Dear BrownHairedGirl/Archive,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
{{ WPW Referral}}
A category which you created has been nominated for upmerging here. Laurel Lodged ( talk)
Please review the categories (and their sortkeys) of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Protestantism in Albania. I suggest that you put Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories on your watchlist, several of the categories listed this week were either created or most recently edited by you. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
album category}}
is not suitable for ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Death Threat (hip hop group) --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for nominating the category together with the page; I thought that was what I was supposed to do. Now I know better. Cheers, Homunq ( ࿓) 20:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks.
Homunq (
࿓)
17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Ravenswing 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don't watch category pages so I missed the discussion of this category speed change request. Bits under the digital bridge, but had you considered changing the parent categories so they would be more likely grammatically correct? I'm finding it quite jarring. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
For consistency, the name of this and similar categories use country names rather than adjectivals, as some country adjectivals are less than straightforward (see Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in the List of adjectival forms of place names.
I see the point of the _template_ categories... --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of the user categories that you created and placed in Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus (actually, all of them) appear to have been category redirected by User:RussBot to that category itself, and are currently sitting in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. I assume you'd want to revert those, but considering that you created the categories and are much more important and powerful than me, I thought I'd let you know and pass the responsibility to you, so I don't get into an edit war with a bot. spiderjerky ( talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Spiderjerky: I followed up by talking to Russbot's owner at
User talk:R'n'B#RussBot_and_hard_category_redirects, and Russ promptly came up with a simple solution: use {{
Nobots}}. It turned out that there was a glitch in the bot which left it ignoring nobots, but Russ has now fixed it.
So I hope that it has been all been sorted, and that we won't get the drama which would result from a bot editing the user pages. Thanks again for alerting me that this was happening. Without your prompt attention, my attempt at a win-win solution could have gotten very noisy! --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed a number of categories started showing up on my report that tracks usages of nobots, which is a bit unfortunate. It'd be nice if RussBot could be made to avoid these without the sledgehammer that is {{ nobots}}. I also note that the categories themselves are still functional, e.g. Category:Editors with a demented sense of humor still shows the two users who use that category. Anomie ⚔ 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi BHG, IMHO there was consensus to delete the sub-cat Category:Archaeological corpora documents at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Category:Archaeological_corpora, if not the main category. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am dealing with a GA nom. When that is done, I am gone. Well done. - Sitush ( talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as an FYI thatI have gone ahead and closed the RM to Electoral system. I had pinged you on my talk page, but I don't think it went through because I forgot to sign it again when I fixed the ping. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Brown Hair Girl
Please can you remove all previous edits and remove everything about fundraising week so that it no longer comes under COI in your eyes. Please then remove the tags you have on the page. I will not add anything else to this page, I would rather just not have the COI merely because of a sentence change.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have spoken to my colleagues about this and they are now fully aware of what you have mentioned. Please note the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. Im sure you can understand that we were trying to tell people that Third sector have an annual fundraising week as well as a magazine and nothing more. Its annoying as It was never meant to come across as promotional which was what I was trying to explain to the other editor. I even said can you look at this copy and change it in a way that isn't seen as promotional too which he said no. The only reason for the back and forth was because the current source in regards to section I edited links through to a sponsor that is no long part of the event and wanted to remove that and try and link it somewhere else. We were never trying to promote which is why I am asking for the tags to be removed and the old copy to be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. That's straightforward promotion of your event, and what you say about wanting to change the article because you had a new sponsor massively reinforces your promotional intent. I don't know what makes you think that it is any part of the role of an neutral pint-of-view encyclopedia to assist your employer's sponsorship deals, but you are seriously mistaken about that.
Dear BrownHairedGirl.
I have respected your decision and was merely asking for the page to be reset to the original version before this issue arose. There is no need to be extremely defensive and aggressive in your response. Before you 'intervened' I was actually coming on to let the other editor know that his final amendment was fine and just wanted to add one word. I don't believe you had to intervene at all. I wish you well in the future.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your great sense of humour making me smile, first time that's happened since I've got re-involved in this. Got a good chuckle out of it - and you're not wrong either. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't unfounded, and I would bet my bottom dollar that you didn't examine what they said. Of course, who's gonna side with a lowly IP editor? Nobody, ever. User:Nfitz has been on Wikipedia for over 11 years. Is there no obligation to treat newbies better? I mean, I'd cite WP:BITE here, but as the AfD proves, WP policies are a joke and nobody gives a damn about them. Even admins. Thanks for your...er, contribution. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Dear BrownHairedGirl: I am not sure where to go but you. A year ago, you posted this on User BeenAroundAwhile's page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:BeenAroundAWhile#Edit-warring_on_articles_about_districts_of_Los_Angeles). He is now engaged in an edit war and keeps inserting the same word in the West Hills, Los Angeles page. Three different users have deleted it, and despite consensus, despite being reminded of the Sherman Oaks, CA discussion, he keeps adding it back it in. (And this is not even addressing how many other Los Angeles pages he has since added it in to.) What can be done? Phatblackmama ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Introducing my two new babies. {{ navseasoncats}} has been almost completely rewritten and now
{{ Clubseasoncat}} is a wrapper for navseasoncats that also adds the categories found on eg ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian soccer clubs 2014–15 season or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Republic of Ireland football clubs 2015 season. Again it can cope with seasons and single years, and the different category structure found in the Aussie hierarchy. I've added it to Algeria, Australia and Cape Verde (!) so far and it seems to work. But I'd regard both of them as being on probation for the next few days - I'd encourage you to use them in the meantime but only when you can see the result, they're not ready to be banged out in bulk by AWB (although that's obviously the whole reason for making the effort for them to be intelligent enough to not need parameters, it's a real pain doing bulk {{ Year by category}} edits). I've spent way too much time here lately, I really need to get back to real life for a bit but at some point I may tweak navseasoncats a bit more, I'm not entirely happy with how it looks yet. What do you think? I didn't want to go too wide and the idea of doing three seasons either side was that it took up about as much room as ten years. One option I've seen somewhere which I quite like is something like -10•-3•-2•-1•+1•+2+•+3•+10. I'm also debating whether to include the option for a header. And I've just had the thought that it shouldn't be too hard to get it working with decades - in fact it semi-works now, it gives links to individual years as eg 1990s in... gets interpreted as 1990 in... In the long term - I definitely feel the need for a navcenturycats, but that will have to wait for a while! Le Deluge ( talk) 23:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Le Deluge Wow!!!
That is brilliant. It seems to be pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of by-year/season/decade categories. I think it will be a replacement for hundreds of other templates. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Re this change Instead of changing all the talk pages, what I think we need to do is change the template to not generate the category card, which I don't think is of much use. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, there was this discussion on Talk:Im Yoon-ah#Requested move 10 February 2017, it was going on for three weeks long, and the discussion was clearly heading towards no consensus, so TonyBallioni has closed this discussion and gave a very reasonable comment for the close. But it has been reverted by a user arguing that it is still going on. However, based on all the points stated throughout the discussion, there is definitely no consensus. Please inform me whether it was the right behavior for the revert and whether the discussion should still go on. I have reverted a couple of times and don't want to revert further to violate the rules. Thank you.-- TerryAlex ( talk) 06:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
In the same moment you reverted my reverted edit, I was saving the missing category page. Now, do you think it's possible to categorize that language Template better? Thank you, -- Gloria ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why you felt that moving the "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" category to a different name was out of process? Is there a policy that says that categories may only be renamed after a discussion? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone moved Category:0 (number) to Category:0 in Dec (bypassing cfd), and it is now out of sync. Oculi ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you don't mind me asking but I am generally unfamiliar with the process for ANI closures and there's nothing on the page there to enlighten me. Your proposal is currently sitting at 19-7 support and has been discussed at length for a week now, it's currently the oldest remaining discussion at ANI. How much longer would you expect it to remain open before a decision is made? Also, am I right in assuming the closing admin will consider it on the merits and not the !Votes? --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 02:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Could I get a little clarity on what you mean by "problem with the nature of the consensus"? p b p 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this CFD, user Regesta continues to create such categories. Maybe a batch CFD? XXN, 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
As an Administrator, would you be willing to redirect the above red category to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus?
Apparently, the page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.
Thanks! Gjs238 ( talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I know you think I'm just a WP:BADGER, but I like to think of myself as more of a hedgehog. As a fox (and a good one) yourself, I see why that rubs you the wrong way.
Electoral system is still a mess. I want to help improve it. I'm sure that's your goal too. I don't think that either of us being adversarial with each other helps that goal. Homunq ( ࿓) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you write help contribute to alot of female fighter articles. Do you wanna help create records for some female kickboxers because I have noticed alot of female kickboxers and boxers don't have fighter inbox of who they have fought luckily the problem is not as pronouced in female MMA articles. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please be careful not to duplicate existing categories e.g. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Western Sydney Wanderers players which duplicates ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Western Sydney Wanderers FC players. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:FK Partizani Tirana players which duplicates ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:KF Partizani Tirana players etc. Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:North Carolina elections, 2022 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: York College, City University of New York requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've tagged Category:Wikipedians without red-linked categories on their user talkpage, which you've recently created, for speedy deletion: this category makes sense only when it doesn't exists. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl... As you mentioned on the West Hills, Los Angeles talk page that you would be seeking enforcement regarding BeenAroundAwhile... I just wanted to point out that this user is ignoring community input across many pages, not just at West Hills. With just a quick look back over the past few months -- Here are the Los Angeles neighborhoods where he has re-edited the lead section multiple times to insert data from the LA Times Mapping Project regarding income, ethnicity, marriage rates, and/or population density. Each time this information was removed, he re-inserted it, ignoring the obvious objections of other editors, earlier Talk Page discussions, and the RFC you referenced.
Despite pushback, it seems that his goal is to re-write every lead so that they read like the one he wrote for South Park, Los Angeles.
References
I would like to revise a number of these neighborhood leads (I find the above one particularly offensive), but based on his past performance, I do not expect him to go quietly into the night. I therefore welcome any enforcement you can bring. Phatblackmama ( talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:BrownHairedGirl. We've not talked to each officially, so hello and how are you? I have been editing 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 Crash and I was coming up against some things which are not within my normal range (so please forgive my ignorance). Does Ireland favour kilometres over mileage? I managed to find some parameters (IE use Irish English, etc) but I am sticking on this one. Presumably the EU has had an effect? Again, many, many apologies for my ignorance, but hopefully your answer will enlighten and educate me. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There isn't anything about him being a watchmaker in the article - or in the references. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've emptied any that existed. Do you think we need a category of novels by X for every author - even if they've only got one notable book? Rathfelder ( talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I did wonder why there wasn't a category for him. But there are even more authors than there are recorded artists. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian male taekwondo practitioners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 07:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The end is in sight.
After several months of hard work by several editors, this mornings's update of Special:WantedCategories shows that the backlog has now been reduced to 3,491 non-empty redlinked categories.
That is the first time that it has fallen below the 5,000-category maximum of Special:WantedCategories ... just as @ Le Deluge predicted [14] it would be.
Congrats to everyone involved in the cleanup, especially Gjs238, Rathfelder, Le Deluge, Spiderjerky, and VegaDark. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations. And thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Wow. I can now run through 500 categories in alphabetical order and not find one red link! Rathfelder ( talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, another question for you. What's the protocol on reverting a page move? Tobyjamesaus moved the page Foreign Affairs (album) to Foreign Affairs (Tom Waits album) and turned the original page into a redirect to the Foreign Affairs disambiguation page. This really seems needless, as the only other page for an album called Foreign Affairs is itself a redirect to the discography page for the artist (by someone I had not heretofore heard of). My understanding is that disambiguation is only necessary if there's a good chance of confusion between titles and neither can claim to be the primary topic. In a case where one title doesn't even warrant an article, it seems the long-standing article can claim to be primary. Does that makes sense? If so, how to disentangle this? This is why I rarely get involved in page moves – they are better left to people who know what they're doing. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting my edits when I am trying to tidy up basketball categories. It is incredibly annoying and your edits are not very helpful and just making more work. Djln Djln ( talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to restore the categorisation if and when the categs exist. However, Djln has filled up this section with a lot of moaning a simple request to either create them, or leave the alternatives in place. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Armenian people of Czech descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq ( ࿓) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I just wanted to drop a query on the new category you created at Category:Hurling competitions in County Derry. This has been set up as a geographic categorization, not a GAA categorization and as you know we've deleted categories in the past in County Derry in favour of County Londonderry. I wanted to raise the issue with you instead of just renaming it as I know you've been involved in those discussions in the past. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You have now threatened me that you will "seek sanctions without further warning" if I don't drop the discussion at Talk:Electoral system. As you know, I have already said that I would drop it if told to do so by a neutral third party, and have repeatedly asked both you and @ Number 57: to start an RfC on this matter to get the attention of such neutral third parties.
Clearly, this needs to be resolved, and it also would seem to be clear that the two of us are not going to listen to each other on this so third parties will be needed. I would be happy to post in the forum of your choice, whether it be RfC or (as you put it) a "drama" board. I would also be happy if you were to make such a post. I do not believe that it would be fair of you to phrase that post as simply a problem with me, but rather as a disagreement between the two of us. Obviously, you believe that I am in the wrong here, but you have made that more than clear on the talk page, so any third party coming to look at the matter will be able to see your point of view; the notice itself should not be pre-judging the matter.
So, something like "There is a dispute between BrownHairedGirl and Homunq on Talk:Electoral system. Homunq had started an RM proposing the article be moved from Voting system to Voting method; after the RM was resolved moving the article to Electoral system instead, Homunq has continued to discuss the idea of putting some of the article's content at voting method or a similar title, while BrownHairedGirl believes that Homunq needs to drop the stick. Both sides of this debate have support from others on the talk page."
But yes, it's time for the two of us to stop arguing at each other, and to bring in a third party or parties. I'd be happy if that were @ TonyBallioni:; or if you posted something like the above to the forum of your choice; or if you told me to do so. Homunq ( ࿓) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI is where you think this should go. ON the contrary, I said that ANI is the venue unless you
either back off and slow down and stop bludgeoning and attrition-warring. I take your comment as a statement of intent to continue with bludgeoning and attrition-warring.
If I understand you correctly, you just want me to shut up about "voting method". I would like you to focus your comments on article content, not my behavior.
I think there were issues about "voting method" that were not resolved by the RM. You think that my behavior is counterproductive and deserves comment.
Both of us believe these things in good faith, in my view. Still, until one of us changes our behavior, the talk page will continue to be derailed. In your view, this will be by my not dropping the stick; in my view, this will be by your refusal to engage on the substance and insistence on critiquing my form. (I think that if instead of focusing on content, I were to try to defend my actions, the derailing would only get worse, and there is very little chance I'd change your mind.)
Since I believe this is in good faith on both sides, I think that this will be relatively easy to resolve with some mediation. It would be better if we could agree on the forum beforehand. If you'd rather not discuss that matter (understandably, from your perspective; after all, my very desire to discuss it can be seen as part of the allegedly problematic behavior) then I will bring it up on DRN tomorrow. Homunq ( ࿓) 19:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
focus your comments on article content.
Hi,
Thanks for creating the above category [15], but am mildly curious re the "1794" identifier, on two grounds. First, is this to differentiate it from a different Artois-class? Second, wondering why 1794 - the frigate plans were completed in 1793 and their launch dates are prospective throughout the rest of that decade.
On the surface it seems more logical to have the category simply be "Artois-class frigates" without the identifier at the end. But other views and comments welcome, and if I've missed a key point in asking this please let me know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).
(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians without any red-linked categories on their user talk page requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have given the editors involved a few suggestions, and that's as far as I am going with this case. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you be willing to consider taking admin action in the case of a reappearing, very determined editor with a great desire to have his texts remain essentially unchanged? This comes as a result of Johnvr4, having had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat deleted some time ago, retaining the disputed text in his userspace for years. Now he is trying to import it into the mainspace but is doing it in such a disagreeable fashion as to potentially constitute disruptive editing. He has a string of blocks for this kind of thing already. I was advised to seek an uninvolved admin's intervention by User:Nick-D. Hope you might consider looking into this. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2018 in Louisiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2022 elections in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2018 in Finnish television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
[17] Meatball:DefendEachOther. You've obviously done a good job. The level of upset is far less than I expected. Preceding comments make you look good. If the last upset person finds peace by throwing gratuitous insults at you, you have achieved peace already. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
Dear BrownHairedGirl/Archive,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
{{ WPW Referral}}
A category which you created has been nominated for upmerging here. Laurel Lodged ( talk)
Please review the categories (and their sortkeys) of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Protestantism in Albania. I suggest that you put Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories on your watchlist, several of the categories listed this week were either created or most recently edited by you. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
album category}}
is not suitable for ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Death Threat (hip hop group) --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for nominating the category together with the page; I thought that was what I was supposed to do. Now I know better. Cheers, Homunq ( ࿓) 20:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks.
Homunq (
࿓)
17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Ravenswing 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don't watch category pages so I missed the discussion of this category speed change request. Bits under the digital bridge, but had you considered changing the parent categories so they would be more likely grammatically correct? I'm finding it quite jarring. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
For consistency, the name of this and similar categories use country names rather than adjectivals, as some country adjectivals are less than straightforward (see Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in the List of adjectival forms of place names.
I see the point of the _template_ categories... --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of the user categories that you created and placed in Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus (actually, all of them) appear to have been category redirected by User:RussBot to that category itself, and are currently sitting in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. I assume you'd want to revert those, but considering that you created the categories and are much more important and powerful than me, I thought I'd let you know and pass the responsibility to you, so I don't get into an edit war with a bot. spiderjerky ( talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Spiderjerky: I followed up by talking to Russbot's owner at
User talk:R'n'B#RussBot_and_hard_category_redirects, and Russ promptly came up with a simple solution: use {{
Nobots}}. It turned out that there was a glitch in the bot which left it ignoring nobots, but Russ has now fixed it.
So I hope that it has been all been sorted, and that we won't get the drama which would result from a bot editing the user pages. Thanks again for alerting me that this was happening. Without your prompt attention, my attempt at a win-win solution could have gotten very noisy! --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed a number of categories started showing up on my report that tracks usages of nobots, which is a bit unfortunate. It'd be nice if RussBot could be made to avoid these without the sledgehammer that is {{ nobots}}. I also note that the categories themselves are still functional, e.g. Category:Editors with a demented sense of humor still shows the two users who use that category. Anomie ⚔ 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi BHG, IMHO there was consensus to delete the sub-cat Category:Archaeological corpora documents at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Category:Archaeological_corpora, if not the main category. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am dealing with a GA nom. When that is done, I am gone. Well done. - Sitush ( talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as an FYI thatI have gone ahead and closed the RM to Electoral system. I had pinged you on my talk page, but I don't think it went through because I forgot to sign it again when I fixed the ping. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Brown Hair Girl
Please can you remove all previous edits and remove everything about fundraising week so that it no longer comes under COI in your eyes. Please then remove the tags you have on the page. I will not add anything else to this page, I would rather just not have the COI merely because of a sentence change.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have spoken to my colleagues about this and they are now fully aware of what you have mentioned. Please note the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. Im sure you can understand that we were trying to tell people that Third sector have an annual fundraising week as well as a magazine and nothing more. Its annoying as It was never meant to come across as promotional which was what I was trying to explain to the other editor. I even said can you look at this copy and change it in a way that isn't seen as promotional too which he said no. The only reason for the back and forth was because the current source in regards to section I edited links through to a sponsor that is no long part of the event and wanted to remove that and try and link it somewhere else. We were never trying to promote which is why I am asking for the tags to be removed and the old copy to be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. That's straightforward promotion of your event, and what you say about wanting to change the article because you had a new sponsor massively reinforces your promotional intent. I don't know what makes you think that it is any part of the role of an neutral pint-of-view encyclopedia to assist your employer's sponsorship deals, but you are seriously mistaken about that.
Dear BrownHairedGirl.
I have respected your decision and was merely asking for the page to be reset to the original version before this issue arose. There is no need to be extremely defensive and aggressive in your response. Before you 'intervened' I was actually coming on to let the other editor know that his final amendment was fine and just wanted to add one word. I don't believe you had to intervene at all. I wish you well in the future.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your great sense of humour making me smile, first time that's happened since I've got re-involved in this. Got a good chuckle out of it - and you're not wrong either. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't unfounded, and I would bet my bottom dollar that you didn't examine what they said. Of course, who's gonna side with a lowly IP editor? Nobody, ever. User:Nfitz has been on Wikipedia for over 11 years. Is there no obligation to treat newbies better? I mean, I'd cite WP:BITE here, but as the AfD proves, WP policies are a joke and nobody gives a damn about them. Even admins. Thanks for your...er, contribution. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Dear BrownHairedGirl: I am not sure where to go but you. A year ago, you posted this on User BeenAroundAwhile's page ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:BeenAroundAWhile#Edit-warring_on_articles_about_districts_of_Los_Angeles). He is now engaged in an edit war and keeps inserting the same word in the West Hills, Los Angeles page. Three different users have deleted it, and despite consensus, despite being reminded of the Sherman Oaks, CA discussion, he keeps adding it back it in. (And this is not even addressing how many other Los Angeles pages he has since added it in to.) What can be done? Phatblackmama ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Introducing my two new babies. {{ navseasoncats}} has been almost completely rewritten and now
{{ Clubseasoncat}} is a wrapper for navseasoncats that also adds the categories found on eg ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian soccer clubs 2014–15 season or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Republic of Ireland football clubs 2015 season. Again it can cope with seasons and single years, and the different category structure found in the Aussie hierarchy. I've added it to Algeria, Australia and Cape Verde (!) so far and it seems to work. But I'd regard both of them as being on probation for the next few days - I'd encourage you to use them in the meantime but only when you can see the result, they're not ready to be banged out in bulk by AWB (although that's obviously the whole reason for making the effort for them to be intelligent enough to not need parameters, it's a real pain doing bulk {{ Year by category}} edits). I've spent way too much time here lately, I really need to get back to real life for a bit but at some point I may tweak navseasoncats a bit more, I'm not entirely happy with how it looks yet. What do you think? I didn't want to go too wide and the idea of doing three seasons either side was that it took up about as much room as ten years. One option I've seen somewhere which I quite like is something like -10•-3•-2•-1•+1•+2+•+3•+10. I'm also debating whether to include the option for a header. And I've just had the thought that it shouldn't be too hard to get it working with decades - in fact it semi-works now, it gives links to individual years as eg 1990s in... gets interpreted as 1990 in... In the long term - I definitely feel the need for a navcenturycats, but that will have to wait for a while! Le Deluge ( talk) 23:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Le Deluge Wow!!!
That is brilliant. It seems to be pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of by-year/season/decade categories. I think it will be a replacement for hundreds of other templates. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Re this change Instead of changing all the talk pages, what I think we need to do is change the template to not generate the category card, which I don't think is of much use. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, there was this discussion on Talk:Im Yoon-ah#Requested move 10 February 2017, it was going on for three weeks long, and the discussion was clearly heading towards no consensus, so TonyBallioni has closed this discussion and gave a very reasonable comment for the close. But it has been reverted by a user arguing that it is still going on. However, based on all the points stated throughout the discussion, there is definitely no consensus. Please inform me whether it was the right behavior for the revert and whether the discussion should still go on. I have reverted a couple of times and don't want to revert further to violate the rules. Thank you.-- TerryAlex ( talk) 06:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
In the same moment you reverted my reverted edit, I was saving the missing category page. Now, do you think it's possible to categorize that language Template better? Thank you, -- Gloria ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why you felt that moving the "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" category to a different name was out of process? Is there a policy that says that categories may only be renamed after a discussion? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone moved Category:0 (number) to Category:0 in Dec (bypassing cfd), and it is now out of sync. Oculi ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you don't mind me asking but I am generally unfamiliar with the process for ANI closures and there's nothing on the page there to enlighten me. Your proposal is currently sitting at 19-7 support and has been discussed at length for a week now, it's currently the oldest remaining discussion at ANI. How much longer would you expect it to remain open before a decision is made? Also, am I right in assuming the closing admin will consider it on the merits and not the !Votes? --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 02:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Could I get a little clarity on what you mean by "problem with the nature of the consensus"? p b p 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this CFD, user Regesta continues to create such categories. Maybe a batch CFD? XXN, 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
As an Administrator, would you be willing to redirect the above red category to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus?
Apparently, the page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.
Thanks! Gjs238 ( talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I know you think I'm just a WP:BADGER, but I like to think of myself as more of a hedgehog. As a fox (and a good one) yourself, I see why that rubs you the wrong way.
Electoral system is still a mess. I want to help improve it. I'm sure that's your goal too. I don't think that either of us being adversarial with each other helps that goal. Homunq ( ࿓) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you write help contribute to alot of female fighter articles. Do you wanna help create records for some female kickboxers because I have noticed alot of female kickboxers and boxers don't have fighter inbox of who they have fought luckily the problem is not as pronouced in female MMA articles. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please be careful not to duplicate existing categories e.g. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Western Sydney Wanderers players which duplicates ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Western Sydney Wanderers FC players. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:FK Partizani Tirana players which duplicates ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:KF Partizani Tirana players etc. Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:North Carolina elections, 2022 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: York College, City University of New York requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've tagged Category:Wikipedians without red-linked categories on their user talkpage, which you've recently created, for speedy deletion: this category makes sense only when it doesn't exists. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl... As you mentioned on the West Hills, Los Angeles talk page that you would be seeking enforcement regarding BeenAroundAwhile... I just wanted to point out that this user is ignoring community input across many pages, not just at West Hills. With just a quick look back over the past few months -- Here are the Los Angeles neighborhoods where he has re-edited the lead section multiple times to insert data from the LA Times Mapping Project regarding income, ethnicity, marriage rates, and/or population density. Each time this information was removed, he re-inserted it, ignoring the obvious objections of other editors, earlier Talk Page discussions, and the RFC you referenced.
Despite pushback, it seems that his goal is to re-write every lead so that they read like the one he wrote for South Park, Los Angeles.
References
I would like to revise a number of these neighborhood leads (I find the above one particularly offensive), but based on his past performance, I do not expect him to go quietly into the night. I therefore welcome any enforcement you can bring. Phatblackmama ( talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:BrownHairedGirl. We've not talked to each officially, so hello and how are you? I have been editing 2017 Irish Coast Guard S-92 Crash and I was coming up against some things which are not within my normal range (so please forgive my ignorance). Does Ireland favour kilometres over mileage? I managed to find some parameters (IE use Irish English, etc) but I am sticking on this one. Presumably the EU has had an effect? Again, many, many apologies for my ignorance, but hopefully your answer will enlighten and educate me. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There isn't anything about him being a watchmaker in the article - or in the references. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've emptied any that existed. Do you think we need a category of novels by X for every author - even if they've only got one notable book? Rathfelder ( talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I did wonder why there wasn't a category for him. But there are even more authors than there are recorded artists. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian male taekwondo practitioners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 07:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The end is in sight.
After several months of hard work by several editors, this mornings's update of Special:WantedCategories shows that the backlog has now been reduced to 3,491 non-empty redlinked categories.
That is the first time that it has fallen below the 5,000-category maximum of Special:WantedCategories ... just as @ Le Deluge predicted [14] it would be.
Congrats to everyone involved in the cleanup, especially Gjs238, Rathfelder, Le Deluge, Spiderjerky, and VegaDark. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations. And thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Wow. I can now run through 500 categories in alphabetical order and not find one red link! Rathfelder ( talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, another question for you. What's the protocol on reverting a page move? Tobyjamesaus moved the page Foreign Affairs (album) to Foreign Affairs (Tom Waits album) and turned the original page into a redirect to the Foreign Affairs disambiguation page. This really seems needless, as the only other page for an album called Foreign Affairs is itself a redirect to the discography page for the artist (by someone I had not heretofore heard of). My understanding is that disambiguation is only necessary if there's a good chance of confusion between titles and neither can claim to be the primary topic. In a case where one title doesn't even warrant an article, it seems the long-standing article can claim to be primary. Does that makes sense? If so, how to disentangle this? This is why I rarely get involved in page moves – they are better left to people who know what they're doing. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting my edits when I am trying to tidy up basketball categories. It is incredibly annoying and your edits are not very helpful and just making more work. Djln Djln ( talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to restore the categorisation if and when the categs exist. However, Djln has filled up this section with a lot of moaning a simple request to either create them, or leave the alternatives in place. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Armenian people of Czech descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq ( ࿓) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I just wanted to drop a query on the new category you created at Category:Hurling competitions in County Derry. This has been set up as a geographic categorization, not a GAA categorization and as you know we've deleted categories in the past in County Derry in favour of County Londonderry. I wanted to raise the issue with you instead of just renaming it as I know you've been involved in those discussions in the past. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You have now threatened me that you will "seek sanctions without further warning" if I don't drop the discussion at Talk:Electoral system. As you know, I have already said that I would drop it if told to do so by a neutral third party, and have repeatedly asked both you and @ Number 57: to start an RfC on this matter to get the attention of such neutral third parties.
Clearly, this needs to be resolved, and it also would seem to be clear that the two of us are not going to listen to each other on this so third parties will be needed. I would be happy to post in the forum of your choice, whether it be RfC or (as you put it) a "drama" board. I would also be happy if you were to make such a post. I do not believe that it would be fair of you to phrase that post as simply a problem with me, but rather as a disagreement between the two of us. Obviously, you believe that I am in the wrong here, but you have made that more than clear on the talk page, so any third party coming to look at the matter will be able to see your point of view; the notice itself should not be pre-judging the matter.
So, something like "There is a dispute between BrownHairedGirl and Homunq on Talk:Electoral system. Homunq had started an RM proposing the article be moved from Voting system to Voting method; after the RM was resolved moving the article to Electoral system instead, Homunq has continued to discuss the idea of putting some of the article's content at voting method or a similar title, while BrownHairedGirl believes that Homunq needs to drop the stick. Both sides of this debate have support from others on the talk page."
But yes, it's time for the two of us to stop arguing at each other, and to bring in a third party or parties. I'd be happy if that were @ TonyBallioni:; or if you posted something like the above to the forum of your choice; or if you told me to do so. Homunq ( ࿓) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI is where you think this should go. ON the contrary, I said that ANI is the venue unless you
either back off and slow down and stop bludgeoning and attrition-warring. I take your comment as a statement of intent to continue with bludgeoning and attrition-warring.
If I understand you correctly, you just want me to shut up about "voting method". I would like you to focus your comments on article content, not my behavior.
I think there were issues about "voting method" that were not resolved by the RM. You think that my behavior is counterproductive and deserves comment.
Both of us believe these things in good faith, in my view. Still, until one of us changes our behavior, the talk page will continue to be derailed. In your view, this will be by my not dropping the stick; in my view, this will be by your refusal to engage on the substance and insistence on critiquing my form. (I think that if instead of focusing on content, I were to try to defend my actions, the derailing would only get worse, and there is very little chance I'd change your mind.)
Since I believe this is in good faith on both sides, I think that this will be relatively easy to resolve with some mediation. It would be better if we could agree on the forum beforehand. If you'd rather not discuss that matter (understandably, from your perspective; after all, my very desire to discuss it can be seen as part of the allegedly problematic behavior) then I will bring it up on DRN tomorrow. Homunq ( ࿓) 19:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
focus your comments on article content.
Hi,
Thanks for creating the above category [15], but am mildly curious re the "1794" identifier, on two grounds. First, is this to differentiate it from a different Artois-class? Second, wondering why 1794 - the frigate plans were completed in 1793 and their launch dates are prospective throughout the rest of that decade.
On the surface it seems more logical to have the category simply be "Artois-class frigates" without the identifier at the end. But other views and comments welcome, and if I've missed a key point in asking this please let me know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).
(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians without any red-linked categories on their user talk page requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have given the editors involved a few suggestions, and that's as far as I am going with this case. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you be willing to consider taking admin action in the case of a reappearing, very determined editor with a great desire to have his texts remain essentially unchanged? This comes as a result of Johnvr4, having had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat deleted some time ago, retaining the disputed text in his userspace for years. Now he is trying to import it into the mainspace but is doing it in such a disagreeable fashion as to potentially constitute disruptive editing. He has a string of blocks for this kind of thing already. I was advised to seek an uninvolved admin's intervention by User:Nick-D. Hope you might consider looking into this. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2018 in Louisiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2022 elections in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2018 in Finnish television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
[17] Meatball:DefendEachOther. You've obviously done a good job. The level of upset is far less than I expected. Preceding comments make you look good. If the last upset person finds peace by throwing gratuitous insults at you, you have achieved peace already. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).