While removing deleted portals from several mathematical articles (many thanks for your work on portals), you have moved down the short description. This contradicts
WP:Short description, where it is written Put the {{
short description}} template as close to the top of the page as possible, for ease of finding it.
Also, when one uses the short description gadget for importing a short description from Wikidata, the short description is always placed at the first line. Should these moves be reverted or should
WP:Short description and the gadget be modified? In either case, I think that it is to you to do the job.
D.Lazard (
talk) 02:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, D.Lazard. It seems that genfixes's idea of order is hatnotes/protectionTemplates/ShortDesc. As JJMC89 kindly noted, AWBgenfixes is following MOS:ORDER.
So I did a little burrowing in WP:Short description, and found this edit [5] on 5 January 2019 by User:CapnZapp. That edit changed the wording from a general note which I paraphrase as "top of the page is nice, but subject to other things which come first" to a stronger "Put the short description template as close to the top of the page as possible." I am sure that was done in good faith, but it seems to me that these decisions need to be made by discussion at WT:MOSLAYOUT.
So AFAICS, Genfixes is doing this correctly, by following MOS:ORDER. WP:SHORTDESC should be amended to reflect MOS:ORDER, subject to any discussions which anyone want to start at MOS:ORDER. Personally, I couldn't care either way, so I won't be proposing any changes ... but D.Lazard, you may wish to start discussions at WT:MOSLAYOUT about whether the current order is OK, and bring WP:SHORTDESC into line with whatever is decided there. And I will continue to let AWB genfixes do what they do. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Just stopping by to say if my edit survived all these months despite a healthy amount of further activity since then it stands to reason that the edit has consensus. If anyone thinks the page requires permission from another page's talk viewers, then the talk page should probably only be a redirect to that other page's talk page. In other words, ignoring a policy page because you don't like it is probably not a good idea. (I have no opinion on the topic discussed here, and I am not claiming anyone is ignoring anything - I was merely summoned here) CapnZapp ( talk) 17:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
ignoring a policy page because you don't like... are you a child with learning difficulties, or just a troll?
like it, and that I really couldn't care less which is at the top.
Category:Organizations based in Nigeria together with the subcats using 'organis/zations' have been nominated for possible renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. As you created at least one of the categories concerned, you are most welcome to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the U.S. Department of Education 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I've seen your name pop up in a bunch of the spaces I edit and honestly what I've seen is the sort of care, attention to detail and neutral attitude that would be perfect for an admin. Have you considered putting up an RfA? If you do, ping me and I'll support it fwiw. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
A wee bit late, @ Simonm223.
But no troutings, please. It was a kind thought, and many thanks for posting it. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon, UnitedStatesian, Britishfinance, Hut 8.5, and SmokeyJoe: I would welcome your thoughts and forthright criticism of the following idea for an RFC (or mass MFD), which I have provisionally titled "WP:UNWANTEDPORTALS".
It picks up on an proposition repeatedly made by SmokeyJoe: that portals are a failed experiment, in which only a few have proven to attract readers. Joe has focused on the portals linked from the front page, which each gather over 1000 pageviews per day, and has suggested dumping the rest.
I have sympathy with Joe's idea, because WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... and because the threshold Joe uses is about the same as the pageview count for the head article of most portals (most of them are 1000+).
However, I think that Joe is setting the threshold too high. I think that a threshold of 50 or 100 pageviews a day would be sufficient to weed out a lot of the low-traffic, under-maintained portals, while recognising that some portals which are not on the front page do nonetheless sustain much more credible pageviews than than the mass of unviewed portals.
The list of portal pageviews for Q2 2019 breaks down interestingly. There are currently 904 portals, of which:
daily average pageviews | Number of portals | % of portals | Number of portals in this group or higher |
% of portals in this group or higher |
Number of portals lower than this group |
% of portals lower than this group |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
> 1000 | 11 | 1.22% | 11 | 1.22% | 893 | 98.8% |
501–1000 | 0 | 0% | 11 | 1.22% | 893 | 98.8% |
251–500 | 3 | 0.33% | 14 | 1.55% | 890 | 98.5% |
101–250 | 42 | 4.64% | 56 | 6.19% | 848 | 93.8% |
51–100 | 90 | 9.96% | 146 | 16.2% | 758 | 83.8% |
26–50 | 181 | 20.0% | 327 | 36.2% | 577 | 63.8% |
<25 | 577 | 63.8% | 904 | 100% | — | — |
So while Joe's suggestion would remove 98.8% of portals, I think that';s unlikely to gain consensus.
So my idea is to set a threshold of pageviews, and triage portals into three groups, as follows:
Then offer various options:
I think that gives a reasonable range of options, but I worry that it may be too complicated.
Whaddayall think? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
From SJ:
From BF:
Britishfinance ( talk) 00:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
From USian
From Hut 8.5
I agree that portals have largely been a failed experiment and I would support getting rid of most of the ones we have at the moment. I'm not sure pageviews are the right metric to use for this though. The only other situation I can think of where we use pageviews to determine whether to keep or delete something is at RfD, where they are sometimes used to determine whether a redirect represents a real search term or not, and even then the use is to determine whether the redirect has any human views at all. Judging from a few clicks on Special:Random most articles would be deleted if we imposed a threshold of 100 pageviews a month. For portals I suspect pageviews are largely a function of how prominently we link to the portal, rather than any particular property of the portal itself.
I suspect a proposal to nominate most remaining portals for deletion will meet with quite a lot of pushback, as you can see from the responses this proposal got. I'd suggest waiting a while and then focusing on the portals which have the least value, such as those in the <25 bracket above. These portals likely have little value and eliminating them would get rid of more than half the remaining portals.
If I had to come up with a suggestion for criteria we should use for having a portal on some topic I would suggest something like this:
Hut 8.5 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
From RMcC
First, I thank User:BrownHairedGirl for a useful analysis. Second, I have just proposed that there should be an RFC, but a policy RFC and not a mass MFD. My preference is to proceed with a policy RFC. I share the sadness and concern of BHG about the "sullen passivity" of a group of portal advocates, who continue to say that portal critics are ignoring the expressed views of the community (basing that statement largely on an ambiguous RFC a year ago). So I would prefer that the community be surveyed as to its views again, and that there be no mass deletion of portals until the views of the community are surveyed again. Perhaps the community agrees with User:SmokeyJoe that portals are a failed experiment. Perhaps the community only agrees with me that there have been two failed experiments, partial subpage portals and automated portals.
If we are to triage portals based on pageviews, my preference would be to keep those with 100 daily pageviews and delete those with less than 25 pageviews, which is a hybrid of two of BHG's options that leaves a larger middle zone. However, I would prefer to survey the views of the community with a new RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
To go here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I wanted to ask you more about the technical limitations of Categories that you brought up at the RFC draft. Do you know what work, if any, has been done? I liked a lot of the ideas you suggested and wanted to take a look to see how hard it would be to add some of these features. Are there any other improvements to categories you think could be done software side? Wug· a·po·des 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I see Newshunter12 recently tried to blame me for attempting to hack your account and I just wanted to tell you that it wasn't me (I did troll him and a few others) and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he the one that brought up the fact someone attempted to hack your account a few months ago before you had even said anything about it ? How could he possibly have known about it unless he or one of his cronies did it. 198.8.81.74 ( talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to unravel the details if I saw either of these two warring sides actually trying to uphold Wikipedia policies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you entered the death info for this old hockey player, and I'm wondering how you got Drummondville, November 20, 1985. Official death records for Quebec list DOD as February 14, 1985, but they don't include a city of death. Any info appreciated. Thanks. Researchguy ( talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am going away from keyboard for a few weeks. Plus I have a serious real life issue which demands constant attention for several weeks. I have just now added myself as a maintainer for roughly a half dozen portals that either I think I can improve or that I think are important to improve. I'd ask that I be allowed a few months to work with those portals before you nominate them for deletion. I ask that if any portals come up for deletion in which I am listed as maintainer, please email me. Thank you BusterD ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
On a completely serious note, I am concerned about your redirect of Portal:South America to Portal:Latin America. Of the 27 countries of Latin America, only 11 are located in South America. Eight are located in the Caribbean, six in Central America, and two in northern North America. You wish to delete Portal:Americas, so that would leave no portal for South America. Seriously, what would you propose? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. - I'm not really sure how we got into this mini-feud since we both desire the same basic things for Wikipedia. You think deletion will get us there, and I think a few things should be preserved. Could we end the name calling? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. The name calling is over. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dlight92 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Since you created Portal:Samoa, Portal:South America, Portal:Tokelau, Portal:Tonga, Portal:Vanuatu, and Portal:Wallis and Futuna, would you consider deleting them? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your Caribbean portal redirects are Portal:Bonaire, Portal:Martinique, Portal:Montserrat, Portal:Saint Barthélemy, Portal:Saint Kitts and Nevis, Portal:Saint Lucia, Portal:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Portal:Sint Eustatius, Portal:Sint Maarten, and Portal:Turks and Caicos Islands. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Portal|CountryName}}
was generating redlinks. So I started creating redirects./info/en/?search=Template:Nature_timeline
The links to the right of the graphic overlap, is there any way this can be fixed ?
I'm not sure how the messages on here work so can you please correspond with me via my email kmouse1968@gmail.com
Many thanks. Kerry McCutcheon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.35.239 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Drewsky1211 is a Sockpuppet of /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Newshunter12 they have a similar editing style and often edit the same pages. Do you have checkuser access ? Can you confirm it ? 157.157.87.118 ( talk) 04:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=NATO Here it's written: "The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization."
NATO intervention was NOT required, thus nullyfing the entire potency and purpose of the UN. Bombing other sovereign nations is not NATO's mission nor obligation as Serbia was answering only on attacks from Albanian paramilitary forces in Kosovo. Bombing Serbia should be under Controversy section of this article as they were also intentionally destroying state-owned factories and infrastructure, targeting civilians and helping ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo by killing people for organ transplants. Also they were using cluster bombs which are not allowed by Geneva's war convention.
Some references about NATO conspiracy against Serbia can be found on this page: /info/en/?search=Kosovo_Liberation_Army
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.79.44.149 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Per WP:C1. This is not category redirect, but a redirect in category namespace which is also (now) an empty category.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police, 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. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for removing links to deleted portals. However, I've noticed that the way you do it does not unlink them from {{ Subject bar}}. Can you take a look at it? (see something like Saint Peter#External links for syntax). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
portal3=John Smith
code, without having to renumber any higher-numbered parameters.Thanks for your work cleaning out portals. However, in case you are planning to do more edits
like this, leaving {{Portal-inline|size=tiny}}
in the article gives "Lua error in Module:Portal-inline at line 16: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'root' (a string value)", see
Johnny Cash#See also. I could fix the module so it outputs nothing, but that would leave an empty asterisk in an empty see also section. It's probably better to remove the see also altogether. There are currently 56 articles in
Category:Pages with script errors and I think most of them are due to this problem. I could put a more convenient list of the 56 articles somewhere if wanted. I can fix these if you like but you are much more familiar with the state of portals. For example, I don't know if there are plans to insert something in the blank templates in the near future.
Johnuniq (
talk) 04:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Portal-inline|size=tiny}}
(and variants), but hadn't quite cracked it. Your msg spurred me on the fix that, so I ran the fixes across all the articles in that set, and fix them all in
these edits.{{Portal-inline}}
is that there will be some empty "see also" sections. I think that's probably best left that way, because I haven't figured out a regex which would reliably remove only empty "see also" sections without false positives. I am also not too worried about it, because a clearly empty section is an easy manual fix, whereas most editors wouldn't have known what to do with a {{Portal-inline|size=tiny|Foo}}
which produced no output.News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
A tag has been placed on Category:The Go Set albums 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. In your nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) you say that on the portal's talk page an editor "asked whether this abandoned portal should be deleted". That's incorrect; the editor was referring to an unused subpage of the portal. It might be a good idea to strike that part of the nom. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello @BrownHairedGirl. I posted in incident report on the Admin Noticeboard, but presumably because the thread has become long-winded, a judgement has still not been made, and it's moved into archive. [10] I scanned the Admin noticeboard, and thought you seemed very sober and thorough in your judgements, so would it be possible to make some kind of ruling on this issue? Otherwise the other party's reverts are likely to continue. To get your head around the issue, just reading the last three posts in the thread (where I sought a yes/no answer from the other party) may save time. Thanks for your assistance. ClearBreeze ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ ClearBreeze: sorry, I missed this when you posted it.
But after reading WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Editor:_Wikitigresito, I remind you that ANI is a place to resolve conduct issues. It is not a venue for content disputes. And this is a content dispute.
I agree with those who suggested that you raise it at Talk:Berlin Palace. If you can't find agreement there, then try WP:3O. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Has it not gone beyond a content dispute when an editor refuses point-blank to permit a full-referenced fact in an article, and, as he stated at ANI, refuses to negotiate on that point? Surely it then becomes an issue of conduct? ClearBreeze ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all the Cats (categories).
Vinegarymass911 (
talk) 06:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Since you like to hide things, I'll try the direct approach.
Now that you've created the epithet the Notorious Portalspammer for User:The Transhumanist, can you come up with one for me? The Burgundy Templater perhaps? (Burgundy ribbons signify Multiple Myeloma, which you seem to find humorous. I've also created 7,570 active template pages.) Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I came across your above discussion on abandoned portals and became very intrigued about the topic. As you know, I participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) discussion after reading your thorough analysis and investigation of that portal, and reading the portal myself. I once spent a significant amount of time cleaning up pages for a different fandom, Fruits Basket, which included removing long abandoned junk articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyo Sohma, cleanup like this and more. It was all stuff created during the years the manga was still coming out, but editor interest sharply withered within a year or two of the manga's end. A new anime series based on the manga is actually currently coming out so there is some renewed interest now.
It seems like your portal cleanup is very similar in nature to the cleanup I did for Fruits Basket, so I am interested in understanding the portal cleanup effort. Is it just you who's undertaking this and what is the end goal? Where precisely would you ideally like to see the portal section of Wikipedia end up? I don't see myself nominating any for deletion, but would like to contribute to the cleanup effort now that I know there is a mess. (Since some people have been causing a lot of trouble in this sphere, it seems prudent to say that if I end up at any more MfD's, I'm doing so of my own accord, so no one can justly accuse BHG of canvassing me.) Thank you! Newshunter12 ( talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 – Thank you for asking about portals. I will try to add a little to what User:BrownHairedGirl has written. Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that can be used for showcasing, navigation, instruction or promotion, and for fun. Th.ey have always been a feature of Wikipedia, and, since 2006, have been in Portal space. Some editors are very enthusiastic about portals. I have never known exactly why, and I am inclined to think that, because they can't explain clearly what the advantages of portals are, they must be something that are liked because they are seen as technically neat. (I once worked on testing a computer system that may have had a lot of leading-edge software components that were selected because they were technically neat. It was a technical mess.) I don't know what value the advocates of portals think that they add, so I think that they must be seen as technically neat, rather than as functionally valuable.
As the essays that BHG has listed explain, portals are intended to be maintenance-intensive, but normally they are not maintained. I think that the advocates of portals, whom some of us call portalistas, are denying the need for maintenance.
In any case, early in 2018, when there were just under a thousand portals in existence (I think – I haven't checked my notes for the numbers), there was an RFC to delete all portals. It was closed with a consensus not to delete all portals, but with no other specific conclusions. Then a task force that I call the portal platoon decided that we (English Wikipedia) needed more portals, and decided to create thousands of more portals. They did this more or less quietly, and had created a total of 5700 portals, and most of the new portals were just automated crud. I then reported the thousands of portals at WP:AN, and since then some of us have been bringing portals to MFD for deletion. The portalistas have been claiming that we are waging a "war on portals". (I think they conducted a sneak attack by creating thousands of them, but that is only my opinion.) Most of the portals that were created in the wave of reckless portal creation were deleted in two bulk nominations to MFD that were expertly submitted by User:BrownHairedGirl. But since then, she and I and a few other editors who are skeptical about how much portals add have been working slowly to nominate some of the abandoned portals for deletion. We have the number of portals back down below a thousand now. Many of the portal deletion debates are bitter and unpleasant. Obviously the portalistas and portal platoon think that portals are valuable. I really don't understand what the value is, other than being technically neat.
Any informed assistance that we can be given in checking the status of portals and deleting the cruddiest ones will be appreciated. I don't think that we have a specific endpoint. I think that some of us who are trying to clean up portals would like to see a few hundred high-quality portals, and some of us would prefer to see more like twenty, or to delete all of them except for the main page, which is a super-portal and is labor-intensive. Do you have any specific questions at this point? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
I understand that the New York page is a dab page, however, I believe that Portal:New York should remain as a redirect to Portal:New York (state), because changing it to a dab page would "break" or at least cause confusion to hundreds of pages that use this Portal. I suppose we could change all the pages that pages that use this portal, most of which are meant to go to the New York state portal. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
, currently shows the flag of New York State. That can be changed, but this is the status quo. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding some of your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf, surely you can convey your points about the strength of other editor's arguments without referring to them as "portalistas" or "liars". Even where legitimate rebuttals are made, the use of terms intended to describe the person being rebutted can overshadow the rebuttal itself. I would stress, in fact, that even if someone is a liar, the more effective counterargument is to treat their misstatements of fact as products of ignorance than of malice. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@ BD2412 and SmokeyJoe: Unfortunately, we have a serious problem. A bunch of editors who want to retain even abandoned junk portals (i.e portalistas) have taken to trying to sway MFD debates by repeatedly asserting as fact points which are demonstrably untrue and which they demonstrably know to be untrue.
I have taken to calling this out per WP:SPADE. But of course, I am open to suggestions of other ways to challenge these attempts to use mendacity to subvert consensus formation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl I agree with User:bd2412 and User:SmokeyJoe in particular as to the allegation than NA1k and others are lying. In English, there is a clear distinction between lying and the statement of seriously incorrect facts. We really should stretch the Assumption of Good Faith a long way for them. We know that they can't explain why they want portals, and the least unlikely explanation is that they believe things that we either can't understand or are just plain wrong. So I really believe that when they are saying things that are not true, they are not lying, but they have confused themselves or persuaded themselves of serious error. They aren't lying. Give them that assumption of good faith. Their stated facts are bunk, but they are bunk that they believe. (A Flat earth believer isn't lying when they say the Earth is flat. They believe it. It is just absurdly wrong. Similarly, the portal advocates have their own facts, and a man or woman is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts, but that doesn't make the non-facts lies.
Dropping the use of the allegation of "lying" would improve civility. Robert McClenon ( talk) 11:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Inter-county Gaelic footballers, 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. 2001:BB6:A94:7658:6576:CC5E:AF6A:DC2D ( talk) 09:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC_about_articles_on_three_digit_numbers. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Take this to WP:DR or WP:AN. I am not a one-woman court to act as judge, jury and executioner in a cases of alleged misconduct in complex content disputes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in banning a disruptive user who has a long history of engaging in edit-warring, misrepresenting data, specifically targeting Wikipedia articles that revolve around a single topic to push an agenda, and is an all-around Wikipedia dragon who is just polluting honest discourse on the encyclopedia. He's widely disagreeable, with his disruptive edits going as far back as 2017. I've spoken with other admins over this topic and they've all pretty much said that it's all a very technical issue to go about with since he's been getting away with this behavior for so long, and has essentially created consensus with this aforementioned 2-year-long, trackable campaign. I'm positive I can prove he is being disruptive and is attempting to push a narrative through the wiki, which is why I'm pursuing this route rather than trying to debunk ALL of the information he has individually put out. What are my options with this user? HueyXocoatzin ( talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ HueyXocoatzin: thanks for your message.
The first thing I need to say is that absolutely no way that I or any other responsible admin will jump at the request of one editor and ban another editor over a content dispute. There are too many layers of inappropriateness in that request for me to explain them all without a vast screed, so I'll summarise with a brief quote from my user page:
The core of this matter is a content dispute. Where two editors disagree about content, I would expect the disagreement to proceed roughly as follows:
Instead, I see that you produce no evidence of any of those steps, just a request for me to parachute in and ban someone.
No no no no. I am not gonna do that.
Please note that I have not formed a view on who is right here. It may be that one of you is POV-pushing, or that the other is POV-pushing, or that you both are, or that nobody is POV-pushing and that it's all just a misunderstanding.
Please also note that I have not formed a view on whose conduct is better here. It may be that one or other of you is a saint and the other a miscreant, but I have not attempted to weigh that. Maybe you are both rogues? Or maybe you are both great editors whose wires are crossed.
What I am seeing here is:
So, please, both @ HueyXocoatzin and Pob3qu3: take this to the article's talk page and follow WP:DR. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For cleanup after portal deletions ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there how are you? I noticed you were recently editing Addiction and thought if you had time and I could interest you could assist me as many others have in my cleanup and improvement of the Digital media use and mental health category.
Theres a few page move / terminology discussions 1. Here (social media addiction) 2. Here (Internet addiction disorder)
and also I have had a lot of input from others here for considering the FA nomination of the mother article, Digital media use and mental health, if you have any further input!
New question today about the inclusion of internet sex addiction in digital media use and mental health - here. Terminology - should we call it problematic cybersexual behaviour, for instance?
Thanks so much for any thoughts! -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what exactly could've triggered a response like this. I don't know if I insulted you in some way or if I was being particularly rude. I wanted to present my case in full, and I'm sure part of the process would be to let the person being accused of disruptive editing make a case for themselves, I don't think I have any power over whether I want them to make a case for themselves or not. I think there was a misunderstanding of what I meant by "not engaging him", which I meant not continuing this toxic cycle of back and forths that go no where. I wouldn't want to interfere in the process to get this issue resolved. I think I came at this a little too hot, which I really shouldn't expect anyone to just sympathize with right off the bat given a massive lack of background. Again, sorry for offending you. I'd like to know where I went wrong in this. HueyXocoatzin ( talk) 07:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon, I recommend Portal:Land of Oz be brought to MfD. It has essentially been abandoned for a decade (the creator only touched it for about a week and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2007). The DYK section was last constructively updated in 2008. The Oz books section has been touched twice since 2009, the last time in 2015. The things to do section last touched in 2012. The wikiproject section untouched since creation in 2011, while the associated wikiproject is long dead. The categories section last constructively edited in 2011. There was a rename in May and an editor claimed they were going to do a lot of work on it, but didn't follow through. All these little sub-pages got title updates in May, by the way. The page view count is abysmal. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 3 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is even more stark, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day.
As you know, this is my first time evaluating a portal and I did the best I could. I hope you find this helpful and please let me know if/how I can better prepare portal reports for your evaluation. Newshunter12 ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Another crud portal ripe for MfD: Portal:NASCAR It has essentially been completely abandoned since the sole fan-maintainer (Nascar1996) left Wikipedia in 2017 (aside from a few stray edits elsewhere into Feb 19), but parts of the page have been abandoned for a decade (the creator only created the portal, never touched it again, and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2012). Five of the six biographies are virtually unchanged since 2010, while one was created in 2016. All 10 pictures were uploaded in 2010-11 and do not well reflect current drivers, car designs, or league names in descriptions. The news section was last touched in 2015. but it is automated. However, the five pieces of posted news are from 2013-16, and three are from 13-14 about Jeff Gordon, who retired in 2015. He's a legend in the sport, so it's exceedingly noticeable to anyone who knows much about NASCAR. The DYK section was last updated in 2010. The selected article section has 15 articles, but 10 were added to the portal in 2010-11, two in 2012, and three in 2015, and they are overwhelmingly about individual races over just a few years. The wikiproject section is untouched since 2011, and while the two primarily associated wikiprojects are still active in 2019, those wider communities don't appear to have ever been a part of this portal; only the maintainer did both. The categories section has same content as in 2010. The topics section unchanged from 2010. The page view count is low. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 11 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is grim, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day. From June 1 2019 until, July 30, the head article NASCAR had a visit rate per day of 1330.
In sum, this portal was always just a fan creation of Nascar1996, built to their taste, generally stuck in 2010-11 and left to completely rot when they didn't want it anymore. It's also funny that the NASCAR portal is old, decrepit, and has declining popularity because that perfectly describes NASCAR itself! Maybe this portal does belong... It is stuck nearer happier years for NASCAR after all. Newshunter12 ( talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Denisarona ( talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article? I'm not American and am not sure about them. Thanks Denisarona ( talk) 05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, this is Fgt30256. I'm creating a wikipedia page for my company( /info/en/?search=Draft:Nreal). As a wiki rookie, I've researched and followed all the rules to create the draft(please forgive me if there's still something wrong or missing). The article is objective and cited from well-known media.
My friend suggested me contacting a wiki editor to get the feedback and eventually get the articles published. Wondering if there's anything missing or I should do to get this draft published.
Thanks in advance and have a nice day.
Fgt30256 ( talk) 08:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Vermont ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
vs.
— Ched : ? — 02:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2019 in Uzbekistani football leagues 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
While removing deleted portals from several mathematical articles (many thanks for your work on portals), you have moved down the short description. This contradicts
WP:Short description, where it is written Put the {{
short description}} template as close to the top of the page as possible, for ease of finding it.
Also, when one uses the short description gadget for importing a short description from Wikidata, the short description is always placed at the first line. Should these moves be reverted or should
WP:Short description and the gadget be modified? In either case, I think that it is to you to do the job.
D.Lazard (
talk) 02:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, D.Lazard. It seems that genfixes's idea of order is hatnotes/protectionTemplates/ShortDesc. As JJMC89 kindly noted, AWBgenfixes is following MOS:ORDER.
So I did a little burrowing in WP:Short description, and found this edit [5] on 5 January 2019 by User:CapnZapp. That edit changed the wording from a general note which I paraphrase as "top of the page is nice, but subject to other things which come first" to a stronger "Put the short description template as close to the top of the page as possible." I am sure that was done in good faith, but it seems to me that these decisions need to be made by discussion at WT:MOSLAYOUT.
So AFAICS, Genfixes is doing this correctly, by following MOS:ORDER. WP:SHORTDESC should be amended to reflect MOS:ORDER, subject to any discussions which anyone want to start at MOS:ORDER. Personally, I couldn't care either way, so I won't be proposing any changes ... but D.Lazard, you may wish to start discussions at WT:MOSLAYOUT about whether the current order is OK, and bring WP:SHORTDESC into line with whatever is decided there. And I will continue to let AWB genfixes do what they do. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Just stopping by to say if my edit survived all these months despite a healthy amount of further activity since then it stands to reason that the edit has consensus. If anyone thinks the page requires permission from another page's talk viewers, then the talk page should probably only be a redirect to that other page's talk page. In other words, ignoring a policy page because you don't like it is probably not a good idea. (I have no opinion on the topic discussed here, and I am not claiming anyone is ignoring anything - I was merely summoned here) CapnZapp ( talk) 17:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
ignoring a policy page because you don't like... are you a child with learning difficulties, or just a troll?
like it, and that I really couldn't care less which is at the top.
Category:Organizations based in Nigeria together with the subcats using 'organis/zations' have been nominated for possible renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. As you created at least one of the categories concerned, you are most welcome to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the U.S. Department of Education 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I've seen your name pop up in a bunch of the spaces I edit and honestly what I've seen is the sort of care, attention to detail and neutral attitude that would be perfect for an admin. Have you considered putting up an RfA? If you do, ping me and I'll support it fwiw. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
A wee bit late, @ Simonm223.
But no troutings, please. It was a kind thought, and many thanks for posting it. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon, UnitedStatesian, Britishfinance, Hut 8.5, and SmokeyJoe: I would welcome your thoughts and forthright criticism of the following idea for an RFC (or mass MFD), which I have provisionally titled "WP:UNWANTEDPORTALS".
It picks up on an proposition repeatedly made by SmokeyJoe: that portals are a failed experiment, in which only a few have proven to attract readers. Joe has focused on the portals linked from the front page, which each gather over 1000 pageviews per day, and has suggested dumping the rest.
I have sympathy with Joe's idea, because WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... and because the threshold Joe uses is about the same as the pageview count for the head article of most portals (most of them are 1000+).
However, I think that Joe is setting the threshold too high. I think that a threshold of 50 or 100 pageviews a day would be sufficient to weed out a lot of the low-traffic, under-maintained portals, while recognising that some portals which are not on the front page do nonetheless sustain much more credible pageviews than than the mass of unviewed portals.
The list of portal pageviews for Q2 2019 breaks down interestingly. There are currently 904 portals, of which:
daily average pageviews | Number of portals | % of portals | Number of portals in this group or higher |
% of portals in this group or higher |
Number of portals lower than this group |
% of portals lower than this group |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
> 1000 | 11 | 1.22% | 11 | 1.22% | 893 | 98.8% |
501–1000 | 0 | 0% | 11 | 1.22% | 893 | 98.8% |
251–500 | 3 | 0.33% | 14 | 1.55% | 890 | 98.5% |
101–250 | 42 | 4.64% | 56 | 6.19% | 848 | 93.8% |
51–100 | 90 | 9.96% | 146 | 16.2% | 758 | 83.8% |
26–50 | 181 | 20.0% | 327 | 36.2% | 577 | 63.8% |
<25 | 577 | 63.8% | 904 | 100% | — | — |
So while Joe's suggestion would remove 98.8% of portals, I think that';s unlikely to gain consensus.
So my idea is to set a threshold of pageviews, and triage portals into three groups, as follows:
Then offer various options:
I think that gives a reasonable range of options, but I worry that it may be too complicated.
Whaddayall think? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
From SJ:
From BF:
Britishfinance ( talk) 00:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
From USian
From Hut 8.5
I agree that portals have largely been a failed experiment and I would support getting rid of most of the ones we have at the moment. I'm not sure pageviews are the right metric to use for this though. The only other situation I can think of where we use pageviews to determine whether to keep or delete something is at RfD, where they are sometimes used to determine whether a redirect represents a real search term or not, and even then the use is to determine whether the redirect has any human views at all. Judging from a few clicks on Special:Random most articles would be deleted if we imposed a threshold of 100 pageviews a month. For portals I suspect pageviews are largely a function of how prominently we link to the portal, rather than any particular property of the portal itself.
I suspect a proposal to nominate most remaining portals for deletion will meet with quite a lot of pushback, as you can see from the responses this proposal got. I'd suggest waiting a while and then focusing on the portals which have the least value, such as those in the <25 bracket above. These portals likely have little value and eliminating them would get rid of more than half the remaining portals.
If I had to come up with a suggestion for criteria we should use for having a portal on some topic I would suggest something like this:
Hut 8.5 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
From RMcC
First, I thank User:BrownHairedGirl for a useful analysis. Second, I have just proposed that there should be an RFC, but a policy RFC and not a mass MFD. My preference is to proceed with a policy RFC. I share the sadness and concern of BHG about the "sullen passivity" of a group of portal advocates, who continue to say that portal critics are ignoring the expressed views of the community (basing that statement largely on an ambiguous RFC a year ago). So I would prefer that the community be surveyed as to its views again, and that there be no mass deletion of portals until the views of the community are surveyed again. Perhaps the community agrees with User:SmokeyJoe that portals are a failed experiment. Perhaps the community only agrees with me that there have been two failed experiments, partial subpage portals and automated portals.
If we are to triage portals based on pageviews, my preference would be to keep those with 100 daily pageviews and delete those with less than 25 pageviews, which is a hybrid of two of BHG's options that leaves a larger middle zone. However, I would prefer to survey the views of the community with a new RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
To go here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I wanted to ask you more about the technical limitations of Categories that you brought up at the RFC draft. Do you know what work, if any, has been done? I liked a lot of the ideas you suggested and wanted to take a look to see how hard it would be to add some of these features. Are there any other improvements to categories you think could be done software side? Wug· a·po·des 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I see Newshunter12 recently tried to blame me for attempting to hack your account and I just wanted to tell you that it wasn't me (I did troll him and a few others) and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he the one that brought up the fact someone attempted to hack your account a few months ago before you had even said anything about it ? How could he possibly have known about it unless he or one of his cronies did it. 198.8.81.74 ( talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to unravel the details if I saw either of these two warring sides actually trying to uphold Wikipedia policies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you entered the death info for this old hockey player, and I'm wondering how you got Drummondville, November 20, 1985. Official death records for Quebec list DOD as February 14, 1985, but they don't include a city of death. Any info appreciated. Thanks. Researchguy ( talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am going away from keyboard for a few weeks. Plus I have a serious real life issue which demands constant attention for several weeks. I have just now added myself as a maintainer for roughly a half dozen portals that either I think I can improve or that I think are important to improve. I'd ask that I be allowed a few months to work with those portals before you nominate them for deletion. I ask that if any portals come up for deletion in which I am listed as maintainer, please email me. Thank you BusterD ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
On a completely serious note, I am concerned about your redirect of Portal:South America to Portal:Latin America. Of the 27 countries of Latin America, only 11 are located in South America. Eight are located in the Caribbean, six in Central America, and two in northern North America. You wish to delete Portal:Americas, so that would leave no portal for South America. Seriously, what would you propose? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. - I'm not really sure how we got into this mini-feud since we both desire the same basic things for Wikipedia. You think deletion will get us there, and I think a few things should be preserved. Could we end the name calling? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. The name calling is over. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dlight92 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Since you created Portal:Samoa, Portal:South America, Portal:Tokelau, Portal:Tonga, Portal:Vanuatu, and Portal:Wallis and Futuna, would you consider deleting them? Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your Caribbean portal redirects are Portal:Bonaire, Portal:Martinique, Portal:Montserrat, Portal:Saint Barthélemy, Portal:Saint Kitts and Nevis, Portal:Saint Lucia, Portal:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Portal:Sint Eustatius, Portal:Sint Maarten, and Portal:Turks and Caicos Islands. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Portal|CountryName}}
was generating redlinks. So I started creating redirects./info/en/?search=Template:Nature_timeline
The links to the right of the graphic overlap, is there any way this can be fixed ?
I'm not sure how the messages on here work so can you please correspond with me via my email kmouse1968@gmail.com
Many thanks. Kerry McCutcheon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.35.239 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Drewsky1211 is a Sockpuppet of /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Newshunter12 they have a similar editing style and often edit the same pages. Do you have checkuser access ? Can you confirm it ? 157.157.87.118 ( talk) 04:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=NATO Here it's written: "The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization."
NATO intervention was NOT required, thus nullyfing the entire potency and purpose of the UN. Bombing other sovereign nations is not NATO's mission nor obligation as Serbia was answering only on attacks from Albanian paramilitary forces in Kosovo. Bombing Serbia should be under Controversy section of this article as they were also intentionally destroying state-owned factories and infrastructure, targeting civilians and helping ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo by killing people for organ transplants. Also they were using cluster bombs which are not allowed by Geneva's war convention.
Some references about NATO conspiracy against Serbia can be found on this page: /info/en/?search=Kosovo_Liberation_Army
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.79.44.149 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Per WP:C1. This is not category redirect, but a redirect in category namespace which is also (now) an empty category.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police, 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. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for removing links to deleted portals. However, I've noticed that the way you do it does not unlink them from {{ Subject bar}}. Can you take a look at it? (see something like Saint Peter#External links for syntax). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
portal3=John Smith
code, without having to renumber any higher-numbered parameters.Thanks for your work cleaning out portals. However, in case you are planning to do more edits
like this, leaving {{Portal-inline|size=tiny}}
in the article gives "Lua error in Module:Portal-inline at line 16: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'root' (a string value)", see
Johnny Cash#See also. I could fix the module so it outputs nothing, but that would leave an empty asterisk in an empty see also section. It's probably better to remove the see also altogether. There are currently 56 articles in
Category:Pages with script errors and I think most of them are due to this problem. I could put a more convenient list of the 56 articles somewhere if wanted. I can fix these if you like but you are much more familiar with the state of portals. For example, I don't know if there are plans to insert something in the blank templates in the near future.
Johnuniq (
talk) 04:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Portal-inline|size=tiny}}
(and variants), but hadn't quite cracked it. Your msg spurred me on the fix that, so I ran the fixes across all the articles in that set, and fix them all in
these edits.{{Portal-inline}}
is that there will be some empty "see also" sections. I think that's probably best left that way, because I haven't figured out a regex which would reliably remove only empty "see also" sections without false positives. I am also not too worried about it, because a clearly empty section is an easy manual fix, whereas most editors wouldn't have known what to do with a {{Portal-inline|size=tiny|Foo}}
which produced no output.News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
A tag has been placed on Category:The Go Set albums 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. In your nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) you say that on the portal's talk page an editor "asked whether this abandoned portal should be deleted". That's incorrect; the editor was referring to an unused subpage of the portal. It might be a good idea to strike that part of the nom. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello @BrownHairedGirl. I posted in incident report on the Admin Noticeboard, but presumably because the thread has become long-winded, a judgement has still not been made, and it's moved into archive. [10] I scanned the Admin noticeboard, and thought you seemed very sober and thorough in your judgements, so would it be possible to make some kind of ruling on this issue? Otherwise the other party's reverts are likely to continue. To get your head around the issue, just reading the last three posts in the thread (where I sought a yes/no answer from the other party) may save time. Thanks for your assistance. ClearBreeze ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ ClearBreeze: sorry, I missed this when you posted it.
But after reading WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Editor:_Wikitigresito, I remind you that ANI is a place to resolve conduct issues. It is not a venue for content disputes. And this is a content dispute.
I agree with those who suggested that you raise it at Talk:Berlin Palace. If you can't find agreement there, then try WP:3O. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Has it not gone beyond a content dispute when an editor refuses point-blank to permit a full-referenced fact in an article, and, as he stated at ANI, refuses to negotiate on that point? Surely it then becomes an issue of conduct? ClearBreeze ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all the Cats (categories).
Vinegarymass911 (
talk) 06:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Since you like to hide things, I'll try the direct approach.
Now that you've created the epithet the Notorious Portalspammer for User:The Transhumanist, can you come up with one for me? The Burgundy Templater perhaps? (Burgundy ribbons signify Multiple Myeloma, which you seem to find humorous. I've also created 7,570 active template pages.) Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I came across your above discussion on abandoned portals and became very intrigued about the topic. As you know, I participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) discussion after reading your thorough analysis and investigation of that portal, and reading the portal myself. I once spent a significant amount of time cleaning up pages for a different fandom, Fruits Basket, which included removing long abandoned junk articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyo Sohma, cleanup like this and more. It was all stuff created during the years the manga was still coming out, but editor interest sharply withered within a year or two of the manga's end. A new anime series based on the manga is actually currently coming out so there is some renewed interest now.
It seems like your portal cleanup is very similar in nature to the cleanup I did for Fruits Basket, so I am interested in understanding the portal cleanup effort. Is it just you who's undertaking this and what is the end goal? Where precisely would you ideally like to see the portal section of Wikipedia end up? I don't see myself nominating any for deletion, but would like to contribute to the cleanup effort now that I know there is a mess. (Since some people have been causing a lot of trouble in this sphere, it seems prudent to say that if I end up at any more MfD's, I'm doing so of my own accord, so no one can justly accuse BHG of canvassing me.) Thank you! Newshunter12 ( talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 – Thank you for asking about portals. I will try to add a little to what User:BrownHairedGirl has written. Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that can be used for showcasing, navigation, instruction or promotion, and for fun. Th.ey have always been a feature of Wikipedia, and, since 2006, have been in Portal space. Some editors are very enthusiastic about portals. I have never known exactly why, and I am inclined to think that, because they can't explain clearly what the advantages of portals are, they must be something that are liked because they are seen as technically neat. (I once worked on testing a computer system that may have had a lot of leading-edge software components that were selected because they were technically neat. It was a technical mess.) I don't know what value the advocates of portals think that they add, so I think that they must be seen as technically neat, rather than as functionally valuable.
As the essays that BHG has listed explain, portals are intended to be maintenance-intensive, but normally they are not maintained. I think that the advocates of portals, whom some of us call portalistas, are denying the need for maintenance.
In any case, early in 2018, when there were just under a thousand portals in existence (I think – I haven't checked my notes for the numbers), there was an RFC to delete all portals. It was closed with a consensus not to delete all portals, but with no other specific conclusions. Then a task force that I call the portal platoon decided that we (English Wikipedia) needed more portals, and decided to create thousands of more portals. They did this more or less quietly, and had created a total of 5700 portals, and most of the new portals were just automated crud. I then reported the thousands of portals at WP:AN, and since then some of us have been bringing portals to MFD for deletion. The portalistas have been claiming that we are waging a "war on portals". (I think they conducted a sneak attack by creating thousands of them, but that is only my opinion.) Most of the portals that were created in the wave of reckless portal creation were deleted in two bulk nominations to MFD that were expertly submitted by User:BrownHairedGirl. But since then, she and I and a few other editors who are skeptical about how much portals add have been working slowly to nominate some of the abandoned portals for deletion. We have the number of portals back down below a thousand now. Many of the portal deletion debates are bitter and unpleasant. Obviously the portalistas and portal platoon think that portals are valuable. I really don't understand what the value is, other than being technically neat.
Any informed assistance that we can be given in checking the status of portals and deleting the cruddiest ones will be appreciated. I don't think that we have a specific endpoint. I think that some of us who are trying to clean up portals would like to see a few hundred high-quality portals, and some of us would prefer to see more like twenty, or to delete all of them except for the main page, which is a super-portal and is labor-intensive. Do you have any specific questions at this point? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
I understand that the New York page is a dab page, however, I believe that Portal:New York should remain as a redirect to Portal:New York (state), because changing it to a dab page would "break" or at least cause confusion to hundreds of pages that use this Portal. I suppose we could change all the pages that pages that use this portal, most of which are meant to go to the New York state portal. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
, currently shows the flag of New York State. That can be changed, but this is the status quo. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding some of your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf, surely you can convey your points about the strength of other editor's arguments without referring to them as "portalistas" or "liars". Even where legitimate rebuttals are made, the use of terms intended to describe the person being rebutted can overshadow the rebuttal itself. I would stress, in fact, that even if someone is a liar, the more effective counterargument is to treat their misstatements of fact as products of ignorance than of malice. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@ BD2412 and SmokeyJoe: Unfortunately, we have a serious problem. A bunch of editors who want to retain even abandoned junk portals (i.e portalistas) have taken to trying to sway MFD debates by repeatedly asserting as fact points which are demonstrably untrue and which they demonstrably know to be untrue.
I have taken to calling this out per WP:SPADE. But of course, I am open to suggestions of other ways to challenge these attempts to use mendacity to subvert consensus formation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl I agree with User:bd2412 and User:SmokeyJoe in particular as to the allegation than NA1k and others are lying. In English, there is a clear distinction between lying and the statement of seriously incorrect facts. We really should stretch the Assumption of Good Faith a long way for them. We know that they can't explain why they want portals, and the least unlikely explanation is that they believe things that we either can't understand or are just plain wrong. So I really believe that when they are saying things that are not true, they are not lying, but they have confused themselves or persuaded themselves of serious error. They aren't lying. Give them that assumption of good faith. Their stated facts are bunk, but they are bunk that they believe. (A Flat earth believer isn't lying when they say the Earth is flat. They believe it. It is just absurdly wrong. Similarly, the portal advocates have their own facts, and a man or woman is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts, but that doesn't make the non-facts lies.
Dropping the use of the allegation of "lying" would improve civility. Robert McClenon ( talk) 11:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Inter-county Gaelic footballers, 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. 2001:BB6:A94:7658:6576:CC5E:AF6A:DC2D ( talk) 09:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC_about_articles_on_three_digit_numbers. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Take this to WP:DR or WP:AN. I am not a one-woman court to act as judge, jury and executioner in a cases of alleged misconduct in complex content disputes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in banning a disruptive user who has a long history of engaging in edit-warring, misrepresenting data, specifically targeting Wikipedia articles that revolve around a single topic to push an agenda, and is an all-around Wikipedia dragon who is just polluting honest discourse on the encyclopedia. He's widely disagreeable, with his disruptive edits going as far back as 2017. I've spoken with other admins over this topic and they've all pretty much said that it's all a very technical issue to go about with since he's been getting away with this behavior for so long, and has essentially created consensus with this aforementioned 2-year-long, trackable campaign. I'm positive I can prove he is being disruptive and is attempting to push a narrative through the wiki, which is why I'm pursuing this route rather than trying to debunk ALL of the information he has individually put out. What are my options with this user? HueyXocoatzin ( talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ HueyXocoatzin: thanks for your message.
The first thing I need to say is that absolutely no way that I or any other responsible admin will jump at the request of one editor and ban another editor over a content dispute. There are too many layers of inappropriateness in that request for me to explain them all without a vast screed, so I'll summarise with a brief quote from my user page:
The core of this matter is a content dispute. Where two editors disagree about content, I would expect the disagreement to proceed roughly as follows:
Instead, I see that you produce no evidence of any of those steps, just a request for me to parachute in and ban someone.
No no no no. I am not gonna do that.
Please note that I have not formed a view on who is right here. It may be that one of you is POV-pushing, or that the other is POV-pushing, or that you both are, or that nobody is POV-pushing and that it's all just a misunderstanding.
Please also note that I have not formed a view on whose conduct is better here. It may be that one or other of you is a saint and the other a miscreant, but I have not attempted to weigh that. Maybe you are both rogues? Or maybe you are both great editors whose wires are crossed.
What I am seeing here is:
So, please, both @ HueyXocoatzin and Pob3qu3: take this to the article's talk page and follow WP:DR. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For cleanup after portal deletions ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there how are you? I noticed you were recently editing Addiction and thought if you had time and I could interest you could assist me as many others have in my cleanup and improvement of the Digital media use and mental health category.
Theres a few page move / terminology discussions 1. Here (social media addiction) 2. Here (Internet addiction disorder)
and also I have had a lot of input from others here for considering the FA nomination of the mother article, Digital media use and mental health, if you have any further input!
New question today about the inclusion of internet sex addiction in digital media use and mental health - here. Terminology - should we call it problematic cybersexual behaviour, for instance?
Thanks so much for any thoughts! -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what exactly could've triggered a response like this. I don't know if I insulted you in some way or if I was being particularly rude. I wanted to present my case in full, and I'm sure part of the process would be to let the person being accused of disruptive editing make a case for themselves, I don't think I have any power over whether I want them to make a case for themselves or not. I think there was a misunderstanding of what I meant by "not engaging him", which I meant not continuing this toxic cycle of back and forths that go no where. I wouldn't want to interfere in the process to get this issue resolved. I think I came at this a little too hot, which I really shouldn't expect anyone to just sympathize with right off the bat given a massive lack of background. Again, sorry for offending you. I'd like to know where I went wrong in this. HueyXocoatzin ( talk) 07:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon, I recommend Portal:Land of Oz be brought to MfD. It has essentially been abandoned for a decade (the creator only touched it for about a week and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2007). The DYK section was last constructively updated in 2008. The Oz books section has been touched twice since 2009, the last time in 2015. The things to do section last touched in 2012. The wikiproject section untouched since creation in 2011, while the associated wikiproject is long dead. The categories section last constructively edited in 2011. There was a rename in May and an editor claimed they were going to do a lot of work on it, but didn't follow through. All these little sub-pages got title updates in May, by the way. The page view count is abysmal. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 3 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is even more stark, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day.
As you know, this is my first time evaluating a portal and I did the best I could. I hope you find this helpful and please let me know if/how I can better prepare portal reports for your evaluation. Newshunter12 ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Another crud portal ripe for MfD: Portal:NASCAR It has essentially been completely abandoned since the sole fan-maintainer (Nascar1996) left Wikipedia in 2017 (aside from a few stray edits elsewhere into Feb 19), but parts of the page have been abandoned for a decade (the creator only created the portal, never touched it again, and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2012). Five of the six biographies are virtually unchanged since 2010, while one was created in 2016. All 10 pictures were uploaded in 2010-11 and do not well reflect current drivers, car designs, or league names in descriptions. The news section was last touched in 2015. but it is automated. However, the five pieces of posted news are from 2013-16, and three are from 13-14 about Jeff Gordon, who retired in 2015. He's a legend in the sport, so it's exceedingly noticeable to anyone who knows much about NASCAR. The DYK section was last updated in 2010. The selected article section has 15 articles, but 10 were added to the portal in 2010-11, two in 2012, and three in 2015, and they are overwhelmingly about individual races over just a few years. The wikiproject section is untouched since 2011, and while the two primarily associated wikiprojects are still active in 2019, those wider communities don't appear to have ever been a part of this portal; only the maintainer did both. The categories section has same content as in 2010. The topics section unchanged from 2010. The page view count is low. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 11 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is grim, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day. From June 1 2019 until, July 30, the head article NASCAR had a visit rate per day of 1330.
In sum, this portal was always just a fan creation of Nascar1996, built to their taste, generally stuck in 2010-11 and left to completely rot when they didn't want it anymore. It's also funny that the NASCAR portal is old, decrepit, and has declining popularity because that perfectly describes NASCAR itself! Maybe this portal does belong... It is stuck nearer happier years for NASCAR after all. Newshunter12 ( talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Denisarona ( talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article? I'm not American and am not sure about them. Thanks Denisarona ( talk) 05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, this is Fgt30256. I'm creating a wikipedia page for my company( /info/en/?search=Draft:Nreal). As a wiki rookie, I've researched and followed all the rules to create the draft(please forgive me if there's still something wrong or missing). The article is objective and cited from well-known media.
My friend suggested me contacting a wiki editor to get the feedback and eventually get the articles published. Wondering if there's anything missing or I should do to get this draft published.
Thanks in advance and have a nice day.
Fgt30256 ( talk) 08:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Vermont ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
vs.
— Ched : ? — 02:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2019 in Uzbekistani football leagues 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 is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)