User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:47, 28 February 2014 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 030, User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 029) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:08, 28 February 2014 view source DePiep (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits →Closing RM Period 1 element: new sectionNext edit →
Line 176:		Line 176:
	::::"somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way" Highly unlikely in this case, and it seems more like an avoidance, but you have to do what you think is right. ] (]) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)		::::"somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way" Highly unlikely in this case, and it seems more like an avoidance, but you have to do what you think is right. ] (]) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Hmm. Suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of avoidance is a rather snarky assumption of bad faith. I may be excessively cautious, but having been an admin for nearly 8 years I have my own instinct for when a situation looks potentially tricky. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)		:::::Hmm. Suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of avoidance is a rather snarky assumption of bad faith. I may be excessively cautious, but having been an admin for nearly 8 years I have my own instinct for when a situation looks potentially tricky. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

			== Closing RM ] ==

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

Revision as of 04:08, 28 February 2014

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

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages adminI have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

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.

Busts by location categories

Hi BHG, asking you as a categories enthusiast: could you have a look at new categories Category:Busts in the United States and similar, all created earlier today and populated by the same user? I'd have thought that sculpture busts are often small enough to be portable and exportable, so that their current location is not significant: we don't have Category:Paintings in the United States etc. Any thoughts? PamD 08:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pam

I was a bit surprised when I saw the notification of your msg, but the first word did not have the meaning I originally thought. Tho come to think of it, I have read some good scholarly work on that topic with the other meaning. Fascinating semiotics.

Anyway, I am not sure about location categories for Bust (sculpture). I take your point about portability; but while a bust is more portable than an equestrian statue, it is less portable than a painting. Some of them are pretty much permanent fixtures in a place, and may even be carved into a larger structure. Moving the Lincoln Memorial Monument in Wyoming would be a non-trivial exercise. OTOH, some busts are small enough to be kept on a desk or table, and lifted easily.

We do have a Category:Sculptures in the United States, which makes sense, and I can see that from one perspective, Category:Busts in the United States is just a subcat of that.

Have you noticed any categorisation in this way of the sort of busts which might be moved around? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think any ambiguity here can be fixed with a good category description, indicating that the category is for busts that are either permanently affixed somewhere in the United States, or are under the long-term control of an institution in the United States. Obviously, we are not going to recategorize works in traveling exhibitions whenever those works are taken from one country to another. bd2412 T 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BD2412. That sounds like a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Hi BHG. I noticed that you closed the RM but there is no reason stated yet. No pressure of course but just in case a reminder is needed; if not, please disregard. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. 12:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Δρ.Κ.

I knew that my closing statement for Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus#Requested_move:_1974_Cyprus_war_.2808.02.2014.29 would take a while to draft, because it was quite a complicated discussion. So I thought it best to place a holding notice there, so that nobody else started a similar job in parallel.

I hope to finish it this evening, but it may take until tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much BHG for the clarification. No problem, take your time. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. 14:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now closed as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Template South Korea

Hi, first I want to thanks for this edit here. can you do the same for this one too ? South Korea national basketball team. I already asked about it in template's talkpage but nobody noticed it so far. also you didn't have to add South for that change, you could simple remove both lines. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I missed it before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can you do the same for North Korean template, the article is North Korea national basketball team not DPR Korea. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done! . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian template RM at CENT

Hi BHG, I was just going to revert the inclusion of the {{Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people}} RM at WP:CENT until I saw you had listed it. Does this really merit inclusion at CENT? Template names are generally of very little consequence, and notifying the WikiProjects may be a better way of drawing in interested parties. Inclusion of individual RMs and XfDs could really clog up CENT. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD

I thought long and hard before doing it., but I think that this is a rare case which would justify it. AFAICR, I have only once ever listed anything at WP:CENT, a few weeks ago: a CFD of a category with 30,000 articles, which had been relisted after lack of input. That was big enough to need broad input, and the listing on WP:CENT certainly helped.

This template name could potentially have bog consequences, which is why I listed it. It appears on 50 or more articles, and the proposal is the change its title to State of Palestine. I have no view on whether this change is appropriate, but since that state has limited recognition I know it will be a controversial step in relation to a topic area (Israel/Palestine) which has had numerous big rows, and plenty of trips to arbcom.

So rather than risk a bust-up after a discussion had closed, I thought it best to flag this up now, so that anyone who doesn't like the outcome can't claim that the discussion was under-advertised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Derby RFM 'no consensus'?

I don't understand how you could possibly have found "no consensus" at Sydney Derby RFM. There were more than double the amount of supporters for the move than against it, that is a clear consensus for the move in my opinion, and two of the people who opposed the move did so only because they don't think the article is notable at all which has nothing to do with an RFM. You left no reasoning at all behind the move, I would have thought that as an admin every decision made should be clarified. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Macktheknifeau

Thanks for your message. Every admin is accountable for their actions, and has an obligation to explain it if questioned. In an ideal world, I suppose every action would be explained at the time, but in practice things don't go like that. Some actions appear likely to be uncontroversial, and in those cases it is common not to provide an explanation upfront. Look for example at the requested move of "Stoopid Monkey". Unanimous opposition to the proposal from 5 editors, so the reason for the close should be self-evident.

As you may know, there is a severe shortage of admins, because not enough new admins are being promoted through WP:RFA. This is starting to cause problems in many parts of Misplaced Pages, and one effect is a baclklog of discussion closures. (See for example WP:CFD/W#Discussions_awaiting_closure or WP:AN/RFC). For at least the last month, there has been a big backlog of unclosed move discussions, some of them open for weeks beyond their 7 days. I have been working to reduce that backlog, and in 48 hours before your message I closed ~19 move discussions and relisted about a dozen others. There is a tradeoff between the amount of explanation and the number of closures, so when clearing a backlog I reduce the amount upfront explanation.

In most cases, this seems to satisfy participants in the discussions, and it takes less time to provide a more extensive rationale in the few cases where the close is queried. You have queried this one (as you are quite entitled to do), so I will review my closure and provide a longer closing statement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will await your explanation/rationale. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Macktheknifeau. Closer's statement added in this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

would like help with an article

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

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

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

thanks

any help would be appreciated and i will be grateful for

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

sources i will be using are listed for your convinience

Wikispott, thanks for your message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring at Seoul Metropolitan Subway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of metro systems

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

What is considered to be a personal attack?
Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream

Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing RM Period 1 element

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