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
I genuinely feel somewhat guilty that you're taking it upon yourself to revert each of the changes. I'm not stalling, or trying to prejudice the outcome of the discussion, it's IRL intervening. I'll be back Sunday or Monday. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate that. Even though I've been editing for many years, and have a reasonably high edit count, I still often feel like a newbie, as there were decisions made before I became more active, and there were times when my editing was confined to particular silos. I also continue to learn about the editing processes, and would credit yourself with learning the value of archiving links in references. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens thanks for being so nice about this. It's not fun having your work reverted, but you have handled it very graciously.
I don't want to fork the discussion at Talk:Dublin Bay South (Dáil constituency)#Merger_proposal, so I'll save the substance for there. But yes, I get that feeling of a huge load of history behind how things are. Back in 2006/7 there were huge sprawling discussions that made a lot of key decisions on how to handle topics which had developed slowly but which needed standardising as the rate of editing grew massively. It was fun being part of that. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I was making changes to the names of Irish railway stations on their articles (generally correcting incorrect Irish naming) when I came across Sligo Mac Diarmada railway station. It is an outlier amongst those I was making changes to in that the station name is included. I'm wondering what should be done in terms of consistent title names, if anything should be done at all.
Thanks EthanL13 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that! I saw you had requested the move of the article before so I thought I'd ask you. Thanks very much. EthanL13 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of categories you just created appeared on the Empty categories list. But there is no point in tagging them as empty categories if they are going to be filled over the next few days. So, I'm just checking in with you. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 01:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some of your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates A-G. I don't participate much in CFD discussions these days but I do tag and delete empty categories and some of these categories are, unfortunately, emptied out of process before CFD discussions are closed (which I've complained about a lot with little effect).
Any way, I just wanted to inform you, if you weren't already aware, that this CFD discussion is just the latest one to involve expatriate, emigrant or descent categories. Some of the other discussions are listed in the nomination statement but I wouldn't be surprised if there were additional ones. These nominations are usually quite large and it seems like the prevailing consensus at CFD these days is a movement to delete small categories, regardless of whether they are part of a larger category tree. Also, as you also probably know, participation is generally low at CFD discussions so unamity among 2 or 3 editors usually decides what happens with categories. There are also a lot more NAC closures that in the past but they tend to be on discussions with a unamity of opinion. Just a couple of observations I've made over the past 18 months or so if you are interested in looking into this further. LizRead!Talk! 01:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BrownhairedGirl, you have almost 3 million edits. That is an incredible number. Please allow me to query one edit among these millions that you recently made on the article Redmond Roche. You replaced "d." with "died", which would be fine if it were in plain text, but in the given case it occurs in the footquote of an {{Sfn}} citation. Please reconsider.
I admit that my frequent footquotes in the text disrupt the text and make it difficult to read. I have recently experimented with a citation style called "list-defined references" WP:LDR. That seems to result in much more readable text. Implementing such a change in citation style on all the citations I added would of course keep me busy for a long time. I wonder whether it is worthwhile. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance on this is at MOS:DIED: use b. only where space is limited e.g. tables and infoboxes. Obviously, the same goes for d.
Footnotes and refs are not space-limited, so I see no need for the abbreviation. I did those changes to Redmond Roche using a script (User:BrownHairedGirl/biogdashes.js) which I have used on many thousands of articles over the last 9 years, and it has not been a controversial change.
This is not a biggie, so don't worry about it or feel that you have to go back to tweak other articles, but it's something to bear in mind going forwards. Feel free to use my script if that helps.
Same with WP:LDR, tho that's an unrelated issue. I think that SFN is best for book refs, but for other purposes I like LDR, and I use LDR on any non-trivial new articles I write, but I wouldn't bother going back to change old articles unless I was polishing it for WP:GA.
And thanks for your fine, scholarly work on Redmond Roche. It's always a pleasure to find a well-written and well-sourced article on a topic where so may of the other articles are stubs. And I hadn't realised until now that this biog of an early modern Irish politician was written by a German. Thanks for your great contribution to en.wp's coverage of a troubled period of Irish history.
Dear BrownhairedGirl. Thank you very much for your quick reply. As you said "thanks for your kind words" and it is a bit more than that: thank you for your advice and encouragement to use LDR. I needed this. You have convinced me to go for it. Do you perhaps have a recent example that I could follow? First I must find the right formatting, especially for the list. I am busy with GA for Antoine Hamilton, where I use LDR. That is another 17th-century minor Irishman for you.
But back to Redmond Roche. Your "d. -> died" replacement is inside a quotation. Don't you agree that abbreviations in quotations should be left alone, other than perhaps explained between square brackets? I cannot find MOS:DIED. It does not seem to exist, but I found the instruction, "use d. only where space is limited, with consistency within any given table column." in MOS:DATES. I suppose this means when writing in Wikipedia and does not pertain to quotations.
I wonder whether you have seen where your "d. -> died" replacement is. You will find it inside the Sfn citation at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Parliament section. This citation is from Ohlmeyer's article on Donough MacCarthy in the ODNB. The citation uses a footquote (see WP:FOOTQUOTE). I like using footquotes as they allow a reviewer to quickly see what the source really says. Admittedly not many people use footquotes. The replacement is inside a parenthesis inside the quotation. It seems that your script could not handle this case. It changed "(d. [died] in or after 1610)" to "(died [died] in or after 1610)". I try to explain the abbreviations I find in such source texts and added the "[died]" to explain the "d.". I once had a run-in with a reviewer who pretended not to understand the usual abbreviations found in genealogical texts. The "d." is easy, but there are others which are Latin and not so obvious, e.g. "d.v.p.".
Hi, BHG. Just a quick note from one of few to have worked here a bit longer than you (although with only a pittance- 1% of your astonishing # of contributions). You mention at the top of your page, items "to the right". However, the placement of images by the rendering engine, is dependent on the dimensions of the end user's display device. In my case, the userboxes are displayed below, rather than to the right of the text, so removing or editing that particular notice would improve the page accuracy. [not bragging about my user page, which likely has more errors, and I don't remember touching in years]. Blainster (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Blainster, I see that you have been here nearly 20 years! Wow!
In the UK or Ireland, if you'd murdered someone you'd be considered for parole after about 14 years. What on earth did you do to get locked up for 20 years in Wikipedia? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a quaint but useful spare time project. Who knew how it would grow. I retired a couple years ago, so have more time for it now. Blainster (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So when Module:CanadaByProvinceCatNav started today to try to resolve redirects, it barfed when it found {{Category redirect|{{Title decade}}s establishments in Canada West}}.
I fixed the redirects in these cases, but there may be more such cases. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I am trying to make a list {{Category redirect}}s with template calls in the target. I think that most such uses will be {{title year}} or {{title decade}} , so I am checking only the 21K catredirs with a digit in their title, rather than all 100K catredirs.
@Fayenatic london: list-making complete I found 171 {{Category redirect}}s with a template in the target. About a third are for years in Mexico; the remainder are nearly all for pre-confederation Canada, presumably created by @Aidan721.
Ah, I see, thank you. Yes, that's what I meant – within EstcatCountry, it builds the name Category:1970s establishments in Ceylon using templates, and that's no problem; all that matters is that that redirect page must not do likewise. Well, I'm glad that still works. – FayenaticLondon 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please don't remove the above category from Irish cricketers when adding cricketers by Irish county. The cricket project historically categorises players by nationality → international formats played → domestic team(s) played for. This is now going to take me an absolute age to add this category back to the 400 or so from which it has been removed. This should have been discussed at the cricket project. StickyWicket (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I future, I'd appreciate a more friendly tone. And your sig breaches WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Your sig bears no relation to your username, which confused me and wasted my time. Please fix your sig.
Now to your complaint. Diffusing categories to subcats is routine category maintenance, and requires no prior discussion. See WP:PARENTCAT and WP:CATDD. The cricket project does not own these articles.
If there is an actual consensus that Category:Irish cricketers should be non-diffusing, then tag it with {{non-diffusing subcategory}}. But please don't rebuke me for your project's failure to tag the category.
If you're looking for thanks, you've come to the wrong website. I don't expect thanks, or have received much, for the thousands of cricket articles I have created and expanded. My signature is about as un-confusing as it gets. Click on it, you'll come here. You and one other person, in about 10 years, appear to be the only ones who have a problem with it and that has been as a result of being asked not to do certain things to cricket articles.
Please explain to me how the following categories are related: Category:Irish cricketers, Category:People from Dublin (which should correctly be Category:Cricketers from Dublin). One is stating a nationality, one is stating a place. There is no relation between the two, and so no need to remove one to add the other. Cricketers by location isn't a subcat of cricketers by nationality. It isn't a failure of the project, we have a structured and organised categorisation system with explanations for which article belong where. I think the failure is at your end, by not checking with the cricket project how categorisation is organised. By all means add Category:Cricketers from Blahville, but please don't replace the nationality category. StickyWicket (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P is clear and longstanding. Your sig is intentionally misleading; please fix it so that other editors can read your username in your sig instead of having to click on the link.
You haven't supplied any evidence of a consensus to keep Category:Irish cricketers to be non-diffusing. I look fwd to the link.
You clearly know best, have been a major contributor to cricket articles for years, know the categorisation procedures of the project inside out. So best to head to the cricket talk page and ask the question, which has actually been answered by another user. Also, feel free to ignore them. StickyWicket (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate/StickyWicket: I asked you for evidence of a consensus. You provided no evidence. The opinion of one other editor is not evidence of a consensus.
You falsely claimed that I replaced Category:Irish cricketers with Category:People from Dublin, and you have not even had the courtesy to retract that, let aloe apologise.
Most of my nearly 3 million edits have categorisation, so yes, I do know how categorsation works. OTOH, you can't even manage to use a WP:SIG which actually displays your username, as required by WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. You apparently cannot read a
diff ... and you seem to be unaware that every category "Fooers from ThisPlace in ThatCountry'" is a subcat of "ThatCountryish Fooers".
So quit hectoring me, and stop undoing the diffusion. If you want to make these categories non-diffusing, then open a WP:RFC to propose that. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really your indentation is quite sloppy. You've been around long enough to know how this works. It's a full time job here tidying up after you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged You inserted a new comment by you above one of mine which is ay out of order.
And you accusing me of being sloppy when you did no WP:BEFORE is not just hypocritical; it is trolling. Cut it out.
It is also untrue. I use the reply-to-tool, which indents automatically and accurately.
reply-to-tools are grand in most cases. But they are no replacement for reading space that is intuitive and easy to read and makes vertically-aligned space for contribs by later editors. Right now, it looks like has been 10 votes whereas there has only been 1 vote. So yes - abandon the tools and use line-of-sight by hand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. A post begining Note is clearly not a !vote.
Quit the refactoring, along with the rest of your vindictive, disruptive, bad-faith antics. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your 6:38 post at CfD might need amending, unless I'm misreading it? Seems to say that a cat is a subcat of itself. All the best. PamD 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the many uncharitable things that BHG ought to correct in that thread, that honest typo would be near the end of the list. BTW, I was called here by a notification bot. Definitely not stalking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged your stalking is plain as a pikestaff, as is your bad faith.
Now stay off my talk, except for notifications.
Note that I have pinged you solely so that you see my request, not to invite a reply. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Pppery. I had indeed missed it, having not been notified.
Sadly a small tag team of bad faith editors is maliciously targeting my categorisation efforts, as revenge for my opposition to some of her nominations, and these are a part of that campaign.
Hi BrownHairedGirl and forgive me if I'm not using the correct protocol while writing this. I'm pretty green when it comes to the style required when making a request on Wikipedia. For some years now I've been requesting changes to the article about Tom Crean and having written a self-published biography about the subject that was released in 2018, I declared a COI which prevented me making those edits as they'd be considered self-serving. In May 2023 my biography was released under the portfolio of an established publisher so I assume this changes things somewhat with regards to the credibility of my knowledge of the subject - Tom Crean and the inclusion and references to my biography. Changes were last made after I submitted my sources to the Royal Irish Academy and because my biography, at the time, was the self-published edition, those changes were attributed to them. I'm seeking to provide a Wikipedia editor with my research in order that an accurate and fuller account of Tom Crean's life and career can form the entry for him on Wikipedia. Currently the article contains a number of errors and requires additional events be added. I'd be most grateful for the help of an editor in my quest - many thanks Timfoley50 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You had my attention as soon as you mentioned Tom Crean. I have huge regard for Tom, as a modest Kerryman who did extraordinary things but never bragged. So it's a pleasure to hear from a biographer of Tom. Congrats on your work, as well on your choice of subject.
I assume that you came to me because of this edit[6] I made to the categories on that article. That was just a quick drive-by edit to populate Category:20th-century Irish explorers, and I have no other involvement with the article.
When I read your message, I did consider getting stuck in, but I quickly thought better of it.
Sorry to say no, but here's why.
Tom Crean (explorer) is a Featured article, the highest standard of article on Wikipedia. To get that badge, it is has been scrutinised in very fine detail by a bunch of experienced editors whose attention to detail is as legendary as their lack of mercy. (They do rigour, not favours). Their standards are very high, so I am wary of making any substantive changes to such polished prose. In this case, there is a list of books as sources, but I have read none of them, and I would not want to wade in without being thoroughly familiar with the sources. That would be kinda Randy in Boise conduct, and I deplore that sort of editing. Before using a new source, I'd want to wait to see how it was reviewed, and how its scholarly credibility is weighed by historians.
I do get your concern. You have done a lot of research, a lot of writing, and taken the long march through the nightmare of 21st-centry book publishing. You believe that your hard work has significantly advanced the state of knowledge on Tom Crean, and you would like to see other works updated. You would probably also like a wee bit of recognition.
All of that is fine and and laudable, and understandable. In your shoes, I'd feel much the same.
However, I think that with the best of intentions, you seem to be overdoing things a bit. Or maybe even a fair way more than a bit.
You also stared another thread in 2020. In fact, since you started the thread Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)/Archive 1#Changes_to_the_Tom_Crean_Wikipedia_entry on 22 July 2018, the talk page has discussed nothing at all but your book and your edit requests. Those discussions now make up more than half of the talk page, which will be 18 years old on 24 July 2023. So there can be no doubt whatsoever that any editor with a serious interest in the article is very well aware of your book. It seems to me to be quite likely that some of them feel that they are far too aware of it.
In that context, going behind their backs to approach me was a very unwise move. It looks very much like WP:Forum shopping, and it is deeply disrespectful to the editors who have already given you a lot of their time.
I have taken a peek at your userpage and at your contribs list, and I have to say that if you are not already in not being here to build an encyclopedia territory, then you approaching it at speed. I do understand your enthusiasm, but you are way way way overdoing it.
Wow!! An entirely unexpected rant and a simple 'no, sorry' would have sufficed. The first few paragraphs of your reply were fine but whatever sparked the complete change in tone thereafter is anyone's guess.
Yes, I've been relentless in my pursuit of alterations to the article that reflects the facts because readers digesting what is already written there are being misinformed. I am not, as you seem to believe,'promoting my book' I am attempting to ensure that additions and alterations are made to enhance a reader's knowledge of Tom Crean's life and career.
What nonsense is this "Going behind their backs" accusation you level at me?
I really did not need to know your 'here's why' diatribe and why would you tag previous editors in who've corresponded with in the past? It's not like you require their support for unnecessarily sticking the boot in? You did a fine job of that in your response without any help.
The facts are that the article has required change for many years yet as simple as that task would be, there has been a reluctance to do so.
I state right here that the sources I submitted to the Royal Irish Academy can be provided in order that the changes can be implemented. Strangely, there appears to be a continuing reluctance to do this. If the title 'Feature article' means it is given greater prominence than others then that's all the more reason that it should be improved.
Yes, you're correct, I did come back to you because of the recent adit you made but with hindsight, I was too hasty to make this request of you because I can see from previous interactions with others here, that being disrespectful and offensive is a trait you display quite often.
Do me a favour, pretend I never contacted you and if as you state, you're an admirer of Crean, bring yourself up to speed with other facts or did you not realise that my 'cause for state recognition' ceased being a cause for me when it was granted him in January 2021? Timfoley50 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my reply was entirely respectful, and it was not a rant. Far from that, it was written as a friendly warning to someone who I believed meant well, but who had gone way out of line. I took a big chunk of my time to actually explain my reasons, rather just give you a terse "no" or a blunt "no way, self-promoter".
As a matter of courtesy, you should have notified @Guliolopez, Factotem, and Spintendo that you were asking another editor to make the changes you want. A good faith contributor would welcome such notifications instead of raging at them, and your fury that they were informed is sadly very informative.
Anyway, you have had more than your share of my time. Goodbye, and please do not post on this page again. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in the discussion, but I wanted to more formally apologize here. The second part of my comment here did not assume WP:AGF at all on your part. I have now stricken and replied with a retraction but I'm embarrassed it was up for a few days.
Thanks, @RevelationDirect ... but you have left in place the first part which falsely asserts that I threatened the closer. You ave also not struck your bogus allegation that I engaged in WP:POINT disruption.
That discussion raises a number of thorny issues, one of which is the pile-on by editors (sadly including you) who misrepresent the guideline WP:SMALLCAT by ignoring the headline issue of "potential for growth" and instead address only current pagecount.
A closer should apply WP:NOTVOTE and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS by giving little weight to such !votes. Sadly not all closers do so, which makes it a matter for WP:DRV. And if a closer does correctly disregard such !votes, the disregarded may be disgruntled and seek a DRV.
DRV is the community's venue for reviewing contested closes, and your sad choice to label is as a threat in at least the recent discussions is both ABF andWP:BATTLEGROUND. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how, from your perspective, my retraction and apology are incomplete. I've sincerely gone over my earlier comments to look for problematic ones but obviously that wasn't a neutral review.
I still have concerns about both your DRV comments and expanding a nomination you opposed. And you have concerns both that I am not acting independently as part of a tag team and that I'm deliberately misreading guidelines to target your categories. (That was a good faith attempt to summarize your views; if I missed the mark let me know.)
Is this something we can talk out here instead of inadvertently disrupting the CFD nominations? Does mediation make sense? Should we both report each other for violating WP:5P4? Despite our recent disagreements, you have a lot more experience in Wikipeda than I do and I still value your input for finding a path forward. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I have no ability to judge whether your repeated ignoring of the actual terms of guideline is deliberate. All I know is that it keeps on happening.
I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.
accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount.
I struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount", and I don't see how any mediation or drama board is going to remedy that.
I am sad about tis, 'cos I have mostly enjoyed our previous interactions. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote when I added them, I did so to uphold the principle of consistency, by applying the same action to all categories which fit the criteria stated by the nominator.
My work on categories for 17 years has been underpinned by that principle of consistency. With category titles, that principle is what allows editors to apply a category to a page without having to guess its title: consistency means that they can accurately infer the title by applying simple rules.
Consistency of category titles also allows the use of category navigation templates (e.g. {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}}); they rely on sibling categories using exactly the same naming format.
Similarly, consistency of category titles allows the use of category header templates, such as {{Railway stations in Great Britain opened in YYYY category header}}; category header templates rely on multiple sets of categories using exactly the same naming format.
Same goes for other category rules, e.g. those in WP:OC such as WP:SMALLCAT. Applying those rules consistently allows editors to know when to spend their time creating and populating categories. If categories are randomly deleted on random principles, then editors who create a category cannot know whether they are wasting their time. If your work can be deleted at whim, then it's foolish do that work.
That's why in the late 2000s, a huge amount of work went into agreeing (and often documenting) sets of principles which have been remarkably stable for 15 years.
That lack of consistency is one of the reasons why I opposed LL's nomination. That nom did not even try to consistently apply the same principle to all the subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. It was an attempt to vindictively and maliciously apply a principle to a set of categories recently created by BHG, with a handful o others thrown in for plausible deniability.
In my view, the principle being applied was a clear misuse of the cited guideline WP:SMALLCAT. We disagree on that, but that's not the issue I want to here.
The principle of consistency requires that if editors want to upmerge the set of "subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation which currently have fewer than 4 pages", then the same action should be applied to all the categories in that set. My addition of the other categories allows a decision to made consistently.
I am very miffed that you chose to ignore my clear assertion of that principle of consistency. Instead you chose to ABF and to accuse me of WP:POINT disruption. (That's a bit rich when you have been posting repeatedly about the need to AGF).
Instead of attacking me for upholding consistency, you should have been asking LL why he had not himself nominated the full set, and why he chose instead to focus on categories create by BHG within the previous 48 hours.
Sadly, that's not the worst aspect of this. By attacking me, you missed the simple fact that the central purpose of LL's nomination was to target my category creations. LL's nomination is a stunning example both of WP:POINT disruption and of WP:HOUNDING. Sadly, you radically misread the situation, and ended up attacking the editor who is the target of the LL/Oculi tag team ... thereby assisting the WP:POINT antics of LL.
So the long and short of it is that you ended up both endorsing the misapplication of WP:SMALLCAT, and relatedly attaching the editor (me) who is being targeted by the vindictive tag team. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed replies; I took some time to think it over before replying. Let's put a pin in our WP:SMALLCAT perspectives for now since I think there are two WP:5P4 civility issues where we're more likely to find common ground, at least in the short term. I'll start with my perspectives on them:
Timing of Populating Categories When you began your oppose vote by pointing out how new your categories were, I didn't realize until here that this was important because you saw it as part of hounding. I honestly thought that was an implicit request for more time to finish up populating the categories.
I was one of three editors seeking a middle ground to buy you time. Thinking this approach was helpful makes sense if you understand how category creation works for me and some other editors. I laid out my process for almost immediately populating categories here, another editor laid out a process with tagging categories as they worked on them here, and a 3rd hinted they take a week here. That's why I was so surprised when you responded to these attempts at moderation by seeing them as bullying. (And I reacted to that surprise poorly, which is my fault.)
Our process of creating categories must be very different. One of your replies said "… I don't usually try at the time to fully populate the part-of-an-established-series categories, and trying to abuse WP:SMALLCAT to demand that I do so would seriously impede my categorization work." That honestly still puzzles me since I see categorization work to be about linking articles to aid navigation, not as something different, but you work on a bigger scale than me.
- Do you think category creators have a responsibility to populate the categories they create?
Expanding a Nomination You Opposed Thanks for explaining your contention that the initial nomination was pointy. I can’t speak to that but, for this conversation, let’s assume that’s true since you feel that context is key. I’ve occasionally expanded nomination with an additional category if it was getting mentioned in the discussion so that the the closer could implement the consensus but this is different since you were trying to make a nomination less terrible.
Putting aside any potential motives, let me just describe my perceptions of this expansion:
You expanded the nomination 4 days after it opened. That’s rare but not unprecedented. You added hundreds of categories to the nomination. That’s unusual. The added categories hadn't been requested by other editors. That's unusual. You did not create a separate follow up nomination to handle the related categories. That’s unusual. You continued to iVote against your own additions. That’s unusual. You distanced yourself from your own additions when another editor expressed surprise they were from you. That’s unusual. And, whatever the original intent of the expansion, it elicited at least two oppose votes, the position you favor.
- Could you have accomplished your same goal of consistency here with a separate follow up nomination?
You are under no obligation to answer my two questions of course. Regardless, I wanted to give a little background on my perspective (without intentional sharpness) because both items lead to frustration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called "civility issues" while you evade the two issues of substance. That is a completely destructive approach, which is guaranteed to rig the discussion against anyone who objects to substantive misconduct, and to favor the miscreants.
Lemme give you an analogy.
Sean goes into town with a big stick. In town, he sees a woman named Mary coming out the hairdressers, and he uses the stick to repeatedly whack Mary, hard. Mary falls to the ground in pain, yelling "Feck off". "Stop hitting me, you mad bastard". "[F-word] off, Sean". "Aaaaargh!!! You've broken my arm, you shithead, And my [F-word]ing ribs". And so on.
This is all witnessed by the Garda Síochána officer, Eoin. Garda Eoin steps in to arrest to arrest Mary for repeatedly swearing. Mary objects vociferously as Eoin applies the handcuffs. "Eoin, you daft [c-word]! I was minding my own business until Sean started using his stick to break my [F-word]ing bones". Eoin responds sternly: "Mary, I don't have time now to investigate your allegations of assault. You are under arrest for the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place with the intention of breaching the peace".
Do you see the problem? Eoin's conduct was an appalling way to behave. He was persecuting the victim.
You are behaving like Garda Eoin. But in fact, your behavior is worse than that. Garda Eoin was a mere bystander until he arrested the victim. But you have been an active endorser of the tag teams's antics, actively endorsing their dismissal of the "no potential for growth" and "established series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT.
To continue my analogy, you are not just like Garda Eoin, who acted with inverted priorities. You are more like a corrupt Garda, the one who is systematically misapplying the law because of how he actively chooses to reject some of the law.
Could you have accomplished your same goal of consistency here with a separate follow up nomination?
Absolutely no. You seem to still entirely miss my point that if the criteria was "subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation with less than 4 pages" then it is utterly wrong to apply that principle vindictively to the work of only one editor. Putting them all in one discussion forces editors to apply that principle consistently.
I had already explained that to you. And I am utterly appalled that you still take no interest whatsoever in the fact that the nomination was designed and built as a selective, bad faith act of malice. Your only concern anyhere has been about how I responded to that.
The substantive issues here are:
The systematic misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT by you and others who repeatedly chose to wholly disregard both the "no potential for growth" and "established series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT.
The recent malicious tag-teaming to apply that warped-and-twisted take on SMALLCAT to categories newly created by me.
As to WP:5P4, note that its headline is "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility".
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly disrupt consensus-formation by actively misrepresenting stable, simple guidelines, as you have done.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly endorse the antics of a bad faith tag team, as you have done.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly reproach the targets of a bad faith tag team for objecting to the tag team's antics.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to attack them for impeding the efforts of a malicious tag team to create inconsistent decision-making.
And it is actively contemptuous and aggressive to others editors to attempt to use WP:5P4 as a weapon to bludgeon an objector.
You are welcome to discuss how those two abuses of WP:SMALLCAT can be brought to an end. But if you reply with yet more attempts to deflect from your part in flagrantly and repeatedly misrepresenting a simple and stable guideline, then this discussion will be over. And if there is the slightest whiff of any more attempts by you to weaponise WP:5P4 as you have dome above, then you will be permanently barred from my talk. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 01:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spintendo has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I read the rest of that AIN discussion and was surprised at how quickly it devolved into snarkiness on the part of Mr. Foley! At least it had a favorable outcome. I thought you might like a cookie for your efforts through all of that, we appreciate it!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
To me, this was a long way from ANI at it best. If the responses had been a steady stream of admins saying variants of "great work writing the book, Tim. Now please leave uninvolved editors to decide what use to make of it", then it might have ended with an amicable withdrawal by Tim. Smiles and cookies all round.
But instead, you and @Guliolopez were two of the few contributors at ANI who stayed on point. Some of the responses at ANI were tangential, and some were bilious endorsements of his disruption. Not for the first time, ANI was a bit of a brawl.
So yes, there was a favourable outcome in that Tim Foley's endless badgering of Wikipedia editors has now been curtailed. However I really deeply wish that it had not been so ugly. This needed calm review by calm heads focused on the core issue, but yet again Wikipedia's problem-solving venue looked more like a late-night bar fight than a measured review of the situation. If we are really here to build an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs a very different way of discussing issues such as this. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your absolutely right, it was sad, but I feel that it was perhaps necessary. Another editor had said something along the lines of "he's been here 5 years, why is this the first his behavior is being mentioned", which overlooks what is likely a larger group of people that had experienced his "hidden just below the surface" anger and didn't have the fortitude to take it to AIN. But you did. There are situations where it becomes "sink or swim", and for him, that was his moment. But it failed. If there's a bright side for him, all this has spurred me to seek out and purchase his Tom Crean book. I love history, and if his writing style is as fiery as he is, it should be a decent read! Take care Spintendo 02:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about Timfoley50. He did indeed seem to have a lot of anger in him, so maybe there was no chance of a soft landing. But I still wish that ANI had done more to keep that option open.
Template:Association football estcatdecade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan. Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
