Misplaced Pages

User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:55, 1 May 2014 view sourceBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Your idea of a joke?: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025 view source UtherSRG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators178,958 edits Restored revision 1267987286 by Consarn (talk): Not appropriate...Tags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|optout=all}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:;">User talk:</span><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl}}
]
{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Wikibreak }}
]
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner|75}}<!--
{{pp|small=y}}
{{semi-retired|date=August 2023|1=Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless ] in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.<br />For a full explanation see }}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 31 |counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive %(counter)03d |archive = User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive %(counter)03d
}}<!-- }}<!--
Line 15: Line 17:
}}<!-- }}<!--
-->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!-- -->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!--
-->'''{{User:BrownHairedGirl/MyTalkLastEdited}}'''
--><div class="NavFrame" style="width:50%; border:1em solid darkblue; background-color:white; padding: 1em;-moz-border-radius: 2em"><!--
__TOC__
--><div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; padding: 0px;">'''BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages admin'''</div><!--
--><div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: left; padding: 0px; margin-top: 0.1em; margin-bottom: 0.1em">I have been an ] since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with ].


== Sorry for your trouble ==
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
'''.


Hello ]. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly ''what'' you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.</div></div><div style="float:right">{{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=no}}</div>


It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.
==You've got mail!==
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)}}
v/r - ]] 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, what he said. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - ]] 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.
Sorry! Thanks to you both (] & ]) for your messages.<br />I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - ]] 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - ]] 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry :( back on the case now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::::...again <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hi BrownHairedGirl, just letting you know I intend to close the discussion this evening barring any last-minute objections. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
== CFD/W ==


Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. ] is your monument.
I notice that you fully protected ] back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. ] (]) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|DavidLeighEllis}} Sorry for not replying. I had read your message, and wanted to think about it, and forgot to get back to you. :(
:I see that you asked at ] and that since CFD/W isn't a template, it shouldn't be protected as if it was. I support that conclusion.
:You may have noticed that I have just made a ] <small>()</small> which will have the effect of unprotecting part of CFD/W. I hope that may help a little. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|DavidLeighEllis}} Note that the proposal mentioned above has been implemented. The list of discussions awaiting closure is now at ], which is an unprotected page. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.
== Your premature noticeboard closure. ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{quote box2
| title =
| title_bg = #999
| title_fnt = white
| quote = The 2 editors involved should use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the ''substance'' of this dispute. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section (). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the ] Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning ''I'm'' being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? ] (]) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|VictorD7}} On the evidence presented, you are mistaking a complaint about sources for a criticism of you. I haven't tried to assess the merits of those sources, or the validity of EllenCT's description of them ... but even if she is wrong about the sources, that's a content dispute not an attack on you. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Your mistaken view is understandable since you aren't familiar with the disputes or the fact that I haven't added "statements" from the source in question, but what about my request that you admonish her to at least be clear about her accusations, since I posted proof that her claims, at best, can be taken by others to mean that I'm being paid? She's proved that she'll ignore my admonishments, but she might listen to an admin. who asks her to clarify that she's ''not'' leveling such a charge. Isn't that a reasonable request? ] (]) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::::I really think that you would do better to let it go. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Isn't that what you should be telling her? She's the one engaging in the repeated behavior, making a false personal accusation (false in either interpretation). If that continues unchanged I guess my only remedy would be to bring it back to the noticeboard, and hope for a more satisfactory hearing. ] (]) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::What happened when you posted to her talk page to ask for the clarification? --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::So it only counts if it's on her talk page? She ignored multiple opportunities to clarify what she meant when I gave her specific warning elsewhere, as my noticeboard links showed (, ). The last time I posted on her talk page (apart from giving her notice about this report) was a few months ago when I asked her to justify a blatantly false claim she made about a source by providing a single quote supporting what she said, and she completely ignored me, never answering (). BTW, that's despite the fact she was already discussing me before I showed up. I was the "he" in the above posts in the diff. She was upset that another editor who shares her politics was acknowledging that I had made legitimate points and was admonishing her for her insulting and excessively partisan posting style. This isn't an editor prone to reasonable, productive discussion. ] (]) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible? When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? ] (]) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|EllenCT}} {{ping|VictorD7}} I don't want my page to become an ANI substitute, so I will make one more comment and then close. (It's ''my'' talk page, so I get to decide who gets the last word here.)
:Both of you should take a deep breath and consider that the way this is going is likely to end up in some sort of situation where sanctions may be applied, to one or both of you. You both need to resolve the *substance* of this dispute, rather than arguing about each other's motivations.
:Have you considered ] or ]? --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
----
:''The discussion above is closed. <span style="color: #F00;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div>


It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.


If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).


It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser ]. . You are missed. ] (]) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
==RE: ]==
Hi, are you interested in leaving your opinion regarding the above category CFD, particularly given the category's similarity to other categories which were deleted way back when (i.e. , ). Yours, ] 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for the pointer. I have at the CFD. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


:Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! ] (]) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
==You've got mail!==
::My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)}}
::Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
v/r - ]] 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::], I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
::To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I <s>stalked</s> observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to ].
::Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. ]&nbsp;(]) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::word ---] ] 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


== Capture of Eat India Company vessel Nautilus == == Opting out of mass message delivery ==
{{Courtesy link|WT:Twinkle#Blocking notification messages}}


I am boldly adding ] to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] from this page for some time now. This will hopefully ], and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to ]. BHG doesn't like "{{xt|time-sink drama}}", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, ] (]) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for pre-empting the formal closure of the move discussion on this page. I was impatient with the creator of the page, with whom I (and other editors on subjects relating to the War of 1812) have become exasperated for ] issues, failure to provide citations of edit summaries and general disruptive behaviour. This editor began edit-warring on this and other pages, using sockpuppets, which I have reported to the admins. As I believe I would have been justified in a unilateral move without need for discussion (as "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate") I did so, prematurely, out of impatience. Incidentally, the present title follows the naming conventions with regard to most naval conflicts of the War of 1812. I believe that, while including the USS ''Peacock'' in the title might be strictly correct, but unwieldy. ] (]) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|HLGallon}}
:A ] move is often appropriate, provided that you accept per ] that it may be reverted, in which case a discussion is needed. Move wars tend to get stamped on.
:However, having chosen to open a discussion instead, the bold-move option is gone. It makes no sense to have a discussion if the proposer is going to do what they wanted anyway. Thanks for the apology for pre-empting the closure; I have reverted the move, and the discussion can run its course to whatever outcome. It was a minor thing, now sorted.
:I am not going to discuss the substantive merits of any of the titles; that's not an admin's role. Those points belong in the move discussion.
:I know that it can be frustrating to deal with some editors, but the two most important things that I have learnt about editing here are:
:#]. Getting it right doesn't mean that it has to be right, right now.
:#Don't let the frustration get to you. Misplaced Pages is a complex social environment, and impatience or frustration always damages an editor's standing, no matter what the perceived provocation.
:Hope this helps. Good luck! --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you for your help and forbearance. As an aside, the sockpuppet and edit-warring situation seems to be resolved. However, I will probably take a break from editing, for a few weeks at least, to avoid rash behaviour on my own part. ] (]) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


:I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. ] (]) (]) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== Null edit ==
:: Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See ]. ] (]) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: I liked the (]) suggestion of creation of a {{tl|no twinkle}} template. ] (]) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


== You can come back ==
'''Please explain''' Is there some CSS display problem that lead you to do ? Please use {{tl|Ping}} if you respond. —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Koavf}} No. It was labelled as a ], to indicate that it was intended to have no effect.
:Its purpose was to purge a transcluded template. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::'''Null edit''' Is there a reason why you didn't use <code>&action=purge</code>? Does this null edit revision do something that cache purging wouldn't do? —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::A purge doesn't seem to update the cached version of the page which is served to IP users, whereas a null edit does.
:::That means that whatslinkshere reflects changes to the template. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in {{lnc|Rich Farmbrough|15|202401021340|ns=0|disp=this user's edits}}. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. ] (]) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
==HRC Requested move==
Hi BHG, I was just wondering if you will be saying anything about the requested move. Some people seem interested in "Move review", but I advised waiting to find out if you had any comments. Cheers.


P.S. Should we call you Brown Haired Girl, or drop the "Haired"? :-)] (]) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) : I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. ] (]) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. ]] 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ] 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hi ]
*'''Support''' per nom --] (]) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:Sorry for my silence; some explanations below. As you may already have seen, I have posted my . So whether or not anyone agrees with the close, I hope there is no doubt that it is very much the conclusion of all 3 of us.
*'''Support''' so automated messages provided by Twinkle can stay on this talk page, and also to get this user to the 3,000,000 edit mark. ] (]) (]) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about the haired anymore. I pulled a lot of it out this week while trying to figure my way through various conundruma online and offline, so I am thinking of changing my name to ]. ;)
*'''Support''' per nom, in principle. I expect that a discussion in a more formal venue would need to take place. ] ] 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:Best wishes, --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' to having this conversation here at this point in time. Please shut this down and wait. - ] ] 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and for participating in the MR closure, though I probably would have come out with a different result. (I fixed the wlink above to your endorsement.) Take it easy and relax ("NoHairedGirl" just doesn't sound right, though I'm not doing so great in that department so probably should not talk about it). Cheers. ] (]) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
*:Agree in this, I should wait until the appeal date so I can give my view there. ] (]) (]) 17:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''', obviously. But is there anywhere I can get information on why BHG was banned? ] (]) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
== Hillary Rodham Clinton ==
*:] - ] ] 00:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' because of ]'s proven record of high excellence and hardworking dedication – assuming she retains any appetite for involvement here after her painful experience. She would be warmly welcomed back and appreciated by many. ] (]) 02:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to thank you for participating in the close of this move request. I don't need or want to know what went on behind the scenes, but just wanted to say that as someone else pointed out, this is volunteer work and sometimes other responsibilities here or in real life take precedence, so no apology for any delay was needed. We appreciate that the three of you were able to get through this one, and of course I am pleased with the outcome. But I would thank you for taking it on even if the outcome had been different. Cheers <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per nom. Subject meets the ] as a notable Misplaced Pages editor. Multiple sources have avowed her importance, and even if they didn't, per ] subject should be Kept and returned to active editing. ] (]) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, ], for your kind words.
*:This sounds like an argument at ]. It would belong at ] if there were an article called ]. ] (]) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:What went on behind the scenes was more detailed analysis of the discussion than I have ever done before, and a lot of chewing over of some finer points where various aspects of policy intersected. At the start of the analysis, I had no idea which way my assessment would point, and it was hard work weighing all the arguments.
*::Yes, it's a joke. <small>And tells you all you need to know about the average Misplaced Pages editor's sense of humour.</small> ] 14:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:And then Stuff Happened™ in various aspects of my life which left me thinking I'll do more writing tomorrow when I have fewer things on my mind and can give this full concentration ... but it took rather too many tomorrows for me to get to that point. In my absence, ] & ] did a magnificent job in writing up our conclusions, and taking the decision to post it rather than waiting for me to get my act in gear.
*'''Restore''' per nom. Sorry I missed this due to my own (voluntary) wiki-retirement. Best of luck, BHG. ] (]) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
:There was never going to be any close her that would satisfy everyone, and it looks like there may be a move review. If so, we'll see what uninvolved editors think of it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
* This is one of several cases that led me to write the essay ]. ArbCom (and, by extension, one faction of the community) has chosen a path I consider to be wrong and dangerous. The other faction of the community is expressing their sympathy here. This disconnect cannot, and will not, ever be resolved, so we will have to deal with the carnage. ] ] 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

*:Site bans for minor misconduct is a violation of ] ''policy'', I support the essay. ] (]) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
==]==
*'''Support''' appeal now that a year has elapsed, in my opinion, appealing the merits might be less effective to appealing the fairness of the site ban. ] (]) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I updated and notability tagged this article. Just wonder what you think re notability and the cruft I rv. I don't want to be accused of being antigay or whatever. Thanks. ] 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Its time to get yourself sorted out and back into shape. The project needs you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:Hi ]
*'''Query''': Should all deletion notifications be removed if there's a potential for return? ] (]) 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

*:I too am curious about that <sup>Thanks,</sup>] ] 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for asking me.
*::If the editor ever chooses to return, she would be able to find those deletion nominations by checking the history of this page if she was inclined to do so: nothing disappears completely. ]] 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:First thing is that I'm not sure I can be impartial on it. The whole business of an Irish woman ending up killed in an opaque sideshow to someone else's war feels v sad to me, and that's not an objective judgement.
*'''Come back''' ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:However, it does seem to me that the refs so far do give a '']'' claim to notability. She's the sole subject of a decent piece on CBSnews, and of several articles on Boston.com. The latter appears to be the work of the ''Boston Globe'' (see ]), so it looks like a ].
*'''Support''' - per Nom. ] (]) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
: I have two concerns. First, there is not much notable to her other than her unexplained death. That suggests that the article should be moved to ], and possibly restructured a bit.
*'''Support''' - The decision was too harsh against you. Please come back. You are not alone. ] (]) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Secondly, the article stops with material from years ago, when various US Senators asked questions about her death. What happened to those questions? Were they ever answered? Did anyone pursue the issue? That makes for a rather unsatisfactory article, and an update would help.
*'''Support''' She is an incredible worker who contributed extensively to Misplaced Pages for nearly two decades and did not deserve to be banned. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hope this helps. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. <small>We edited on and off for more than a decade, turning intermittently to BHG and others of comparable good heart and sense, when the arbitrariness and capriciousness of our local, transient majoritarian decision-making system went awry with regard to obvious and true Western understandings of justice and fairplay. It is an absurdist tragedy to see that through one of the same type of decisions-sans-justice, sans-accountability that WP has lost yet another productive worker.</small> We of course support her return. It would be a small justice should she be allowed to, a small blessing should she choose. But we trust, if we remain unblessed, that others will be in our stead. Our loss, other's gain. ] (]) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::: OK thanks. Those were the same concerns I have. If you think there is a prima facie case, I'll see if I can expand it. ] 00:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Good luck! --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:::: Oh, let me just ask. Do you think I should move it on my own using the "move" option or if it might be contentious how should I go about moving the article, as per your suggestion, to ]? Thanks. ] 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'd suggest a bold move. If it is reverted, then try a ] discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:: RE: ] -- I checked the and her family ''appears'' to have accepted the suicide verdict. So not much to add to article and notability unclear. Yours, ] 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::It seems a little unclear where her family stands. The website doesn't say that they accepted the suicide verdict, but nor does it say much else. If they were still contesting the verdict, I would expect more about unanswered questions etc, so I guess it's somewhere in the "not contested" territory. If it all just fizzled out, there may not be enough more material to establish notability. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

== 11th-century ==

Hi BHG, for info, I tinkered with your close at ], removing the hyphen, and tidied up afterwards. Kind regards – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks, ]. I hadn't spotted the glitch in the nominator's format, and it was kind of you to sort it out. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::Well, I saw that the Commons equivalent also needed sorting out... and some Wikidata... Don't ask me why I like the knotty ones! – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

==Persecution==
Hi. Since I believe we share similar opinions regarding subjective terminology in categories, I was just curious if you think the term "persecution" is appropriate or not for this , although to be honest I can't think of another word that might fit, so my opinion/suggestion on the thread didn't actually change that word. Still curious though. Yours, ] 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::: Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your kindness and attention. I will stop bothering you. I know you're a busy lady. I just wanted to get an idea of how to recognize and, if possible, tackle the issue of subjectiveness (or is it subjectivity?). Thanks, ] 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Hey, no prob. You're always welcome to ask. If I'm too busy I'll either say so, or be rude and ignore the post :)
::::And in this case I was glad to get a heads up on that discussion. The parent {{cl|Persecution}} is is a bit alarming, in that its selectivity seems to confer "persecuted" status to a few groups but not others. I'm sure that the selectivity arose unintentionally, but it looks bad. We need some more neutral way of grouping this sort of article. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::: Thanks. Right, I noticed the same thing. I did neglect to check and see if that category was part of a larger category, which it is. I have to get into that habit since piecemeal is not the way to go, as you pointed out. The term is subjective, IMO, although understandable and I am not sure what word I would use in its place. I don't want to be a hypocrite given all the other categories deleted in those old CFDs for the same reason. But ''not'' today.<br> Also, there may be a special wrinkle with the Persecution of LGBT people category given that this topic is highly provocative to many and any attempt, even in good faith, to alter it can produce what I can only describe as heated and negative environment. There was an AFD on the ] article (which you can see and read for yourself ) several years ago regarding the (non)notability of the article as the subject acquired notability mostly through his tragic and untimely death after ]. Anyway, what I can only describe as a ] of single-purpose, newly created editors besieged the thread, which was acknowledged by the closing admin who decided to keep the article despite a decidedly mixed and irregular debate and dubious consensus. (Just like a US presidential election!) It created a very uncomfortable and accusatory tone. So, while I hate to acknowledge that outside interests can intrude on our inner sancta here on Misplaced Pages, it can occur. Ah, well, we'll see what happens. Yours, ] 21:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

== Songs about ==

Hi I am happy to accept your recommendations, would you be kind enough to merge these three (abortion, loneliness and buses? (Rain should remain separate as the comment by one editor is what started this). Depending on your response I am happy to add the other "songs about" categories, or continue and do the group nomination properly when the present noms are closed. Thanks for your help. I shouldn't edit until I am awake. --] (]) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Richhoncho}} OK, will merge the Apr 26 discussions as a first step.
:But that still leaves us with another discussion on Apr 25, and many similar categories not included in the discussion at all. It would be massively better to to have one centralised discussion about the principle of all such categories. so I plead with you gain to withdraw all the current nominations. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::Discussions merged. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your help. I have seen your note on rain and it is obvious we do not agree on the correct steps to take - I would suggest the reason for this is linear, at the time of nomination for rain I had no intention of listing all, it was the prompting of one editor that made me consider all. Shame I messed that up, but I did. So as far as I am concerned my mess has been cleared up and all is as it should be. --] (]) 17:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Richhoncho}} Glad to help. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was somehow accusing you of being intentionally disruptive or anything like that. I just thought that you were pursuing a well-reasoned objective in good faith in a way which had some adverse effects you hadn't foreseen, and I am sorry that I didn't stress my assumption of good faith. As you say, all cleared up now.
::::At this point, I wonder whether way ahead is through a group nomination or an RFC. I would be inclined to suggest an RFC, because it seems to create a more reflective discussion if editors don't feel an immediate urge to defend against a deletion. If you like, I would be happy to help draft an RFC. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I always assumed that there was no inference of bad will - on either side. It was my intention to list them all this morning :(. So let's move on, I do accept your offer of help for an RfD. There is some notes I have made for myself at User:Richhoncho/Songs_by_theme and I already have a list of every "song about" category. --] (]) 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

==Brazilian Senate CFD==
Hi, thanks for the ping regarding ]. Yes, I can still do the split. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:Hi ]
:That's great. You seemed to have a grasp of the topic, and it's better done by the editor who knows it than by the closer. You may have spotted that I also listed the categs at ], so maybe you can also remove that listing when done. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Sure, no problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
== April 2014 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span>
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki></nowiki>{{red|'''&#91;'''}}<nowiki></nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you, Bracketbot. Now . -] <small>] • (])</small> 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

== Hillary Rodham Clinton II==

What happened to you? You made a commitment to be a part of a three admin closing panel and then just stopped communicating with the other two admin. I for one would really like to know why this occurred.--] (]) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:Never mind. I see it above. Real life happens.--] (]) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==
Hey, BHG, <br>
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I noticed that you had done some editing of this policy in 2013 and I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as ] can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for the pointer, ]. I have add to the discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:: I haven't read your contribution yet, BHG, but, in general, I think it's important for a discussion not just be a difference of opinion between two editors but have input from others (whatever that opinion might be). Then it turns from a situation of "me vs. you" into a proper conversation. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''] <sup>(] • ])</sup> • 10:42pm''' •</span> 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

== Your idea of a joke? ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category_talk%3ALiverpool_docks&diff=606553455&oldid=409881035

Or Eric's? 8-( ] (]) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:], a little AGF goes a long way. A quick glance at my contribs would show you that it was part of a long AWB run of all sub-cats of {{cl|Greater Manchester}}. Collecting all subcats usually brings in a few extraneous categories, and I had already spotted {{cl|Peak District}} as bring lots of Derbyshire into the set. I had also spotted that the Manchester Ship Canal brought into some other topics outside GM, and hoped that I had spotted and removed all the extraneous material from the list. It seems that I missed that one.
:Thank you for spotting and fixing this one. But it was unnecessary to use an edit summary to suggest that I was trolling. :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: If it was a genuine mistake then I'm sorry, but if you're looking for where AGF went, ask Wikipediocracy. ] (]) 00:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't bother with those review/critique sites. It's up to each editor to decide for themselves whether to assume good faith. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

==Newark by-election Infobox==
Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election ]. Thanks. ] (]) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for the pointer. I have to the discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025

SEMI-RETIRED

Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless quote-mining in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.
For a full explanation see this post This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of August 2023.
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives 
  1. Jan 2006
  2. Aug 2006
  3. Oct 2006
  4. Jan 2007
  5. Mar 2007
  6. Apr 2007
  7. Jun 2007
  8. Jul 2007
  9. Sep 2007
  10. Nov 2007
  11. Dec 2007
  12. Jan 2008
  13. Mar 2008
  14. Apr 2008
  15. May 2008
  16. Mar 2009
  17. May 2009
  18. Dec 2009
  19. Feb 2010
  20. Mar 2010
  21. Aug 2010
  22. Nov 2010
  23. Jan 2011
  24. Feb 2012
  25. Aug 2012
  26. Oct 2012
  27. Jan 2013
  28. Apr 2013
  29. Oct 2013
  30. Feb 2014
  31. Mar 2014
  32. May 2014
  33. Jul 2014
  34. Jan 2015
  35. Dec 2015
  36. Jun 2016
  37. Aug 2016
  38. Feb 2017
  39. Mar 2017
  40. Apr 2017
  41. Jul 2017
  42. Feb 2018
  43. Apr 2018
  44. Oct 2018
  45. Dec 2018
  46. Feb 2019
  47. Mar 2019
  48. Apr 2019
  49. Jun 2019
  50. Jul 2019
  51. Jul 2019
  52. Sep 2019
  53. Oct 2019
  54. Nov 2019
  55. Nov 2019
  56. Feb 2020
  57. Mar 2020
  58. Apr 2020
  59. Jun 2020
  60. Aug 2020
  61. Sep 2020
  62. Oct 2020
  63. Mar 2021
  64. Jun 2021
  65. Jul 2021
  66. Oct 2021
  67. Nov 2021
  68. Dec 2021
  69. Feb 2022
  70. Apr 2022
  71. Jun 2022
  72. Aug 2022
  73. Sep 2022
  74. Jan 2023
  75. Jun 2023
  76. Jul 2023
  77. Aug 2023
  78. Post-Aug
  79. future
  80. future
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 7 January 2025 at 18:47 by UtherSRG (talk • contribs • logs)

Sorry for your trouble

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.

It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.

This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.

Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.

Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. Your neverending contribution history is your monument.

It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.

It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.

If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).

It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser GreyHairedGirl. May you always dream of dmy dates. You are missed. O'Dea (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
O'Dea, I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I stalked observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to meaningful edit summaries.
Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
word ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Opting out of mass message delivery

 Courtesy link: WT:Twinkle § Blocking notification messages

I am boldly adding Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to all those editors who have been patiently removing mass-mailing messages from this page for some time now. This will hopefully put a stop to it, and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to switch over to editing something else. BHG doesn't like "time-sink drama", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See WT:TW#Blocking notification messages. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I liked the (archived) suggestion of creation of a {{no twinkle}} template. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can come back

Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in this user's edits. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. PamD 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ——Serial Number 54129 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: