You asked The Bushranger here [1]. Here it is [2]. ...William 19:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
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? Pam D 08:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 12:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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
/info/en/?search=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)
Enough. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. Thank you for whatever you think is right.
BsBsBs (
talk)
17:23, 24 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)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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:National presidents, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to Georgian rugby union teams, a complete dog's dinner now. I notice you never bothered to take it to the rugby union crowd either.
Perhaps we should rename all the Victorian articles in case they bother people from the Australian state.-- MacRùsgail ( talk) 15:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Brown haired Girl, I am bringing this to your attention because you have previously dealt with this editor NorthBySouthBaranof. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=596373308#Closing_RM_discussions:_final_warning NBSB deleted your warning as bullshit. I posted with this admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woody#Some_help_please but then realized that admin is semi-retired and has not posted since Dec 2013 but had blocked NBSB here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Blocked_for_edit_warring NBSB was also blocked here. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571184111#September_2013 NBSB was warned against edit warring by these previous editorers and admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=581492119#SSCS_ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571164271#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571161971#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=570207677#Auguist_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=567216790#SSCS http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564948996#July_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564684503#Edit_warring_at_North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=561578929#My_rudeness_.21 I am not asking for a block (not even sure how to do that) but a warning for malicious/revenge editing as illustrated below. I edited an article NorthBySouthBaranof had recently edited and it appears she decided to stalk my edits and pursue unconstructive editing. I do not possess all the proper wiki bureaucracy skills so I am unsure of all the procedures when encountering this and honestly do not have time at this moment to dedicate due to academic demands. Can you emphasize that NBSB does not pursue stalking/revenge editing and other unconstructive editing. NBSB apparently has an attitude about being asked not to edit war and quickly deletes those warnings. Thanks for you help. 172.56.10.195 ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, thank you for commenting on the Leilani Leeane discussion. I agree that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their sources, but there is unfortunately a lot of conflict over what sources are reliable, acceptable, or even genuine with regards to the Adult industry. I personally find it odd that there is such intensely applied double standard with regard to trade publications for the industry. Trade journals for a myriad of subjects are seemingly accepted everywhere else on the site, but are repeatedly impugned when it comes to anything porn or human sexuality related. Furthermore, these journals conduct themselves much like any other mainstream media outlet with regard to their editorial policies and choices, but no one seems to acknowledge that. As far as I am aware, no one has accused AVN magazine's Paul Fishbein of pushing a political agenda like has happened with Michael Bloomberg or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Anyway, its good to have an additional set of eyes on the articles. Best regards, -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for closing Dakelh. Could you please have a look at Talk:Stawamus and consider what I'm saying there, and likewise on my section on reversion of undiscussed speedy moves - no matter how stale (LabattBlueBoy's contention on Talk:Stawamus is that because an obscure article which got speedied did so a long time ago (when nobody was looking) is justification for it to remain where it is; even though he, like the article's mover, cannot in fact provide any citations to prove THEIR case. Undiscussed controversial moves, no matter how "stale", should be rolled back IMO.....but even when they're not stale, I can never seem to get one rolled back. And am always faced by people being very obstructionist (and seeming to relish the part) without themselves having any sources to prove their position. Or thinking they do, but on close examination (as with Stawamus) they don't at all; and even though User:OldManRivers and I are from the area, our knowledge of this community is being rejected outright, with the suggestion that the article should be deleted. Is ant-native language chauvinism that entrenched and that bitter? If an article's name isn't English enough, then that community's name should be wiped off Wikipedia? The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument has been posited in one of these RMs, can't remember at the moment if it's this one; but when does that get shoved aside in recognition of a real-world convention covering hundreds of native-language placenames in Canada, some of very large communities. Are only the ones with 7's and other special characters going to be deleted because somebody's got their knickers in a knot about being hardline about Wikipedia being English-only ("speak white" is how that comes across in Canada btw)? When a common anglicism, still in use (and not archaic), is available as in re Kii?in-> Keeshan, that's OK (sort of) but when one is NOT, as in the case of Sta7mes (where Stawamus is common but pronounced differently and never used for the community), then what? All I'm seeing/hearing is obstructionism and a real digging-in-the-heels about the right of white ) wikipedians to dictate to native communities what they're allowed to be called. As re a comment I made last night on the new RM at Talk:Squamish people while it may be that Wikipedia's job is not to advance or promote a term or a convention in modern Canadian English to use such terms, it's also not Wikipedia's job to promote archaicisms and mistaken names and resist changes that more recent sources prove are happening. Forcing the past on the present is not Wikipedia's job. Also in the context of what happened to native cultures, that their languages were beaten out of them, their communities' and their own personal names were changed by edict, for Wikipedia to continue to replicate those forced-change names and outright errors is just....wonked. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no need for admin intervention here. The IP is free to disagree, and if her remains unsatisfied with my answer, should follow WP:DR procedures. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit Stalking
Hi NBSB. I noticed you recently reverted my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Huma_Abedin&oldid=597936146 which added of the sexting scandals. I have no real problem with that. I do point out that you previously editted that article and may be engaged in edit warring or claim ownership. However you then stalked my edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&oldid=597936473 and deleted a nomination for speedy delete http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&direction=prev&oldid=597936232 of an article that had not been edited in 2 and half years, lacked any references, and was created by a banned sock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:American_Clio as I identified in the speedy delete nomination. The appearance of malicious/revenge editting can not be overlooked here. Please undo your edit of the latter article so I do not have to resort to reporting this for further action. Please engage in constructive edits. Thanks 172.56.10.195 ( talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I will not even try to read that unformatted wall of text. I have already explained that I see no need for admin intervention here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.
This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.
That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello BHG.
This is about the requested move at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's Super-G, which you recently relisted. There are sources backing up the request, two editors support the request, no editors oppose it, despite the RM having been around since 16 February. Two editors have raised a couple of questions, which I have replied to.
If the full 7-day waiting period is again required, then the move will not be done until 11 March. Given the backlog on WP:RM, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the pages?
Thanks and regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You closed the discussion on the move request for International Conference For A WMD-Free Middle East with the conclusion "The result of the move request was: moved per nominator." And yet it has not been moved. Did you mean to move it, or did you mean for me (the nominator) to? NPguy ( talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. This procedurally flawed move request did not produce a consensus to move, by any measure. No amount of badgering me will alter that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
About your closing RM, on pages article talk [9] and WP talk [10]. 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) `:Hi DePiep
I find it quite bizarre to learn that my vote on a subject was discounted because I didn't use some arcane piece of wiki-markup. May I remind you of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BUREAU#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy ? I have been editing wikipedia since 2004 and I have never heard of "!vote". I guess I'll be told off it I don't assume good faith, but that leaves little else to assume other than obtuse daftness.-- feline1 ( talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I have immense respect for you as a Wikipedian, we seem to have very different philosophies regarding disambiguation and primary topic issues. I would like to craft an RfC to gauge the consensus of the community on the degree to which we should prefer either primary topic designations or disambiguation pages for certain kinds of situations. We apparently have divergent views on whether hatnotes are effective for navigation (I think hatnotes are great for that, but you and other editors have suggested that they are too easily glossed over, and are not useful when set atop a very large and slow-loading page, which I agree is a concern).
I would also like to float some specific ideas - for example, that even though Apple is a primary topic, links to Apple should be piped through Apple (fruit), so that it is easy to find errant links intended for the company, or other less common uses. I note also that when Wikipedia articles are accessed through certain mobile devices, only the first section of the article initially shows up, and the other sections load individually. Perhaps pages like Apple and George Washington should initially load a shorter portion on every platform, so that a reader looking for the company or the university will not need to wait for the entire page to load for the hatnote information to be presented. Perhaps for an article like Apple, the hatnote should be made more prominent and dynamic, and the disambiguation information should be kept in a collapsed template in the hatnote, rather than on a separate page. These are just some thoughts that I have had on the topic, but I would like to have an RfC to tease out all of the reasonably possible options, and to see what is likely to work the best. I feel that if we write something together and can agree on its language, we will end up with a very neutral and informative description of what is in dispute, and what issues need clarification. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I fragmented the move discussion. I have never been in this situation. I would have moved these pages myself if I have could done so myself, as this was the consensus anyway in the [ discussion from 2011] I linked to. I thought this was a "no-brainer" (and quite a few people agreed). It was quite a bit of work putting all the pages together and sorting the mess out – I have no interest in doing it all over again only to be shot down on another technicality I have overlooked. Kindest regards, Tony Mach ( talk) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Nowhere does WP:MULTI state that such move requests have to be closed with "NO CONSENSUS" – especially considering as there was quite clearly major support for unifying of these pages. I find your behaviour quite bureaucratic, disruptive and cynical, closing the discussing when the reason you have given is so contra-factual. You have written that you would be happy to help, but after your help so far don't be too sad if I forgo any future help from you. Tony Mach ( talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently closed the RM at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Can I ask what threshhold(s) you believe should be reached to demonstrate that a name is the common name in reliable sources? And over what timeframe? (In this case, the name change is barely a month old.) Thanks. Woodshed ( talk) 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Learn some manners, and learn how consensus-forming discussions work, and stay off my talk page. Further posts here from this editor will be reverted unread. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
May I suggest we seek another admin's opinion on this matter? You've unilaterally closed the discussion, and deleted further comments, characterising them in bad faith as "badgering", despite there clearly being a lack of consensus amoungst editors. I also find it patronising that you claim I don't know how to use bold text - I have been using it on here for about 10 years. What I said I was unaware of was "!vote" syntax. Although I guess you'll just delete this too /sighs/-- feline1 ( talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Common Gull. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Snowman ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, EdJohnston and Snowman, for your messages. The closure was a fairly straightforward case of no consensus, and since nobody seems to be disputing that, I don't see at this point that I have anything to add to the move review.
As to EdJ's suggestion of relisting, I would usually think that was an option worth considering. However, in this case the dissension is not so much over this particular topic, but over the underlying question of whether to follow IOC names, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). That has manifested itself in a long series of RM disputes, many of them verbose and some of them heated, as editors rehash the same question.
AFAICS, an early relisting of the Common Gull discussion would simply return everyone to the same pointless cycle of using a specific instance to resolve a policy question. It would be far more productive to open an RFC to see whether there is a broad consensus in support of the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use_the_most_common_name_when_possible that " Wikipedia uses the bird species and subspecies common names published by the International Ornithological Congress at the World Bird Names database". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, BHG,
This is a minor problem but it is bugging me and I hope you can help. I've been working on categories of WikiProjects and came across
Category:Defunct WikiProjects and arranged for these defunct WikiProjects to appear in alphabetical order. However, despite using {{DEFAULTSORT:X}}, a few still appear under WikiProject X (so under W, not X).
I realize that few people check out categories filled with abandoned projects but I'm more interested in figuring out what I'm doing wrong or what I am missing. Is there a hidden template or code that regular editors can't see? {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} works most of the time to alphabetize the articles or categories within larger categories but, when it doesn't, do you know why?
Thanks for any answers you can provide.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the list:
Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts
Wikipedia:WikiProject .NET
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Gospel music
Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungarian culture
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Old
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Proofreading
Wikipedia:WikiProject Metros of the former Soviet Union
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/Squirrels
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions Scotland
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions Wales
Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
8 March | ||
All the best on this day, both in Wiki and in the real life:) Cheers! Brandmeister talk 08:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
Editor used the wrong link when citing a source. Somebody else fixed it. Apparently it's my fault that when the editor was twice reverted for a broken citation, they didn't fix their own mistake. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You queried the reference I added to this page saying in your edit summary "claim thar [sic] "Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers" not supported by referencedsource"
I have added the page number to the reference to clarify but I'm having trouble understanding how you thought this was not covered by the source. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification. Thanks, Mark83 ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume you meant academic sources are "reliable" rather than "liable"? Curly Turkey ( gobble) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing this request. We ended up with Object-Role modeling but the desired naming is with "role" not capitalized. Object-role modeling is a redirect and I cannot fix it. (I fixed the talk page!) Thanks again. Joja lozzo 20:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for moving So Long! (song) to So Long (AKB48 song). Can you do the same with Bingo! (song) to Bingo (AKB48 song)? - AngusWOOF ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Very deftly done. I'm not sure which should go where, but you spelled out the choice nicely. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Period 1 element. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DePiep ( talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you full protect Zhantoro Satybaldiyev and revert the CU confirmed sock Urfinze please. The SPI case page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Фаиз Махмудов so you can verify this is a sock. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the period 1 element Move review. The thread is I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk. Thank you. - DePiep ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. Removing my response to your skewed summary of our Type 45 discussion above & the edit summary "which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you" is simply contributes to my concern about your attitude. I don't require a reply. Regards Mark83 ( talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For continuing to volunteer at an exceptional level despite what sometimes seems like an endless torrent of ill-thought criticism. bd2412 T 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello BHG. I was looking at Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move to see if it's ready to be closed. About a zillion files will have to be renamed if it goes through, so I hope whatever change is made won't have to be undone. The term 'comunes' doesn't get universal support in the discussion. One editor said it is a bit too much of a neologism. Can I ask how you would personally rank these options, assuming that 'comunes' might not be the final outcome? The choices to pick from would be Comunes, Communes, Comuni or Municipalities. User:Andrewa has started a new voting section on 'List of communes' and I would wait before closing if I thought that others might yet add their opinions to that thread. People are OK with 'List of X' so far. The question not yet decided is 'List of what'. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
BrownHairedGirl,
It seems like there was unanimous support to move
Variations of brown,
Variations of cyan,
Variations of pink and
Variations of gray to "Shades of" titles and I noticed that you said you could help with this proposal. I think most people would prefer the article titles to be consistent so I'd like to see these requested page moves initiated.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Lists of Scottish MPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, BrownHairedGirl: thank you very much for the work you have done/are doing to improve the names of articles of certain Chinese dynasties. I have been making some contributions in this area as well, and may continue to do so. I am wondering if there is an easier or better way to fix certain category issues, such as Category:Ming Dynasty poets, other than for someone to create Category:Ming dynasty poets and to then go through and manually edit each of the relevant articles? Again, thank you Dcattell ( talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you look at the introduction to Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom? As I read that it seems to include every residential building, at least in the first line or two. I know that there are some definitions for some of these, but those of us on the other side of the pond are not well versed in the divisions. Right now it seems to be just country houses, castles and manor houses. Which is not a problem. I'm probably going to tag as a container category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. Could you please take a look at the codes that I have started adding to the pages (starting with the top ones)? I feel that it might be wrong... Hoops gza ( talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, sorry for the trouble. Hoops gza ( talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Skookum1 is free to open a request for deletion review, but should first read WP:TPG. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Bad call, very bad. Didn't you even look at the category tree and the other titles and parallel primarytopic town vs band the town takes its name from issues? No, of course not. I'll save my breath, see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22. I'm girding my loins to get Squamish, Squamish, British Columbia and Squamish people jointly relisted by MoveReview. Yes I know I have to write tersely and neutrally and that logic and evidence are not on the table - only wikiquette is. Please sir, may I have a relisting etc. There were five Canadians as well as myself in that and you should have clued into what Themightyquill was saying in my defense. The current situation is untenable and has to still be resolved; the guidelines already exists to support Skwxwu7mesh, but nobody would ever acknowledge any of that; even for quoting and commenting on very relevant passages in TITLE I was told to shut up. Before this is another "wall of text" I'll sign off. Both you and Fayenatic London made me the target of your negative decisions on this title, and making editors the issue rather than the topic itself is supposed to be against the rules. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Skookum1: I presume that you are referring to my closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Squamish. I stand by it, and have nothing to add except to note that the same problem of excessive verbosity is replicated on a smaller scale here, where you post a long reply to yourself, and also at Wikipedia talk:Canadian_Wikipedians' notice board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22, where you post 2 replies to yourself.
See the guidance at WP:TPYES: "Be concise", and "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." You made a herculean effort to ensure that this CFD discussion finished by exhaustion.
You are of course free to open a WP:Deletion review. However, before you do so I strongly urge you to take a break from the issue and consider the disruptive effect of your extraordinary verbosity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, keeping this short, I've explained everything at User talk:Anthony Bradbury#A10 criteria but I haven't got any reply so far. As expected, the page was re-created again by someone else who noticed all the redlinks, so now this seems a bit silly. I initially felt that an old article which has a lot of history and was a featured list gets suddenly deleted outside the A10 criteria instead of being made into a redirect, was a simple mistake which could have been rectified quickly. With it already re-created, I'm at a loss as to what to do...should I file a report at DRV or ignore it since there's no obvious loss...what do you feel? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 10:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, I see that you have restored the old history. Yup, like I said the first time, I think Logical misunderstood how to merge and used A10 accidentally. Anyway, I've added the respective merge templates on both talk pages. Thanks once again, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I came across your profile while searching for administrator. I need your help in a article as I may be wrong. In 2014 India is going to have an Lok Sabha elections. There is a wiki article regarding that. As the elections are approaching, people are trying to use wiki as a tool for advertisement. But final decisions are taken on the basis of discussions on the talk page. But like party position, even though the decision is made by majority of the users and the article was edited in accordance with that, 1 or 2 users are reverting that back every time without taking part in discussion. I am not saying whether the decision after discussion is neutral or not, but has been discussed and decided by majority. So I wish if you could go through this and decide what is right. Thanks. Logical1004 ( talk) 07:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the move at Talk:World record progression 10,000 m speed skating men#Revert move. Could you please also look at the related proposed move at Talk:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3 – Men's 10000 metres#Proposed move which I opened at the same time for the same reason.
Thank you! — sroc 💬 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Black crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Red-crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Since this issue is now being discussed at move review, there is no point in continuing a parallel discussion here. The move review was opened by Cas Liber, who opened this discussion, but who failed to mention or link to this discussion when on the review page.
It is important that admins are accountable for their actions, and explain them when challenged. It is also important that editors who are unsatisfied with explanations given have the courtesy to acknowledge the existence of those explanations when exercising their right to seek a review. That is explicitly sought in the instructions for opening a move review: " please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You quoted a guideline incorrectly at Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested_move - Wikipedia:NCCAPS#Organisms currently includes Birds as an exception.So no the bird naming guideline does not contradict it. Given that the Opposes actually outweigh the supports. So would ask that you reconsider the three individual species pages on this, which now sets up a discrepancy with the other 9000 pages of bird species. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An exception is common names of birds, for which WP:WikiProject Birds recommends using IOC naming, which (generally) capitalizes each word.There have been many and repeated discussions as to the titling of bird articles, and all have ended in a consensus for the status quo. To move a few bird articles based on a limited discussion simply creates inconsistency. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
You asked The Bushranger here [1]. Here it is [2]. ...William 19:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
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? Pam D 08:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 12:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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
/info/en/?search=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)
Enough. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. Thank you for whatever you think is right.
BsBsBs (
talk)
17:23, 24 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)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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:National presidents, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to Georgian rugby union teams, a complete dog's dinner now. I notice you never bothered to take it to the rugby union crowd either.
Perhaps we should rename all the Victorian articles in case they bother people from the Australian state.-- MacRùsgail ( talk) 15:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Brown haired Girl, I am bringing this to your attention because you have previously dealt with this editor NorthBySouthBaranof. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=596373308#Closing_RM_discussions:_final_warning NBSB deleted your warning as bullshit. I posted with this admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woody#Some_help_please but then realized that admin is semi-retired and has not posted since Dec 2013 but had blocked NBSB here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Blocked_for_edit_warring NBSB was also blocked here. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571184111#September_2013 NBSB was warned against edit warring by these previous editorers and admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=581492119#SSCS_ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571164271#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=571161971#September_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=570207677#Auguist_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=567216790#SSCS http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564948996#July_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=564684503#Edit_warring_at_North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=561578929#My_rudeness_.21 I am not asking for a block (not even sure how to do that) but a warning for malicious/revenge editing as illustrated below. I edited an article NorthBySouthBaranof had recently edited and it appears she decided to stalk my edits and pursue unconstructive editing. I do not possess all the proper wiki bureaucracy skills so I am unsure of all the procedures when encountering this and honestly do not have time at this moment to dedicate due to academic demands. Can you emphasize that NBSB does not pursue stalking/revenge editing and other unconstructive editing. NBSB apparently has an attitude about being asked not to edit war and quickly deletes those warnings. Thanks for you help. 172.56.10.195 ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, thank you for commenting on the Leilani Leeane discussion. I agree that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their sources, but there is unfortunately a lot of conflict over what sources are reliable, acceptable, or even genuine with regards to the Adult industry. I personally find it odd that there is such intensely applied double standard with regard to trade publications for the industry. Trade journals for a myriad of subjects are seemingly accepted everywhere else on the site, but are repeatedly impugned when it comes to anything porn or human sexuality related. Furthermore, these journals conduct themselves much like any other mainstream media outlet with regard to their editorial policies and choices, but no one seems to acknowledge that. As far as I am aware, no one has accused AVN magazine's Paul Fishbein of pushing a political agenda like has happened with Michael Bloomberg or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Anyway, its good to have an additional set of eyes on the articles. Best regards, -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for closing Dakelh. Could you please have a look at Talk:Stawamus and consider what I'm saying there, and likewise on my section on reversion of undiscussed speedy moves - no matter how stale (LabattBlueBoy's contention on Talk:Stawamus is that because an obscure article which got speedied did so a long time ago (when nobody was looking) is justification for it to remain where it is; even though he, like the article's mover, cannot in fact provide any citations to prove THEIR case. Undiscussed controversial moves, no matter how "stale", should be rolled back IMO.....but even when they're not stale, I can never seem to get one rolled back. And am always faced by people being very obstructionist (and seeming to relish the part) without themselves having any sources to prove their position. Or thinking they do, but on close examination (as with Stawamus) they don't at all; and even though User:OldManRivers and I are from the area, our knowledge of this community is being rejected outright, with the suggestion that the article should be deleted. Is ant-native language chauvinism that entrenched and that bitter? If an article's name isn't English enough, then that community's name should be wiped off Wikipedia? The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument has been posited in one of these RMs, can't remember at the moment if it's this one; but when does that get shoved aside in recognition of a real-world convention covering hundreds of native-language placenames in Canada, some of very large communities. Are only the ones with 7's and other special characters going to be deleted because somebody's got their knickers in a knot about being hardline about Wikipedia being English-only ("speak white" is how that comes across in Canada btw)? When a common anglicism, still in use (and not archaic), is available as in re Kii?in-> Keeshan, that's OK (sort of) but when one is NOT, as in the case of Sta7mes (where Stawamus is common but pronounced differently and never used for the community), then what? All I'm seeing/hearing is obstructionism and a real digging-in-the-heels about the right of white ) wikipedians to dictate to native communities what they're allowed to be called. As re a comment I made last night on the new RM at Talk:Squamish people while it may be that Wikipedia's job is not to advance or promote a term or a convention in modern Canadian English to use such terms, it's also not Wikipedia's job to promote archaicisms and mistaken names and resist changes that more recent sources prove are happening. Forcing the past on the present is not Wikipedia's job. Also in the context of what happened to native cultures, that their languages were beaten out of them, their communities' and their own personal names were changed by edict, for Wikipedia to continue to replicate those forced-change names and outright errors is just....wonked. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no need for admin intervention here. The IP is free to disagree, and if her remains unsatisfied with my answer, should follow WP:DR procedures. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit Stalking
Hi NBSB. I noticed you recently reverted my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Huma_Abedin&oldid=597936146 which added of the sexting scandals. I have no real problem with that. I do point out that you previously editted that article and may be engaged in edit warring or claim ownership. However you then stalked my edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&oldid=597936473 and deleted a nomination for speedy delete http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_L._Douglass&direction=prev&oldid=597936232 of an article that had not been edited in 2 and half years, lacked any references, and was created by a banned sock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:American_Clio as I identified in the speedy delete nomination. The appearance of malicious/revenge editting can not be overlooked here. Please undo your edit of the latter article so I do not have to resort to reporting this for further action. Please engage in constructive edits. Thanks 172.56.10.195 ( talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I will not even try to read that unformatted wall of text. I have already explained that I see no need for admin intervention here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.
This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.
That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello BHG.
This is about the requested move at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's Super-G, which you recently relisted. There are sources backing up the request, two editors support the request, no editors oppose it, despite the RM having been around since 16 February. Two editors have raised a couple of questions, which I have replied to.
If the full 7-day waiting period is again required, then the move will not be done until 11 March. Given the backlog on WP:RM, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the pages?
Thanks and regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You closed the discussion on the move request for International Conference For A WMD-Free Middle East with the conclusion "The result of the move request was: moved per nominator." And yet it has not been moved. Did you mean to move it, or did you mean for me (the nominator) to? NPguy ( talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. This procedurally flawed move request did not produce a consensus to move, by any measure. No amount of badgering me will alter that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
About your closing RM, on pages article talk [9] and WP talk [10]. 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) `:Hi DePiep
I find it quite bizarre to learn that my vote on a subject was discounted because I didn't use some arcane piece of wiki-markup. May I remind you of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BUREAU#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy ? I have been editing wikipedia since 2004 and I have never heard of "!vote". I guess I'll be told off it I don't assume good faith, but that leaves little else to assume other than obtuse daftness.-- feline1 ( talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I have immense respect for you as a Wikipedian, we seem to have very different philosophies regarding disambiguation and primary topic issues. I would like to craft an RfC to gauge the consensus of the community on the degree to which we should prefer either primary topic designations or disambiguation pages for certain kinds of situations. We apparently have divergent views on whether hatnotes are effective for navigation (I think hatnotes are great for that, but you and other editors have suggested that they are too easily glossed over, and are not useful when set atop a very large and slow-loading page, which I agree is a concern).
I would also like to float some specific ideas - for example, that even though Apple is a primary topic, links to Apple should be piped through Apple (fruit), so that it is easy to find errant links intended for the company, or other less common uses. I note also that when Wikipedia articles are accessed through certain mobile devices, only the first section of the article initially shows up, and the other sections load individually. Perhaps pages like Apple and George Washington should initially load a shorter portion on every platform, so that a reader looking for the company or the university will not need to wait for the entire page to load for the hatnote information to be presented. Perhaps for an article like Apple, the hatnote should be made more prominent and dynamic, and the disambiguation information should be kept in a collapsed template in the hatnote, rather than on a separate page. These are just some thoughts that I have had on the topic, but I would like to have an RfC to tease out all of the reasonably possible options, and to see what is likely to work the best. I feel that if we write something together and can agree on its language, we will end up with a very neutral and informative description of what is in dispute, and what issues need clarification. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I fragmented the move discussion. I have never been in this situation. I would have moved these pages myself if I have could done so myself, as this was the consensus anyway in the [ discussion from 2011] I linked to. I thought this was a "no-brainer" (and quite a few people agreed). It was quite a bit of work putting all the pages together and sorting the mess out – I have no interest in doing it all over again only to be shot down on another technicality I have overlooked. Kindest regards, Tony Mach ( talk) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Nowhere does WP:MULTI state that such move requests have to be closed with "NO CONSENSUS" – especially considering as there was quite clearly major support for unifying of these pages. I find your behaviour quite bureaucratic, disruptive and cynical, closing the discussing when the reason you have given is so contra-factual. You have written that you would be happy to help, but after your help so far don't be too sad if I forgo any future help from you. Tony Mach ( talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently closed the RM at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Can I ask what threshhold(s) you believe should be reached to demonstrate that a name is the common name in reliable sources? And over what timeframe? (In this case, the name change is barely a month old.) Thanks. Woodshed ( talk) 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Learn some manners, and learn how consensus-forming discussions work, and stay off my talk page. Further posts here from this editor will be reverted unread. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
May I suggest we seek another admin's opinion on this matter? You've unilaterally closed the discussion, and deleted further comments, characterising them in bad faith as "badgering", despite there clearly being a lack of consensus amoungst editors. I also find it patronising that you claim I don't know how to use bold text - I have been using it on here for about 10 years. What I said I was unaware of was "!vote" syntax. Although I guess you'll just delete this too /sighs/-- feline1 ( talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Common Gull. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Snowman ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, EdJohnston and Snowman, for your messages. The closure was a fairly straightforward case of no consensus, and since nobody seems to be disputing that, I don't see at this point that I have anything to add to the move review.
As to EdJ's suggestion of relisting, I would usually think that was an option worth considering. However, in this case the dissension is not so much over this particular topic, but over the underlying question of whether to follow IOC names, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). That has manifested itself in a long series of RM disputes, many of them verbose and some of them heated, as editors rehash the same question.
AFAICS, an early relisting of the Common Gull discussion would simply return everyone to the same pointless cycle of using a specific instance to resolve a policy question. It would be far more productive to open an RFC to see whether there is a broad consensus in support of the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use_the_most_common_name_when_possible that " Wikipedia uses the bird species and subspecies common names published by the International Ornithological Congress at the World Bird Names database". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, BHG,
This is a minor problem but it is bugging me and I hope you can help. I've been working on categories of WikiProjects and came across
Category:Defunct WikiProjects and arranged for these defunct WikiProjects to appear in alphabetical order. However, despite using {{DEFAULTSORT:X}}, a few still appear under WikiProject X (so under W, not X).
I realize that few people check out categories filled with abandoned projects but I'm more interested in figuring out what I'm doing wrong or what I am missing. Is there a hidden template or code that regular editors can't see? {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} works most of the time to alphabetize the articles or categories within larger categories but, when it doesn't, do you know why?
Thanks for any answers you can provide.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the list:
Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts
Wikipedia:WikiProject .NET
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Gospel music
Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungarian culture
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Old
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Proofreading
Wikipedia:WikiProject Metros of the former Soviet Union
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/Squirrels
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions Scotland
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions Wales
Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
8 March | ||
All the best on this day, both in Wiki and in the real life:) Cheers! Brandmeister talk 08:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
Editor used the wrong link when citing a source. Somebody else fixed it. Apparently it's my fault that when the editor was twice reverted for a broken citation, they didn't fix their own mistake. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You queried the reference I added to this page saying in your edit summary "claim thar [sic] "Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers" not supported by referencedsource"
I have added the page number to the reference to clarify but I'm having trouble understanding how you thought this was not covered by the source. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification. Thanks, Mark83 ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume you meant academic sources are "reliable" rather than "liable"? Curly Turkey ( gobble) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing this request. We ended up with Object-Role modeling but the desired naming is with "role" not capitalized. Object-role modeling is a redirect and I cannot fix it. (I fixed the talk page!) Thanks again. Joja lozzo 20:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for moving So Long! (song) to So Long (AKB48 song). Can you do the same with Bingo! (song) to Bingo (AKB48 song)? - AngusWOOF ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Very deftly done. I'm not sure which should go where, but you spelled out the choice nicely. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Period 1 element. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DePiep ( talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you full protect Zhantoro Satybaldiyev and revert the CU confirmed sock Urfinze please. The SPI case page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Фаиз Махмудов so you can verify this is a sock. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the period 1 element Move review. The thread is I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk. Thank you. - DePiep ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. Removing my response to your skewed summary of our Type 45 discussion above & the edit summary "which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you" is simply contributes to my concern about your attitude. I don't require a reply. Regards Mark83 ( talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For continuing to volunteer at an exceptional level despite what sometimes seems like an endless torrent of ill-thought criticism. bd2412 T 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello BHG. I was looking at Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move to see if it's ready to be closed. About a zillion files will have to be renamed if it goes through, so I hope whatever change is made won't have to be undone. The term 'comunes' doesn't get universal support in the discussion. One editor said it is a bit too much of a neologism. Can I ask how you would personally rank these options, assuming that 'comunes' might not be the final outcome? The choices to pick from would be Comunes, Communes, Comuni or Municipalities. User:Andrewa has started a new voting section on 'List of communes' and I would wait before closing if I thought that others might yet add their opinions to that thread. People are OK with 'List of X' so far. The question not yet decided is 'List of what'. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
BrownHairedGirl,
It seems like there was unanimous support to move
Variations of brown,
Variations of cyan,
Variations of pink and
Variations of gray to "Shades of" titles and I noticed that you said you could help with this proposal. I think most people would prefer the article titles to be consistent so I'd like to see these requested page moves initiated.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Lists of Scottish MPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, BrownHairedGirl: thank you very much for the work you have done/are doing to improve the names of articles of certain Chinese dynasties. I have been making some contributions in this area as well, and may continue to do so. I am wondering if there is an easier or better way to fix certain category issues, such as Category:Ming Dynasty poets, other than for someone to create Category:Ming dynasty poets and to then go through and manually edit each of the relevant articles? Again, thank you Dcattell ( talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you look at the introduction to Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom? As I read that it seems to include every residential building, at least in the first line or two. I know that there are some definitions for some of these, but those of us on the other side of the pond are not well versed in the divisions. Right now it seems to be just country houses, castles and manor houses. Which is not a problem. I'm probably going to tag as a container category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. Could you please take a look at the codes that I have started adding to the pages (starting with the top ones)? I feel that it might be wrong... Hoops gza ( talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, sorry for the trouble. Hoops gza ( talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Skookum1 is free to open a request for deletion review, but should first read WP:TPG. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Bad call, very bad. Didn't you even look at the category tree and the other titles and parallel primarytopic town vs band the town takes its name from issues? No, of course not. I'll save my breath, see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22. I'm girding my loins to get Squamish, Squamish, British Columbia and Squamish people jointly relisted by MoveReview. Yes I know I have to write tersely and neutrally and that logic and evidence are not on the table - only wikiquette is. Please sir, may I have a relisting etc. There were five Canadians as well as myself in that and you should have clued into what Themightyquill was saying in my defense. The current situation is untenable and has to still be resolved; the guidelines already exists to support Skwxwu7mesh, but nobody would ever acknowledge any of that; even for quoting and commenting on very relevant passages in TITLE I was told to shut up. Before this is another "wall of text" I'll sign off. Both you and Fayenatic London made me the target of your negative decisions on this title, and making editors the issue rather than the topic itself is supposed to be against the rules. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Skookum1: I presume that you are referring to my closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Squamish. I stand by it, and have nothing to add except to note that the same problem of excessive verbosity is replicated on a smaller scale here, where you post a long reply to yourself, and also at Wikipedia talk:Canadian_Wikipedians' notice board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22, where you post 2 replies to yourself.
See the guidance at WP:TPYES: "Be concise", and "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." You made a herculean effort to ensure that this CFD discussion finished by exhaustion.
You are of course free to open a WP:Deletion review. However, before you do so I strongly urge you to take a break from the issue and consider the disruptive effect of your extraordinary verbosity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, keeping this short, I've explained everything at User talk:Anthony Bradbury#A10 criteria but I haven't got any reply so far. As expected, the page was re-created again by someone else who noticed all the redlinks, so now this seems a bit silly. I initially felt that an old article which has a lot of history and was a featured list gets suddenly deleted outside the A10 criteria instead of being made into a redirect, was a simple mistake which could have been rectified quickly. With it already re-created, I'm at a loss as to what to do...should I file a report at DRV or ignore it since there's no obvious loss...what do you feel? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 10:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, I see that you have restored the old history. Yup, like I said the first time, I think Logical misunderstood how to merge and used A10 accidentally. Anyway, I've added the respective merge templates on both talk pages. Thanks once again, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I came across your profile while searching for administrator. I need your help in a article as I may be wrong. In 2014 India is going to have an Lok Sabha elections. There is a wiki article regarding that. As the elections are approaching, people are trying to use wiki as a tool for advertisement. But final decisions are taken on the basis of discussions on the talk page. But like party position, even though the decision is made by majority of the users and the article was edited in accordance with that, 1 or 2 users are reverting that back every time without taking part in discussion. I am not saying whether the decision after discussion is neutral or not, but has been discussed and decided by majority. So I wish if you could go through this and decide what is right. Thanks. Logical1004 ( talk) 07:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the move at Talk:World record progression 10,000 m speed skating men#Revert move. Could you please also look at the related proposed move at Talk:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3 – Men's 10000 metres#Proposed move which I opened at the same time for the same reason.
Thank you! — sroc 💬 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Black crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Red-crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Since this issue is now being discussed at move review, there is no point in continuing a parallel discussion here. The move review was opened by Cas Liber, who opened this discussion, but who failed to mention or link to this discussion when on the review page.
It is important that admins are accountable for their actions, and explain them when challenged. It is also important that editors who are unsatisfied with explanations given have the courtesy to acknowledge the existence of those explanations when exercising their right to seek a review. That is explicitly sought in the instructions for opening a move review: " please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You quoted a guideline incorrectly at Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested_move - Wikipedia:NCCAPS#Organisms currently includes Birds as an exception.So no the bird naming guideline does not contradict it. Given that the Opposes actually outweigh the supports. So would ask that you reconsider the three individual species pages on this, which now sets up a discrepancy with the other 9000 pages of bird species. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An exception is common names of birds, for which WP:WikiProject Birds recommends using IOC naming, which (generally) capitalizes each word.There have been many and repeated discussions as to the titling of bird articles, and all have ended in a consensus for the status quo. To move a few bird articles based on a limited discussion simply creates inconsistency. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)