Perhaps it's early or late where you are, but your recent edits to {{ IPA-arn}} are rather perplexing. Mapudungan and Mapuche are synonyms, which is why Mapudungun redirects to Mapuche language. As you can see from the article Mapuche language, "Mapudungan" is a bolded term in the lede, which means that they refer to the same thing.
Your revert prompted me to notice that Mapuche is apparently the more common term, which is why I changed the template accordingly. This is what you should have done rather than revert. Yet you've now reverted the template to again refer incorrectly to Aragonese (the ISO code for Aragonese is an or arg. The ISO code for Mapuche/Mapudungan is arn which is an error that my edit fixed and your revert restored) with the nonsensical rationale that Mapudungan doesn't exist, even though it does and, more importantly, my new edits don't mention Mapudungan. It looks a lot like you're not paying attention to your edits, which is really a poor practice because you'll make stupid mistakes like that. Please slow down and pay closer attention. I'll give you time to fix your error. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Mapudungan doesn't exist. I said twice that Category:Mapudungun language does not exist ... and in my latest revert I wrote explicitly
If it should exist, please create it. Which part of that is unclear to you?
please slow down and pay closer attentionto what you are doing and to what has already been explained to you.
Thanks for this edit [2], @ Aeusoes1. I'm glad to see that you did finally read the edit summaries.
Best wishes for a happy new year. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A large number of fungi are global in their distribution - placing them in such a category would obviate the need to laboriously list individual countries by name Cheers Paul venter ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Evening, it was my understanding creating cats like the one above was to be avoided as too specific (in theory there would be 150+ for Colombian sportspeople in X country, 150+ more for X sportspeople in Finland, and every other combo (22,500 categories if my very unreliable arithmetic is right!). So the combo of Xish expatriates in Yland, Xish expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] and Expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] in Yland would suffice. However, I can't think where I read it (probably WP:FOOTY but that's a big project to search through) and not sure if it is still current, and could be wrong altogether! Maybe double-check with someone more credible than me? Thnaks, all the best. Crowsus ( talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written argument against some of the nonsense masquerading as research that is invading our lives. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 20:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
Thanks for the tip on the Olympic categories. TBH, I'd just copied the last one that was used that had the individual events pages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You helped me edit my first page submission https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Ramon_Rivas_Musical_Artist_Audio_Engineer&action=history and I just wanted to say thank you and ask a question. Was that the only error you noticed? Do you have any other recommendations? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingfreeman ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have created Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories, and Dreamy Jazz also has moved Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. to Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. But there are still Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories. Do you think that these should also be renamed "Pages...", or should we have separate "Pages..." and "Articles..." categories?
I'm of the opinion that these should only be added via templates such as {{ IPA-de}} and {{ Audio-IPA}} (otherwise it'd be really hard to maintain) and I'm for having only "Pages..." categories and getting rid of "Articles". Nardogy ( talk) 10:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I assume you don't disagree with Dreamy Jazz? (Not pressing you, just asking since you seem active now. Also pinging Timrollpickering, who edited Template:Audio-IPA.) Nardog ( talk) 21:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persononthinternet ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl, thank you for your attention to the Ukrainian names. I know about big battle for keeping the precedent of russified spelling of two particular Ukrainian cities in Wikipedia. And I have no intention to put an overnight edit just for the principle. But... there is a nuance. All proper names of institutions, sports teams, companies etc, containing names of places, are written according to their official English names ie Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany) (placed in Kiev), mobile operator Kyivstar, soccer club FC Dynamo Kyiv with home field in Kiev, and number of other. As I understand, WP:P-NUK does not go as far as changing official names of universities, businesses and sports teams. Also, there is an official policy of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to promote correct non-russified spelling abroad. I just try my best to work in that small split of legal ambiquity. There is also an informal campagne #KyivNotKiev in media. I hope this will increase the presence of the new form and will make it more common. The whole issue is very traumatic because every day some Ukrainian people are killed, kidnapped, tortured by Russians. I hope, this will end sooner or later, but Ukraine will never return back under Russian rule, so there is no big sense in keeping Kiev instead of Kyiv. Will be glad to hear your thoughts in this matter. Mykola Swarnyk ( talk) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl, I already created the Category of Lukas Graham. So I have put the category back to this portal. Thanks Happypillsjr ✉ 00:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there!
I noticed on this page that you made two revisions to Eric Corley's page today. This is of huge interest to me because Eric is entirely responsible for me being arrested at Stony Brook University on Friday the 13th of April last year, and who knows what else.
I have the most important story this world will ever know. I put [REMOVED] in hopes of getting someone to hear me.
I have my 7th court date on Monday, but nothing will change until I get the media attention I deserve.
Mindy ;) -- Mindology18 ( talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Very Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations on your millionth edit! Ϣere SpielChequers 05:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
You are a amazing admin!!!!! Be happy for years to come!!! Inalol ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Inalol
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Just found you making a minor edit on Mashrafe Mortaza. Ended up being a creep and appreciating your work as a veteran. ImmortalWizard (chat) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
Hey BHG, when you have a moment, could you please look at Category:Skateboard shoe companies? It was created by a new account and both the cat and the articles they've added to it look wrong. I edited it but only to remove the unnecessary intro and the alleged subcats. Thanks!-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Echetus Xe 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I was using my sandbox to show an in-process page to a friend, did not think about category implications. Appreciate the little how-to. Jessamyn ( talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force ( WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks! |
E futbolistas Miguel Ángel López Mérida Merida Lopez ( talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Miguel Ángel López Mérida futbolistas retirado militó en club jaguares de Chiapas México club atlas 17 club tigre 18 es un ex futbolistas mexicano en la década 2000 milito en club Cartagena de costarrica se le recuerda por su habilidad con el balón y sus gambetas hacia los contrarios lamentablemente sus lesiones constantes lo marginaron de grandes competencias en el fútbol mexicano y en el fútbol internacional seleccionado mexicano sub 15 🇲🇽 Merida Lopez ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you stop User:RonBot? The bot is malfunctioning, see WP:ANI#Malfunctioning bot. S.A. Julio ( talk) 06:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you applied extended-confirmed protection to 2000 Stanley Cup Finals. Was this in error? I can't see any bad edits by autoconfirmed-but-not-extended-confirmed accounts. Is the edit-warring on categories a pattern of behaviour that you expect to escalate to the use of such accounts? -- Yaris678 ( talk) 13:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
hi brownhaired girl im new here and was wondering if u have any tips for me so that its easier for me to get around here-plz reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
i have recieved the links those really helped — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
so when i like make a page everyone can access it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.
Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994
Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein
WikiParker ( talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Autism quackery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hhkohh ( talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Good morning. I see that you fully protected this category as a high-risk Lua module. I assume this is not what you wanted to do. Could you please have a look? (Nothing urgent, I tagged it now for speedy move).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what are the rules for re-posting articles that were deleted. Does on have to wait a certain amount of time to re-post or give a valid reason why they did so? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. One does have the right to re-post if one wants to do don't they, that is not against the rules. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi BHG, there's been a request at WP:RFPP for 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, 2000 Stanley Cup Finals, and 2020 NHL Winter Classic to be unprotected. Your input would be welcomed as the protecting admin. Cheers, Fish+ Karate 14:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Darwin González is signed for etoile sportive du sahel teame of Tunisian league going from deportivo de la Guerra Venezuelan team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.159.150.222 ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Administrator,
I have been attempting to replace or complement a defamatory article on Dan Dale Alexander. More than two years ago, I submitted a 15 page paper which I believed was to be published with one minor change. It was not. Recently, I submitted a three page article with 32 references, which was printed, then retracted, then printed, then retracted. A supportive statement was also submitted by Ronald Frank, D.H.M. My recent submission and the statement by Dr. Frank address issues raised in the original Wikipedia article. My scholarly paper cites the work of many respected physicians who similarly claim the benefit of Omega 3 essential fatty acid on arthritic conditions. Please let me know what my next best step might be in assuring that my viewpoint is published with full protection.
I would greatly appreciate your response to my email address.
Sincerely, Dean Alexander, Ph.D.
deanalexanderphd@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.76.210 ( talk) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You applied some non-existent WPbanners. See WP:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Please fix -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this page Category:American Christians has been up deletion for a while now, most people want to keep it. When will this be resolved? Isn't there a time limit for this? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for responding to me so quickly lately, and that I think that you are a very good administrator. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I should have better explained my switch of Collapse to Hidden. You might not be aware, but even though these templates look similar, they work quite differently, and that has a big impact on WP:Accessibility. Collapse uses a wikitable, and hidden uses "div". While collapse is fine for collapsing big things like whole sections or tables, when it is used in the middle of section of regular text, it interrupts the text with what for visually impaired Wikipedians using screen readers is a largely inaccessible and "expensive" table. Because Hidden uses div, it doesn't have this "showstopping" effect on screen readers, so it is much better for collapsing text in the middle of a discussion. Regrettably, like most accessibility issues on Wikipedia, this distinction is not well documented, although you can see it in Template:Collapse Templates, which distinguishes Collapse as "basic" and Hidden as for "discussion". Would you mind if I switched it back to Hidden? -- Bsherr ( talk) 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
{{hidden|headerstyle=background-color: #CCFFCC|Demonstration|Content}}
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
I changed this category: Category:Opera_singers_from_Georgia_(country) to: Category:Georgian_opera_singers
Because it was the only category in Category:Opera_singers_by_nationality
that did not use the same way of writing, and because it is "By nationality" there should not be any mix up with the state in USA in my opinion.
see also: Georgians Georgian_language
(I did not know how to normally link to a category page in this message) Designer149 ( talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@
PamD: many thanks for taking the time to write that clear explanation of principle and practice.
@ Designer149:: there is a long-standing convention that people from Georgia (country) are categorised as "from Georgia (country)". As PamD notes, this is an exception to the wider convention of using a demonym.
The convention was adopted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian_people, and has been applied since then to Category:People from Georgia (country) and all its subcategories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl:: Thanks for the extra explanation. I will read more before editing something specific like this next time! Designer149 ( talk) 11:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Fix your edit summary link. [5].-- MONGO ( talk) 14:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thank you for looking at the page I established on Marian Clark. I have done considerable research on Clark, so I am quite aware that she was predominantly a radio scriptwriter for Gunsmoke. I am also quite aware that Nielsen is a television-based rating service. Clark, however, did work very closely with John Meston in adapting more than two dozens of her radio scripts into screenplays for the televised version of the Western series, especially during its early "#1-rankings" by Nielsen. Her stories aired as episodes at various times for five seasons on television, spanning 1958 to 1963. During that period, when Clark was closely associated with the televised version of Gunsmoke and her stories comprised an appreciable part of its lineup of episodes, the series was #1 in the Nielsen ratings for the 1958-1959, 1959-1960, and 1960-1961 seasons. It is with that consideration to researchers why I added "Nielsen ratings winners", and thought it was a relevant search category with regard to Clark's writing for a #1-rated television series and for its highly rated radio counterpart and predecessor. Thank you again. Strudjum ( talk) 06:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction on his categories. I knew I needed to look further for the proper one, but was trying to note it for myself to do. Parkwells ( talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Now it is filled with wrong facts in the page iravikutti Pillai. please check the initial version and edit. AVK1994 ( talk) 16:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AVK1994, Doug Weller, and Winged Blades of Godric: my immediate priority was to stop the edit warring.
Beyond that, there may be a better version to restore; I didn't see one, but am open to suggestions, either to me or via an {{ edit protected}} request on the talk page.
Alternatively, if someone wants to take it to AFD for WP:TNT (which seems to be what Doug is suggesting), then please go ahead.
WBG, I will review whether ECP would be sufficient. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The move discussion you started at WikiProject Overseas France has been closed but Template:WikiProject French Overseas Departments couldn't be moved due to move-protection. Since you're an administrator, you're requested to move it yourself. samee converse 09:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brown Haired Girl
Just to make you aware that John Stobart lives in Westport, MA most of the year. He’s just read your Wikipedia page and loves it, but would prefer if the site could be updated with this information.
Many thanks
Tony§ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:582:4880:25F0:651A:17B5:C2F8:C693 (
talk)
16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111
February events:
|
Please stop altering transcluded data in "User in Province" templates. I am in the process of reestablishing these categories. Thanks, Buaidh talk contribs 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello there,
Thank you for telling me about the category ruling when it comes to drafts. I missed that paragraph when going through the rules.
I hate pissing off admins (especially considering I'd like to be one in future) so I'll try to avoid making that mistake again.
RallyXEditor ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
May I please request your assistance on the talk pages of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Springfield, Massachusetts articles, under the heading Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox. I believed adding such a comment to each article's talk page was the correct way to proceed, but, in hindsight, I now believe I should have asked your advice before doing so. My Favourite Account 😊 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My Favourite Account 😊 17:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My Favourite Account 😊 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I goofed on this one - I apologise Lyndaship ( talk) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I see you saw my reply to your comment at wt:NRHP and that you replied there too. It is off-topic there, but I think I do take offense at your comment there, because it came across to me as needlessly denigrating me, and perhaps as if you are proud of having imposed a block upon me. You label me as having IDHT attitude there. There was not call for your comments, which are personally directed. It seems you are making a pre-meditated strike against me, to label me as an invalid participant.
Also, you make charges, some which might be opinions about me which you are free to have, but are not appropriate to just come out with that way, and some of which are factually wrong IMO, and then you appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective). I do agree it is not appropriate to go further into debate there about whether your statements about me are false or true, or insulting or not. But it's not right to do that. About what I feel is factually wrong, that includes your characterizing the former categories about NRHP architects etc as "private", and your seeming to imply (my interpretation) that it was just me creating all the NRHP-related style categories that do correspond to NPS/NRIS categories. I am not wanting to overstate your position as horribly bad; I would have to agree that factually some categories that I created or recreated have been brought to CFD, because that is true, and I would even further understand you could possibly have a negative opinion about my communications or actions related to some of the past stuff, but that still doesn't call for you to go on negatively about me in such a personally directed way as if I am a somewhat evil person (my perception) in a new discussion at NRHP. I don't know how to talk about this situation exactly, it seems to have to do with AGF and having basic respect for one another or not.
Hey, I don't care too much about this, really, and I probably don't much want to go further about this if you turn out to want to simply dismiss me here, though I hope you won't. (Perhaps we could chat about what do you think should be done, or should have been done already, process-wise, about situation of disagreement about Early Commercial architecture or other styles?) But I think that for my own sake and for sake of continuing quality of the NRHP wikiproject discussion forum that I ought to register that I do object to what you said / how you said it. I would appreciate if you would try to see and acknowledge my perspective about this here. At the NRHP discussion, I do hope you will continue to contribute on the content subject, about Early Commercial architecture as a valid thing for Wikipedia coverage including by categories. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
evil. And I take no pride in blocking anyone.
go onabout this. I wrote two short paras about it in a discussion which I joined because I had been pinged, and where your conduct is relevant context.
Doncram's WP:IDHT approach to consensuswas mild and restrained.
appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective), which is not what I wrote. I did not try to cut off your perspective; I tried to separate your long history of misconduct from the substantive case for such categories.
Recent changes have been removed because you thought I was just practicing making changes. These weren't practices, they were updates, I have re-instated the changes. I was adding awards from year end notifications. If there's a problem here, please advise. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmusicfan ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED. Please let somebody else close this. Have you seen Category:Murderers? Your argument makes no sense. Please revert. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
makes no sense. You may disagree with that very detailed discussion and with the eloquent 3-admin closure and with the subsequent DRV, but
makes no senseis an extraordinary dismissal of the broad community consensus established in 2014.
excuses; I have explained the policy basis for my action. You are not obliged to agree with my explanation, but it is not acceptable for you to imply dishonest intent by calling them
excuses.
polite, you would engage with that rather than simply dismissing it as
makes no senseand
excuses.
choosing to be intransigent, but anyone reviewing this discussion can see that you have simply declined to make any reasoned response to the pints which I made. Your claim of
wrong, wrong, wrongis just another round of you choosing exhortation over reasoned discussion.
wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield... the only sword wielded here has been your threats.
@ Jehochman, it appears to me that you may not have fully read the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists.
So I will quite here the passage which informed my decision (emphasis added by me):
The bolding of the final sentence is added by me, because it is the critical point: per WP:BLP, do not categorise individuals as "pseudoscientist".
I see no reason to doubt that the closer of the 2014 discussion would have responded would have been even firmer if the blatantly pejorative term "quackery" had been used in the categories under discussion there. Those BLP reasons are why I acted promptly.
I remain disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself shows so little concern for the WP:BLP issues involved here. I cited BLP in my closure, and in my initial reply to you ... but in 4 rounds of discussion, you have not even acknowledgded that BLP is factor.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Undelete the category and rename it “Autism pseudoscience” or “Pseudoscientific autism treatments”. You can then remove the category from any page where BLP is a problem due to insufficient references. This was your original opinion and the consensus of the discussion. It will save everybody a lot of grief if we achieve a harmonious conclusion. If you do that I will endorse the close and we can all move on. The “Quacks” category is a tougher problem. I think “Medical pseudoscience” is an allowable category. You could undelete and rename that one or merge into an existing pseudoscience subcategory. If pseudoscience is an allowed category so are subcategories to help organize the entries by topic. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. I think it's the first time in this discussion that we have explicitly agreed on anything, so I welcome that
On another note, your comment here is good. Could you possibly restore the category, reopen the discussion but as an interim measure rename it to anything non-attacking? The discussion can then gather thoughts and resolve what the best name would be. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you object if somebody recreated the category from scratch using a neutral name, such as Autism pseudoscience? Generally it is not allowed to recreate deleted things, but here the idea is to change the name and lose the edit history. Are you OK with that? Jehochman Talk 01:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping - I did not have the category on my watchlist so would have been unlikely to see the discussion. I don't know if you recall Brough87 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was topic-banned from this area a while ago. I don't have much time to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, as I am dealing with a family bereavement. If you see something you think I should know about then could you drop me a message on my talk page? That sends me an email so I can take a look when I can. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
I have nominated this for deletion here - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_31#Category:People_of_Celtic_descent - and intend to propose all related categories for deletion such as the one you created, Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please add your thoughts. I remain puzzled by the need to create such bizzare categories, and as neither you nor DuncanHill have seen fit to explain why my deletions were reverted (or at least use it appropriately for Iron Age folk), I feel this is the only course left. Cheers, Fergananim ( talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:WikiProject Botswana as it assists editors in tagging. If that is the case, could the deprecation notice be removed? Deprecation means that the code should not be used and is scheduled for deletion in a future date. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, BrownHairedGirl,
I am teaching a course at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA that is teaching students how to write Wikipedia Articles for a WikiProject. You made an edit on one of them and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate so that we could get it right.
What we are looking for is someone who is willing to let people make mistakes and give them a shot to correct them in Draft so that they learn. Is this something with which you would be willing to assist with what time you might have available? Please.
Thanks, mkurowski Mkurowski ( talk) 03:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the "better to use a category which actually exists" reminder at Template:Template rating/doc, BHG. But the category was already there before I touched the page -- RexxS ( talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering if there was a reason as to why Category:Stranger Things (television series) couldn't be at Category:Stranger Things? Cheers. -- / Alex/ 21 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Muhandes ( talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! You protected Languages of the Republic of Macedonia and maybe you are right. The North Macedonian language should not have been changed indeed. But the article should definitely be Languages of North Macedonia as should the "Republic of Macedonia" elements be replaced. thx! -- APG1984 ( talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page [13].
Please see my comments at WP:Requests for page protection#Languages_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia ( permalink) about the need for less haste and more consensus-building here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please close this AFD [14]? I mistakenly started it. He does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Thanks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek [16] who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here [17] and here [18], he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern.
I've tried asking this editor myself [19] and a few other occasions and been ignored [20]. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here [21] and here [22] for two recent examples. Thanks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't hate me. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but closed the WP:CfD just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be really bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.
Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination.
Categories
|
---|
|
Apologies for any inconvenience. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. Legacypac ( talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
About Special:Diff/883889340 - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run #REDIRECT [[User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js]] as javascript code. See User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' )
, which works. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Category:Critics of transhumanism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nowak Kowalski ( talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113
Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
Hello I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaboi1956 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Module:See also if exists has been nominated for merging with Module:Category see also if exists. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. Giant Snowman 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of the roof?, who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Wikipedia category at [32] you have chosen to revert only me for--see Category:Clothing companies established in 1958, Category:Clothing companies established in 1959, Category:Clothing companies established in 1960, Category:Clothing companies established in 1961, Category:Clothing companies established in 1962, Category:Clothing companies established in 1964, Category:Clothing companies established in 1965, Category:Clothing companies established in 1966, etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and the roof? have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Wikipedia categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Wikipedia, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at [33] consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. Doprendek ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings User:BrownHairedGirl. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the Control Lakes listing at the {{NYCwater}} template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page Controlled lake and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hii, I recently edited a page in which I add refrences but you removed that reference. In that reference I also mention the site so you must check this site before you remove it. I hope you should not have to do this type of irrelevant thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketkumar.sk ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT), unlinked see-also, etc.
Hello BrownHairedGirl!
The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...
I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.
Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)
All the best,
Praevalebit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praevalebit ( talk • contribs) 10 February 2019 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
Perhaps it's early or late where you are, but your recent edits to {{ IPA-arn}} are rather perplexing. Mapudungan and Mapuche are synonyms, which is why Mapudungun redirects to Mapuche language. As you can see from the article Mapuche language, "Mapudungan" is a bolded term in the lede, which means that they refer to the same thing.
Your revert prompted me to notice that Mapuche is apparently the more common term, which is why I changed the template accordingly. This is what you should have done rather than revert. Yet you've now reverted the template to again refer incorrectly to Aragonese (the ISO code for Aragonese is an or arg. The ISO code for Mapuche/Mapudungan is arn which is an error that my edit fixed and your revert restored) with the nonsensical rationale that Mapudungan doesn't exist, even though it does and, more importantly, my new edits don't mention Mapudungan. It looks a lot like you're not paying attention to your edits, which is really a poor practice because you'll make stupid mistakes like that. Please slow down and pay closer attention. I'll give you time to fix your error. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Mapudungan doesn't exist. I said twice that Category:Mapudungun language does not exist ... and in my latest revert I wrote explicitly
If it should exist, please create it. Which part of that is unclear to you?
please slow down and pay closer attentionto what you are doing and to what has already been explained to you.
Thanks for this edit [2], @ Aeusoes1. I'm glad to see that you did finally read the edit summaries.
Best wishes for a happy new year. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A large number of fungi are global in their distribution - placing them in such a category would obviate the need to laboriously list individual countries by name Cheers Paul venter ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Evening, it was my understanding creating cats like the one above was to be avoided as too specific (in theory there would be 150+ for Colombian sportspeople in X country, 150+ more for X sportspeople in Finland, and every other combo (22,500 categories if my very unreliable arithmetic is right!). So the combo of Xish expatriates in Yland, Xish expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] and Expatriate [sportspeople/specific sport cat] in Yland would suffice. However, I can't think where I read it (probably WP:FOOTY but that's a big project to search through) and not sure if it is still current, and could be wrong altogether! Maybe double-check with someone more credible than me? Thnaks, all the best. Crowsus ( talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written argument against some of the nonsense masquerading as research that is invading our lives. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 20:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
Thanks for the tip on the Olympic categories. TBH, I'd just copied the last one that was used that had the individual events pages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You helped me edit my first page submission https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Ramon_Rivas_Musical_Artist_Audio_Engineer&action=history and I just wanted to say thank you and ask a question. Was that the only error you noticed? Do you have any other recommendations? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingfreeman ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have created Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories, and Dreamy Jazz also has moved Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. to Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations (English) etc. But there are still Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations and its subcategories. Do you think that these should also be renamed "Pages...", or should we have separate "Pages..." and "Articles..." categories?
I'm of the opinion that these should only be added via templates such as {{ IPA-de}} and {{ Audio-IPA}} (otherwise it'd be really hard to maintain) and I'm for having only "Pages..." categories and getting rid of "Articles". Nardogy ( talk) 10:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I assume you don't disagree with Dreamy Jazz? (Not pressing you, just asking since you seem active now. Also pinging Timrollpickering, who edited Template:Audio-IPA.) Nardog ( talk) 21:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persononthinternet ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl, thank you for your attention to the Ukrainian names. I know about big battle for keeping the precedent of russified spelling of two particular Ukrainian cities in Wikipedia. And I have no intention to put an overnight edit just for the principle. But... there is a nuance. All proper names of institutions, sports teams, companies etc, containing names of places, are written according to their official English names ie Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany) (placed in Kiev), mobile operator Kyivstar, soccer club FC Dynamo Kyiv with home field in Kiev, and number of other. As I understand, WP:P-NUK does not go as far as changing official names of universities, businesses and sports teams. Also, there is an official policy of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to promote correct non-russified spelling abroad. I just try my best to work in that small split of legal ambiquity. There is also an informal campagne #KyivNotKiev in media. I hope this will increase the presence of the new form and will make it more common. The whole issue is very traumatic because every day some Ukrainian people are killed, kidnapped, tortured by Russians. I hope, this will end sooner or later, but Ukraine will never return back under Russian rule, so there is no big sense in keeping Kiev instead of Kyiv. Will be glad to hear your thoughts in this matter. Mykola Swarnyk ( talk) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl, I already created the Category of Lukas Graham. So I have put the category back to this portal. Thanks Happypillsjr ✉ 00:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there!
I noticed on this page that you made two revisions to Eric Corley's page today. This is of huge interest to me because Eric is entirely responsible for me being arrested at Stony Brook University on Friday the 13th of April last year, and who knows what else.
I have the most important story this world will ever know. I put [REMOVED] in hopes of getting someone to hear me.
I have my 7th court date on Monday, but nothing will change until I get the media attention I deserve.
Mindy ;) -- Mindology18 ( talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Very Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations on your millionth edit! Ϣere SpielChequers 05:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
You are a amazing admin!!!!! Be happy for years to come!!! Inalol ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Inalol
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Just found you making a minor edit on Mashrafe Mortaza. Ended up being a creep and appreciating your work as a veteran. ImmortalWizard (chat) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
Hey BHG, when you have a moment, could you please look at Category:Skateboard shoe companies? It was created by a new account and both the cat and the articles they've added to it look wrong. I edited it but only to remove the unnecessary intro and the alleged subcats. Thanks!-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Echetus Xe 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I was using my sandbox to show an in-process page to a friend, did not think about category implications. Appreciate the little how-to. Jessamyn ( talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force ( WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks! |
E futbolistas Miguel Ángel López Mérida Merida Lopez ( talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Miguel Ángel López Mérida futbolistas retirado militó en club jaguares de Chiapas México club atlas 17 club tigre 18 es un ex futbolistas mexicano en la década 2000 milito en club Cartagena de costarrica se le recuerda por su habilidad con el balón y sus gambetas hacia los contrarios lamentablemente sus lesiones constantes lo marginaron de grandes competencias en el fútbol mexicano y en el fútbol internacional seleccionado mexicano sub 15 🇲🇽 Merida Lopez ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you stop User:RonBot? The bot is malfunctioning, see WP:ANI#Malfunctioning bot. S.A. Julio ( talk) 06:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you applied extended-confirmed protection to 2000 Stanley Cup Finals. Was this in error? I can't see any bad edits by autoconfirmed-but-not-extended-confirmed accounts. Is the edit-warring on categories a pattern of behaviour that you expect to escalate to the use of such accounts? -- Yaris678 ( talk) 13:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
hi brownhaired girl im new here and was wondering if u have any tips for me so that its easier for me to get around here-plz reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
i have recieved the links those really helped — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
so when i like make a page everyone can access it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.
Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994
Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein
WikiParker ( talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Autism quackery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hhkohh ( talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Good morning. I see that you fully protected this category as a high-risk Lua module. I assume this is not what you wanted to do. Could you please have a look? (Nothing urgent, I tagged it now for speedy move).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what are the rules for re-posting articles that were deleted. Does on have to wait a certain amount of time to re-post or give a valid reason why they did so? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. One does have the right to re-post if one wants to do don't they, that is not against the rules. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi BHG, there's been a request at WP:RFPP for 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, 2000 Stanley Cup Finals, and 2020 NHL Winter Classic to be unprotected. Your input would be welcomed as the protecting admin. Cheers, Fish+ Karate 14:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Darwin González is signed for etoile sportive du sahel teame of Tunisian league going from deportivo de la Guerra Venezuelan team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.159.150.222 ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Administrator,
I have been attempting to replace or complement a defamatory article on Dan Dale Alexander. More than two years ago, I submitted a 15 page paper which I believed was to be published with one minor change. It was not. Recently, I submitted a three page article with 32 references, which was printed, then retracted, then printed, then retracted. A supportive statement was also submitted by Ronald Frank, D.H.M. My recent submission and the statement by Dr. Frank address issues raised in the original Wikipedia article. My scholarly paper cites the work of many respected physicians who similarly claim the benefit of Omega 3 essential fatty acid on arthritic conditions. Please let me know what my next best step might be in assuring that my viewpoint is published with full protection.
I would greatly appreciate your response to my email address.
Sincerely, Dean Alexander, Ph.D.
deanalexanderphd@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.76.210 ( talk) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You applied some non-existent WPbanners. See WP:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Please fix -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this page Category:American Christians has been up deletion for a while now, most people want to keep it. When will this be resolved? Isn't there a time limit for this? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for responding to me so quickly lately, and that I think that you are a very good administrator. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I should have better explained my switch of Collapse to Hidden. You might not be aware, but even though these templates look similar, they work quite differently, and that has a big impact on WP:Accessibility. Collapse uses a wikitable, and hidden uses "div". While collapse is fine for collapsing big things like whole sections or tables, when it is used in the middle of section of regular text, it interrupts the text with what for visually impaired Wikipedians using screen readers is a largely inaccessible and "expensive" table. Because Hidden uses div, it doesn't have this "showstopping" effect on screen readers, so it is much better for collapsing text in the middle of a discussion. Regrettably, like most accessibility issues on Wikipedia, this distinction is not well documented, although you can see it in Template:Collapse Templates, which distinguishes Collapse as "basic" and Hidden as for "discussion". Would you mind if I switched it back to Hidden? -- Bsherr ( talk) 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
{{hidden|headerstyle=background-color: #CCFFCC|Demonstration|Content}}
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
I changed this category: Category:Opera_singers_from_Georgia_(country) to: Category:Georgian_opera_singers
Because it was the only category in Category:Opera_singers_by_nationality
that did not use the same way of writing, and because it is "By nationality" there should not be any mix up with the state in USA in my opinion.
see also: Georgians Georgian_language
(I did not know how to normally link to a category page in this message) Designer149 ( talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@
PamD: many thanks for taking the time to write that clear explanation of principle and practice.
@ Designer149:: there is a long-standing convention that people from Georgia (country) are categorised as "from Georgia (country)". As PamD notes, this is an exception to the wider convention of using a demonym.
The convention was adopted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian_people, and has been applied since then to Category:People from Georgia (country) and all its subcategories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl:: Thanks for the extra explanation. I will read more before editing something specific like this next time! Designer149 ( talk) 11:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Fix your edit summary link. [5].-- MONGO ( talk) 14:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thank you for looking at the page I established on Marian Clark. I have done considerable research on Clark, so I am quite aware that she was predominantly a radio scriptwriter for Gunsmoke. I am also quite aware that Nielsen is a television-based rating service. Clark, however, did work very closely with John Meston in adapting more than two dozens of her radio scripts into screenplays for the televised version of the Western series, especially during its early "#1-rankings" by Nielsen. Her stories aired as episodes at various times for five seasons on television, spanning 1958 to 1963. During that period, when Clark was closely associated with the televised version of Gunsmoke and her stories comprised an appreciable part of its lineup of episodes, the series was #1 in the Nielsen ratings for the 1958-1959, 1959-1960, and 1960-1961 seasons. It is with that consideration to researchers why I added "Nielsen ratings winners", and thought it was a relevant search category with regard to Clark's writing for a #1-rated television series and for its highly rated radio counterpart and predecessor. Thank you again. Strudjum ( talk) 06:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction on his categories. I knew I needed to look further for the proper one, but was trying to note it for myself to do. Parkwells ( talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Now it is filled with wrong facts in the page iravikutti Pillai. please check the initial version and edit. AVK1994 ( talk) 16:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AVK1994, Doug Weller, and Winged Blades of Godric: my immediate priority was to stop the edit warring.
Beyond that, there may be a better version to restore; I didn't see one, but am open to suggestions, either to me or via an {{ edit protected}} request on the talk page.
Alternatively, if someone wants to take it to AFD for WP:TNT (which seems to be what Doug is suggesting), then please go ahead.
WBG, I will review whether ECP would be sufficient. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The move discussion you started at WikiProject Overseas France has been closed but Template:WikiProject French Overseas Departments couldn't be moved due to move-protection. Since you're an administrator, you're requested to move it yourself. samee converse 09:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brown Haired Girl
Just to make you aware that John Stobart lives in Westport, MA most of the year. He’s just read your Wikipedia page and loves it, but would prefer if the site could be updated with this information.
Many thanks
Tony§ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:582:4880:25F0:651A:17B5:C2F8:C693 (
talk)
16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111
February events:
|
Please stop altering transcluded data in "User in Province" templates. I am in the process of reestablishing these categories. Thanks, Buaidh talk contribs 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello there,
Thank you for telling me about the category ruling when it comes to drafts. I missed that paragraph when going through the rules.
I hate pissing off admins (especially considering I'd like to be one in future) so I'll try to avoid making that mistake again.
RallyXEditor ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
May I please request your assistance on the talk pages of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Springfield, Massachusetts articles, under the heading Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox. I believed adding such a comment to each article's talk page was the correct way to proceed, but, in hindsight, I now believe I should have asked your advice before doing so. My Favourite Account 😊 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My Favourite Account 😊 17:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My Favourite Account 😊 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I goofed on this one - I apologise Lyndaship ( talk) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I see you saw my reply to your comment at wt:NRHP and that you replied there too. It is off-topic there, but I think I do take offense at your comment there, because it came across to me as needlessly denigrating me, and perhaps as if you are proud of having imposed a block upon me. You label me as having IDHT attitude there. There was not call for your comments, which are personally directed. It seems you are making a pre-meditated strike against me, to label me as an invalid participant.
Also, you make charges, some which might be opinions about me which you are free to have, but are not appropriate to just come out with that way, and some of which are factually wrong IMO, and then you appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective). I do agree it is not appropriate to go further into debate there about whether your statements about me are false or true, or insulting or not. But it's not right to do that. About what I feel is factually wrong, that includes your characterizing the former categories about NRHP architects etc as "private", and your seeming to imply (my interpretation) that it was just me creating all the NRHP-related style categories that do correspond to NPS/NRIS categories. I am not wanting to overstate your position as horribly bad; I would have to agree that factually some categories that I created or recreated have been brought to CFD, because that is true, and I would even further understand you could possibly have a negative opinion about my communications or actions related to some of the past stuff, but that still doesn't call for you to go on negatively about me in such a personally directed way as if I am a somewhat evil person (my perception) in a new discussion at NRHP. I don't know how to talk about this situation exactly, it seems to have to do with AGF and having basic respect for one another or not.
Hey, I don't care too much about this, really, and I probably don't much want to go further about this if you turn out to want to simply dismiss me here, though I hope you won't. (Perhaps we could chat about what do you think should be done, or should have been done already, process-wise, about situation of disagreement about Early Commercial architecture or other styles?) But I think that for my own sake and for sake of continuing quality of the NRHP wikiproject discussion forum that I ought to register that I do object to what you said / how you said it. I would appreciate if you would try to see and acknowledge my perspective about this here. At the NRHP discussion, I do hope you will continue to contribute on the content subject, about Early Commercial architecture as a valid thing for Wikipedia coverage including by categories. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
evil. And I take no pride in blocking anyone.
go onabout this. I wrote two short paras about it in a discussion which I joined because I had been pinged, and where your conduct is relevant context.
Doncram's WP:IDHT approach to consensuswas mild and restrained.
appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective), which is not what I wrote. I did not try to cut off your perspective; I tried to separate your long history of misconduct from the substantive case for such categories.
Recent changes have been removed because you thought I was just practicing making changes. These weren't practices, they were updates, I have re-instated the changes. I was adding awards from year end notifications. If there's a problem here, please advise. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmusicfan ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED. Please let somebody else close this. Have you seen Category:Murderers? Your argument makes no sense. Please revert. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
makes no sense. You may disagree with that very detailed discussion and with the eloquent 3-admin closure and with the subsequent DRV, but
makes no senseis an extraordinary dismissal of the broad community consensus established in 2014.
excuses; I have explained the policy basis for my action. You are not obliged to agree with my explanation, but it is not acceptable for you to imply dishonest intent by calling them
excuses.
polite, you would engage with that rather than simply dismissing it as
makes no senseand
excuses.
choosing to be intransigent, but anyone reviewing this discussion can see that you have simply declined to make any reasoned response to the pints which I made. Your claim of
wrong, wrong, wrongis just another round of you choosing exhortation over reasoned discussion.
wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield... the only sword wielded here has been your threats.
@ Jehochman, it appears to me that you may not have fully read the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists.
So I will quite here the passage which informed my decision (emphasis added by me):
The bolding of the final sentence is added by me, because it is the critical point: per WP:BLP, do not categorise individuals as "pseudoscientist".
I see no reason to doubt that the closer of the 2014 discussion would have responded would have been even firmer if the blatantly pejorative term "quackery" had been used in the categories under discussion there. Those BLP reasons are why I acted promptly.
I remain disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself shows so little concern for the WP:BLP issues involved here. I cited BLP in my closure, and in my initial reply to you ... but in 4 rounds of discussion, you have not even acknowledgded that BLP is factor.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Undelete the category and rename it “Autism pseudoscience” or “Pseudoscientific autism treatments”. You can then remove the category from any page where BLP is a problem due to insufficient references. This was your original opinion and the consensus of the discussion. It will save everybody a lot of grief if we achieve a harmonious conclusion. If you do that I will endorse the close and we can all move on. The “Quacks” category is a tougher problem. I think “Medical pseudoscience” is an allowable category. You could undelete and rename that one or merge into an existing pseudoscience subcategory. If pseudoscience is an allowed category so are subcategories to help organize the entries by topic. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. I think it's the first time in this discussion that we have explicitly agreed on anything, so I welcome that
On another note, your comment here is good. Could you possibly restore the category, reopen the discussion but as an interim measure rename it to anything non-attacking? The discussion can then gather thoughts and resolve what the best name would be. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you object if somebody recreated the category from scratch using a neutral name, such as Autism pseudoscience? Generally it is not allowed to recreate deleted things, but here the idea is to change the name and lose the edit history. Are you OK with that? Jehochman Talk 01:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping - I did not have the category on my watchlist so would have been unlikely to see the discussion. I don't know if you recall Brough87 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was topic-banned from this area a while ago. I don't have much time to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, as I am dealing with a family bereavement. If you see something you think I should know about then could you drop me a message on my talk page? That sends me an email so I can take a look when I can. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
I have nominated this for deletion here - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_31#Category:People_of_Celtic_descent - and intend to propose all related categories for deletion such as the one you created, Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please add your thoughts. I remain puzzled by the need to create such bizzare categories, and as neither you nor DuncanHill have seen fit to explain why my deletions were reverted (or at least use it appropriately for Iron Age folk), I feel this is the only course left. Cheers, Fergananim ( talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:WikiProject Botswana as it assists editors in tagging. If that is the case, could the deprecation notice be removed? Deprecation means that the code should not be used and is scheduled for deletion in a future date. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, BrownHairedGirl,
I am teaching a course at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA that is teaching students how to write Wikipedia Articles for a WikiProject. You made an edit on one of them and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate so that we could get it right.
What we are looking for is someone who is willing to let people make mistakes and give them a shot to correct them in Draft so that they learn. Is this something with which you would be willing to assist with what time you might have available? Please.
Thanks, mkurowski Mkurowski ( talk) 03:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the "better to use a category which actually exists" reminder at Template:Template rating/doc, BHG. But the category was already there before I touched the page -- RexxS ( talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering if there was a reason as to why Category:Stranger Things (television series) couldn't be at Category:Stranger Things? Cheers. -- / Alex/ 21 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Muhandes ( talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! You protected Languages of the Republic of Macedonia and maybe you are right. The North Macedonian language should not have been changed indeed. But the article should definitely be Languages of North Macedonia as should the "Republic of Macedonia" elements be replaced. thx! -- APG1984 ( talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page [13].
Please see my comments at WP:Requests for page protection#Languages_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia ( permalink) about the need for less haste and more consensus-building here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please close this AFD [14]? I mistakenly started it. He does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Thanks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek [16] who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here [17] and here [18], he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern.
I've tried asking this editor myself [19] and a few other occasions and been ignored [20]. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here [21] and here [22] for two recent examples. Thanks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't hate me. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but closed the WP:CfD just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be really bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.
Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination.
Categories
|
---|
|
Apologies for any inconvenience. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. Legacypac ( talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
About Special:Diff/883889340 - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run #REDIRECT [[User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js]] as javascript code. See User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' )
, which works. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Category:Critics of transhumanism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nowak Kowalski ( talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113
Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
Hello I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaboi1956 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Module:See also if exists has been nominated for merging with Module:Category see also if exists. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. Giant Snowman 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of the roof?, who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Wikipedia category at [32] you have chosen to revert only me for--see Category:Clothing companies established in 1958, Category:Clothing companies established in 1959, Category:Clothing companies established in 1960, Category:Clothing companies established in 1961, Category:Clothing companies established in 1962, Category:Clothing companies established in 1964, Category:Clothing companies established in 1965, Category:Clothing companies established in 1966, etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and the roof? have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Wikipedia categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Wikipedia, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at [33] consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. Doprendek ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings User:BrownHairedGirl. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the Control Lakes listing at the {{NYCwater}} template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page Controlled lake and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hii, I recently edited a page in which I add refrences but you removed that reference. In that reference I also mention the site so you must check this site before you remove it. I hope you should not have to do this type of irrelevant thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketkumar.sk ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT), unlinked see-also, etc.
Hello BrownHairedGirl!
The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...
I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.
Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)
All the best,
Praevalebit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praevalebit ( talk • contribs) 10 February 2019 (UTC)