| Revision as of 02:48, 16 March 2019 view sourceAndreyVorobyov (talk | contribs)104 editsNo edit summary← 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}} | |||
| ] | |||
| <!-- {{wikibreak | message=BrownHairedGirl is away on holiday until some time around the 9th August 2014, and expects to be offline in that time.<br />She will try to catch up on messages when she returns.}} --> | |||
| ] | |||
| {{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Wikibreak }} | |||
| {{pp|small=y}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner|75}}<!-- | |||
| {{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 = |
|counter = 78 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(28d) | |algo = old(28d) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| |template=User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/default template | |template=User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/default template | ||
| }}<!-- | }}<!-- | ||
| -->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!-- | |||
| --><div class="NavFrame" style="width:50%; float:right; border:1em solid darkblue; background-color:white; padding: 1em;-moz-border-radius: 2em"><!-- | |||
| -->'''{{User:BrownHairedGirl/MyTalkLastEdited}}''' | |||
| --><div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; padding: 0px;">'''BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages admin'''</div><!-- | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| --><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> | |||
| {{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Merge Proposal == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Hi there! | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Rembrandt research in Australia == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Hello BrownHairedGirl, | |||
| 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. | |||
| I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Nikola Kicev == | |||
| 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). | |||
| can you change my height in my bio :) | |||
| 191 cm | |||
| ==Deletion review for ]== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Addition to list == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Hi... | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Actress /Model | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Carmen Electra is From Ohio | |||
| ::], 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. ] (]) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::word ---] ] 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| == Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Hello BrownHairedGirl! | |||
| :: 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. — ] (]) 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 == | |||
| The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request... | |||
| 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) | |||
| I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer. | |||
| : 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) | |||
| Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| All the best, | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom --] (]) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Praevalebit | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' to having this conversation here at this point in time. Please shut this down and wait. - ] ] 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Macedonia CFD == | |||
| *: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) | |||
| Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination. | |||
| *:] - ] ] 00:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|Categories}} | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *:This sounds like an argument at ]. It would belong at ] if there were an article called ]. ] (]) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *::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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *'''Restore''' per nom. Sorry I missed this due to my own (voluntary) wiki-retirement. Best of luck, BHG. ] (]) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *::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) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| *'''Support''' - per Nom. ] (]) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The decision was too harsh against you. Please come back. You are not alone. ] (]) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, @] I would add the 8 categories which include "Republic of Macedonia" in their title. However, sadly the CFD has been prematurely closed by non-admin @] (see discussion below and at ]). | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :Would you be kind enough to revert that ], and reopen the discussion? --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:58, 16 February 2019 (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) | |||
| :: The discussion was reopened. Would you like to add the 8 categories or would you like me to? — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]. I have added the 8 cats to the CFD, and tagged them. | |||
| :::Thanks again for spotting them, and for notifying me. It took me a few hours to build the list (because the category tree is heavily polluted), so I'd have missed them otherwise. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. ] (]) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Sigh. @], do read ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on ]... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. | |||
| I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">] <b>]</b><sup style="font-size:75%">]</sup></span> 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| <small>Please don't hate me. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">] <b>]</b><sup style="font-size:75%">]</sup></span> 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| <small><small>I'm really sorry, but closed the ] just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be ''really'' bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">] <b>]</b><sup style="font-size:75%">]</sup></span> 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)</small></small> | |||
| *@], I agree with the ] by @] and @]. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (see ]#2), because it is a controversial closure. | |||
| :The article name of the country has already been agreed at ], where the closer @] noted an {{tq|overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article}}. | |||
| :The adjectival forms are indeed being discussed at the RFC, but they have been explicitly excluded from the CFD. So the CFD and RFC can run in parallel. Please revert your closure. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''PS''' See also ]: ''"In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question"''. | |||
| ::So far as I am aware, you don't have that extraordinary experience of CFD. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have responded on ]. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">] <b>]</b><sup style="font-size:75%">]</sup></span> 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Another request == | |||
| Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here and here, he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern. | |||
| I've tried asking this editor myself and a few other occasions and been ignored. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here and here for two recent examples. Thanks.], is the complaint department really on ] 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Clothing companies == | |||
| Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of ], who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Misplaced Pages category at you have chosen to revert only me for--see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and ] have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Misplaced Pages categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Misplaced Pages, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. ] (]) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note that the above is not a tu quoque argument. By singling out one category year (1963) to differ from the ones directly preceding and following it is to break the logical structure of the existing categories. Any application of a rule such as WP:SUBCAT must be weighed against producing such inconsistencies. And there should presumably be discussion and a plan in place to address the subsequent inconsistencies in existing categories if the change is put forward. This is not a trivial operation. It deserves discussion and a plan of action, not cherry-picking me as some miscreant who needs personal attention. ] (]) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please consider what a good faith reversion per WP:SUBCAT of these categories might look like. Many of these "Clothing companies established in year XXXX" categories were created by user ]. (Please note: No criticism implied. Thanks for your work, ]!) So if one was, in good faith, trying to correct subcat errors, one might notify this user as well as me for a discussion. In fact, a general discussion of this--how does one systematically change subcategorization issues across horizontally-organized categories such as "in year XXXX"? and how does one do it?--IMO needs to be done, but hasn't been. Then, one could presumably come to a conclusion and divide the labor to make the changes. Or, one might WP:BEBOLD and just go ahead and change the whole category one by one by oneself, although this is very labor intensive, as someone who has done such work before can attest. But it should be clear that what one would NOT do--if one was actually interested in solving a subcategorization problem, rather than targeting a particular user--is single out only one of the horizontally-organized categories for change and leave the others directly adjacent (presumably equally incorrect) intact, which actually WORSENS the existing situation. ] (]) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're the one who is taking it personal and taking the ] approach rather than still adding shit to category pages when you know its wrong. I have been cleaning up behind Look2See- who got indefinitely blocked for the messes he was creating- and Hugo999 not just you. I didn't cherry pick. You are refusing to stop this bullshit so I came here because nothing else (Multiple messages on your talk page) was working.], is the complaint department really on ] 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) @] a little more ] would help a lot. As would less verbosity, and more focus on the substantive issues. (BTW, I have changed the heading of this discussion to a more descriptive and less accusatory title) | |||
| :I know that @] can be an acquired taste, but that doesn't mean he is wrong; best to evaluate his comments on their merits. And ] has been indef-blocked since 2017 for repeated disruption, so we can ignore that editor. | |||
| :So, to the substance. | |||
| :Why do you think that it is insufficient for clothing companies to be categorised under both manufacturing and design? Why do you think that they also need to be in the undifferentiated parent cat "companies"? | |||
| :Or is your objection simply about consistency, that that they should all be either included in the parent or all removed? --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::He never did reply to you. Not surprisingly, because there is no logical explanation for his edits. Just personal attacks.], is the complaint department really on ] 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Your fork == | |||
| About ] - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run <nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki> as javascript code. See {{No redirect|User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js}} for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. --] (]) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, @]. I learnt the hard way that it broke, so the next edit changed it to <code><nowiki>importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' )</nowiki></code> , which works. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==] has been nominated for discussion== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2019 at Women in Red == | |||
| {| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFFFFF;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | ] <small>March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113</small> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>''Happy Women's History Month from ]!''</big> | |||
| <br /><br /> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Please join us for these virtual events:''' | |||
| <br /> | |||
| March: | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Geofocus: | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Continuing initiatives: | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 5px solid #ABCDEF;" | | |||
| <br /> | |||
| '''Other ways you can participate:''' | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Help us plan our future events: | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Join the conversations on our {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Follow us on Twitter: | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Subscription options: | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| {{Clickable button|<small>]</small>|color=white}} | |||
| <br /><small>--] (]) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Rosiestep@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/List&oldid=883895510 --> | |||
| == Sindbad edits. == | |||
| Hello | |||
| I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. | |||
| Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::@]: are you referring | |||
| ::#to this edit, which I reverted in this edit? ... ''or'' | |||
| ::# to these edits, which were reverted by ]? --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == How To Make Edits That Are Acceptable == | |||
| Dear BrownHairedGirl, | |||
| Can you please give instruction on making the edits that we tried to make to Glenn Hetrick's Wiki page? | |||
| We're not trying to do anything wrong, libelous, or against Wiki rules... | |||
| The images of Mr. Hetrick are old; we wanted to take them out and put in his image as the host of SyFy's FaceOff! which he was for years. | |||
| All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistants. | |||
| How can we update his bio? Do you need authorization from him? | |||
| What are considered reliable sources? I tried my best and had no clue I was using what Wiki considers "unreliable" sources. | |||
| IS it possible to have you reply also in my personal email? Wiki is very awkward for me and honestly hard to figure out. | |||
| Is it possible to forward the changes he wants to you? Can you enter them properly on his behalf? | |||
| serenascholl888@gmail.com | |||
| Thanks!! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hi @] | |||
| :Sorry to use numbered points, but I think it's clearest: | |||
| :#I keep discussion about Misplaced Pages articles public on Misplaced Pages, so I won't be emailing you. | |||
| :#Misplaced Pages articles must use ]. You didn't; your edits used unreliable sources including Misplaced Pages and IMDB | |||
| :# Since you say that {{tq|All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistant}}, you have a Conflict of Interest, and therefore <u>you should not edit the page</u> See ] | |||
| :Hope this helps. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''PS''' I see that I had already left a note on you talk page about the Conflict of Interest. Please read it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| BrownHariedGirl, | |||
| I gave my email address because there's a bug red bar across the notes from you that say indicate you'll be answering on the talk page unless we give another way to answer --- not because I want to take the talk off this page. | |||
| I was hoping for a more human response however, and one that would actually help. | |||
| I don't understand 9% of what you sent out to me. It might as well be in Greek. And navigating through this site is really unfathomable. It's just not understandable or intuitive. | |||
| I do get it that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits... So WHO IS? | |||
| Can I replace the old version of the Wiki page before I made edits? (I kept a copy of the code version) so that at least we know that version is acceptable to you/Wiki? | |||
| Instead of reams of Wiki rules, is there anyone in the Wiki Admin world who can help with making legit updates to the page? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hi again ]. | |||
| :I'll try to explain this very simply. | |||
| :# Misplaced Pages is is an encyclopedia. This is, a reference work which summarises knowledge published elsewhere by reliable sources | |||
| :#Misplaced Pages is not a promotional device. If anyone wants to promote Hetrick online, they can set up a blog or website, or use social media or buy advertising. Misplaced Pages is not a free advertising service | |||
| :# Misplaced Pages has a policy of neutrality. So an article should not edited by anyone with a conflict of interest. That means that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits on to articles about him. | |||
| :# You or Mr Hetrick or anyone else is free to edit ] to ''request'' edits to the page | |||
| :# To request edits, follow the instructions at ]. | |||
| :# Note that any changes will rejected unless they are sourced to independent, reliable sources. So, for example, a scholarly book or a newspaper article is appropriate; a blog or a press release or a company website is not suitable. | |||
| :# Your requested edit will be reviewed by independent editors, who will decide whether the change improves Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :# The previous edits which you made contained copyright violations, so have been removed. | |||
| :# All other versions of the article remain in ... but you need not worry about that, because you won't be editing the article. | |||
| :Please remember that Misplaced Pages is run entirely by volunteers. I have volunteered as much help to you as am willing to give. If you would like further assistance, please ask at the ], which is set up to help new editors. | |||
| :Best wishes, --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Dear BrownHairedGirl, | |||
| Thanks for your reply. | |||
| The main important question that somehow was not answered is: Is it "allowed" by you and Misplaced Pages, that I might replace the content of Mr. Hetrick's Wiki page with the code that was there when I tried to edit? I saved a copy of the original material / content. | |||
| I realize you may have "resigned" from editing or "approving" whatever goes on on this page as you referred me to the tea party... feeling you've helped as much as you'd like. | |||
| So if no response from you arrives in the talk, I will replace what was there before I made any changes. | |||
| I can only imagine this would be acceptable, since it was written by an unknown author, and was previously Wiki "approved". | |||
| Thanks so much for all your concern. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Nomination for merging of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Sigh. @] it would be great if you could divert your energies to ''adding'' functionality, instead of these ill-conceived merge proposals. {{smiley|sad}} -] <small>] • (])</small> 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == The Irish problem... == | |||
| I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. ]] 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Civility Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You became involved in a bit of drama recently, as did I. I do not wish to grave dance, nor rehash the controversy, so I will refrain from naming names or specifics. Regardless, it was important that an editor of your magnitude stood up for the idea of civility. Too often, we're forced to choose between respecting serious but uncivil content contributors and respecting the ideal of civility itself. You demonstrate an exemplary stance that the two sides are not irreconcilable. You stood up for what was right in the face of controversy. Additionally, while you technically were in the right in terms of policy, you demonstrated that you were able to accept criticism that you likely didn't agree with, and overturn your own administrative action. This demonstrates wisdom, restraint, and a balanced temperament, which are important qualities in an administrator. So, in sum, I just want to recognize you for both your assertiveness in standing up for what's right, and your restraint in not unnecessarily escalating an already-heated situation. Best, ] ] 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Hi Swarm | |||
| :Sorry for a slow reply, but thank you very very much for your kind words and for the barnstar. | |||
| :Sadly, the policy of civility is too often treated more as a forlorn prayer than as actual policy, and this was one of those occasions. But from time to time I do try to do a wee bit about it. | |||
| :As I expected, one of the miscreant's friends took me to ANI over it, and intends to proceed to arbcom. Hey ho; it goes wth the territory. And that territory was mapped out brilliantly over 3 years ago in an . That piece is mostly about sexual harassment, but there is one sentence fragment which neatly encompasses the problem which recurs time and again: ''"a swaggering atmosphere of faux-intellectual machismo, and they think it's their due as macho content creators to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of women editors."'' | |||
| :I wish we had made some progress since 2015, but I'm not seeing much sign of it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just wanted to say that I was impressed by what you wrote at AN and that I take your remarks very seriously. I will think much more about your words in the days to come. An interesting (to me) footnote to the incident is that I originally intended to block for 72 hours and had already typed up my block notification (which is not my usual practice). Before blocking, I decided to review the editor's block log, and was surprised to discover that it was quite short for such an aggressive editor with well known civility problems. At that moment, I relented a bit and selected 31 hours instead. I discussed this on my talk page with another editor the other day. Perhaps this indicates that I am a coward or a wimp. On the other hand, there are plenty of other administrators who could have acted while I was working that day, but didn't. You indicated that all this crazy aggressive behavior might be fodder for sociological research, and I agree. But I am an old construction worker, not a young sociologist. I operate pragmatically, by the seat of my pants, trying to do the right thing, as each incident crops up. Thanks again for the clarity with which you explained your thinking. I appreciate it. ] ] 04:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks v much for that, ]. My ANI response is how I see this incident in the context of a wider problem, and it's good to know that it made some sense. | |||
| :::I certainly don't think you are a coward or wimp. Quite the contrary; you did the really important thing of actually blocking them, when others prevaricated. That was the single most important step in the whole thing, and I am very glad you did it. | |||
| :::I don't think that length of that initial block was much of an issue. What matters is that there was ''any'' block, rather that yet more debate with the enablers. Looking at now, with all the benefit of time to reflect and the 20-20 vision hindsight, I think that the ideal block was in the range from more than 24 hours (to indicate that this was more than a std block), but no more than 7 days (because this was the first block in this episode). | |||
| :::To my mind, the point of that block was to make it abundantly clear that this editor needed to make a clean break by backing off hard from this conduct, and that what mattered most was their response to it. The ideal response would have been along the lines of "sorry, I deserved that; will sit out the block", and I would have hoped for at least an unblock request which expressed some sort of acknowledgement that the conduct was out of order, or an indication that there would no be repetition of the outburst. | |||
| :::In this case the user spectacularly failed that test, and it all went the way it went. | |||
| :::So please don't put yourself down. You were the admin who made a good call when it was needed, and that's a crucial talent in an admin. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* (passer-by) Found myself reading into the history of the above event and wanted to leave a note on your talk page for great work you have done. Not only were your actions appropriate, but ironically, had your ban been supported, then the editor in question would probably have fully "powered down" and might still be editing today. However, your decision to withdraw your action on the basis of community consensus, speaks even more to your credit and that you are able to make rational decisions in difficult situations. | |||
| ::::: I myself have been subject abuse by such characters in WP, which almost led me to leave WP. | |||
| ::::: I have also seen the support that these characters receive to "compartmentalize" their poor behavior as temporarily acceptable. The logic is that WP needs such characters to protect it (like the "]") from the bad world. However, WP already has the policies to deal with bad behavior; we just need people like yourself to "press the button" and enforce it. Maybe we need a period of "hyper-blocking", where lots of people get a time-out, but it would change behaviors, and ironically, would probably prolong the ability of such characters to contribute to WP (as they all seem to blow-up in the end anyway, and end up like "]"). thanks again! ] (]) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==North Macedonia== | |||
| We are in the process of moving all Macedonia categories to ]. Please see ]. When you alter templates it makes the moves all the more difficult. I shall revert ]. Thanks, ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :You have just ''proposed'' that they be moved. The requests remain open for 48 hours to see if there are any objections. | |||
| :Please wait until the processing starts before you alter the templates. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The templates are what populate the categories. ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly, @]. That is ''precisely'' why I asked you to wait. | |||
| :::If you change templates before the 48 hours are up, the templates populate non-existent categories. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On the other hand, if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headaches. I coordinate 6,825 regional user templates which populate about 1800 user categories. I am 70-years-old and I have a fatal blood cancer. I am anxious to get these regional user templates and categories straightened out before I go. Thank you for your understanding. Yours aye, ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], one of the consequences of creating such a huge and complex nest of interlinked templates is that maintenance becomes near-impossible for anyone else. It looks to me very like a ] (aka "walled garden"). | |||
| :::::The fact that you don't trust the experienced admins who process ] to modify it accurately in the case of a simple country renaming seems to me to be confirmation of that. Admins such as {{yo|Fayenatic london|Ymblanter |Black Falcon|Tim!|p=}} and myself who regularly process that page are some of en.wp's most experienced admins in the intersection of categories and templates, and if we can't be relied upon to do this accurately, then the fault is in the structure. | |||
| :::::Countries being renamed, achieving independence, or united with a neighbour is something which happens nearly every year. Over the last three decades, we have had a flurry of such changes in the former Yugoslavia, in central Europe, in the horn of Africa, and in the Caribbean, plus the renaming of Myanmar and of some African countries (e.g. Zaire, Swaziland). The next few decades will likely see some of the following: the breakup of the United Kingdom, further changes in Caribbean and in Africa, new states in the Caucasus, the Czech Republic being more widely known as Czechia ... and plenty more which I haven't considered. | |||
| :::::So this needs ongoing maintenance. The list of countries has never been a static set. | |||
| :::::If there is to be any chance that nest of templates and categories will stand any chance of being maintained when you are no longer around, then it needs to be both radically simplified and heavily documented. Otherwise it will become such a drain on editors' time and energies that it will have to be dismantled one way or another (probably by some combination of substing the templates and deleting many of the over-nested categories). | |||
| :::::In the meantime, while you are maintaining this walled garden, please please please try to keep changes synchronised, to avoid cluttering ] and its analogues with mismatches. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Most of my current activity is to enhance documentation so these templates and categories can be maintained more easily. These templates and categories are intended to encourage participation of users, particularly users in small and non-English-speaking countries. What may appear to be a nest is actually the use of common parameter and documentation elements for each country or region. Changing one of these files changes all dependent templates simultaneously. I've been coding professionally for 48 years, so I do know a wee about maintenance. Yours aye, ] (GreyHairedLad)<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I do find it ironic that with BREXIT, Ireland will become the last English-speaking EU member state. ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, Brexit is bringing a wealth of ironies for many. | |||
| :::::::Look, I know that you are skilled at coding. But remember, this is a Wiki, which is supposed to be easy to edit. Most editors and admins are not professional coders, so the more complex and interdependent you make the code, the less likely that it will be maintainable. It seems to me that what you are creating is a structure which would be fine in a professional coding environment, but en.wp is not a professional coding environment ... and as you acknowledge above it is not maintainable by the editors who actually need to maintain it. | |||
| :::::::I remain unpersuaded that these categories and userboxes have any meaningful impact on participation. In the course of admin work, I visit a lot of userpages, and AFAICS userboxes are a form of decoration which some users enjoy ... but in my experience there is a some sort of roughly inverse correlation between the number of userboxes and substantive content creation. | |||
| :::::::I have no desire to interfere with what editors do with their userpages, but if that decorative stuff imposes maintenance headaches on others, then we have a problem which will likely be resolved by simplifying the maintenance issues. | |||
| :::::::The {{tq|common parameter and documentation elements}} thing is fine in theory, but in practice it only works if editors who need to make changes can quickly and easily find what changes are needed. On a wiki, most changes are handled simply by editing the pages directly. It works because nearly anyone can fix it easily, and while more edits may be required, the result is achieved quicker than reading piles of docs. That's why the wiki-coded category system works anyone can easily fix it. | |||
| :::::::You have created a structure in which that is not possible, and where as you have acknowledged, the editors who usually handle these issues can't figure it out. For example, the wiki approach is that it should be possible to handle the name change of these categories simply by editing the category pages. The fact that doesn't work is a major design flaw which will be rectified some day. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Misplaced Pages is easy to edit and easy to corrupt. What I have created can be easily maintained and modified by any user. Some of my projects have survived unmodified for 28 years, and some were only designed for a few weeks. I have no desire for a lasting legacy, only short-term utility. Here today, gone tommorow. ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorry, @], but I think you identified the problem correctly the first time when you wrote {{tq|if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headache}}. This system is maintainable only by you. | |||
| :::::::::Today, those Macedonia categories were renamed. It too me >20 minutes to figure out what changes were needed where, which is ridiculous. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You corrupted ], but I fixed it. Hopefully you will not encounter this problem again, but if you do, just ping me please. ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::@], thanks for your fix. | |||
| :::::::::::But the nature of the fix reinforces my point that this whole thing is ridiculously complex, and a maintenance nightmare. {{smiley|sad}} --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I try to fix anything that I've worked on in the past ten years. | |||
| :I don't want to take more of your time, but all of these 6,825 regional user templates can be deleted and we can just notify linked users to link directly to their regional user categories. This is not article namespace. It is not that important. The only reason I took on this project is because I was tired of being bullied in article namespace. Misplaced Pages is terribly ageist. I wish I'd told everyone that I'm 19. Anyway, best of luck to you and I'll see you around the campfire. ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|Buaidh}}, or {{u|BrownHairedGirl}} please fix . Wikipedians in North Macedonia, regardless of their ethnicity, do not identify as "North Macedonian", and even by the ] which changed the name of the country, they never agreed to be referred to as such. The nationality remains Macedonian. This is a sensitive issue, currently debated in a RfC, I guess there will be this type of problems for many categories, but this particular one can piss off a lot of Wikipedians. I don't think that anybody would like to find out he is a "proud North Macedonian" on his user page. Cheers. --] (]) 23:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :@], that sounds like an error. | |||
| :But you would do better to post on Buaidh's talk page. Per the discussion above, the templates which create those categs are a mystery to me. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Argh, bad link. OK, thanks, I will talk to him. --] (]) 11:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hopefully I have this fixed. If anyone has a problem please post to my talk page. Thank you, ]<span style="font-size:70%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Category|Controlled lakes == | |||
| Greetings ]. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the ''Control Lakes'' listing at the <nowiki>{{NYCwater}}</nowiki> template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page ] and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, ] (]) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :I did ping you! | |||
| :However, I was working off , and had forgotten that having whittled down the 100 other entries which were there earlier today, the latest update was mostly going to be v recent edits. Looking at the page history, it seems I jumped way too quickly (only one minute after your last edit). I should have left it for longer; sorry about that. | |||
| :I hope that my edit summary didn't come across as sarky. I have taken to trying to be more informative in edit summaries, so that's one of my new std summaries for these cases. I used to just write "category does not exist (see ])", but that seemed a bit terse. Maybe the terse form is better? --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I meant ping me ''before'' ;) , a little heads up like "Did you mean to create this category? If not, I'm going to delete it." But I suppose that would take a bot to keep you from slowing down, then you'd get gummed up most the time waiting for someone to reply that may or may not get right back to you, ending up with an extra To-do list for you of categories you're holding off deleting awaiting word from the front. Or not. | |||
| ::Not so workable, I see now. | |||
| ::As for your edit summaries, the 2nd actually is much more helpful, even if may rub the over-sensitive user the wrong way a bit. It's more informative, and provides a better roadmap for the pingee to potentially follow. | |||
| ::I confess to a possible touch of such over-sensitivity on two grounds: one, in general, I am a very good and well-informed editor, with (shockingly, to me, anyway) a resume of writing for publication in one form or another over some six decades; in a single scant year ''seven''. Consequently, I tend to get riled when other less thoughtful editors than yourself take their shoes off and tap out (something very close to) "I reverted Wikiuser100 because theyr a moran and deserve to be publically dumped on". (And because I ''can'', I ''am''.) | |||
| ::I'm not so crazy about having my username bandied so in edit summaries for others to see and think, "Gee, maybe he are right?" Or even, "Perhaps he's correct? I'm going to keep my eyes open for that guy." It didn't take you a million edits to run into or experience that. | |||
| ::And, two, it seems way too much of the last couple of days has been spent fending off reverts by users gifted with unnatural opacity of expression, blind obsession with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, stubbornness, cussedness, both, or pick any three out of four. It gets tedious. I apologize for snapping back. I saw a red ping and I wasn't a very good Pavlov's doggy. Keep up the good work. Yours, ] (]) 16:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification == | |||
| Please see ], where I comment on a block that you made. --] (]) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :BrownHairedGirl, I stumbled over this after it had fortunately blown over at AN, and I'm not about to spend time forensically analyzing precisely who said what in a sorry episode. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to drop you a note of thanks for your intervention, for your cogent explanation at AN, for deferring to apparent consensus by unblocking, and for standing up to attempted bullying in the aftermath. All too often, the actual working atmosphere at en:wp is remarkably at odds with our Civility pillar. You point to this as an important obstacle in being more welcoming to women. This is doubtless true, but it's worth stating for the record that it's not just women who are put off. I'm a (as it happens, male) genuine expert in one field and fairly knowledgeable in a few others, who happily contributes my professional expertise in several collaborative online communities, but stays on the fringes at Misplaced Pages for these and related issues. From discussions with peers, I know I'm not alone. Your approach, while somewhat controversial, is very defensible (with reference to wikipedia's pillars and values) and worth trying. ] (]) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks, @]. | |||
| ::Standing up to the enablers can feel a bit lonely sometimes, so support is very welcome. | |||
| ::You're right to point out that it's not only women who are put off by the aggression of big beasts. There are so many ways in which this sort of thing has negative impacts, and it's very sad to see how much talent is not available to en.wp because of these antics. | |||
| ::I'm glad that you have niches which work for you, but it is v sad that Misplaced Pages is not a place where you feel comfortable sharing your talents. I wish I could say that I see signs of improvement. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi, the big beast here. I've been reflecting on it, and I want to apologize to you for not discussing my concerns with you at your talk page before going elsewhere. My opinions remain the same, but I was wrong to go straight to AN, so I apologize for that. --] (]) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for that, @]. | |||
| ::::I still think that your priorities are destructively wrong, but I guess we will continue to disagree on that. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing == | |||
| Hii, I recently edited a page in which I add refrences but you removed that reference. In that reference I also mention the site so you must check this site before you remove it. I hope you should not have to do this type of irrelevant thing. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Hi ] | |||
| ::Please see the edit summary on my revert: {{tq|Category does not exist (see ]), unlinked see-also, etc}}. | |||
| ::Please see ] for how to add references properly. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Your user talk page == | |||
| Hi there BrownHairedGirl. I was reading your talk page today and I gotta tell you that on my laptop it doesn't look so good, as some of the elements at the top overlap one another. So I looked at the page on my phone, and the archive box completely covers the "BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages admin", to the point where the whole thing is non-functional. I've made a possible replacement in my sandbox - ]. Cheers, — ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :Sorry it isn't working for you. It's fine on all my browsers (Opera, Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge), but I haven't tried it on a phone. | |||
| :It was v kind of you to make a modified version, but unfortunately it breaks on my browsers. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am looking at it on an Acer Chromebook running chrome, and on an old Samsung phone. Ah well, food for thought anyway. Regards, — ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Forgot to say, it's not the browser that causes the issue; it's the width of the monitor. Try narrowing the width of the window in which you are viewing the page, and perhaps you will see how it looks for me. Also, clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says "mobile view" and narrowing the window to about 3 inches wide will reproduce how it looks on a phone. — ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks again, @]. | |||
| :::I was able to replicate that, and I hope that this fix has cured it for you. | |||
| :::Please could you let me know if it's OK now? --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The new version works really well on the phone, and works on the chromebook unless I take the zoom to 125%, at which point the archive box overlaps with the table of contents (I normally use 110% zoom). So that's a good fix; most people will not zoom at all. Thanks. Now I am working on converting the table at the top of my userpage to a navbox. The table gets all truncated on the phone and makes me look bad to all the savvy mobile younger set {{awesome}} — ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 04:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Glad that, worked, @]. Thanks again for the pointers. | |||
| :::::Good luck in tweaking your page. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:1736 in the French colonial empire == | |||
| I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so forgive me if I get this wrong: | |||
| If you visit recent changes, An edit you made on ] seems to reappear every 10 seconds | |||
| I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but please can you check it out? | |||
| --] (]) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I am doing some big AWB runs. Is that a problem? --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience --] (]) 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] No inconvenience {{smiley}} --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 28 February 2019 == | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2019-02-28}} </div><!--Volume 15, Issue 2--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Chris troutman@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=885449859 --> | |||
| ==] has been nominated for discussion== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-existent categories == | |||
| Hi BHG: The additions to crimes by country require adding categories to many crimes by year and country eg for ] the categories ], ] and ]. Many of the country categories pre-2010s lack these categories, and it is quicker to add these categories in a batch which involves going back and adding them. PS: Crime in South America lacked even more categories! ] (]) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :That's good work fixing that, but there's no point in adding non-existing categories from new series. Many of categories you added were decade categories, which may be a useful addition, but not unless the page is created. That's why I reverted. | |||
| :If you're going to go back and create the new cats, that's fine ... but it's best to cleanup at the end of each run, rather than leave it until another time. | |||
| :BTW, have you noticed the oddity that we go from Cat:Crime in Country to Cat:YYYY crimes in country? | |||
| :e.g. ] → ] → ] | |||
| :That's the naming convention for a set category, but it seems to me to be better to have a set+topic category, so that it could include e.g. anti-crime laws and police activities. Any thoughts on that? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Mango (poem) == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Isn't the poem also about the poet. When you talk about a poem, you are also talking about the person who wrote it and what he is trying to express through the poem. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :Of course, there will be some discussion of the poet. | |||
| :But ] is not ''about'' the poet; it it about the poem. That is why I removed it from ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Sure. Thank you. I am new to this so just getting used to everything. Thanks again. | |||
| == Vivienne Ming == | |||
| {{archive top|Discussion moved back to ], to keep it one place. As per the ], and the red floating note at the bottom. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello BrownHairedGirl! | |||
| I hope this message finds you well! | |||
| I see you may have reservations with my edits to this page. I'd love to clarify what you feel may not appropriate, in the meantime please find the rationale for my edits/ interventions below: | |||
| · Sincere apologies for not following the protocol...this is my first experience working with collaborators on Misplaced Pages; | |||
| · I have no affiliation with V. Ming with regards to: financial; employment; contractual agreement; friendship; a colleague in any way or enterprise; | |||
| · I'm covering AI advancements and people I feel are leaders coming from the Bay Area (I also reside in the Bay Area); | |||
| · My intervention is solely based on the premise to increase a knowledge base to a wider group and add information as a credible reference provider. | |||
| · My research comes solely from Google, attending conferences, academia and AI networks in the SF Bay Area. | |||
| I would be happy to hear from you and how we can best collaborate! | |||
| Thanks so much and looking forward to hearing from you! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Another template in need of fixing == | |||
| BHG- ] has a film festival template {Film festivals by year of establishment cat|2011} that categorizes Film festivals established in- Music festival established by year- which is kind of silly because Film and music festivals establishments are categorized separately.], is the complaint department really on ] 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Are you interested in fixing this? I will just remove the templates from all the category pages and hand put in relevant category links.], is the complaint department really on ] 01:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :Sorry for the slow reply. Yes, I will do it. Just finishing a few other batches first. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Question from new editor trying to understand review process == | |||
| Hi, I'm a relatively new editor and I wrote this page (]) because I really admire with La'Shanda has done, but I didn't realize it would be looked at so quickly! I'm trying to figure out what brings an editor to a new wiki page - how they know a new page has been created and how it gets reviewed? I know some pages can take a long time to be reviewed, which is why it surprised me that this page was reviewed so quickly. Any suggestions that will help me with future work would be so appreciated. Thanks! ] (]) 08:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi @] | |||
| :There are lots of tools and processes for monitoring new pages and recent edits. For example, ] and ]. | |||
| :] has a large team of people monitoring the flood of vandalism and spam which hits wikipedia around the lock, and they have special tools for that. Then there are bots which monitor these things in various way, such as ], which placed your new page on ]. | |||
| :I found the article because it was categorised in a non-existent category, which I monitor through ] and other tools. | |||
| :You made a nice start on that article, and that's what really matters. The most important thing on Misplaced Pages is those who create properly-sourced, neutral content ... and you clearly have knack for that. So, personally, I hope you won't get sidetracked into the other processses.--] <small>] • (])</small> 08:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks so much for answering my question. Wow this all sounds complicated! I'll definitely be sticking to looking for interesting edits and people to write about! ] (]) 09:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – March 2019 == | |||
| ] from the past month (February 2019). | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] | |||
| ] '''Interface administrator changes''' | |||
| :] ] • ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] • ] | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] • ] | |||
| {{Col-end}} | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| :*The RfC on ] failed to reach consensus for any proposal. | |||
| :*Following discussions at ] and ], an earlier change to the ] policy was ]. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily. | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| :* A ] is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| :*The Arbitration Committee announced ]. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., ] or ]). | |||
| :**<tt>{{Nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}</tt> has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive ]. | |||
| :**<tt>{{Nospam|checkuser-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}</tt> has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list. | |||
| ] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
| :*Following the ], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=885628670 --> | |||
| == Draft == | |||
| How to I publish to remove the page from saying draft? ] (]) 19:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :See ] .... in particular ]. | |||
| :Good luck! --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == striking item from RM == | |||
| Hi, I've been tracking down what's been causing the RM bot to stop working. It had stopped updating the current move discussions and was throwing incorrect notifications out (see ] for example). I narrowed it down to . After , the bot started working again. Obviously no way you could know that'd happen, but just wanted to inform you, in case you want to strike out something like that in the future. -- ] ] 00:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh I see now ] had , so maybe that was the actual problem? -- ] ] 00:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Ooops! | |||
| :Sorry, ]. Sounds like I have wasted a chunk of your time in tracking down the problem. {{smiley|sad}} | |||
| :Thanks for being so nice about it. As you guessed, I had no idea that would happen, and will take care not to do that again. | |||
| :However, I'm a little unclear how best to handle this sort of thing if it does happen again. Have you unravelled it enough to give me some guidance? --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hi. Bot operator here. The bot was caught in a loop trying to process that. I tried tweaking the code to get it out of the loop, but that only made it worse (spamming incorrect notices). Sorry about that. Removing the parameters entirely fixed it. I need to still patch the code so that leaving blank parameters doesn't break the bot's processing. ] (]) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi ]. I'm sorry for breaking the bot, and glad the problem has been isolated. | |||
| :::After removing that template, I didn't want to renumber the next 20+ sections, and thought it was better to leave a blank like rather than remove it completely. Looks like I got that the wrong way round. Sorry {{smiley|sad}} | |||
| :::When you have time, it would be good patch the code. The situation seem to me to be likely to arise again. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{fixed}} See ] I realized that renumbering 20+ items was a bother, so last September in response to another edit similar to yours, I enhanced the bot to accommodate ], so that this didn't result in the request being deemed as "malformed". That was somewhat tricky to implement and made the code a little less elegant and easy to maintain. So rather than try to accommodate the undefined parameters left behind, I just made the bot report this as malformed, as it's relatively easy to remove the parameters vs. needing to renumber the items after them. ] (]) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Using existing categories instead of surreal ones… == | |||
| Hi there. | |||
| Thanks for cleaning up after me (, ). I agree that always using proper categories would be better. I try to be careful about the changes I make but with manual editing it's hard to avoid the odd mistake. Regards, ] (]) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, @] ... but it's actually not hard to avoid. {{smiley}} | |||
| :Simply preview the page before saving, and check the category list displayed at the bottom: redlinks there are an error. | |||
| :Or, if you prefer, save and then what they PgDn key to scroll to the bottom and see if there are any redlinks, then edit again to fix them. | |||
| :We all make mistakes in editing. But the important thing is to identify them and fix them before leaving the page, so that others don't have to clean up after us. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do preview my changes. But I – sometimes – miss my mistakes. I usually change a bunch more things than just the category so there are lot more things to look out for… ] (]) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Mam! I made edits on the page of ]. I added new content out of which some is copied by article ], a protected page. My content has also references. As well as I also removed some content which has no reliable references and seemed as a blog not a content of wiki-article. On the other hand, a someone making edits firstly with unknown IP address and then by account of "]"....He is again and again reverting my edits.. Please watch this matter. I shall be thankful to you for this act and guide me. Thanks ] (]) 19:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :Please follow ], and start by discussing it on ] with the other editor(s). --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi. I'm with ducks unlimited Canada == | |||
| How am I causing vandalism to a page that DUC wants created. What violation have I committed? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :If you are ], then please log in before posting. | |||
| :Quick answer to what you did wrong: ], ], ], ], ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS Since you say you are "with ducks unlimited Canada", you have a ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit war? == | |||
| Can I get specific info on what I'm doing wrong? I'm not selling anything. I'm just trying to put up ducks unlimited Canada wiki page. I'm not trying to vandalize. I'm trying to put info out there on DUC. Thank you. I just want to fix this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :See my reply above, and also the warnings at ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == AVK1994 == | |||
| Please try to give focus to the pages which are edited by some people's with specific agendas. For example Iravikutti Pillai page still have many issues please verify the old records and do the needful <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{yo|AVK1994}} see ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD == | |||
| Regarding ], the reason that there have been no further RM discussions is that there is consensus for the current name. {{u|JzG}}'s bold move has stuck. There have been a few misguided attempts to open a formal RM at ], but none of them actually contained arguments for a new name or gave any reason why it needed to change. Instead they were predicated on the idea that the current name is only temporary, and that they were helping by "closing" the discussion. To close the CfD with the rationale that the former name is the consensus version is to misread that talk page (which I acknowledge is easy to do). {{pb}} I'm not sure what to do here. All the oppose votes in the CfD were from a month ago when the name was still in limbo, but it's stabilized now, as evidenced by the fact that all the comments in the past month have been in support of renaming the category. Do we need an RM discussion to endorse the current name? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Bradv}} It didn't stick. It was contested by another editor, whose move was reverted by JZG. | |||
| :As to your next steps, I suggest that you | |||
| :# wait 6 months to see if the current title is still stable then, then try another CFR, when the claim of stability would be more plausible | |||
| :# administer a large ] (or preferably a {{tl|Whale}}) to {{u|JzG}} for performing what you rightly call a {{tq|bold move}} on a contested topic | |||
| :# liberally administer more ]s to all the other editors who participated in an informal discussion instead of holding a formal, properly-notified and independently-closed RM | |||
| :Best wishes, --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|BrownHairedGirl}}, the other editor's move was not contesting JzG's move, it was a misguided attempt to close an RM discussion. I too wish that JzG hadn't reverted it himself, but this was already brought to ANI and dealt with there. {{pb}} The reason for the long and retracted discussion over a new title was because there is a solid consensus that the old title was completely unacceptable, but no agreement on what further change needs to be made, if any. By any reading of that talk page, the consensus version is now the current title, ''not'' the POV title implying that there is a controversy. That title is completely unacceptable to all participants, and to settle on that here is thoroughly incorrect. I don't agree that we should be incorrect for another six months. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 20:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Bradv}} I'm sorry, but that's how it is. | |||
| :::JZG and others botched the renaming discussion. JZG botched the page move, and then botched the CFR nomination. His conduct was way below that expected on of an admin, and that is what has caused his mess. | |||
| :::There are three ways out now: | |||
| :::# Leave it 6 months, as I suggested. No work, no drama | |||
| :::# Take my closure to to ]. | |||
| :::I don't see any other path. | |||
| :::However, I do urge you take a long, deep breath and some decent period of time to reflect very carefully on your claim that the current category title is a {{tq|POV title implying that there is a controversy}}. The current may or may not be a good title, but a claim that after 25 yeas of high-profile debates and disputes it is POV to say there is a controversy? Wow! Just, wow! | |||
| :::I will be blunt, Bradv, because this is serious. You have just reinforced my long-standing concern that there is some really bizarre POV-pushing going on around these topics. That's why in these ] areas, I allow no wiggle-room on consensus-forming procedure. The only antidote to this sort of reality-denial is properly-followed and properly-notified procedures, where the fanatics can be joined by those not so deeply embedded in one world-view that they are willing to deny the very existence of a high-profile controversy. As a historian (initially of the 16th-century religious upheavals in Europe), I find that sort of attitude chilling. Its echoes in the 20th century were very loud too {{smiley|sad}} --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps there's a difference in opinion about the meaning and implications of the word "controversy". To me, using the word on a scientific or medical topic implies that there are scientists and medical professionals on both sides of the issue. This doesn't appear to be the case here - science and medicine are on one side, and some minor advocacy groups are on the other. Describing this as a controversy gives equal credibility to both sides, which is a major concern specifically when one side actively engaged in fraud and disinformation to upset the scientific and medical consensus and to mislead the public. {{pb}} I'm not sure whether you use the word "controversy" differently than I do or if you dispute some of the facts surrounding this account, but I would invite further discussion on the article talk page. You are entirely correct that this is a serious issue, and it is imperative that we get it right. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|Bradv}} that is one of the core the issues which you and a few other editors need to work on. | |||
| :::::Try a dictionary, e.g. | |||
| :::::# : Definition of controversy: ''"1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : DISPUTE; The decision aroused a controversy among the students. 2 : QUARREL, STRIFE"'' | |||
| :::::# : ''"Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. e.g. ‘the design of the building has caused controversy’"'' | |||
| :::::By all means, take whatever POV you choose on the merits of the controversy ... but denying that there is any controversy because one side lacks standing according to the definitions of the other side is precisely the sort of propaganda technique used by totalitarians of all shades for the last 500 years. It is a framing which was fundamental to the propaganda models of Calvin's Geneva, of the Spanish Inquisition, of The Terror in revolutionary France, of Stalinism and of 1930s Germany. | |||
| :::::By your logic, there was no controversy over Trinitarianism in Geneva; just a lone miscreant with no theological standing, ]. By the same logic, there was no religious controversy over religion in Spain, just a few heretics who were ]. And of course there was no controversy over collectivisation in Soviet Russia, just a few million ]s who criminally acted as enemies of the people and were ]. | |||
| :::::You are keeping some appalling epistemological company. This is as far away from the core policy of ] as it is possible to get. Shame on you. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''PS''' I should restate that I have no preference on the title of the category. But I really am appalled that you come to my talk page to claim that a title including the word "controversy" should not be allowed to stand because there is something POV about a failure to use Stalinist redifinition technique to deny the existence of a controversy. I am still horrified that anyone would seriously even try to approach a closer on that basis. | |||
| ::::::So by all means, have further discussions. But I have set out above the paths to changing the title. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't think I "botched" anything. The article title had been contended for a long time on the basis that there was never any real controversy, the entire thing was ginned up by antivaxers for money and ideology. There is some disagreement over what the eventual title might be, but strong consensus that whatever that title might be, "controversy" is incorrect because it gives undue weight to a fringe view. B2C's attempted supervote only comlicated things because the moves he made were incorrect for multiple reasons. I don't have any strong feeling about which of the five or six alternatives might be better than the current title, though I suspect a title with "hoax" or "fraud" in it might be more contentious with antivaxers. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 04:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{yo|JZG}} I find it utterly extraordinary that you deny something was a controversy because you believe that one side was clearly wrong, no matter how much evidence the is to support that view. Using the word "controversy" may or may not be a good way of framing the title, but ruling it out ''on those grounds'' is a transparent attempt to erase the ''fact'' that it was a major controversy in public policy. | |||
| ::And, sorry, but you did botch the renaming. An RM with consensus would have been given stability to the article title, and settled the issue. Instead you have created a messy situation where there is no explicit consensus, and only time will tell whether the article remains stable at the current title. | |||
| ::I have v little time for B2C (who I'd happily have seen permabanned years ago for ]), but the situation now is that both you and B2C have been operating without a clear RM consensus. That could all have been entirely avoided if you had simply opened an RM instead of making a WP:BOLD move. | |||
| ::If there had been an RM consensus, then the category could renamed at CFDS per ]. You've closed that door for some time by acting BOLDly, and by your botched CFD discussion without full disclosure where there wasn't a clear consensus in your favour. | |||
| ::Just for the record, I ''personally'' think that "MMR vaccine and autism" is good NPOV title. But my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference. --] <small>] • (])</small> | |||
| :::Fixed ping: @]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 05:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: OK, so your close was based on your opinion of the subject. I understand that. But th3 truth is that if we cast this as a controversy, then we end up describing the earth geometry controversy and the moon cheese controversy. The title "MMR vaccine and autism" is neutral amd does not imply any judgment on the subject. Obviously we should not give charlatans the right to a casting vote on what is a controversy and what isn't. Other proposals include hoax and fraud, I do not advocate those either. But controversy? Well, only in as much as antivaxers literally paid to make it one. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, @]. As I stated above, my close was <u>explicitly NOT based on my opinion of the subject</u> | |||
| :::I explained my reasoning for my close in detail in reply <span class="template-ping">@]</span>. My close was based on lack of a clear consensus, lack of a supporting RM, and yoir procedural failure to disclose key info. | |||
| :::In reply to you, I explained that my own personal preference is for the title which you proposed ... and that {{tq|my job as closer was not to follow my personal preference}}. | |||
| :::Bradv had tried to persuade me to override all the other factors on the basis that the word controversy is POV, which I refuse to do. You have that tried again. | |||
| :::Even if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that controversy was based on fraud and deception and whatever, that does not cease to make it a controversy. I refer you to the dictionary definitions which I posted above for Bradv. | |||
| :::The use of the word "controversy" in such cases is a matter for consensus-building discussion to determine whether or not is appropriate. But what you and Bradv have been doing is to ask me to abuse my role as closer to overturn an outcome which reflects dictionary usage, on the basis that you two both reject the dictionary definition. | |||
| :::That is a disgraceful misrepresentation. You are an admin, and should conduct yourself much better than to invert someone's words like. I can respect honest disagreement, but that sort of wilful misrepresentation disgusts me. | |||
| :::Now get the hell off my talk page .. and stay off it unless and until you are willing to unequivocally retract that disgraceful inversion of my position. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Of all the issues on which I expected you to ], this was about the last. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion since you don't understand my perspective and I sure as hell don't understand yours. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 04:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|JzG}}: it's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very <u>simple</u>. | |||
| :::::You and Bradv want to define a controversy as not being a controversy if one side are what you believe to be bad guys. It is not clear whether you apply that principle to bad by objective or bad by tactics, or both; but that distinction is not really important. Wat matters is that you you make a value on the relative merits or otherwise of the opponents, and choose a label on that value basis. | |||
| :::::I do not accept that this is an NPOV position ... so I will not use my role as closer to impose that view on a discussion which has not reached a consensus. | |||
| :::::It ''may'' be the consensus outcome of a renaming discussion, but it is not one which I will impose against a consensus or in the absence of a consensus. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| BrownHairedGirl, above you say there are three possible paths forward, but list only two. Did you mean to write “two”, or did you have a third possibility in mind? Also, I suspect that “]” may not have been the link you were looking for? Regards, ] (]) 05:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :Sorry, I meant ]. Now corrected. | |||
| :The third option I was going to suggest was a new WP:RM, but if there is such strong support for the current article title as claimed by Bradv, then I'm not sure how that could work. --] <small>] • (])</small> 05:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| '''PS''' {{yo|JzG|Newyorkbrad|Bradv}} I think I do see a third way out of this, as follows: | |||
| # Guy moves the pages back to its title before his bold move, to restore the ''status quo ante'' pending an explicit consensus | |||
| # An ] discussion then determines the title | |||
| # Whatever the outcome of the RM discussion, the category can be speedily renamed to match, per ]. (No need for a discussion). | |||
| That may sound perverse, but it does ensure that article and category titles are a) based on an explicit consensus, and b) are congruent. Isn't that what everyone wants? --] <small>] • (])</small> 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Please show me how I can easily use ] to upmerge a category to both of its parent categories as a target. I'd be interested in that. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Koavf}} | |||
| :# use ] | |||
| :# On the drop-don box where by default it says "delete", select "merge" | |||
| :# Below that enter the first merge target | |||
| :# Type the rationale | |||
| :# Press submit, and you will be taken to the CFD page. | |||
| :The above covers all cases where you want to merge one Category to one target. | |||
| :For multiple merge targets, simply edit the nomination in front of you to add any further merge targets. | |||
| :So there it is. Easy. Hundreds of other editors do it routinely. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, so it's not possible. Thanks. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Koavf}} So you really find that not easy? | |||
| :::Really? Is that your idea of joke? | |||
| :::Or are you genuinely, honestly telling me that after two million edits you have such severe ] issues that you find it impossible to use the second option on a drop-down menu? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please re-read what I wrote: there is no way to choose both targets with Twinkle, so I'd have to manually re-edit it. Your concern that someone can't see the entire rationale from the category itself and has to go to CfD to actually read is... pointless? If anyone suggested a category I created for deletion and I cared at all, I would look at the CfD itself to read the discussion. Since there is no ability with the semi-automated tool to choose both parents as a target then I don't know why you're suggesting it, since I ''used'' Twinkle in the first place. Your suggestion is to use a tool that I already used to accomplish something that can't be accomplished with it to benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held? Is that your idea of a joke? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|Koavf}} Please do grow up and stop nitpicking about whether Twinkle does every step for you. I never claimed that it does that: what I wrote was {{tq|It's really v v easy to use WP:TWINKLE to create a nomination which actually says "merge Cat:X to Cat:Y"}}. AS above, you can use it to do ~90% of the job, and and then do one more easy step. The whole cycle can be done in 20 seconds or less. | |||
| :::::This is all v simple. It's about communication, namely clearly signposting a proposal so that editors can make a rapid decision on whether they want to engage further. | |||
| :::::You ask {{tq|benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held}}? | |||
| :::::Simple: because they want to make an early decision on whether it does interest them ... and provide accurate and complete info at the signposting stage helps them make that choice with minimum time-wasting. You contemptuously choose to give them inaccurate and incomplete info. | |||
| :::::It's all a very similar issue to ]. Yes, any editor can open up any edit and see what it did. But per ], ''"Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it."'' Clear CFD listings are just like that: they help other editors decide whether to read further. When an edit summary is missing or uninformative, every other editor who sees the edit (in a page history, watchlist, recent changes list, user contribs list etc) has waste time finding out for themselves what the editor could and should have conveyed in the summaries. Same with XFD listings. | |||
| :::::You seem to have an active hostility to the very concept of effective communication, so I'm going to spell this out for you. | |||
| :::::As I shown above, there is very simple and easy method by which you can: | |||
| :::::A/ ensure that CFD tag is as clear as possible about what is proposed | |||
| :::::B/ ensure that the summary at the top of the entry on CFD daily Log convey accurately what is to be done | |||
| :::::This is ''not'' about other editors being lazy. It is about the fact that XFD listing discussion pages are long, so most editors ''']''' XFD listing pages, ] to make a set of triaging steps on each section. e.g. | |||
| :::::# What categories are involved (the heading) | |||
| :::::# What is proposed to do with them (in the listing) | |||
| :::::# Why is this proposed (in the rationale) | |||
| :::::# has there been much discussion? (see how big the discussion is) | |||
| :::::# What arguments are being made? (read the discussion) | |||
| :::::The sooner and more clearly the info is presented, the better they make an assessment of whether to invest more time going further into the listing. This is about how clear communication helps other editors to decide how much more of their limited time to invest. You description of them as {{tq|lazy}} is deeply contemptuous of your fellow editors. | |||
| :::::So look at that ]. | |||
| :::::# The speed-reader sees the heading. Intersection of religion and politics: I might be interested. But what's involved? ''so proceed to read the listing'' | |||
| :::::# They look at the listing. What? Delete? Why while Jewish Conserbvatives no longer be categorised as Conservatives? ''so read the nominator's rationale'' | |||
| :::::# Read the rationale. It begins with "/Upmerge". WTF, I thought the listing says "delete"? What's this about?<br/>Glance back at the listing. Yes, it says delete. Nominator is confused, maybe the next sentence says more. <br />So read on. But no mention of what those parent categories are. Grrr.<br/>So ctrl-clock tto open up the category page, and scan to the bottom to see the parent categories: ] and ].<br/> Ahh!!!OK, they will still be categorised by both attributes. I don't mind either way whether or not that merger happens, so move on. | |||
| :::::All of that third step would be entirely un-needed if you had the basic courtesy to use the tools in front of you to spend ''only an extra few seconds of your time'' listing the <u>actual</u> proposed action and the merge targets. But because you are lazy and/or arrogant and/or contemptuous of your fellow editors, you force every single one of them of them to spend more time finding out for themselves what you could so easily have told them in a few seconds. | |||
| :::::That applies to each person who assess that entry. So do a few sums. | |||
| :::::That page has had 675 pageviews. Be generous, say each reader came back 5 times. So that 135 difft readers. | |||
| :::::Say that half of those read beyond the headline, to figure out what that nomination was proposing to do. | |||
| :::::It's likely to take each of them took 20 seconds to open up ] to check the parent cats which you say are the merge target. Maybe more, but let's take a short time. Multiply that out: 135 X 20 seconds = 45 minutes. | |||
| :::::That's right. You refusal to spend a few seconds of your own time clearly conveying that proposal has wasted 45 minutes of other editors time. That's very selfish behaviour. | |||
| :::::And that's 45 minutes for every single category which list with incomplete, or contradictory info. | |||
| :::::I am very glad that you have no responsibility for motorway signage. Because if you were in charge, you'd be saying something like "why bother making these huge motorway signs like ]? Why {{tq|benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to}} leave the motorway to find out where the junction leads to?" | |||
| :::::And you'd probably remove the smaller signs on local which show the name of the street, {{tq|benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to}} get out, knock on a door, and ask "what street is this". | |||
| :::::I just took a look at your : almost zero non-automated summaries. So your are consistent in your non-communication ... but you have been on en.wp long enough to know the long-standing bolded guidance that ]. What a selfish attitude to bring to a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages {{smiley|sad}}. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What is selfish about ? Why is it you think that you are the only person who writes this kind of stuff to me? What is it about ''you'' that in 2M+ edits, I only butt heads with one person? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 03:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Exactly as I expected: no substantive answer, not even an acknowledgement of the case I made. Just deflection. | |||
| :::::::(I did ''hope'' for better, which is why I took the time to reply, but my expectations were v low). | |||
| :::::::Why do you only butt heads with one person? As you know, that's not actually the case. But it seems that most others give up much sooner in the face of your sustained passive aggression, as happened here. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| So you get mad when I post an 89-word response on my talk for being too long and then you post a novella here? You surfaced this problem that I am "selfish" for not providing manual edit summaries. I am asking ''how'' that is selfish. You consistently apply some moral value judgement to my actions (lazy, selfish, rude) which is not exactly apparent. In spite of my better judgement, I am trusting that you are saying something meaningful with these claims: I am more concerned with being an ethical person than a good Misplaced Pages editor, so when you make these asides, I care more about that than about drop-down menus and efficiency in Twinkle. And please take your own advice and "grow up" and "stop whining": you know what I mean about butting heads and your link is not "butting heads" with this user; it's him saying, "that's enough" and moving on. You never do that ever and are the only person who needlessly hounds me about minutiae ''and'' makes some moral statement about my character. So forgive me for thinking that things that are more important are more important and taking stock in your judgement but my question stands as you couldn't be bothered to answer it. How are these edit summaries "selfish"? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{smiley|sad}} Your selfishness and lack of communication make it very difficult to collaborate with you. {{smiley|sad}} I'm assuming that this will be another drive-by complaint that resolves nothing based on your personal preferences. {{smiley|sad}} But if you decide that you want to actually have a conversation (that ''you'' initiated), then please post to my talk. {{smiley|sad}}{{smiley|sad}}{{smiley|sad}} ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY == | |||
| Hi BHG – thanks for putting the list of names on the talk page. I saved it and will be adding it to ] shortly. Cheers! ] <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 04:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Levivich}} wow that gave me a headache - does this mean: "To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you"? --] (]) 04:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::<span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I wouldn't even have tried to decipher that without @]'s help! | |||
| ::Anyway, sorry that ] didn't end up the way you wanted. But I think that ] is clear. | |||
| ::I'm glad the list helped. (] is great for that: it grabs the list, saves it formatted, making it a 30-second job to publish the list. If you use AWB for absolutely nothing else, and don't want to edit with it, then it's still worth getting AWB just for the list-making.) | |||
| ::So ... TYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTY {{smiley}} --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl|Levivich}} or just use ]. Also, "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'"? --] (]) 04:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::TATD4DMTYTLVV4TOBHGREAAQBCFDTYHFCWKTG. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} no --] (]) 04:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Thanks also to Danny for" DM? "Thank you too, Levivich, for your message 'To, BrownHairedGirl: regarding the african american quarterbacks cfd, thank you'" HFCWKTG? --] (]) 04:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Haha – yup, that's exactly what it meant. I'm fine with the CfD outcome, a list article is a better way to present this information anyway. Honestly, I find the category policies incomprehensible; diffusion confusion twists me around until I can't tell upmerge from downmerge. But they are very useful for finding stuff, so I'm thankful there are other editors who take care of it all so I don't have to worry about it :-) Thanks also for the suggestion about AWB, I'll check it out. ] <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Geography articles needing translation from French wikipedia per region renaming and merging == | |||
| Thank you for answering the entry, but this has lead to empty and useless categories as ], who now need to be deleted. I am sorry if this may not be the place to discuss this. ] (]) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, @] | |||
| :Another admin deleted them. --] <small>] • (])</small> 05:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Vivienne Ming == | |||
| Hello! And congrats on your new Misplaced Pages status :-) | |||
| {{tl|HelpMe}} | |||
| I need a bit of your help...regarding the V.Ming page. I'm wondering in ways we can collaborate information on the page. I would be happy to contribute all my research to you in advance. Please let me know what works best in your view. | |||
| Kind regards | |||
| --] (]) 04:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Martin Francisco Artist profile == | |||
| Hi | |||
| My name is Kara, you left me a message about a page on Martin Francisco that I was trying to create, I have to admit that it is do hard to create a page or artist's profile on Misplaced Pages, that I have been looking for someone who can help me do all the necessary edits yo finish it and maybe someday see it published, like, I couldn't even figure out how to upload his picture to add it to his page, he has done a lot of auctions and sold some of his art mainly on ebth.com and his art is going to be included in the world of frida traveling exhibition by Bedford Gallery which will begin sometime in 2019 and last through 2022 and will be exhibited in different museums and galleries around the country!, so maybe I will find someone who can help me finish his page. | |||
| Let me know what you think | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| Kara. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Sorry, @{{u|Kara lswick}}, but I don't have time to help. | |||
| :I see that on your talk page there is an invitation to ]. That's a good place to ask for help. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello. Could you be so kind and explain to me what do you mean by „single source“ and „sources too closely associated with the subject“ tags you put to the article? Because in the External links there are four various and independent websites. I can put some more, if needed. And of course, I'll settle inline citations. Looking forward to your answer… --Silverije | |||
| :Hi @], please do sign your posts. See ]. | |||
| :The links you added are labelled as "external links", not references. | |||
| :They are indeed from different sites, but all of them are involved in promoting the memorial centre. | |||
| :So none of them are the independent, ] required by ], and also required by ] to establish notability. | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a promotional website. If an article is based solely of affiliated sources, it has no place on Misplaced Pages. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you look at the things like that, then every source or site is a kind of promotion of something, isn't it? Furthermore, I hardly believe that added links are closely associated/affiliated; they just talk about the same facts that perhaps could be looked at as a promotion. The most important fact is that the Memorial Center exists and operates (see plenty of photos!) and there is no doubt about its notability. Nevertheless, I found more sources, including scientific works, and I'll try to settle the matter, hoping that it would suit your requirements. | |||
| ::P.S. There is a huge number of articles with a single source (or maybe two or three of them) which has been existed for years (e.g. ] or ] or ] etc. etc.). Should all of such articles be deleted? Or it's better to improve them? Regards, --] (]) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], your sig is broken. Please restore the default sig, so that you don't splat talk pages with pointless markup. | |||
| :::Yes, some other articles have problems. But that is no reason to create or retain another problematic article: see ]. | |||
| :::The mere fact that the museum exists is explicitly ''not'' grounds to have an article on it. See ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Bots and AWB == | |||
| I'm not a bot or AWB user but I appreciate the suggestion. At the bottom of this thread Certes ran two reports. The first one is portals with less than 20 new articles (he's got a weird way of defining it). I'd like someone to MfD the whole batch of 435 with a link to his post and that whole thread. That will sweep up both some of TTH's and some creations by his followers. The sweetest part is these were identified as too narrow within the project's own existing guidelines by a project member. I've done a lot of portal MFDing so it would be better if someone like you could take the lead on this, especially since I don't have the skills to automate. TTH insists every portal needs a delete tag on it BTW. Direct link to the report ] (]) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Barnstar award templates == | |||
| :''Broken heading fixed. This refers to ], and my close thereof.'' --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I disagree with you over your statement that there was "no consensus on whether to prefer Option A or Option B". To me, both participants expressed a preference for Option A. {{user|Black Falcon}}'s rationale included, "I have a slight preference for Option A," and my response included, "I think that Option A is better." Can you still move the categories to Option A? ] ] 18:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{yo|The Nth User|p=}} | |||
| :Yes, your response did ''include'' the phrase {{tq|I think that Option A is better}}. However, that comment closed with a set of questions to which you did not have an answer, so your position was unresolved. @]'s reply concluded {{tq|I, too, am struggling to decide which would be best}}. | |||
| :You didn't reply to BF's response, and there was no further comment from either of you — or from anyone else — until I closed the discussion a month later. | |||
| :If the participants are unsure and do not resolve the ambiguities and uncertainties in their positions, then please don't expect the closer to invent a consensus which doesn't exist on the CFD page. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Rude and offensive words from ] == | |||
| Hello, I have an issue with attack on me of ]. | |||
| Please find information here: ]. | |||
| Please help. | |||
| --] (]) 02:47, 16 March 2019 (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.
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
stalkedobserved 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Support per nom --Northernhenge (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, in principle. I expect that a discussion in a more formal venue would need to take place. BD2412 T 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose to having this conversation here at this point in time. Please shut this down and wait. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in this, I should wait until the appeal date so I can give my view there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. But is there anywhere I can get information on why BHG was banned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support because of BrownHairedGirl'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. Spideog (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. Subject meets the WP:GNG as a notable Misplaced Pages editor. Multiple sources have avowed her importance, and even if they didn't, per WP:IAR subject should be Kept and returned to active editing. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like an argument at AfD. It would belong at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrownHairedGirl if there were an article called BrownHairedGirl. GTrang (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a joke. And tells you all you need to know about the average Misplaced Pages editor's sense of humour. ——Serial Number 54129 14:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like an argument at AfD. It would belong at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrownHairedGirl if there were an article called BrownHairedGirl. GTrang (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Restore per nom. Sorry I missed this due to my own (voluntary) wiki-retirement. Best of luck, BHG. BilCat (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is one of several cases that led me to write the essay User:Pppery/The iceberg. 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Site bans for minor misconduct is a violation of WP:NOPUNISH policy, I support the essay. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 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. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Its time to get yourself sorted out and back into shape. The project needs you. scope_creep 12:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Query: Should all deletion notifications be removed if there's a potential for return? AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I too am curious about that L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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. PamD 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I too am curious about that L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Come back Andre🚐 23:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support - per Nom. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - The decision was too harsh against you. Please come back. You are not alone. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support She is an incredible worker who contributed extensively to Misplaced Pages for nearly two decades and did not deserve to be banned. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. 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. 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. 98.226.86.66 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)