Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EllenCT (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 20 April 2014 (→Your premature noticeboard closure.: respond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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  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.

You've got mail!

v/r - TP 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - TP 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks to you both (Adjwilley & TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - TP 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - TP 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry :( back on the case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...again ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Systems development life cycle

Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the Systems development life cycle. -- Mdd (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdd

I was just closing a move discussion at Talk:Systems development life cycle#.22Lifecycle.22_vs_.22Life-cycle.22, and what I usually do in such cases is to move the page (plus subpages and talk pages), fix any templates which link to the page, and leave the bots to fix the double redirects.

But just for you, I have fixed them all in this case :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. -- Mdd (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

List of successful rickrolls AfD

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls as "merge selectively". Would you explain why you chose merge over delete? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan

I saw no particularly strong policy-based argument in favour of any particular option, but the arguments against keeping it did seem stronger than those in favour of keeping it. The deletionists and mergeists broadly agreed that the list's scope was unclear, and unfixable.

With !votes split roughly evenly between the 3 options (7d, 9m, 8k, counting those who supported more than one option), that left a choice between merger or deletion; either option would uphold the same position that we should not have a standalone list of rickrolls.

The arguments in favour of deletion rather than merger were twofold: a) that the list title was an implausible redirect, b) that a previous set of examples was already present in the history of the page rickrolling.

Neither argument seemed very persuasive. The question of whether to just restore rickrolling#Examples or port across some of the content from the list can be resolved by normal editorial processes; deletion simply removes the option of copying across any material added to the standalone list, and I saw no particularly strong argument to justify cutting off that option. I accept that the list title may be an implausible redirect, and if created as a redirect it would likely be deleted; but keeping it as a record of the history of the list does no harm.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree with your analysis (less a quibble with your vote numbers) up to deletion argument (b). It was not just "a previous set of examples", but exactly the same list with minor edits to two items (cross-page diff, no material changes; diffs copied from my initial comment at the AfD). The misleadingly large diff in Barack Roll was caused by a heading correction/spacing change combined with a minor view count update. Two unsourced examples were added and removed: a Bill Nye death hoax (removed in 1.5 months) and "Full Screen Pokemon" (removed in 23 minutes). No one besides me mentioned them, much less argued for their inclusion. If someone had, I would have recommended that they add suitable sources to Rickrolling directly. My argument convinced Ansh666 (diff) and Spirit of Eagle (diff) to annotate or amend their merge recommendations. Gongshow, who also recommended merge, had no complaint with my restore from history approach. I feel that you counted merge opinions as opposing deletion (addressed by these comments) and that you overruled the small consensus (plus BDD) that the history should be deleted. I disagree with a page history having near-zero value being kept at non-zero cost. List of successful rickrolls technically violates WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages because its creation edit summary does not wikilink Rickrolling. I will have to add a dummy edit and {{Copied}}s to fix it. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Flatscan: Thanks for that explanation. You have persuaded me that I should have given more weight to the argument that there was nothing worth preserving, so I have changed my close to "delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

New closure as delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking the time to consider my comments and for modifying your close. Happy editing! Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI Reply

I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>

I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: thanks for your msg.

I see your point, but I think that there are two types of block. One is handed out quickly in response to a clear crossing of a bright line; the other is a response to a pattern of behaviour which may not cross the line quite so starkly in any individual instance. The latter type often results from an ANI discussion.

In the case of Skookum1, it's the latter. The ongoing disruption is the low-level personal attacks, the complaints that editors who disagree with him are being disruptive, and the massive verbosity at so many discussions.

A 1-week block would prevent that happening for a week, and give Skookum1 a chance to reconsider their modus operandi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers Doc talk 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "cherry-pick a diff". I looked at the pattern throughout a whole discussion, in the context of other similar discussions. If I were to collect diffs, there would be a dozen from that discussion alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. Doc talk 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never had any engagement with Skookum1 on a substantive issue, and do not edit in any common areas; I have no stake in the issues he edits on. My sole encounters have been in an administrative capacity.

Per WP:INVOLVED an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers Doc talk 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tricolor move

Please see my comment at Talk:Tricolor#Bad move. jnestorius 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:People's Republic of Hungary

Can you please move this category in line with Hungarian People's Republic, per the recent requested move? Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Now nominated for speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording use in a close

I just saw this. I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current discussion. My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See Kwamikagami and JorisvS for a couple of examples. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi CBWeather

My concern was that the way your comment was worded appeared designed to convey the message that the guideline justified the move. As we agree, it supports either title, and it would have been much better for your !vote to acknowledge that explicitly.

There is a wider problem here, in that the specific guidelines on naming this type of article are repeatedly contested, so they do not appear to represent a community consensus. An RFC is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right I could have made it clearer. There is a bit of a problem with starting a RfC. It would be required to cover two different but related guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (languages) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), as both are causing problems and can't be seperated. Second, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues #2 says "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article." But from my point of view the problem is how the guidelines are being applied and I don't see a need to change them. And of course at this point I'm just not sure that I could "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@CBWeather: if there is no consensus on how to apply the guidelines, then then they ain't working. Or if they are being applied with some consistency in a way you dislike, then they need to be updated to reflect actual practice.

There is no prob with an RFC addressing an issue which relates to multiple guidelines. In fact, an RFC is the best way to address that sort of issue. If you don't think you could draft one neutrally, why not find an editor who disagrees with you, and work together on a draft which you both feel is fair? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 block

BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now appealed your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the Chipewyan people RM in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,--Cúchullain /c 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cúchullain

Sure. I had been closing a large bunch of backlogged RMs, including a cluster of discussions which had been opened by Skookum1. The Chipewyan discussion was a particularly severe example of the sort of disruption which had been ongoing for months. I can collect diffs if you like, but I hope that you can take the time to read the discussion yourself.

The unblock does not acknowledge that there was a problem with his conduct in that article. Do you agree with my assessment of that discussion?

Secondly, the battleground behaviour has not stopped. Look at some more recent diffs:

12 April: referring to those who he disagrees with as a "faction"

11 April: repeating a misrepresentation of policy The two-word Duwamish River title is not a valid candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC for the standalone term "Duwamish". The reality is that it depends entirely on the topic; in some cases a partial match may be used for something more fully referred to by a longer name. Variants on this comment have been spewed into countless debates. It is perhaps more of a competence issue than a conduct one, but when repeated so often it is highly disruptive. (See for example more of this at the Modoc People RM and at Nisqually People RM where he simply dismisses the other alternatives without checking the evidence. In the latter case he pronounces that "doubleword titles - never mind four barrelled ones like the National Wildlife Refuge are not in the running'")

9 April: dismissing yet another complaint about excessive verbosity `I mean what i said - people having difficulties with reading longer passages of text need remedial reading, period. Others do not have this issue and are able to understand me without complaint."

There is a real, ongoing problem here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your assessment that his behavior in the RM was problematic and part of a pattern of similar problematic behavior that is potentially disruptive at RM and elsewhere. My concern is that your rationale suggests you blocked him for something he'd done 11 days before, which doesn't really sound like a preventative measure. Understandably, his unblock request focuses on that, arguing that he's toned it down since that RM.

I won't be unblocking him, since it's clear the real problem isn't just his comments in that RM, but a pattern of behavior (which you touched on initially with the "fork in the road" remark, and gave examples of here), and he hasn't shown much sign of addressing that. I guess we'll see if another admin thinks differently. Thanks again,--Cúchullain /c 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you vote in the ANI thread BHG? Why would it have been closed by you? By the way, can't blame someone for becoming disruptive in response to fly-by voters on RMs that had diddly knowledge in what they were talking about. - Floydian  _¢ 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: We can't control what others post. Everyone has a choice about how to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

CFD/W

I notice that you fully protected Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tintin RM

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at Tintin as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains {{subst:rm bottom)}}, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, Matty.007 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to review the discussion. Best, Matty.007 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Skookum1 again. Thank you. — The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Thanks for the notification. I have left a lengthy comment in the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your premature noticeboard closure.

With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section (). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning I'm being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: On the evidence presented, you are mistaking a complaint about sources for a criticism of you. I haven't tried to assess the merits of those sources, or the validity of EllenCT's description of them ... but even if she is wrong about the sources, that's a content dispute not an attack on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your mistaken view is understandable since you aren't familiar with the disputes or the fact that I haven't added "statements" from the source in question, but what about my request that you admonish her to at least be clear about her accusations, since I posted proof that her claims, at best, can be taken by others to mean that I'm being paid? She's proved that she'll ignore my admonishments, but she might listen to an admin. who asks her to clarify that she's not leveling such a charge. Isn't that a reasonable request? VictorD7 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think that you would do better to let it go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what you should be telling her? She's the one engaging in the repeated behavior, making a false personal accusation (false in either interpretation). If that continues unchanged I guess my only remedy would be to bring it back to the noticeboard, and hope for a more satisfactory hearing. VictorD7 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened when you posted to her talk page to ask for the clarification? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So it only counts if it's on her talk page? She ignored multiple opportunities to clarify what she meant when I gave her specific warning elsewhere, as my noticeboard links showed (, ). The last time I posted on her talk page (apart from giving her notice about this report) was a few months ago when I asked her to justify a blatantly false claim she made about a source by providing a single quote supporting what she said, and she completely ignored me, never answering (). BTW, that's despite the fact she was already discussing me before I showed up. I was the "he" in the above posts in the diff. She was upset that another editor who shares her politics was acknowledging that I had made legitimate points and was admonishing her for her insulting and excessively partisan posting style. This isn't an editor prone to reasonable, productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible. When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)