Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 5 March 2014

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

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

would like help with an article

hey how are you i was hoping i could reach out to you about the creating of or restoring the article sugaspott which was deleted some years ago

i intend to work on it and gather a general consensus of approval before publishing it

since the time it was deleted, sources that where not available to show notability have emerged over the internet and i suppose i figured maybe i can request the making of the article which i have already done and now also looking for editors who may feel like they could help. Since the original articles' deletion, i came to terms with the fact that in the greater interests of the bigger picture the right thing was done, i somehow now need help to create, maintain and preserve this article in the right manner

thanks

any help would be appreciated and i will be grateful for

Wikispott (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

sources i will be using are listed for your convinience

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/Sugaspott
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Sugaspott_on_stage.jpg
• http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=649&sid=30153092a499208575929a25c620ec21
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f7fcc586-7bd3-4872-9927-620da58b6421
• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/sugaspott-mn0003007409
• http://www.herald.co.zw/kaserera-raises-zim-flag-high/
• http://freshonthenet.co.uk/2013/08/mixtape20130826/#sugaspott
• http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/features/Introducing+Sugaspott-13968.html
• http://law.kingston.ac.uk/news-events/news/201203/mind-gap-prime-minister-kingston-law-student-meets-david-cameron-london-unde
• http://badvitamins.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/my-letter-to-president-primeminister.html
• http://www.actlivemusic.com/blog/shining-star-major-baldini-ft-sugaspott-christina-al-wakil/
• http://sugaspott.co.uk/biography/
• http://blog.sugaspott.co.uk/blog/holding-back/

Wikispott, thanks for your message.

Please go and read WP:GNG and WP:RS.

Then go to your list, and remove all the unreliable or self-published sources. Then look at what remains, and see whether there is any significant coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, having followed your instructions i boldly retain that there is sufficient material to state a case for notability. i guess when i reviewed the discussion on its deletion in the first place there was a sticking point that the artist had not been played on any natonal radio and that the only plays had stemed from local radio or similar level, which the following articles clearly shows that is no longer the case - - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039hlzg - http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f7fcc586-7bd3-4872-9927-620da58b6421

i dont suppose you could retrieve a copy of the original deleted article for me to review, either way it maters very little as i am looking to rebuild it with a sterner approach, of course if there are editors willing to help me

Wikispott (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikispott, you really do need to read WP:GNG and WP:RS a lot more carefully. If you think that those 2 BBC articles are relevant to notability, then you are seriously mistaken :(

If you recreate the article as proposed, I would have no hesitation speedy deleting it per WP:G4.

However, I see no problem with userifying the article, which I have done: User:Wikispott/Sugaspott. But I do strongly recommend that you get third-party input before moving it to article space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

of course that would be mistaken of me to assume that the 2 BBC articles would account for notability, i may have been lost in translation so please forgive me, what i meant was that one one very old thread https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_April_30#Sugaspott a sticking point which i believed had led to the final nail in the coffin was that sugaspott had no national airplay so i pressumed as this was no longer the case then maybe it would obviously help the cause, once again i am under no illusions as to what to expect but i am also very grateful for your kindness and to be frank, quite humbled, much appreciation and please keep an eye on my work with this article as i will need some experienced guidance and mentorship of sorts and while you may not be as committed a once over every so often through the rebuild will be welcome - and i hope i am not missunderstood yet again.

Wikispott (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Good Evening - i would cherish some advice on https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Wikispott/Sugaspott - feel free to edit anything or whatever in any direction you see fit. honestly i trust that yours will be a better hand than mine. that being said please forgive my usage of references as i only went overboard in an attempt to make it stick but yet again feel free to reliver judgement according to the policies no matter how stringent, i am ony hoping for the best with crossed fingers and that the final outcome is actually good enough to at least warrant something tangible but if not then the rebuilding continues. Wikispott (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Seoul Metropolitan Subway

Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, since you had been drawn into the Massyparcer affair, you may have an interest in this:

Talk:List of metro systems#Edit warring at Seoul Metropolitan Subway.

I think, a block could be in order, if only to give the account a little rest away from the keyboard, and the other - by now quite exasperated - editors a little room to do useful work on Misplaced Pages. Thank you for whatever you think is right. BsBsBs (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I have to say that BsBsBs is abusing the talk page at List of metro systems to drive out and shun another editor with a very specific goal of getting that editor blocked. Just a quick glimpse at the talk page and you will see half of the discussion is about the behaviour of an editor unrelated to improving the article. This guy is constantly questioning my motives and name-calling me all the time:

I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

, and is uncivil and rude by claiming that I make "incoherent ramblings" and "verbal pollution" and that I "contaminated" that talk page. He refuses to discuss this matter on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's talk page, only posting inappropriate content. Massyparcer (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough. Both of you need to work on resolving your dispute, rather than creating wikidrama.

@Massyparcer: quit edit-warring. From now on you are one a 1-revert rule, which means that you will be blocked if you revert more than once.

@BsBsBs: I don't think that you have reverted as many times, but you too have been edit warring. From now on you are one a 1-revert rule, which means that you will be blocked if you revert more than once.

Both of you, use dispute-resolution processes. If you dispute the reliability of a source, then don't edit war. Discuss it, and if you can't agree, take it to WP:RSN. If you think another editor is edit-waring, take it to WP:AN3 rather than the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

List of metro systems

User:BsBsBs is violating WP:NPA and is refusing to stop the wikidrama and is clearly getting overly emotional about me. It seems whenever things turn out unfavorable to him, he goes straight to questioning my motives with groundless claims and attacking me personally on List of metro systems' talk page in an attempt to mislead other editors. I have warned him to stop talking about my behaviour multiples times on List of metro systems' talk page, but he refuses to listen, abusing it as a tool to gather other editor's support against my behaviour. I have no interest in promoting anything, just a niche interest in Seoul, that's all. If you look at my edit history, I have tried to be as fair and neutral as possible obeying all Wiki policies that I have read. After I made WP:NPA very clear to him:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
• Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.

Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

He ignored it right up on his next edit and tagged everything I wrote as SPA, claiming that I

"will try to assassinate whatever he thinks will send his Seoul to hell. Many times, he will shoot himself in the foot while doing so. Not a problem. This SPA account can be abandoned, and sleepers can be activated."

I need your help to end this wikidrama and his constant hostility and personal attacks against me, because other editors are believing the rumor he is stirring up about me. Another editor reverted his SPA tagging of me, saying that "Yes, I disagree with Massy very often, but its outright harassment to tag every post with the same tag. Reverted, and I warn you not to do this!". But who knows what he will do next. He seems unable to control his emotions. An interaction ban was raised by another editor as a possible solution. Massyparcer (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Massyparcer: you are at least as much at fault as the other editor. Both of you have been edit-warring, both of you have personalised your disagreements, and neither of you has bothered to take the obvious step of drawing up a neutral description of your substantive disagreement and seeking an outside opinion. If the pair of you keep on like this, you will both face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jahi_McMath#Move_to_Jahi_McMath_case

Talk:Jahi_McMath#Move_to_Jahi_McMath_case I can't do it, I don't have permission. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Then leave the closure to somebody who has the tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...Like you?CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:)

In theory. But in practice, after sticking my neck out to stop an editor doing a multiply inappropriate early close, it wouldn't be a good idea. If I close it, somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way. So best to leave to another admin.

Why don't you list it at WP:AN/RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way" Highly unlikely in this case, and it seems more like an avoidance, but you have to do what you think is right. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of avoidance is a rather snarky assumption of bad faith. I may be excessively cautious, but having been an admin for nearly 8 years I have my own instinct for when a situation looks potentially tricky. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing RM Period 1 element

Discussion closed. This procedurally flawed move request did not produce a consensus to move, by any measure. No amount of badgering me will alter that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

About your closing RM, on pages article talk and WP talk . Of course the split is unfortunate. You even mention it "a procedural disaster". If it were really that bad, why not reorder the RM e.g. by relisting, by requiring proper listing, or something else. I already mentioned that in the nom listing and in the end. My question is: (how) did this procedural issue influence the outcome in any way? -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC) `:Hi DePiep

This is a fairly basic aspect of consensus-forming, per WP:MULTI. Splitting a discussion has several disruptive effects:

1. Even if editors have spotted that there are multiple simultaneous discussions on the same issue, they may not want to waste their time posting the same comment in two places. That means that neither discussion includes the full range of views expressed.
2. Editors posting in either location may be unaware of the full scope of the nomination, which may alter their assessment of the proposal.
3. There is a risk of a different results at each location, with neither discussion representing the actual consensus of editors.

In this case, the proposal was rejected at each location. Even reading the two discussions as a whole, I find only 3 editors opposing your proposal, and only one supporting it. That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it.

When a proposal is made with serious procedural flaws, the resulting invalidity of the consensus means that the outcome is to restore the status quo ante. In this case that is exactly the same result as happens from either weighing each discussion separately, or from weighing them together.

So I see no reason to expect that a relisting would lead to a different outcome.

As with any failed proposal, it may be raised again after some time, provided that any new nomination clearly and prominently links to the previous discussions and notes their outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So your reasoning is, in short and in my words, "discussion content & outcome showed no need for a procedural corrective action". I will make remarks about the closing process first, and after that point to the actual discussion, since that content is part of the closure.

1. the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. No, I did not (me being the nominator). The article talkpage notified and linked to the single point of discussion page , as advised in WP:MULTI you mentioned. It happened that two other contributors started arguments below that notification Smokey Joe Xoloz. So actually other editors initiated the split. If anything, opening that thread should have been judged out of procedure (and could have been corrected easily).
2. the proposal was rejected at each location. That is a curious statement for both pages. The article talkpage counts two !votes, and your conclusion clearly does not use the discussion following (it is a simple votecounting; more on one "me too" !vote below).
3. About the WT Elements location, the rejection statement is even more strange. There were three contributors (nom + 2). Their positions were 2:1 favouring the change. Even if one would discharge feline1's comment for being improperly formatted (more on this below), the score would be 1:1. That still would not support an unqualified "rejection" conclusion. And that is weighing feline1's contribution as zero; any "little weight" you read in there would tip the scale in favor of the change to say 1.01:1. The closing did not mention argumentations.
4. User:feline1 supported the proposal . Afterwards here, you state that feline1 "chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". First feline1 clearly stated their opinion, and I do not know of any guideline that allows !votes to be discarded for being 'not formatted as a !vote'. Quite the opposite: a closing editor is supposed to consider the arguments given, more than judging their formatting (WP:RMCI). So, not only did you resort to vote counting, you also choose to reject opinions for being not formatted as a !vote. Against such incidental and opportunistic logic, I cannot argue.
5. Actually feline1 did add a new argument: "it should have been done years ago! ... Misplaced Pages's early years ... fixing it yet". That makes this comment rejection even more strange, noting that you did not reject the "me too" !vote by Xoloz, which did not add any substantial argument. Feline1 is a long-term contributor to WP Elements btw.
6. All together, these are illogic argumentations you made from the discussion. Since a wrong content perception lead to a wrong procedural conclusion, I now will make some notes on the content.
7. My nomination and subsequent contributions stated these steps: 1. the scientific name for the subject is: "period 1" (as an example for the range period 1 – period 9", obviously). 2. That is the firstly proposed article title by WP:ARTICLETITLE. 3. Then and only then, for WP:DISAMBIGUATION reasons, there could be a "(dab)" term needed in the Misplaced Pages page title, like making it "period 1 (periodic table)". However, since Period 1 is undisputed as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no disambiguation term is needed. These are WP guidelines to be applied.
8. None of the three opponents disputed step 1, step 2 or step 3. Opposing arguments were asking to clarify the scientific name in the page title, bypassing or misreading titling and disambiguation guidelines. Change a title for to make it recognizabile for readers is not a guideline. It would even change the existing scientific name! Also, the linguistic problems with construct "periodic 1 element(s)" were not resolved.

Concluding, I described that your assessment of the discussion (content) showed serious flaws. Since you based the procedural outcome on that, that is misguided too. I propose you re-asses the discussion from zero, and conclude either a "do move" (I am serious) or a procedural solution with a reopening/rejudgement, like relisting/procedural close/reorganise a new listing, etc. (In this last option, I don't have a clear idea about which procedural step would fit; suggestions are welcome). -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite bizarre to learn that my vote on a subject was discounted because I didn't use some arcane piece of wiki-markup. May I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BUREAU#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy ? I have been editing wikipedia since 2004 and I have never heard of "!vote". I guess I'll be told off it I don't assume good faith, but that leaves little else to assume other than obtuse daftness.--feline1 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bucket loads of bad faith here from feline1 and DePiep, so I will be blunt.

WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.

I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.

What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.

DePiep, that means following the conventional procedures to ensure that move requests are discussed at only one location. I share your frustration that the process for multiple nomination is clumsy (not just at WP:RM, but also at WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD etc) ... but that's how it is. Not using it properly is no personal failing on your part, but it does create an impediment to proper consensus being formed.

Apart from the incoherence of a discussion split across 2 locations, there was no particular policy basis for discounting the !votes of one side or adding weight to another. So even if I had been closing purely on substantive rather grounds (rather than including procedural considerations), I would have had to accept that 3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference rejected the nom's arguments.

Feline1, bolding a clear preference for a particular is not an "arcane piece of wiki-markup". It's one of the simplest pieces of wiki-markup (three single-quote marks at either end of the bolded phrase, also achievable by a 1-click button at the top of the editing window), and it is routine at all RM, RFC and XFD discussions.

Both you: instead of complaining to the messenger who closed this mess, both of you would do much better to spend a few minutes learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:National presidents

Category:National presidents, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dog's dinner

Thanks for your edit to Georgian rugby union teams, a complete dog's dinner now. I notice you never bothered to take it to the rugby union crowd either.

Perhaps we should rename all the Victorian articles in case they bother people from the Australian state.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@MacRusgail: My edit? You mean Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Category:Georgian_rugby_union_teams, where the consensus was to rename. 6 editors supported the renaming, and you were alone in opposing it.

If you disagree with the way the discussion was closed, deletion review is that way. Good luck.

BTW, WP:RU was notified automatically through the article alerts mechanism.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Guidance please

Hello Brown haired Girl, I am bringing this to your attention because you have previously dealt with this editor NorthBySouthBaranof. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=596373308#Closing_RM_discussions:_final_warning NBSB deleted your warning as bullshit. I posted with this admin http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Woody#Some_help_please but then realized that admin is semi-retired and has not posted since Dec 2013 but had blocked NBSB here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Blocked_for_edit_warring NBSB was also blocked here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571184111#September_2013 NBSB was warned against edit warring by these previous editorers and admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=581492119#SSCS_ http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571164271#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571161971#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=570207677#Auguist_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=567216790#SSCS http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564948996#July_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564684503#Edit_warring_at_North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=561578929#My_rudeness_.21 I am not asking for a block (not even sure how to do that) but a warning for malicious/revenge editing as illustrated below. I edited an article NorthBySouthBaranof had recently edited and it appears she decided to stalk my edits and pursue unconstructive editing. I do not possess all the proper wiki bureaucracy skills so I am unsure of all the procedures when encountering this and honestly do not have time at this moment to dedicate due to academic demands. Can you emphasize that NBSB does not pursue stalking/revenge editing and other unconstructive editing. NBSB apparently has an attitude about being asked not to edit war and quickly deletes those warnings. Thanks for you help. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My warning on NBSB talk page page is below.

I see no need for admin intervention here. The IP is free to disagree, and if her remains unsatisfied with my answer, should follow WP:DR procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit Stalking

Hi NBSB. I noticed you recently reverted my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Huma_Abedin&oldid=597936146 which added of the sexting scandals. I have no real problem with that. I do point out that you previously editted that article and may be engaged in edit warring or claim ownership. However you then stalked my edits http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&oldid=597936473 and deleted a nomination for speedy delete http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&direction=prev&oldid=597936232 of an article that had not been edited in 2 and half years, lacked any references, and was created by a banned sock http://en.wikipedia.org/User:American_Clio as I identified in the speedy delete nomination. The appearance of malicious/revenge editting can not be overlooked here. Please undo your edit of the latter article so I do not have to resort to reporting this for further action. Please engage in constructive edits. Thanks 172.56.10.195 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Following two articles you had edited is not stalking.

Your edit to Huma Abedin added unsourced negative info to a BLP article, so it was correctly reverted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBarano should have left an edit summary explaining why they did this, but the edit itself was correct and needed.

Your attempt to tag Susan L. Douglass for speedy deletion may or may not have been justified, but it was appallingly implemented. Again, it was correctly reverted.

I suggest that you pay a little more attention to the quality of your edits before making allegations of stalking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as it being unsourced that is completey incorrect as it is well sourced in the article and the linked article Anthony Weiner sexting scandals has 77 sources. The revert was done not for lack of sources but disagreement about it being in the opening as it has been in the article for quite some time. Please read the article before making the accusation that it was unsourced as you are clearly the expert in formalities here. I simply put a brief statement in the intro. It appears you maybe unfamilar with Weiner. The disgraced politician is well known in America and unfortunately she is better known for her husbands pornographic sexting to young women than for any other reason. Her husbands lewd behavior has brought much undesired attention due to his fascination with sexting parts similiar to his name. It is quite ironic and made much press. I do not care that NBSB reverted it but is very well sourced in the article and others as well. It is also abundantly clear the only way the editor in question got to my other edit was by stalking my edits. I am calling it as a reasonable person would not some stack of wiki bureaucracy manuals. No one edited that article for 2.5 years. NBSB was monitoring that article due to proclivity to edit war and sought revenge. NBSB then reverts another article I had worked on as a unconstructive tit for tat. No question there and completely obvious. It may have been appalling performed but it definitely was abandoned, unsourced, and not notable. At least I made an attempt but as I noted I am no expert and as you pointed out again. However NBSB was malicious and the track record speaks for itself. It does not matter from this point on to me. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple.

Look, if you up your game and still feel stalked, get back to me. But right now you are complaining about the reversion of things you did badly, and that's not stalking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK I will bite. Where did that rule that come from? Please cite your rule. Quoting your advice "accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple." --172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just read WP:BLP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Heres is the brief from BLP Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, "Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." It does say it must be credible. It thouroughly met that definition with 77 sources in the main article. You stated: "If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation Wherever It Is Mentioned. Simple." It clearly does not state that. That goes against notation standards. I recommend the Chicago Manual of Style or MLA if you like for further clarification on what is proper notation. It does not have to be done "Wherever It Is Mentioned." You added that burdensome requirement. Although I may somewhat of a novice to wiki's often contradicting bureaucracy I am no novice with proper notation. Again it is well sourced in the article and the linked article. Again the NBSB was exercising ownership and "stalked my other edit" for malicious purposes. A reasonable person would see that clearly. Again I asked you to warn NBSB further as you had done 2 weeks previously. It appears you condoned their action by accussing me of "added unsourced negative info to a BLP article." That was not done as I pointed out it was already in the article and thoroughly sourced. I only added a few words from the main article into the opening, nothing new. Again I do not care that NBSB reverted that, that is an editorial disagreement and I did not feel edit warring was beneficial. The malicious behavior after that was my concern. It is never proper to go after someones edits because they did not like the one you made to an article they felt ownership of. NBSB did that, there is no question to that by a reasonable person. I am disappointed you failed to acknowledge this point and attacked my intentions on NBSB's page. Your accusation's toward my intentions were rashly made. I have clearly demonstrated that. An apology for accussing me of having negative intentions would be nice. Another one for adding unsourced material would also be nice. And again my main concern was the hounding (if stalking does not fit wiki's definition) of my other edits for malicious purposes. Stalk: "to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalk another definition would be to hound someone for malicious purposes. My use of English was proper. I clearly demonstrated it. I also clearly demonstrated many other issues other editors have had with the said editor. The greater mystery is why false unfounded accusations of intent would be leveled against someone who sought someone who was supposed to know wiki's bureaucracy and was familiar with the editor in question to look into the matter and consider issuing a warning. I did my research before bringing this to your attention and made it as easy as I could for you to follow. Then you made a thinly veiled false accusation about my intent which is unfounded and unconstructive and one reason I am here challenging it. I showed you NBSB's action and they speak for themself. I never met NBSB before this but I saw something that is unacceptable behavior. Possibly you assumed something else but it is better to stick with the facts and not get caught up in conjecture about possible motives. Sorry so long but I wanted to make my points very clear so as not to be accused of anything else. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not even try to read that unformatted wall of text. I have already explained that I see no need for admin intervention here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Welcome to the fray... :)

Hi BHG, thank you for commenting on the Leilani Leeane discussion. I agree that Misplaced Pages articles are only as good as their sources, but there is unfortunately a lot of conflict over what sources are reliable, acceptable, or even genuine with regards to the Adult industry. I personally find it odd that there is such intensely applied double standard with regard to trade publications for the industry. Trade journals for a myriad of subjects are seemingly accepted everywhere else on the site, but are repeatedly impugned when it comes to anything porn or human sexuality related. Furthermore, these journals conduct themselves much like any other mainstream media outlet with regard to their editorial policies and choices, but no one seems to acknowledge that. As far as I am aware, no one has accused AVN magazine's Paul Fishbein of pushing a political agenda like has happened with Michael Bloomberg or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Anyway, its good to have an additional set of eyes on the articles. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks, and about undiscussed speedies in general

Hi, thanks for closing Dakelh. Could you please have a look at Talk:Stawamus and consider what I'm saying there, and likewise on my section on reversion of undiscussed speedy moves - no matter how stale (LabattBlueBoy's contention on Talk:Stawamus is that because an obscure article which got speedied did so a long time ago (when nobody was looking) is justification for it to remain where it is; even though he, like the article's mover, cannot in fact provide any citations to prove THEIR case. Undiscussed controversial moves, no matter how "stale", should be rolled back IMO.....but even when they're not stale, I can never seem to get one rolled back. And am always faced by people being very obstructionist (and seeming to relish the part) without themselves having any sources to prove their position. Or thinking they do, but on close examination (as with Stawamus) they don't at all; and even though User:OldManRivers and I are from the area, our knowledge of this community is being rejected outright, with the suggestion that the article should be deleted. Is ant-native language chauvinism that entrenched and that bitter? If an article's name isn't English enough, then that community's name should be wiped off Misplaced Pages? The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument has been posited in one of these RMs, can't remember at the moment if it's this one; but when does that get shoved aside in recognition of a real-world convention covering hundreds of native-language placenames in Canada, some of very large communities. Are only the ones with 7's and other special characters going to be deleted because somebody's got their knickers in a knot about being hardline about Misplaced Pages being English-only ("speak white" is how that comes across in Canada btw)? When a common anglicism, still in use (and not archaic), is available as in re Kii?in->Keeshan, that's OK (sort of) but when one is NOT, as in the case of Sta7mes (where Stawamus is common but pronounced differently and never used for the community), then what? All I'm seeing/hearing is obstructionism and a real digging-in-the-heels about the right of white ) wikipedians to dictate to native communities what they're allowed to be called. As re a comment I made last night on the new RM at Talk:Squamish people while it may be that Misplaced Pages's job is not to advance or promote a term or a convention in modern Canadian English to use such terms, it's also not Misplaced Pages's job to promote archaicisms and mistaken names and resist changes that more recent sources prove are happening. Forcing the past on the present is not Misplaced Pages's job. Also in the context of what happened to native cultures, that their languages were beaten out of them, their communities' and their own personal names were changed by edict, for Misplaced Pages to continue to replicate those forced-change names and outright errors is just....wonked.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

AjaxSmack accused me last night of attempting to WP:OWN the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish article- another case of making Skookum1 the target of criticism instead of answering to the points he raises. That's a new one, though. I've been around BC indigenous articles since 2007 or before and am among those who built the category hierarchy and article structure/content formats and am also among those who are knowledgeable about this particular area (and then some)...and the problems with these articles, to me, are coming from people who "OWN" guidelines and feel a compulsion to enforce them, ironclad rigid and not without a bit of power-tripping, and are obstinate about their own lack of facts, and who do not know the field, nor local geography, nor look around to what conventions on similar articles or related categories might be in place that their "have to" change is going to upset........nor have any respect for indigenous issues nor indigenous communities ("we don't care what they prefer to call themselves" is an oft-heard and kinda stupid refrain and whatever's in MOS that gets people saying that needs serious revision). The Fifth Pillar seems lost on everyone, though as I noted User:Phaedriel invoked it to shore up our creations of Category:Kwakwaka'wakw and the like, and also re OldManRivers' original Skwxwu7mesh title with all its diacriticals. And his creation Sta7mes and other community articles in what is now Category:Squamish people - which so far nobody from somewhere else armed with a monolithically-applied wiki guideline has come along to screw with; myself I'd strip the diacriticals off a few that still have them but that's a different matter than wiping the native names entirely; sure we have lots of archaic sources for Ustlawn instead of Esla7an but that doesn't mean the modern native spelling shouldn't be respected; it's also on Mission Indian Reserve No. 1, but as with Sta7mes/Stawamus Indian Reserve No. 24, that doesn't mean they're the same thing; nowhere near (see my comments about IR names vs communities-on-IRs in the Stawamus discussion). Or is WP:DISRESPECT a guideline somewhere? And since when does standing up for what is right constitute WP:OWNing?? I'm gonna get accused of polling, and ranting, so I'll leave now....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie_Uprising#Requested_move Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello,

Misplaced Pages:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy."

Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to read the edit notice which appears on this page, particular the second unindented bullet point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Link provided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Try again. There is no discussion at that link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

done.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just paste the link to the discussion in your message, in plain view, from the outset?

WP:AT. Since WP:AT is the policy basis on which all move discussions are assessed, I saw no need to spell that out explicitly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific and explain what arguments are presented during this discussion in connection with WP:AT?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.

This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.

That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting

Hello BHG.

This is about the requested move at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's Super-G, which you recently relisted. There are sources backing up the request, two editors support the request, no editors oppose it, despite the RM having been around since 16 February. Two editors have raised a couple of questions, which I have replied to.

If the full 7-day waiting period is again required, then the move will not be done until 11 March. Given the backlog on WP:RM, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the pages?

Thanks and regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi HandsomeFella

So far, the nominator and 4 other editors participated in the discussion. Of those 4, two did indeed support the move, but neither offered any rationale beyond "per nom", which is usually regarded as a weak form of support (because it shows no evidence of having engaged with the rationale). WP:NOTVOTE, and "support per nom" is little more than a form of vote.

The other two editors both raised substantive questions about the evidence. So, there is no consensus at this stage, and if I had closed now I would have closed as "no consensus". It seemed better to relist and allow other editors an opportunity to express their views.

WP:NODEADLINE, so a week's delay is not a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I'm just eager to get the post-move fixes going.

Tell me, if I were to invite/remind the editors who raised questions, to see what they think after I've responded and added sources, would that be considered canvassing?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So long as you keep the msg neutral and send the same message to all who participated, it would be absolurely fine wrt WP:CANVASS, and in fact a very good idea :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

You closed the discussion on the move request for International Conference For A WMD-Free Middle East with the conclusion "The result of the move request was: moved per nominator." And yet it has not been moved. Did you mean to move it, or did you mean for me (the nominator) to? NPguy (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi NPguy

I meant to move it myself, and have now done so. Sorry for that clumsy oversight, and thanks for reminding me. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Join me in drafting an RfC on Disambiguation/Primary Topic?

Although I have immense respect for you as a Wikipedian, we seem to have very different philosophies regarding disambiguation and primary topic issues. I would like to craft an RfC to gauge the consensus of the community on the degree to which we should prefer either primary topic designations or disambiguation pages for certain kinds of situations. We apparently have divergent views on whether hatnotes are effective for navigation (I think hatnotes are great for that, but you and other editors have suggested that they are too easily glossed over, and are not useful when set atop a very large and slow-loading page, which I agree is a concern).

I would also like to float some specific ideas - for example, that even though Apple is a primary topic, links to Apple should be piped through Apple (fruit), so that it is easy to find errant links intended for the company, or other less common uses. I note also that when Misplaced Pages articles are accessed through certain mobile devices, only the first section of the article initially shows up, and the other sections load individually. Perhaps pages like Apple and George Washington should initially load a shorter portion on every platform, so that a reader looking for the company or the university will not need to wait for the entire page to load for the hatnote information to be presented. Perhaps for an article like Apple, the hatnote should be made more prominent and dynamic, and the disambiguation information should be kept in a collapsed template in the hatnote, rather than on a separate page. These are just some thoughts that I have had on the topic, but I would like to have an RfC to tease out all of the reasonably possible options, and to see what is likely to work the best. I feel that if we write something together and can agree on its language, we will end up with a very neutral and informative description of what is in dispute, and what issues need clarification. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)