| Revision as of 18:04, 29 January 2014 view sourceRenameduser024 (talk | contribs)1,227 edits →FATCA: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 29 January 2014 view source BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →FATCA: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| Hello. I am reaching out to you since you are an admin and are experiencing the same attitude from Ottawahitech as I am. My issue has been the addition of ] to various Canadian Bank's pages, the addition of National wikiprojects and fear mongering via edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=591292379. Since I do not want to violate 3RR could you have a look at ] as I have not been able to get them to provide a rationale on any of the talk pages as to why they want to include this information. ] (]) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC) | Hello. I am reaching out to you since you are an admin and are experiencing the same attitude from Ottawahitech as I am. My issue has been the addition of ] to various Canadian Bank's pages, the addition of National wikiprojects and fear mongering via edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=591292379. Since I do not want to violate 3RR could you have a look at ] as I have not been able to get them to provide a rationale on any of the talk pages as to why they want to include this information. ] (]) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi ] | |||
| :First off, I am aware of that legislation, and see it is an appalling piece of bullying by the USA. So I share ]'s horror at it. | |||
| :However, Misplaced Pages is an NPOV publication, and it is not a ]. The fact that an editor feels strongly something is not a valid reason for using Misplaced Pages to promote that view. The was pure soapboxing, and is a misuse of a noticeboard. Similarly, spamming the material into a whole series of articles is soapboxing, and Ottawahitech was on their talk page. By all means, ensure that ] is covered in its own article. It might also be appropriate to mention it in an article such as ], but spamming boilerplate text across a series of articles is a form of campaigning. If people want to raise concerns about a public policy, Misplaced Pages is not the place to do so. Go start a blog or march in the street or whatever, but editors should not use Misplaced Pages as a campaign platform. | |||
| :I am beginning to see a pattern here of a repeated failure by Ottawahitech to understand how Misplaced Pages works. Since I am ], I will neither revert nor use admin tools. But I will post at the ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 29 January 2014
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.
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.If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.Arnold Lupton
Could you please check that the references are OK for Professor Sir Arnold Lupton? cheers and thanks mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Brown Haired Girl Could you please check the reference fix for page "Arnold Lupton". Thanks for your help so far cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.96.225 (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now fixed. Please take a little time to study the working of {{cite web}}. It is not complicated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
hi Brown haired girl Please could you check (last time I promise!) the page - Arnold Lupton -and also James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce. spelling etc Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 January 2014
- Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there could you please, please, check my hopeless references for 1) Martineau Family 2) Henry Herbert Southey
YOu are so good to me! Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I have tired not to bother you - you have been so helpful in the past. could you please check refs for 3 pages 1) Martineau family 2) James Martineau 3) Philip Meadows Martineau Thanks again so much - I am trying but I get confused Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mike 101.160.17.244, I'm sorry, but I give up :(
- You don't seem to be learning the real basics of how to edit here. Signing your posts and linking to the pages you mention are both really easy to do, and both are specifically requested in the editnotice displayed with a big blue border when you post here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Women and Misplaced Pages: Any interest in doing an interview?
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm a PhD student currently working on a research project about women and Misplaced Pages, and I'd love to interview you if you've the time and willingness. You can find a description of my project and see RCom approval via my Wikimedia project page.--Mssemantics (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Early Commercial
Do you mind if I ask for CFD participation from one WP:NRHP member who's a professional architect? Please respond at the CFD page, not here. I'm asking you because it's potentially running the risk of votestacking, since the person in question has (if I remember rightly) been generally in line with my position on discussions like this one. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It would be a kind of votestacking :(
- Rather than selecting someone who favours your view, why not use
{{subst:cfd-notify}}to leave a neutrally-worded request on the WikiProject talk page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Introduced fish
Hi, as I was checking backlinks after Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_17#Category:Introduced_saltwater_fish I found Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country. What do you think? Should those be nominated as well?
Also, although the opinions were to delete, can we as closers impose an outcome of Merge rather than delete? IMHO most of those fish should have been upmerged to Category:Fish of Ukraine (I have just done so). – Fayenatic London 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi FL
- I think that given that a consensus was reached on one category of introduced fish, the same result would likel apply to other similar categories. (If not, the first consensus was flawed). So I'd say good idea to nominate them.
- As the closure as merge rather than delete, I'm not sure what the wider view is. My take is that where the discussion has considered merger and rejected it, then there is no room for closer discretion.
- OTOH, if the discussion has not considered merger even tho it was a possible option, I regard the decision as incomplete. Ideally, the discussion would be relisted with a request for clarification: Yes, you want the articles removed from that category, but do you also want them removed from the parent categories?
- However, with the reduced participation in CFDs and the backlog of closures, I have sometimes decided that this wouldn't help, so closing as merge is the least worst option. Can't remember how many times I have done that, but guess about 3. It has never been taken to DRV, so I dunno how it would be seen there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi BHG, thanks for this helpful advice.
- On further inspection, the introduced fish are part of a larger hierarchy Category:Introduced species, which nobody mentioned in the discussion, and seems to undermine the rationale. Does that make it eligible for DRV? To avoid bureaucracy, may I suggest undoing the close? if you'd be prepared to do that, I would be willing to reinstate the categories and pages concerned (they were processed by ArmbrustBot), after which the discussion could simply be continued. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- FL, thanks for that pointer.
- After reading your comment, I did agree that the existence of a wider Category:Introduced species merited a relisting.
- However, I see now that Category:Introduced species was previously deleted at CFD 2007 May 23, and that I closed that discussion. It's probably too long ago to G4 the lot, but it seems to me that they should be discussed as a whole.
- So how do we get from here to a discussion of Category:Introduced species and all of its subcats? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have opened Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_26#Category:Introduced_species seeking to keep the existing categories, restrict some of them to containers, and reinstate those for saltwater fish. I think that covers it. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
new categories
Hi, I remember your name from category discussions so wanted to get your eyes on two new ones recently created: Category:Transgender and transsexual gay, and Category:Transgender and transsexual lesbian. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Failure to observe ANI policy
WP:ANI has rather few rules for reporting "incidents", and one of the few rules is that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to any effort that you made to reach out to me to address your perceived grievance? Your claims would have more credibility if Misplaced Pages policy were observed in the process and you appear to have violated policy requirements here. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alansohn, regardless of the merits of this claim, if I were you I'd be more careful in my word choice. Sure, "silly" may not be directly a personal attack here (and your putting it in quotes is silly), but it indicates a rather combative attitude. Just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- In defense of AS, BHG is a big fan of the word "silly" and uses it rather frequently, so I think he was just returning the favor. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Category Gaelic Athletic Association clubs by region
Since you're a bit of a category expert I wonder if you could help out? To what does this Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs by region refer? Or maybe the better question is to what should it refer ?
Is it geographic regions such as Asia , Ireland , USA, in which case Britain and Ireland are subcategories of Europe and London a subcategory of Britain or is it GAA regions such as Asia GAA , New York GAA ,British GAA Gnevin (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
FATCA
Hello. I am reaching out to you since you are an admin and are experiencing the same attitude from Ottawahitech as I am. My issue has been the addition of FATCA to various Canadian Bank's pages, the addition of National wikiprojects and fear mongering via edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=591292379. Since I do not want to violate 3RR could you have a look at Scotia Bank as I have not been able to get them to provide a rationale on any of the talk pages as to why they want to include this information. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Mrfrobinson
- First off, I am aware of that legislation, and see it is an appalling piece of bullying by the USA. So I share Ottawahitech's horror at it.
- However, Misplaced Pages is an NPOV publication, and it is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The fact that an editor feels strongly something is not a valid reason for using Misplaced Pages to promote that view. The post you linked to was pure soapboxing, and is a misuse of a noticeboard. Similarly, spamming the material into a whole series of articles is soapboxing, and Ottawahitech was warned about it on their talk page. By all means, ensure that FATCA is covered in its own article. It might also be appropriate to mention it in an article such as Banking in Canada, but spamming boilerplate text across a series of articles is a form of campaigning. If people want to raise concerns about a public policy, Misplaced Pages is not the place to do so. Go start a blog or march in the street or whatever, but editors should not use Misplaced Pages as a campaign platform.
- I am beginning to see a pattern here of a repeated failure by Ottawahitech to understand how Misplaced Pages works. Since I am WP:INVOLVED, I will neither revert nor use admin tools. But I will post at the thread on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)