Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:26, 28 June 2010

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

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

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

Leigh Rayment

Have you noticed that the Leigh Rayment pages have been down for a while now? This is quite a problem as there must be hundreds of links to them across Misplaced Pages which will all now be coming up as broken and ruining their value as reliable references. Do you know if any editor is aware of this, or how it can be brought to more general attention? Hopefully someone somewhere is working on fixing them but have you got any ideas about what's best to do in the meantime? G --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, not sure what's happening, because Rayment's pages look fine to me. I just loaded http://www.leighrayment.com, http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm and http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Fcommons.htm, all without problem. Still no problem when I bypassed the cache.

Have you tried clearing the cache on your browser? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, tried clearing the cache but I still get the same error message. It must be a problem with me and my browser if you can get the site OK. --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still working OK for me. Not sure what to suggest, but it does sound like it must be something to do with your computer an/or its internet connection. Have you considered trying a difft browser, such as Firefox or Opera? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried it, def down at this moment in time. WatcherZero (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pop-ups & Dab bypassing

    I made a long response to a short comment-markup re Dab spacing that you inserted back when, and would welcome your thots, there or here. If you know of a wider discussion of the various issues we raised i'd be at least curious. Thanks. --Jerzy•t 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Harry_Smith#Spacing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! RoryHC (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I imagine you were tired and/or rushing when you created this, this, and this redirect. I won't scold, but just wanted to point out the issue so you can be aware of it in future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Russ. I was doing a lot of those redirects, and should have paid more attention. Thanks for fixing them! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy rename requested for Category:Australian of the Year Awards

I have responded to your objection here. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw your deletion, thanks for the help. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob, you're welcome. Sorry we got wires crossed along the way! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Non-Western classical music genres

I feel that you have closed this discussion prematurely. There does appear to be consensus for a move. The only thing is there is lack of consensus over whether 'art' or 'classical' or some compromise between the two should be in the title. And this is still being discussed at Talk:List of art music traditions. I think that closure should've waited until the result of that move discussion and further discussion at the cfd afterwards. Could this closure be reversed? Or would it be better to open a second discussion once the list talk ends? Munci (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, Munci.

First thing is that CFDs normally run for 7 days, but this one had been open for 34 days, nearly five times as long as usual. There needs to be some very pressing reason to keep it open at stage, and the guidelines suggest a maximum of 3 weeks.

I did consider stretching the guidelines by relisting it, but discussion at the CFD had more or less fizzled out and it was clear that not all participants in the CFD were happy to simply follow the result of the discussion at Talk:List of art music traditions. Given that, it seems to me to be better to have some wider discussions at the wikiprojects or in an RFC, so that a durable consensus can be formed.

If such a consensus is formed, then there is of course no problem in opening a new CFD discussion. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that there was a backlog on cfds and that this had been there a while but I hadn't realised there was a guideline for maximum weeks. Do you have any suggestion of where exactly it would be best to go first for any possible further comments? Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music? Rfc should come after that, right? Munci (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the music wikiprojects, but Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music sounds like a good starting point. However, since this cuts across various projects, it might be best to do an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Is it our new policy to delete stubs now?--Sodabottle (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if they have some prospect of expansion. One-line sub-stubs with no prospect of expansion are a different matter: they are factoids which belong in lists, not as standalone articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How did you decide there is no prospect of expansion?. Cursory gbook searches reveal there are enough sources. For example John Fowke has an Oxford DNB entry. Are we now restricting creation of new articles by length?--Sodabottle (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:STUB, and what a well-formed stub looks like. These are not stubs, they are factoids, and I womder whether they were created as vanity exercises to allow Boleyn to add entries to hir list of articles I created.

Creating a one-liner with no sources, no context, no categories, is not writing articles: it's just wasting reader's time.

If we don't have something approaching WP:STUB as a minimum, why don't we just get a bot to create one-line entries for every single redlink on wikipedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion with the same editor here. I'm glad to see an admin taking up the issue of this editor's disruptive contributions. I come across a lot of them while stub-sorting. Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pam. That's useful to know, and now that I think about it I am unsurprised that you found a lot of probs trying to sort those stubs.

Unfortunately, communication with Boleyn (talk · contribs) is hard to achieve, and unproductive when it happens; I dunno whether Boleyn is deliberately obstructive, or simply doesn't understand the problem, but it's very hard to persuade hir that there is any problem to fix.

So I fear that this is all going to escalate, and if it does I'll let you know. If an RFC is needed, would you be in a position to certify having tried to resolve the problems? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC):

My attempts at resolving the problems are on the record - others are here, here and here - which s/he did resolve. It seems that s/he is determined to "improve" dab pages, at the expense of anything else.

Boleyn

The blocks together with your mass-noms of this editor's articles look to me like nothing more than bullying. Please unblock and withdraw your disruptive nominations of clearly notable subjects. Try spending your time improving the encyclopaedia rather than damaging it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If "improving" the encyclopedia involves:

1. creating dozens of useless, unreferenced sub-stub articles which contain less information on the topic than in the lists they link to, just so that they can be added to a list of "articles I created"
2. Editing the same set of articles under 3 different user IDs, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thomas_Fanshawe&action=history
3. Not responding at all to concerns of editors, but just keeping on editing in the same vein
4. Re-creating a speedily-deleted article with a new version in which the two major stated facts contradict the references supplied

Then I'm a banana.

I would much prefer to spend my time doing what I usually do, which is to write and expand articles, but when I encountered this flood of rubbish I realised that something had to be done to stop it. It would be great if you could help, by encouraging Boleyn (talk · contribs) to stop creating pointless crap like this. It was my discovery of that useless sub-stub which prompted me to investigate further, which was when I discovered the scale of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to refrain from "pointless crap" like your mass-noms and improper blocks. As to the British/Irish disagreement, I know that some Irish people object to it, but the parliament at the time was commonly referred to as the "British Parliament", and its members as "British MPs". Get over it - it looks like you are grasping at straws to justify your hounding of Boleyn. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The parliament may have been so refered to in Britain, but that does make mean that its MPs were all British. I know that some British editors have great difficulty understanding the difference between Britain and the United Kingdom, but I'm sure you're clever enough to grasp the distinction.

One question, DuncanHill. Do you agree that this creation of Boleyn's is pointless crap? (I can supply dozens more diffs just like it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. Needs expansion and improvement, but neither pointless nor crap. As to British/Irish - I'm also clever enough to understand that language doesn't always behave the way that particular nationalists may want it to. It's not a big deal, and certainly not worth you making improper blocks, mass-noms, or threats of mass speedies over. I think the best thing for you to do would be to return to your wikibreak until you regain a sense of proportion and fair play. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, if you want to dig yourself into a hole, so be it. If you're just joking, please do so somewhere else ... but if you really think that this creation of Boleyn's is "neither pointless nor crap", then we won't agree on anything, so please don't waste your time posting on my talk page again. If you really think that a uneferenced standalone "article" which consists solely of a line offering less info than in the list it was copied from serves a useful purpose, then you clearly have a delightfully novel idea of what an encyclopedia is for, but it's one I have no interest in sharing.

What a pity, though, that a clever editor like you seems to prefer attacking the person cleaning up the mess than either doing anything to fix it or trying to stem its creation. But I'm going to get back to what has been my usual editing for over 4 years, which is creating articles on UK MPs --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That you choose to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you shews that you are unfit to be an admin. You have displayed shockingly poor judgement in this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm here to create an encyclopedia, and this guff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Since you support preserving pointless crap and oppose reproaching or restraining the prolific creator thereof, then I'm genuinely delighted that you understand that I take a wholly opposite view. If you want to support the creation of that sort of content, then I'd be hrrified if you approved of my judgement.

Now, as asked before: please stay off my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)