hidden}} used with a bg color, but if it can produce something which resembles {{collapse}} but improves accessibility, then it'd be a great idea. Can you do a demo? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! See below:
{{hidden|headerstyle=background-color: #CCFFCC|Demonstration|Content}}
Demonstration
Content
--Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Bsherr. That looks great. Would you be kind enough to apply it to that CFD?
Is there any reason not to convert {{collapse}} to use a HTML div rather than a table? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Yes, that's a good question. Possibly there is no reason not to. In theory, they accomplish the same result. That would be a big change, so we would want to look closely at how it's being used to make sure there is no unintended consequence. You might be interested to know that the same issue, wikitable vs. div, exists in how we create columns with templates. There also, not every use is necessarily problematic, but converting all to div is not necessarily problematic either, and there is poor documentation about which to use when and the accessibility concerns of using tables. I've been actively working to convert the most problematic column implementations, and just silently switching anything else as I spot it (you caught me!). But you're right, I think better documentation and perhaps a bigger solution is needed. --Bsherr (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian_opera_singers[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I changed this category: Category:Opera_singers_from_Georgia_(country) to: Category:Georgian_opera_singers

Because it was the only category in Category:Opera_singers_by_nationality

that did not use the same way of writing, and because it is "By nationality" there should not be any mix up with the state in USA in my opinion.

see also: Georgians Georgian_language

(I did not know how to normally link to a category page in this message) Designer149 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I've fixed the links to categories in the above posting - the trick is to add a ":" before the word "Category". PamD 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Designer149: There is a long-standing convention about categories for people or other things from the country of Georgia, and the U.S. state of Georgia - see Category:Fencers by nationality and Category:Politicians by nationality (and Category:American politicians by state for the other Georgia), and compare Category:Hospitals in Georgia (U.S. state) (every other state being like Category:Hospitals in Texas) and Category:Hospitals in Georgia (country) ( every other country being like Category:Hospitals in Japan). As far as I know Georgia is the only country whose name has another confusable meaning, so it is treated in this unique way. Not every use of a category will be obviously within a "by nationality" hierarchy, so it is best to remove ambiguity from all of these categories. I hope that helps.
If you feel that a category ought to be renamed, there is an established procedure for suggesting this, rather than editing all the articles yourself: discuss the proposed change first at WP:Categories for Discussion. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey - Happy Editing! PamD 16:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Thanks for the explanation! I should have read more about it before editing a complete category. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designer149 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@PamD: many thanks for taking the time to write that clear explanation of principle and practice.

@Designer149:: there is a long-standing convention that people from Georgia (country) are categorised as "from Georgia (country)". As PamD notes, this is an exception to the wider convention of using a demonym.

The convention was adopted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian_people, and has been applied since then to Category:People from Georgia (country) and all its subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, memories. I remember when I first started editing under this account, I renamed a Georgian category because it seem OBVIOUS to me that no one would confuse the state and the country. You live and learn! Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:: Thanks for the extra explanation. I will read more before editing something specific like this next time! Designer149 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Fix your edit summary link. [5].--MONGO (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link is WP:REDNOT, and how do you expect BHG to retroactively fix an edit summary? afaik this can't be technically accomplished. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Clark[edit]

BrownHairedGirl, thank you for looking at the page I established on Marian Clark. I have done considerable research on Clark, so I am quite aware that she was predominantly a radio scriptwriter for Gunsmoke. I am also quite aware that Nielsen is a television-based rating service. Clark, however, did work very closely with John Meston in adapting more than two dozens of her radio scripts into screenplays for the televised version of the Western series, especially during its early "#1-rankings" by Nielsen. Her stories aired as episodes at various times for five seasons on television, spanning 1958 to 1963. During that period, when Clark was closely associated with the televised version of Gunsmoke and her stories comprised an appreciable part of its lineup of episodes, the series was #1 in the Nielsen ratings for the 1958-1959, 1959-1960, and 1960-1961 seasons. It is with that consideration to researchers why I added "Nielsen ratings winners", and thought it was a relevant search category with regard to Clark's writing for a #1-rated television series and for its highly rated radio counterpart and predecessor. Thank you again. Strudjum (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Clay Coleman[edit]

Thanks for your correction on his categories. I knew I needed to look further for the proper one, but was trying to note it for myself to do. Parkwells (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, @Parkwells. You're welcome.
Do you use WP:HOTCAT? If not, I highly recommend it.
It's v easy to use and has lots of neat features. My favourite is the way it does autocomplete on a partial title, and tells you if the cat you are about to add doesn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion! I hadn't come across that and will make use of it. I need to review what's out there. Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iravikutti pillai[edit]

Now it is filled with wrong facts in the page iravikutti Pillai. please check the initial version and edit. AVK1994 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is that a dreadful article. It's always been a terribly written article, I'm not sure I've seen one worse. What it really needs is to be nuked and started from scratch by someone who knows English and uses sources. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please reverse your sysop-protect (that was a bad call; given you were dealing with an evident bunch of SPA meats). Also kindly see WP:GS/Caste which would have enabled you to ECP the article. ∯WBGconverse 17:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AVK1994, Doug Weller, and Winged Blades of Godric: my immediate priority was to stop the edit warring.

Beyond that, there may be a better version to restore; I didn't see one, but am open to suggestions, either to me or via an {{edit protected}} request on the talk page.

Alternatively, if someone wants to take it to AFD for WP:TNT (which seems to be what Doug is suggesting), then please go ahead.

WBG, I will review whether ECP would be sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the protection to ECP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested move at WP:RM[edit]

The move discussion you started at WikiProject Overseas France has been closed but Template:WikiProject French Overseas Departments couldn't be moved due to move-protection. Since you're an administrator, you're requested to move it yourself.  samee  converse  09:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brown Haired Girl

Just to make you aware that John Stobart lives in Westport, MA most of the year. He’s just read your Wikipedia page and loves it, but would prefer if the site could be updated with this information.

Many thanks


Tony§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4880:25F0:651A:17B5:C2F8:C693 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 at Women in Red[edit]

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111


Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

February events: Social Workers Black Women

February geofocus: Ancient World

Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

Join the conversations on our talkpage:


Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Please stop altering transcluded data[edit]

Please stop altering transcluded data in "User in Province" templates. I am in the process of reestablishing these categories. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: the 4 templates which I reverted([6], [7], [8], [9]) were all cases where you had changed the template to make it populate a category which several hours later did not exist. That caused almost 100 user pages to be categorised in non-existent categories.
If you genuinely intend to to make the templates populate a different category, then please create the new categories so that other editors do not have to clean up after you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am doing. I have over 2000 categories to deal with. I'm sorry I'm not doing them as rapidly as you like.  Buaidh  talk contribs 06:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh: there is no deadline. Take your time, but please tidy up after yourself as you go rather than leaving it for others to do so. And please do stop using mislaeding edit summaries, such "Repair" when you are replacing a valid category with a non-existent one. A repair is fixing something which was broken; you replaced something which worked with something broken.
BTW, since you appear to be renaming 2000 categories, have you established that there is a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only moving a few categories where the corresponding article has been renamed. I'm in the process of documenting most of 2000 user categories and the user templates that link to them. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, @Buaidh. These are user categories, which have no head article. Your proposed move of e.g. Category:Wikipedians in Manitoba to Category:Manitoba Wikipedians does not relate to any change in a head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft mistakes[edit]

Hello there,

Thank you for telling me about the category ruling when it comes to drafts. I missed that paragraph when going through the rules.

I hate pissing off admins (especially considering I'd like to be one in future) so I'll try to avoid making that mistake again.

RallyXEditor (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, @RallyXEditor -- I wasn't pissed off. Just alerting you to something you may have been aware of
There's been so much instruction creep that it's hard to keep up. I've been editing for 13 years, and nearly every day I learn something I had missed.
Anyway, thanks for your nice message. My edit summary notes need to be terse, so I hope they didn't come across as too snippy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of country, state and county flags in infoboxes[edit]

May I please request your assistance on the talk pages of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Springfield, Massachusetts articles, under the heading Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox. I believed adding such a comment to each article's talk page was the correct way to proceed, but, in hindsight, I now believe I should have asked your advice before doing so. My Favourite Account  😊 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@My Favourite Account: thanks for the msg, but I have no idea why you think that you should have asked me.
If you can't reach a consensus on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I suggest a WP:RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know who else to ask. In my haste to resolve the issue, I mistakenly referred to a clause that was not relevant, and as it turns out, a consensus is not in fact needed on each article. I do, however, recall there being a general consensus many years ago regarding this, and now, looking at any number of "settlement" articles, it soon becomes apparent that flags are not used in these fields except for a select number of articles, mostly in the United States.

My Favourite Account  😊 17:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I thought you'd be able to help is because I wanted to avoid an edit war.

My Favourite Account  😊 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of an edit war breaking out unless you continue reverting.
And please, make that sig less intrusive before you post here again. What on earth is the bolded timestamp about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - AWB error[edit]

I goofed on this one - I apologise Lyndaship (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally directed comments[edit]

I see you saw my reply to your comment at wt:NRHP and that you replied there too. It is off-topic there, but I think I do take offense at your comment there, because it came across to me as needlessly denigrating me, and perhaps as if you are proud of having imposed a block upon me. You label me as having IDHT attitude there. There was not call for your comments, which are personally directed. It seems you are making a pre-meditated strike against me, to label me as an invalid participant.

Also, you make charges, some which might be opinions about me which you are free to have, but are not appropriate to just come out with that way, and some of which are factually wrong IMO, and then you appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective). I do agree it is not appropriate to go further into debate there about whether your statements about me are false or true, or insulting or not. But it's not right to do that. About what I feel is factually wrong, that includes your characterizing the former categories about NRHP architects etc as "private", and your seeming to imply (my interpretation) that it was just me creating all the NRHP-related style categories that do correspond to NPS/NRIS categories. I am not wanting to overstate your position as horribly bad; I would have to agree that factually some categories that I created or recreated have been brought to CFD, because that is true, and I would even further understand you could possibly have a negative opinion about my communications or actions related to some of the past stuff, but that still doesn't call for you to go on negatively about me in such a personally directed way as if I am a somewhat evil person (my perception) in a new discussion at NRHP. I don't know how to talk about this situation exactly, it seems to have to do with AGF and having basic respect for one another or not.

Hey, I don't care too much about this, really, and I probably don't much want to go further about this if you turn out to want to simply dismiss me here, though I hope you won't. (Perhaps we could chat about what do you think should be done, or should have been done already, process-wise, about situation of disagreement about Early Commercial architecture or other styles?) But I think that for my own sake and for sake of continuing quality of the NRHP wikiproject discussion forum that I ought to register that I do object to what you said / how you said it. I would appreciate if you would try to see and acknowledge my perspective about this here. At the NRHP discussion, I do hope you will continue to contribute on the content subject, about Early Commercial architecture as a valid thing for Wikipedia coverage including by categories. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: as you well know, I did not suggest or imply that you are evil. And I take no pride in blocking anyone.
But a lot of your editing indeed has been problematic, and you have had a very poor approach to consensus. I do not, as you claim, go on about this. I wrote two short paras about it in a discussion which I joined because I had been pinged, and where your conduct is relevant context.
And as to AGF ... when you re-create a deleted category 3 times and still showed no understanding of why you were blocked for that, I think that my comment about Doncram's WP:IDHT approach to consensus was mild and restrained.
Also, please look again at which I actually wrote. You claim above that I appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective), which is not what I wrote. I did not try to cut off your perspective; I tried to separate your long history of misconduct from the substantive case for such categories.
I wish you well, but this post here does not suggest to me that you have learned the lesson of that block, which is that while you are entirely free to disagree with a consensus, you need to work within it instead of disregarding it or trying end runs around it. There are scores of categorisation issues where I believe that the consensus is wrong, but I work within it. If you did likewise, you would face much less criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About trying to cut off discussion, let's not get sidetracked with semantics. Your observations about me were pretty negative, and you alluded to "leaving aside" that, which with AGF I do interpret as suggesting the negative stuff does not need to be hashed out in detail there. I am not accusing you of anything bad with the suggestion (given you made the negative comments), I agree with that suggestion, I am not wanting to have it out there.
Right, I will volunteer that I coulda/shoulda done more work to develop sources about a category and then opened a new CFD to come to a new consensus, rather than creating new categories sometimes. You are right, I was wrong about some of this.
I don't know if you can be sympathetic, but there is some explanation too. I am not trying to get out of all blame, if there was to be a blame-assignment exercise, but others or everyone or nobody is at fault in some general ways. A big obstacle, at least in my perception, is a sometimes/often poor atmosphere around NRHP-related stuff, wherein it is not feasible to get discussion to happen or to be handled properly to come to a consensus decision. Maybe CFDs are different and would work, but there are numerous RFC-type issues which I have personally tried to have RFC-type discussions about, where it did not work. There simply exist long-running unresolved editorial decision issues which continue to rankle, and it is beyond me to fix the overall situation. I have done what I can to have RFC-type discussions on specific issues. About "needing to work it out" would your advice be to have it out, to force confrontation, about every rankling issue? I also even tried suggesting someone else run a general process to manage the nagging issues, e.g. to informally vote on which issues should be addressed by the NRHP wikiproject in a given year, with RFC-type discussions. I perceive low tolerance. Frankly, about Early Commercial architecture right now, where I did post some sources, I feel pretty negative about likelihood of the current discussion being productive, really, in getting towards consensus among NRHP editors.
E.g. I don't recall what I knew (whether I knew about the CFD or not) when i apparently recreated the Early Commercial architecture in the U.S. category. I think I would have used the weirdly named 2014 CFD version if I did know about the CFD. And I don't know why a simple redirect is not still in place. But it does seem obvious to me, from what I know, that Early Commercial architecture should be a valid Wikipedia article and set of categories. And it doesn't seem likely/feasible to get that properly acknowledged. So when creating new articles that need the category, it can seem simplest, best or even tactful not to seem to force an unwelcome discussion. I can see how you can view my actions poorly, but there's other stuff you don't see, and I and others can only tolerate so much. So anyhow people, not just me, are left to just blunder along, when creating new articles.
I wonder if you can perhaps make a difference in a positive way there where I can't, if you would be willing to discuss and take some leadership on some issues. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to Red Dirt Skinners wiki page[edit]

Recent changes have been removed because you thought I was just practicing making changes. These weren't practices, they were updates, I have re-instated the changes. I was adding awards from year end notifications. If there's a problem here, please advise. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmusicfan (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quackery[edit]

WP:INVOLVED. Please let somebody else close this. Have you seen Category:Murderers? Your argument makes no sense. Please revert. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman
The decision at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists/WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2 was based on exceptionally broad participation, and the principles agreed in that marathon exercise are v clear.
So I am very surprised and disappointed that an experienced editor like your good self could say that it makes no sense. You may disagree with that very detailed discussion and with the eloquent 3-admin closure and with the subsequent DRV, but makes no sense is an extraordinary dismissal of the broad community consensus established in 2014.
Note that the OED definition of "quack" explicitly ties the term to dishonesty. That's makes it an attack category per WP:G10, and a serious WP:BLP issue when applied to living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with the excuses. Revert your improper closure. The earlier discussion resulted in a renaming, which is where this discussion was likely headed until your biased and involvled closure. What you did was admin abuse. Don’t make me take this to Arbcom. Jehochman Talk 08:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more civil tone would help, @Jehochman, as would some WP:AGF. I have not written excuses; I have explained the policy basis for my action. You are not obliged to agree with my explanation, but it is not acceptable for you to imply dishonest intent by calling them excuses.
If you don't want to engage with the policy-based reasons I gave, then of course you should free to open a WP:DRV. If you do so, then please be sure to link to this discussion.
Alternatively, if you want Arbcom to review your rudeness rather than having DRV review the closure, then you may of course prefer to go there.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do your actions comply with WP:INVOLVED? You have a sever conflict of interest closing that discussion. It looks awful. Please reverse your error. If I were rude I would revert you, but I am polite. I came here to talk with you, but you are choosing to be intransigent and wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield. Polite words do not make your rude actions ok. You supervoted that discussion. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. Jehochman Talk 08:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Step back and let some other admin close the discussion. Jehochman Talk 08:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman, I have given you a substantive explanation of actions which i took in good faith. If you were actually being polite, you would engage with that rather than simply dismissing it as makes no sense and excuses.
You claim that I am choosing to be intransigent, but anyone reviewing this discussion can see that you have simply declined to make any reasoned response to the pints which I made. Your claim of wrong, wrong, wrong is just another round of you choosing exhortation over reasoned discussion.
As to your claim that I am wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield ... the only sword wielded here has been your threats.
It's up to you to decide how you wish to proceed.
I would prefer that you took a deep breath and actually engaged with the points which I made in my prompt reply to your initial post here. But if you choose to follow another path, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been watching this discussion and it looked like it would result in a renaming to a NPOV title, as you had requested. BLP enforcement is not a card you can play here. You haven’t demonstrated that the category was improperly applied to any biography. If it was, you could simply have removed it from that biography. As for threats, I don’t see any. It is not a threat to use dispute resolution. As an admin Arbcom is the only proper venue to review an allegation of admin abuse. You’ve been here a long time and apparently think rules don’t apply to you. I like IAR too, but if you do it, you need to get the decision right, or the consequences are on you. Jehochman Talk 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Jehochman, it appears to me that you may not have fully read the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists.

So I will quite here the passage which informed my decision (emphasis added by me):

The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization.

The bolding of the final sentence is added by me, because it is the critical point: per WP:BLP, do not categorise individuals as "pseudoscientist".

I see no reason to doubt that the closer of the 2014 discussion would have responded would have been even firmer if the blatantly pejorative term "quackery" had been used in the categories under discussion there. Those BLP reasons are why I acted promptly.

I remain disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself shows so little concern for the WP:BLP issues involved here. I cited BLP in my closure, and in my initial reply to you ... but in 4 rounds of discussion, you have not even acknowledgded that BLP is factor.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will get sorted at deletion review. I recommend you not do an involved close again. You’re entitled to be forgiven the occasional error, but this one was pretty severe. Please have the last word. I leave in peace. Jehochman Talk 10:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jehochman: for the reasons set out above (which you seem astonishingly unwilling to even acknowledge), I continue to disagree that it was an error. I hope that DRV will sort it by upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and that it will not support WP:FORUMSHOPping, but we will see.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution[edit]

Undelete the category and rename it “Autism pseudoscience” or “Pseudoscientific autism treatments”. You can then remove the category from any page where BLP is a problem due to insufficient references. This was your original opinion and the consensus of the discussion. It will save everybody a lot of grief if we achieve a harmonious conclusion. If you do that I will endorse the close and we can all move on. The “Quacks” category is a tougher problem. I think “Medical pseudoscience” is an allowable category. You could undelete and rename that one or merge into an existing pseudoscience subcategory. If pseudoscience is an allowed category so are subcategories to help organize the entries by topic. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I would support this. I'd prefer “Autism pseudoscience” over “Pseudoscientific autism treatments” as I'd like to be able to include things like Rope worms which are a consequence of taking a claimed treatment (bleach enemas). Also the idea that MMR vaccines cause autism is not strictly a treatment either. My phrasing on the original category was "Related to unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments for autism" so that the category could cover treatments, side-effects, ideas and those promoting them. After the various discussions, and if the category can be restored in this way, I'd suggest removing 'quack' and also adding "Caution should be used when applying this category to living persons" or some other form of wording that highlights the possibility of libelling someone or attacking their views. Fingers crossed... thanks, Jo :) JoBrodie (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jehochman & JoBrodie: the matter is being discussed at WP:DRV, and I think it best that we all accept the outcome of that discussion, whenever and however it is closed. So my close will stand unless and until overturned at DRV.
Jehochman, please check your facts before making statements about the views of editors:
  1. my original recommendation[10] at the CFD was a bolded "delete". I suggested a renaming as an alternative, but noted the problems in using the loaded term "pseudoscience"
  2. the discussion had not run its course, and per WP:NOTVOTE I disagree that there was a consensus to rename rather than delete.
I also urge both of you to drawback from your pursuit of WP:THETRUTH, and to read http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=Freedom_from_bias. That's where one of the world's biggest and most respected news agencies asserts principles such as "take no side, tell all sides". They do so under the pressures of deadlines and breaking news, so there is no reason why a encyclopedia with no deadline cannot take the time to ensure neutral terminology. Note for example, how in https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-autism-interventions/sensory-and-diet-therapies-for-autism-lack-strong-evidence-idUSKBN18M2MJ Reuters describes all the criticisms of such therapies and entirely avoids the use of the stigmatising terminology which you two are both pursuing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What terminology do you suggest using? What do you want to call quack cures for autism? We have Category:Pseudoscience. Do you propose to delete that too? Jehochman Talk 20:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: I suggest that you take a step back from the combative tone which you have adopted throughout our discussions on this page, and rethink this from a fundamental starting point of WP:NPOV and the Reuters principle of "take no side, tell all sides".
Instead of asking what label is best applied to a grouping created with a clear intent to stigmatise and malign, I suggest starting from first principles and asking a set of questions about how best to organise en.wp's coverage of topics related to autism without taking sides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interesting in expanding the scope of discussion so wide. I want to solve the problem on the table, and move on. What do we call all the unscientific, unproven autism pseudo-therapies? There should be an NPOV term that describes them without attacking. I agree with you completely that "quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. Can we start from that point of agreement, and see if we can enlarge it? It will save the community a lot of time if we can put forth a mutually agreeable proposal. Jehochman Talk 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman I am glad that we agree that the term "quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. I think it's the first time in this discussion that we have explicitly agreed on anything, so I welcome that
However, I don't think that it is helpful to start from the basis of a category designed to stigmatise. Much better to start from basic NPOV principles, away from the specifics of the intent to stigmatise.
We already have Category:Alternative medicine as a broad-spectrum grouping for unconventional approaches, using neutral terminology. We also have Category:Health fraud for outright fraud.
Do we have any general categories for concepts such as "unproven treatments" or "treatments proven harmful"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mastcell: can you answer this very interesting question? Jehochman Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, your comment here is good. Could you possibly restore the category, reopen the discussion but as an interim measure rename it to anything non-attacking? The discussion can then gather thoughts and resolve what the best name would be. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, sorry, but as I noted above, the matter is now in the hands of DRV. The DRV will eventually be closed, and in the meantime I don't want to pr-empt its outcome. Now that the category has been deleted, there is no longer a BLP/G4/G10 case for unilateral action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if somebody recreated the category from scratch using a neutral name, such as Autism pseudoscience? Generally it is not allowed to recreate deleted things, but here the idea is to change the name and lose the edit history. Are you OK with that? Jehochman Talk 01:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Jehochman, I am not Ok with that. Just let the DRV run its course, rather than pre-empting its outcome and creating yet more procedural tangles.
What's the rush to re-create?
In the meantime, it would be a really good idea to start a broader discussion somewhere about how best to neutrally categorise topics relating to alternative medicine in relation to their position on a spectrum of something like effective—unproven—disputed—disproven—fraudulent and/or harmless—harmful.
The issues in doing so apply to all types of alternative medicine, so it would be best to do this at a broad level, to build a consistent hierarchy of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing one of the by-philosophy discussions[edit]

Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category: People of Celtic descent[edit]

Thanks for the ping - I did not have the category on my watchlist so would have been unlikely to see the discussion. I don't know if you recall Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was topic-banned from this area a while ago. I don't have much time to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, as I am dealing with a family bereavement. If you see something you think I should know about then could you drop me a message on my talk page? That sends me an email so I can take a look when I can. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan
I'm v sorry to hera of your loss. Hope you all find some peace in the goodbyes.
Sure, I'll keepo an eye out, and try to notify you.
BUt don't worry too much about en.wp at the moment. You got more important things tight now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I restored a lot more subcats the nominator had removed. I also added the CfD template to the category page, which he had forgotten to do. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Celtic Descent[edit]

I have nominated this for deletion here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_31#Category:People_of_Celtic_descent - and intend to propose all related categories for deletion such as the one you created, Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please add your thoughts. I remain puzzled by the need to create such bizzare categories, and as neither you nor DuncanHill have seen fit to explain why my deletions were reverted (or at least use it appropriately for Iron Age folk), I feel this is the only course left. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Got Mail[edit]

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

Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Botswana[edit]

I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:WikiProject Botswana as it assists editors in tagging. If that is the case, could the deprecation notice be removed? Deprecation means that the code should not be used and is scheduled for deletion in a future date. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: This should probably apply to all the African country wikiproject Templates. Per [11] it was decided that they should not be deleted, but they should all be marked as subst only.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Just checking if I missed something, does subst also mean deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: no, it's a different thing. Subst-only just means that the template shouldn't be trandcluded directly on to a page, it should be placed with "subst:" so that the content of the template is saved rather than the template itself. That means a "what links here" will have no pages listed. It can still be a useful template to have available to editors though, which is why it's not deprecated. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just what I thought. I'll remove the deprecation template on it then. Thanks for the info. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: should the US templates at Category:Deprecated templates from September 2011 also be subst and not deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game to help a college class that is learning to write for a Wikiproject?[edit]

Hey, BrownHairedGirl,

I am teaching a course at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA that is teaching students how to write Wikipedia Articles for a WikiProject. You made an edit on one of them and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate so that we could get it right.

What we are looking for is someone who is willing to let people make mistakes and give them a shot to correct them in Draft so that they learn. Is this something with which you would be willing to assist with what time you might have available? Please.

Thanks, mkurowski Mkurowski (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkurowski
There's a lot of leeway on draft articles.
Which article are you referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, Gov[edit]

Thanks for the "better to use a category which actually exists" reminder at Template:Template rating/doc, BHG. But the category was already there before I touched the page --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, RexxS. Seems I misread the diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stranger Things (television series)[edit]

Just wondering if there was a reason as to why Category:Stranger Things (television series) couldn't be at Category:Stranger Things? Cheers. -- /Alex/21 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: because that title is ambiguous: see Stranger Things (disambiguation).
The TV series may be the WP:Primary topic (tho I haven't checked), but categories are better unambiguous, to avoid miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the reply. It is the primary topic, existing at the primary name for the topic. However, in this case, the category would better be situated at Category:Stranger Things (TV series), to comply with WP:NCTV. -- /Alex/21 02:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: thanks for that pointer. I meant to check the convention, but forgot.
I have now listed it[12] at WP:CFDW for speedy renaming per WP:C2E, and the bots should rename it shortly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, thanks. All the best. -- /Alex/21 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22, 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. Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

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)[reply]

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

@Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page[13].

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)[reply]

A request[edit]

Could you please close this AFD[14]? 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)[reply]

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

Another request[edit]

Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek[16] who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here[17] and here[18], 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[19] and a few other occasions and been ignored[20]. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here[21] and here[22] for two recent examples. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Macedonia CFD[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@JJMC89. I have added the 8 cats to the CFD[25], and tagged them.[26]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Your fork[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks, @DannyS712. I learnt the hard way that it broke, so the next edit[27] changed it to importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' ) , which works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of transhumanism has been nominated for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

March 2019 at Women in Red[edit]

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: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen
Geofocus: Francophone Women
Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman


Other ways you can participate:
Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage
Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Sindbad edits.[edit]

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)[reply]

@Mediaboi1956: are you referring
  1. to this edit[28], which I reverted in this edit?[29] ... or
  2. to these edits[30], which were reverted[31] by User:Dl2000? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Module:See also if exists[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Irish problem...[edit]

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)[reply]

Clothing companies[edit]

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 [32] 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 [33] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category|Controlled lakes[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi Wikiuser100
I did ping you![34]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Editing[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi Saketkumar.sk
Please see the edit summary on my revert[35]: 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)[reply]

Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article[edit]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praevalebit (talk • contribs) 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_045&oldid=1212238701"