The only one that seems close to 100 is Category:Johnny Cash albums which has 81 but is erroneously included in the tracking category of 100+. Category:Buckethead albums, Category:Jandek albums, etc. I don't see any artist with more than 100 but even if there were only 100, how would a table of contents help navigate it since 200 appear on a single page? I'm just at a loss for how this can be helpful for a category that is used in the Category:Albums by artist scheme. Taking a look at that category, I'm not seeing any 100+ categories, do you? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Effect | Pages | % |
---|---|---|
No TOC | 602,862 | 87.82% |
Standard {{ Category TOC}} | 72,911 | 10.62% |
{{ Large category TOC}} | 10,673 | 1.55% |
Total | 686,446 | |
if you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. Not: your repeated failure to read and comprehend what has been written is your problem, not mine.
read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years. He has banged on about scrolling for years, based on extensive lab testing.
I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Since that was not clear enough, let me spell it out very clearly: STOP WASTING MY TIME. DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS THREAD UNLESS I LEAVE A MSG on YOUR TALK ASKING YOU TO POST HERE. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Tourist attractions in Viken (county) 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) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I left you two messages over on the talk page for that Wiki Project. Nerd271 ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hiya BHG, I found a "prostitutes" cat for Nepal in the article alert today. Naturally, I got curious how a Nepali prostitute could have become wikipedia notable. Turns out the article is Tulasa Thapa. It seems very wrong to me to categorise someone sold into sexual slavery as a prostitute (I find that insulting to both). Is there room for distinctions like that in our cat policies, or does she become a prostitute because the article has the word, and we can do nothing about it? Thought you might know. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the following is a personal statement, made solely to explain BHG's decisions in response to the ArbCom decision. It is not any way an attempt to open discussion on any of the issues raised.
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom has finalised its decision at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. I stand by my pledges at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#Statement_by_BHG (see box to the right), and I will observe ArbCom's restrictions for as long they apply and for as long as I continue to edit Wikipedia.
However, that continued editing will not be for long.
I accept ArbCom's decision to apply a strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and to censure me for what amounts to unparliamentary language. I accept that my use of direct language to describe the problems which I encountered was counter-productive, and I accept with regret ArbCom's decision to sanction me for that. But I have not been persuaded that I was materially wrong in identifying serious problems, which have been entrenched by ArbCom's findings.
I believe that ArbCom's decision is seriously flawed in several respects, including:
ArbCom decisions are not appealable. So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.
I know that this case presented ArbCom with a huge task, and I thank all the Arbs for their hard work and their sincerity. But the result is a decision that I cannot live with.
Additionally, I believe that ArbCom's decision exacerbates some systemic problems in Wikipedia, which I had hoped that it would try to help fix. I have described these problems in the proceedings, and I won't repeat them here. But I will note that first item of WP:Five pillars is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, which is a work of reference that requires scholarly rigour. Sadly, the development of policy and practice has allowed that overriding goal to be undermined by the prioritisation of secondary considerations. This decision by ArbCom exacerbates that problem.
Over the years, I have seen Wikipedia make progress on many systemic issues, so I have faith that there will eventually be progress on the systemic problems which I encountered. But their entrenchment for now places a serious barrier to editors who try to uphold quality.
So, after over 1.6 million edits in the course of over 14 years as an editor, and nearly 14 years as an admin, I will therefore wind up some incomplete tasks on my to-do list, and then leave Wikipedia. In the meantime I will also provide whatever assistance I can to other editors who would like guidance or tools for the tasks I used to perform. If you would like any pointers, please just ask.
I expect that this will take a few weeks. Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to play a part in building a unique contribution to human knowledge. For all Wikipedia's many flaws, it is overall a huge success, and hope that it will thrive, and find ways to overcome more of its systemic problems without sacrificing those who tackle them.
It has also been a great pleasure to work with so many fine editors who uphold encyclopedic principles and who apply critical thinking to their work. It is a great pity that Wikipedia does not value more highly those who use those critical skills. Instead, in practice it too often values superficiality over reason by preferring glib brevity over analysis, and prefers unchallenged assertion over actual debate. I have especially enjoyed those with whom I disagree, but who conduct a good debate; those debates are essential to any intellectual endeavour, ensuring that decisions are made by scrutiny rather than by cheerleading, and that crowdsourcing does not mean dumbing down. May the goddess continue to grant you strength to work in an environment which is increasingly biased against those who use critical thinking skills.
Please note again that this statement is intended solely as a one-off personal explanation of why I have decided that my time as editor will soon end. Please do not use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or my wider structural concerns. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you were desysopped. Let me state for the record that I think they're dead wrong on that and just as you said, think they missed the real case. Sorry this happened to you ! Necromonger... We keep what we kill 12:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry too to see this happening, but this is the common way that ArbCom is operating. They either remove the fuel or the oxygen, but never the heat. Unfortunately you are not the first one, and very, very unlikely to be the last one. People still keep voting for members to take their seat in this institute, and hence it continues without reform. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password... I ask of you to not do this. Please don't do something you'll regret; I'd hate to see it happen again. Feel free to leave, to take a long break, whatever- but this is not worth you losing your account. The less people we permanently lose, the better. On the topic of feeling down over the FOFs, there's been users before, like Rootology, Everyking, and Floq, who suffered some sort of blow and reprisal against them, but went on to become some of the most legendary users to edit. It's your choice, but I do not believe this is the end for you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log) In some cases, after an MfD that BHG had started was closed, she implemented the consensus decision at the request of the closer (as proper deletion of portals can be complicated). The Committee notes that some of these actions can be interpreted as technical violations of the WP:INVOLVED policy, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
The Committee is divided on whether or not such actions fit within the "routine maintenance" exception to the policy against administrators using their tools in situations in which they are involved, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. In a subsequent post at BrownHairedGirl's talk page(link), BHG (appropriately) confirmed that she was not permitted to discuss deletions of Portals. However, she then linked to an earlier comment that she had made in an ongoing Portal MfD and then indicated the outcome she saw as correct. This addition was inconsistent with the injunction. BrownHairedGirl also made comment(s) (link(s)) on arbitration case talk pages in which she argued her position with insults and by belittling other parties in the case. Greater than normal freedom is given to editors making a case before ArbCom but parties are also expected to maintain decorum. Casting aspersions or making ad hominem comments does not advance an argument and may reflect adversely on the commenter's adherence to Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
spirale of justice |
---|
I see I'm late to the party, but here are some thoughts of mine.
I hesitate to make comments relating to the arbcom case and its consequences, as you may well feel you have had far more than enough, but I really feel I have to add a few of my thoughts. For quite a while now I have thought that most of the members of the arbitration committee are fools, and your case has confirmed that belief to a large extent. (I thought of saying which of them I regard as exceptions to that generalisation, but that would turn my generic expression of contempt for an unspecified majority into personal attacks on those I didn't name as exceptions, so I'll leave it at that.) The conclusion that the abrbcom came to is absolutely absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree with the essential points of your view on "portals". I can't imagine why some editors think it worth putting their time and effort into those things instead of into useful work for the encyclopaedia. I therefore think your initial attempt to do something constructive about them was totally laudable. However, it seems to me that this whole stupid affair grew out of the fact that, when it became clear that your totally constructive and laudable attempts to deal with that crap were not going to achieve much, you allowed yourself to get sucked further and further in, instead of deciding that it wasn't worth pursuing, and walking away. Unfortunately, you got so involved that you lost your sense of proportion, and at times got carried away. Some of the things you did therefore deserve criticism, but deserving criticism for sometimes not keeping things in proportion is not the same as deserving the treatment you got. I also think that it is a gross miscarriage of justice for arbcom to present their conclusions as though you were the only person at fault. That was far from being the case. I should also say that, despite my negative comments about the arbitration committee, the vote for desysopping was only 9:6, so a very significant proportion of them (40%) had the sense to keep things in proportion. In the discussion, as you no doubt know, several of them said things to the effect that since the problems were restricted purely to the portal area there was no justification for removing your adminship, as opposed to just keeping you away from portals. I totally concur.
As for the exhortations in another section of this page to run an RfA, I am not so sure as those who have taken that line. My guess is that you've had more than enough of the whole affair, and don't have any interest in taking it even further. If you were to go for it, who knows how it would turn out? There would be many editors who, like those who have already commented on this page, would support you, and I would be among them. However, there would be those who would be against, some for stupid reasons, some for better reasons. My guess is that an RfA would succeed, but as I said, who knows? If I were in your position I don't think I would have the stomach for RfA, and I certainly shan't blame you if you don't. On the other hand I would very much like to see you take on a successful RfA, because we would regain one of the best administrators we had. I was going to say "and also because it would convey a message to arbcom", but on second thoughts it probably wouldn't: they would just think the RfA got it wrong and they were still right.
My very last comment is that I am delighted to see that so far you have continued to edit, despite what you said about leaving. See you around. JBW ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 on this, BHG: "[S]anctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with. ... [M]y concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body." Worse, this generally also applies to anything WP:AE does, because AE is ArbCom's delegated enforcement squad, and ArbCom will virtually never contradict what AE admins decide (it would undermine ArbCom's precious WP:AC/DS regime), much less expunge anything that AE wiki-cops decide to lodge against you, no matter what proof you have that the claims are false. Other editors have quit over the exact same "scarlet letter" effect you are feeling (both due to ArbCom findings and AE ones) and have been doing so for nearly a decade that I know of, probably longer.
I did myself for a year, but through blind luck a third-party got ArbCom to re-examine false AE claims against me, via ARCA (despite third-parties not normally being allowed to do that), and got the accusation against me modified to no longer be a blatant lie. That was sufficient for me to come back, but the odds of anyone getting a "justice" result like this today are probably like 1% or less. :-( ArbCom claims to be not bound by precedent but tends not to live up to this. Even when it modifies an old case page via motion, it just does strikethrough on the original nonsense and tacks on a revision, nor is there any way to get rid of the original version in the diffs, so people can always find a way to use old
WP:DRAMA against you. The only salve I've found is time, and even that is not a cure. E.g., I've had that same case and related AE drama from around 2012 thrown back in my face recently (which someone claiming that me making them unhappy on some page was part of a "long-term pattern of abuse" based on ancient ArbCom crap).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 20th century in the Orange Free State 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) 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This has suddenly started populating category redirects when the country in question subsequently changed its name - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the ones that have so far shown up. Any idea what's causing this and how to negate it? Timrollpickering ( Talk) 12:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: @
Timrollpickering, that should all now be fixed. I have updated
Template:Year in country category, so that it now takes a pair of parameters |newname=
and |newsnamestart=
. This allows intelligent handling of namecahnges.
I have't yet updated the documentation (because a number of other changes are underway), but the usage is fairly simple, as in these examples:
{{Year in country category|Nyasaland|Africa|the British Empire|newname=Malawi|newnamestart=1964}}
{{Year in country category|Burma|Southeast Asia|newname=Myanmar|newnamestart=1989}}
Now to deal with the countries which changed their name twice in one century. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Another case is Category:20th century in the Czech Republic - the correct category uses "Czech lands". Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
These categories have just been renamed with lots of bits left behind. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Enough, long ago.
This has been one of the least edifying episodes I have seen on my talk page for a long time, so I am closing it and giving myself the final word. (It's my talk page, so I get the final word here).
I also reckon that that this is on a path towards WP:ANI, so I am summarising the saga here to provide background for any ANI thread.
There is an open discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Muiscal_compositions, in which Gerda Arendt and I had a brief exchange. Gerda came here to tell me that she had a self-imposed limit of two comments per discussion. I think that's a very foolish stance, but it is her call.
Francis Schonken then piled on with repeated attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination, and Gerda joined in the discussion. So the pair of them had effectively forked the CFD discussion onto my talk ... but Gerda then resumed posting to the discussion page (at 06:48, 25 March 2020 [3] and 11:03, 25 March 2020 [4]). So the whole basis of coming here was baloney, and WP:MULTI applies. Both editors are sufficiently experienced to know not to fork discussions.
The substantive position of the pair of them is a series of specious arguments thrown out in a blatant FUD exercise to support their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance:
Gerda has been posting away at the CFD, but has explicitly refused to even read the list of nominated categories [5], and accused me overlooking a category [6] even though it was explicitly mentioned in the nominating statement. Gerda also claims that adding 8 characters to the category names will make themcluttered. [7] Spouting away in an XFD discussion without reading either the nominator's rationale or the list of nominated pages is blatant disruption, because it wastes the time of other editors who have to point out the errors made by the decision not to read, and of those who might read the saga of falsehoods and corrections.
As to Francis, he repeatedly makes the false assertion that WP:NCM requires the use of the bare word "compositions", rather than musical compositions. This is utter nonsense: there is no guidance anywhere on that page about using "compositions" rather than "musical compositions" in any context. The only mention of the Bach category which Francis cites is in the section WP:NCM#by_last_name_only, which is explicitly about disambiguating personal names, not about "compositions"/"musical compositions". Francis did this three times: (06:14 [8] (rebutted 11:21 [9]), 11:43 [10] (rebutted 12:04 [11]), 12:44 [12] (rebutted 13:11 [13]). Repetition of falsehoods is a disruptive attrition strategy.
To top it all, Francis has been using his barrage of falsehoods as a tool in his attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination (which I can't do, per WP:CSK, because the proposal has supporters). Francis has tried this three times at CFD (11:18 [14], 11:43 [15], and 12:44 [16]) ... and twice on this talk page (9:01 [17] and 12:19 [18]).
I was getting fed up with this nonsense, so at 12:27 [19] I explicitly asked Francis not to post here again ("get the hell off my talk page" .. "Do NOT reply to this here", edit summary "GET LOST"), but Francis replied here at 12:49 [20], again claiming that the discussion isa terrible time sink. I reverted that post.
I don't believe for a second that Francis is unable to understand "get the hell off my talk page", "Do NOT reply to this here" and "GET LOST". His decision to ignore that was just WP:HARASSMENT.
The only time sink here is Francis's strategy of disrupting consensus formation by barrages of FUD and falsehood. Creating a shitstorm and then claiming that the said self-started shitstorm is a time-sink is a WP:GAMEing strategy, and Francis's contempt for truth extends even to claiming in his post at 12:19 [21] that the CFD isis going nowhere good, even though at the time the CFD page showed 7 editors backing the proposal, and 3 opposed.
This pair of truth-averse, tag-teaming bullies have wasted several hours of my time. The community is entitled to expect much better from a pair of experienced editors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
... I am trained (by arbcom) to make two comments per discussion, no more, - it's a wise thing, just please don't think I'm not polite in case you miss a reply ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I'd kindly suggest you retract your Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions proposal, because it is based on a misrepresentation of the *actual* WP:C2D guidance. The example I gave is
which according to the actual WP:C2D guidance should be named as it currently is, per the eponymous article:
and not be renamed to (according to your proposal)
while then it would no longer conform to the actual WP:C2D guidance. This is a time sink for editors who have better things to do than point out to categorisation experts what the actual rules are, and prevent them from embarking on a recategorisation scheme proposal that would mean a massive breach of elementary rules (no matter how many editors you already convinced of wandering from actual rules based on an erroneous reasoning). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl: what I see happening is the "soldiering on" syndrome – which has caused so much damage before. Never taking a step back, never taking a minute to ponder someone else's take on the issue at hand. The last time I saw it happening I could in the end no longer support your stance, while the "soldiering on", irrespective of circumstances and meaningful thoughts by others, only further demonstrated your stance was untenable. Please retract your ill-conceived Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions proposal. This is going nowhere good – and frankly, the "time sink" aspect is becoming overwhelming. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
going nowhere good. It's going in the direction I wanted, albeit with a noisy barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruption by you. The only
'time sink' aspectis your disruptive antics.
These categories are to be merged. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Young Deuces 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) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Several year in Thailand category redirects have shown up on User:RussBot/category redirect log. I'm not sure what edit had caused this. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 16:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for correcting the Bob Winston article; it was a misspelled mistake and I should had paid better attention. I did added the corect category to he article. My thanks and apologies - RFD 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears, RexxS becomes the first editor who I ask to stay of my talkpage forever. No expiry date, no exceptions ... just no never.
I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
PS ANI disciusison about this: permalink; archived. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I've now drawn your attention to WP:INDENTMIX twice. I would like to know why you insist on mangling the discussion for anybody trying to follow it with a screen reader. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
"Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
behaving like a spoilt brat. That is unacceptable conduct.
A tag has been placed on Category:1827 debut works 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) 02:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing our projects category TOCs —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
CatAutoTOC}}
.
—¿philoserf? (
talk)
21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)insource:/my_regex/
very helpful as I dig for understanding.
—¿philoserf? (
talk)
23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Hi BHG, in an hour and 10 minutes it appears that you made in excess of 1000 edits ( page 1, page 2, all with the summary "{{ Category TOC}} → {{ CatAutoTOC}} on categories with less than 100 pages". Could you please elaborate on this for me? I am concerned about the speed that this is going at. How many total are you foreseeing doing? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2010s Bosnia and Herzegovina television series endings 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) 02:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2016 disestablishments in Bosnia and Herzegovina 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) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Another case of a country changing its name with the category redirect getting populated by templates. I can't see what's caused this particular problem. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Done @ Timrollpickering: now fixed, in this edit [26] to Template:Year in Wales header.
The problem was that the template was doing an #ifexist test for Category:1803 in Great Britain, which worked fine until that category was created as a {{ Category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hallo BHG, Your to category:Stubs makes life slightly more difficult for me: I have a bookmark for Stubs beginning with "P" which I have a personal challenge of always clearing by stub-sorting. I then like to have a quick look at the rest of the category, to sort out any stubs which clearly need a DEFAULTSORT, or which have a disambiguation and might not have access through their base name title, or which look like interesting women, or suspiciously general-looking titles which might be a problem (overwriting etc) or anything else. Usually I click on "top" from the TOC line. Today I have to use "Previous page", but then see just the first couple of entries: there doesn't seem a very quick way to see the whole category listing, typically under 20 items. So for me, personally, your edit has a negative effect. Are there big benefits to it, or could you possibly revert it for the sake of one regular stub-sorter? Thanks, and stay well. Pam D 08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey BHG, I think there may be an issue with your edits to the Catgory TOC template code; many many cats (e.g. Category:2003 births) now have the redlinked cat Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 201–600 pages rather than the existing Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 200–599 pages. Can you look into this and fix it and any other issues that may have been created please? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This (and several related creations) seems to me to be missing the word 'sports'. However as the creator is BHG no less, perhaps I am mistaken. Oculi ( talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Category:2000s in Orissa, almost all categories use the spelling Odisha, including Category:2010s in Odisha. I see you created both the category and used a soft redirect at Category:2000s in Odisha. Perhaps there was ny reason to use the spelling Orissa, and not Odisha? Kindly let me know. Regards. -- Titodutta ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:People by city or town in County Dublin, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:57 beginnings 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) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:D DMBFFF ( talk) 04:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a controversial CFD going on since 2018. SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Just popped the question on: Naming convention classes
Regards Dragon Genoa ( talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
please check your recent edits - /info/en/?search=Category:2008_crimes_in_Oceania - I think you might find an odd fit there... JarrahTree 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, how has ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 2,001–5,000 pages ended up inside itself? As a result, it's listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For the renamings at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Mostly_winter_sports_by_year, would it be best to create a specific template for each sport, like Template:Year in women's cricket category header?
Or is there / are you planning to make a meta template that could cover all these?
Also, what's the regex to replace all the current content using JWB, please? – Fayenatic London 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are some others that you might wish to do:
– Fayenatic London 21:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to help with more of these, feel free:
– Fayenatic London 21:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi BHG, one TV category was just renamed from Category:Television by country by year to Category:Television by country and year.
I found the helpful Template:Television by time category navigation, which links to several others "by foo by bar" that I believe should be "by foo and bar".
As they seem to be mostly your sole work, would you mind if I simply renamed them summarily and adjusted the template, under G7 / IAR? – Fayenatic London 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs on the article- Masoumeh Aghapour Alishahi, specifically with the categories. Please I need your help further on them. I want to add these templates... {{ wikiproject women}}, {{ wikiproject COVID-19}}, and {{ wikiproject Women's health}}, but I don't know how to go about it. Although I added it on the talk page of the article, I'm not sure if this is right. Then there is this campaign to create or edit more articles during this covid-19 pandemic that was started by a Wikipedian by name Sarmad Said. So participants were advised to put the category: covid-19 challenge articles to indicate articles created within this period. That's what I was trying to do but not sure I did it right too. Please I will appreciate your assistance with doing them the right way. ( Ptinphusmia ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC))
Hello there, thanks for your contributions to this discussion. Thank you for being respectful during the conversation. 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 04:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Nintendo Switch Online games, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. czar 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
The only one that seems close to 100 is Category:Johnny Cash albums which has 81 but is erroneously included in the tracking category of 100+. Category:Buckethead albums, Category:Jandek albums, etc. I don't see any artist with more than 100 but even if there were only 100, how would a table of contents help navigate it since 200 appear on a single page? I'm just at a loss for how this can be helpful for a category that is used in the Category:Albums by artist scheme. Taking a look at that category, I'm not seeing any 100+ categories, do you? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Effect | Pages | % |
---|---|---|
No TOC | 602,862 | 87.82% |
Standard {{ Category TOC}} | 72,911 | 10.62% |
{{ Large category TOC}} | 10,673 | 1.55% |
Total | 686,446 | |
if you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. Not: your repeated failure to read and comprehend what has been written is your problem, not mine.
read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years. He has banged on about scrolling for years, based on extensive lab testing.
I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Since that was not clear enough, let me spell it out very clearly: STOP WASTING MY TIME. DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS THREAD UNLESS I LEAVE A MSG on YOUR TALK ASKING YOU TO POST HERE. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Tourist attractions in Viken (county) 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) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I left you two messages over on the talk page for that Wiki Project. Nerd271 ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hiya BHG, I found a "prostitutes" cat for Nepal in the article alert today. Naturally, I got curious how a Nepali prostitute could have become wikipedia notable. Turns out the article is Tulasa Thapa. It seems very wrong to me to categorise someone sold into sexual slavery as a prostitute (I find that insulting to both). Is there room for distinctions like that in our cat policies, or does she become a prostitute because the article has the word, and we can do nothing about it? Thought you might know. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the following is a personal statement, made solely to explain BHG's decisions in response to the ArbCom decision. It is not any way an attempt to open discussion on any of the issues raised.
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom has finalised its decision at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. I stand by my pledges at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#Statement_by_BHG (see box to the right), and I will observe ArbCom's restrictions for as long they apply and for as long as I continue to edit Wikipedia.
However, that continued editing will not be for long.
I accept ArbCom's decision to apply a strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and to censure me for what amounts to unparliamentary language. I accept that my use of direct language to describe the problems which I encountered was counter-productive, and I accept with regret ArbCom's decision to sanction me for that. But I have not been persuaded that I was materially wrong in identifying serious problems, which have been entrenched by ArbCom's findings.
I believe that ArbCom's decision is seriously flawed in several respects, including:
ArbCom decisions are not appealable. So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.
I know that this case presented ArbCom with a huge task, and I thank all the Arbs for their hard work and their sincerity. But the result is a decision that I cannot live with.
Additionally, I believe that ArbCom's decision exacerbates some systemic problems in Wikipedia, which I had hoped that it would try to help fix. I have described these problems in the proceedings, and I won't repeat them here. But I will note that first item of WP:Five pillars is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, which is a work of reference that requires scholarly rigour. Sadly, the development of policy and practice has allowed that overriding goal to be undermined by the prioritisation of secondary considerations. This decision by ArbCom exacerbates that problem.
Over the years, I have seen Wikipedia make progress on many systemic issues, so I have faith that there will eventually be progress on the systemic problems which I encountered. But their entrenchment for now places a serious barrier to editors who try to uphold quality.
So, after over 1.6 million edits in the course of over 14 years as an editor, and nearly 14 years as an admin, I will therefore wind up some incomplete tasks on my to-do list, and then leave Wikipedia. In the meantime I will also provide whatever assistance I can to other editors who would like guidance or tools for the tasks I used to perform. If you would like any pointers, please just ask.
I expect that this will take a few weeks. Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to play a part in building a unique contribution to human knowledge. For all Wikipedia's many flaws, it is overall a huge success, and hope that it will thrive, and find ways to overcome more of its systemic problems without sacrificing those who tackle them.
It has also been a great pleasure to work with so many fine editors who uphold encyclopedic principles and who apply critical thinking to their work. It is a great pity that Wikipedia does not value more highly those who use those critical skills. Instead, in practice it too often values superficiality over reason by preferring glib brevity over analysis, and prefers unchallenged assertion over actual debate. I have especially enjoyed those with whom I disagree, but who conduct a good debate; those debates are essential to any intellectual endeavour, ensuring that decisions are made by scrutiny rather than by cheerleading, and that crowdsourcing does not mean dumbing down. May the goddess continue to grant you strength to work in an environment which is increasingly biased against those who use critical thinking skills.
Please note again that this statement is intended solely as a one-off personal explanation of why I have decided that my time as editor will soon end. Please do not use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or my wider structural concerns. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you were desysopped. Let me state for the record that I think they're dead wrong on that and just as you said, think they missed the real case. Sorry this happened to you ! Necromonger... We keep what we kill 12:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry too to see this happening, but this is the common way that ArbCom is operating. They either remove the fuel or the oxygen, but never the heat. Unfortunately you are not the first one, and very, very unlikely to be the last one. People still keep voting for members to take their seat in this institute, and hence it continues without reform. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password... I ask of you to not do this. Please don't do something you'll regret; I'd hate to see it happen again. Feel free to leave, to take a long break, whatever- but this is not worth you losing your account. The less people we permanently lose, the better. On the topic of feeling down over the FOFs, there's been users before, like Rootology, Everyking, and Floq, who suffered some sort of blow and reprisal against them, but went on to become some of the most legendary users to edit. It's your choice, but I do not believe this is the end for you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log) In some cases, after an MfD that BHG had started was closed, she implemented the consensus decision at the request of the closer (as proper deletion of portals can be complicated). The Committee notes that some of these actions can be interpreted as technical violations of the WP:INVOLVED policy, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
The Committee is divided on whether or not such actions fit within the "routine maintenance" exception to the policy against administrators using their tools in situations in which they are involved, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. In a subsequent post at BrownHairedGirl's talk page(link), BHG (appropriately) confirmed that she was not permitted to discuss deletions of Portals. However, she then linked to an earlier comment that she had made in an ongoing Portal MfD and then indicated the outcome she saw as correct. This addition was inconsistent with the injunction. BrownHairedGirl also made comment(s) (link(s)) on arbitration case talk pages in which she argued her position with insults and by belittling other parties in the case. Greater than normal freedom is given to editors making a case before ArbCom but parties are also expected to maintain decorum. Casting aspersions or making ad hominem comments does not advance an argument and may reflect adversely on the commenter's adherence to Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
spirale of justice |
---|
I see I'm late to the party, but here are some thoughts of mine.
I hesitate to make comments relating to the arbcom case and its consequences, as you may well feel you have had far more than enough, but I really feel I have to add a few of my thoughts. For quite a while now I have thought that most of the members of the arbitration committee are fools, and your case has confirmed that belief to a large extent. (I thought of saying which of them I regard as exceptions to that generalisation, but that would turn my generic expression of contempt for an unspecified majority into personal attacks on those I didn't name as exceptions, so I'll leave it at that.) The conclusion that the abrbcom came to is absolutely absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree with the essential points of your view on "portals". I can't imagine why some editors think it worth putting their time and effort into those things instead of into useful work for the encyclopaedia. I therefore think your initial attempt to do something constructive about them was totally laudable. However, it seems to me that this whole stupid affair grew out of the fact that, when it became clear that your totally constructive and laudable attempts to deal with that crap were not going to achieve much, you allowed yourself to get sucked further and further in, instead of deciding that it wasn't worth pursuing, and walking away. Unfortunately, you got so involved that you lost your sense of proportion, and at times got carried away. Some of the things you did therefore deserve criticism, but deserving criticism for sometimes not keeping things in proportion is not the same as deserving the treatment you got. I also think that it is a gross miscarriage of justice for arbcom to present their conclusions as though you were the only person at fault. That was far from being the case. I should also say that, despite my negative comments about the arbitration committee, the vote for desysopping was only 9:6, so a very significant proportion of them (40%) had the sense to keep things in proportion. In the discussion, as you no doubt know, several of them said things to the effect that since the problems were restricted purely to the portal area there was no justification for removing your adminship, as opposed to just keeping you away from portals. I totally concur.
As for the exhortations in another section of this page to run an RfA, I am not so sure as those who have taken that line. My guess is that you've had more than enough of the whole affair, and don't have any interest in taking it even further. If you were to go for it, who knows how it would turn out? There would be many editors who, like those who have already commented on this page, would support you, and I would be among them. However, there would be those who would be against, some for stupid reasons, some for better reasons. My guess is that an RfA would succeed, but as I said, who knows? If I were in your position I don't think I would have the stomach for RfA, and I certainly shan't blame you if you don't. On the other hand I would very much like to see you take on a successful RfA, because we would regain one of the best administrators we had. I was going to say "and also because it would convey a message to arbcom", but on second thoughts it probably wouldn't: they would just think the RfA got it wrong and they were still right.
My very last comment is that I am delighted to see that so far you have continued to edit, despite what you said about leaving. See you around. JBW ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 on this, BHG: "[S]anctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with. ... [M]y concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body." Worse, this generally also applies to anything WP:AE does, because AE is ArbCom's delegated enforcement squad, and ArbCom will virtually never contradict what AE admins decide (it would undermine ArbCom's precious WP:AC/DS regime), much less expunge anything that AE wiki-cops decide to lodge against you, no matter what proof you have that the claims are false. Other editors have quit over the exact same "scarlet letter" effect you are feeling (both due to ArbCom findings and AE ones) and have been doing so for nearly a decade that I know of, probably longer.
I did myself for a year, but through blind luck a third-party got ArbCom to re-examine false AE claims against me, via ARCA (despite third-parties not normally being allowed to do that), and got the accusation against me modified to no longer be a blatant lie. That was sufficient for me to come back, but the odds of anyone getting a "justice" result like this today are probably like 1% or less. :-( ArbCom claims to be not bound by precedent but tends not to live up to this. Even when it modifies an old case page via motion, it just does strikethrough on the original nonsense and tacks on a revision, nor is there any way to get rid of the original version in the diffs, so people can always find a way to use old
WP:DRAMA against you. The only salve I've found is time, and even that is not a cure. E.g., I've had that same case and related AE drama from around 2012 thrown back in my face recently (which someone claiming that me making them unhappy on some page was part of a "long-term pattern of abuse" based on ancient ArbCom crap).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 20th century in the Orange Free State 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) 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This has suddenly started populating category redirects when the country in question subsequently changed its name - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the ones that have so far shown up. Any idea what's causing this and how to negate it? Timrollpickering ( Talk) 12:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: @
Timrollpickering, that should all now be fixed. I have updated
Template:Year in country category, so that it now takes a pair of parameters |newname=
and |newsnamestart=
. This allows intelligent handling of namecahnges.
I have't yet updated the documentation (because a number of other changes are underway), but the usage is fairly simple, as in these examples:
{{Year in country category|Nyasaland|Africa|the British Empire|newname=Malawi|newnamestart=1964}}
{{Year in country category|Burma|Southeast Asia|newname=Myanmar|newnamestart=1989}}
Now to deal with the countries which changed their name twice in one century. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Another case is Category:20th century in the Czech Republic - the correct category uses "Czech lands". Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
These categories have just been renamed with lots of bits left behind. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Enough, long ago.
This has been one of the least edifying episodes I have seen on my talk page for a long time, so I am closing it and giving myself the final word. (It's my talk page, so I get the final word here).
I also reckon that that this is on a path towards WP:ANI, so I am summarising the saga here to provide background for any ANI thread.
There is an open discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Muiscal_compositions, in which Gerda Arendt and I had a brief exchange. Gerda came here to tell me that she had a self-imposed limit of two comments per discussion. I think that's a very foolish stance, but it is her call.
Francis Schonken then piled on with repeated attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination, and Gerda joined in the discussion. So the pair of them had effectively forked the CFD discussion onto my talk ... but Gerda then resumed posting to the discussion page (at 06:48, 25 March 2020 [3] and 11:03, 25 March 2020 [4]). So the whole basis of coming here was baloney, and WP:MULTI applies. Both editors are sufficiently experienced to know not to fork discussions.
The substantive position of the pair of them is a series of specious arguments thrown out in a blatant FUD exercise to support their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance:
Gerda has been posting away at the CFD, but has explicitly refused to even read the list of nominated categories [5], and accused me overlooking a category [6] even though it was explicitly mentioned in the nominating statement. Gerda also claims that adding 8 characters to the category names will make themcluttered. [7] Spouting away in an XFD discussion without reading either the nominator's rationale or the list of nominated pages is blatant disruption, because it wastes the time of other editors who have to point out the errors made by the decision not to read, and of those who might read the saga of falsehoods and corrections.
As to Francis, he repeatedly makes the false assertion that WP:NCM requires the use of the bare word "compositions", rather than musical compositions. This is utter nonsense: there is no guidance anywhere on that page about using "compositions" rather than "musical compositions" in any context. The only mention of the Bach category which Francis cites is in the section WP:NCM#by_last_name_only, which is explicitly about disambiguating personal names, not about "compositions"/"musical compositions". Francis did this three times: (06:14 [8] (rebutted 11:21 [9]), 11:43 [10] (rebutted 12:04 [11]), 12:44 [12] (rebutted 13:11 [13]). Repetition of falsehoods is a disruptive attrition strategy.
To top it all, Francis has been using his barrage of falsehoods as a tool in his attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination (which I can't do, per WP:CSK, because the proposal has supporters). Francis has tried this three times at CFD (11:18 [14], 11:43 [15], and 12:44 [16]) ... and twice on this talk page (9:01 [17] and 12:19 [18]).
I was getting fed up with this nonsense, so at 12:27 [19] I explicitly asked Francis not to post here again ("get the hell off my talk page" .. "Do NOT reply to this here", edit summary "GET LOST"), but Francis replied here at 12:49 [20], again claiming that the discussion isa terrible time sink. I reverted that post.
I don't believe for a second that Francis is unable to understand "get the hell off my talk page", "Do NOT reply to this here" and "GET LOST". His decision to ignore that was just WP:HARASSMENT.
The only time sink here is Francis's strategy of disrupting consensus formation by barrages of FUD and falsehood. Creating a shitstorm and then claiming that the said self-started shitstorm is a time-sink is a WP:GAMEing strategy, and Francis's contempt for truth extends even to claiming in his post at 12:19 [21] that the CFD isis going nowhere good, even though at the time the CFD page showed 7 editors backing the proposal, and 3 opposed.
This pair of truth-averse, tag-teaming bullies have wasted several hours of my time. The community is entitled to expect much better from a pair of experienced editors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
... I am trained (by arbcom) to make two comments per discussion, no more, - it's a wise thing, just please don't think I'm not polite in case you miss a reply ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I'd kindly suggest you retract your Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions proposal, because it is based on a misrepresentation of the *actual* WP:C2D guidance. The example I gave is
which according to the actual WP:C2D guidance should be named as it currently is, per the eponymous article:
and not be renamed to (according to your proposal)
while then it would no longer conform to the actual WP:C2D guidance. This is a time sink for editors who have better things to do than point out to categorisation experts what the actual rules are, and prevent them from embarking on a recategorisation scheme proposal that would mean a massive breach of elementary rules (no matter how many editors you already convinced of wandering from actual rules based on an erroneous reasoning). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@ BrownHairedGirl: what I see happening is the "soldiering on" syndrome – which has caused so much damage before. Never taking a step back, never taking a minute to ponder someone else's take on the issue at hand. The last time I saw it happening I could in the end no longer support your stance, while the "soldiering on", irrespective of circumstances and meaningful thoughts by others, only further demonstrated your stance was untenable. Please retract your ill-conceived Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions proposal. This is going nowhere good – and frankly, the "time sink" aspect is becoming overwhelming. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
going nowhere good. It's going in the direction I wanted, albeit with a noisy barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruption by you. The only
'time sink' aspectis your disruptive antics.
These categories are to be merged. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Young Deuces 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) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Several year in Thailand category redirects have shown up on User:RussBot/category redirect log. I'm not sure what edit had caused this. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 16:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for correcting the Bob Winston article; it was a misspelled mistake and I should had paid better attention. I did added the corect category to he article. My thanks and apologies - RFD 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears, RexxS becomes the first editor who I ask to stay of my talkpage forever. No expiry date, no exceptions ... just no never.
I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
PS ANI disciusison about this: permalink; archived. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I've now drawn your attention to WP:INDENTMIX twice. I would like to know why you insist on mangling the discussion for anybody trying to follow it with a screen reader. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
"Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
behaving like a spoilt brat. That is unacceptable conduct.
A tag has been placed on Category:1827 debut works 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) 02:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing our projects category TOCs —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
CatAutoTOC}}
.
—¿philoserf? (
talk)
21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)insource:/my_regex/
very helpful as I dig for understanding.
—¿philoserf? (
talk)
23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Hi BHG, in an hour and 10 minutes it appears that you made in excess of 1000 edits ( page 1, page 2, all with the summary "{{ Category TOC}} → {{ CatAutoTOC}} on categories with less than 100 pages". Could you please elaborate on this for me? I am concerned about the speed that this is going at. How many total are you foreseeing doing? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2010s Bosnia and Herzegovina television series endings 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) 02:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2016 disestablishments in Bosnia and Herzegovina 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) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Another case of a country changing its name with the category redirect getting populated by templates. I can't see what's caused this particular problem. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Done @ Timrollpickering: now fixed, in this edit [26] to Template:Year in Wales header.
The problem was that the template was doing an #ifexist test for Category:1803 in Great Britain, which worked fine until that category was created as a {{ Category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hallo BHG, Your to category:Stubs makes life slightly more difficult for me: I have a bookmark for Stubs beginning with "P" which I have a personal challenge of always clearing by stub-sorting. I then like to have a quick look at the rest of the category, to sort out any stubs which clearly need a DEFAULTSORT, or which have a disambiguation and might not have access through their base name title, or which look like interesting women, or suspiciously general-looking titles which might be a problem (overwriting etc) or anything else. Usually I click on "top" from the TOC line. Today I have to use "Previous page", but then see just the first couple of entries: there doesn't seem a very quick way to see the whole category listing, typically under 20 items. So for me, personally, your edit has a negative effect. Are there big benefits to it, or could you possibly revert it for the sake of one regular stub-sorter? Thanks, and stay well. Pam D 08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey BHG, I think there may be an issue with your edits to the Catgory TOC template code; many many cats (e.g. Category:2003 births) now have the redlinked cat Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 201–600 pages rather than the existing Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 200–599 pages. Can you look into this and fix it and any other issues that may have been created please? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This (and several related creations) seems to me to be missing the word 'sports'. However as the creator is BHG no less, perhaps I am mistaken. Oculi ( talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Category:2000s in Orissa, almost all categories use the spelling Odisha, including Category:2010s in Odisha. I see you created both the category and used a soft redirect at Category:2000s in Odisha. Perhaps there was ny reason to use the spelling Orissa, and not Odisha? Kindly let me know. Regards. -- Titodutta ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:People by city or town in County Dublin, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:57 beginnings 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) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:D DMBFFF ( talk) 04:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a controversial CFD going on since 2018. SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Just popped the question on: Naming convention classes
Regards Dragon Genoa ( talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
please check your recent edits - /info/en/?search=Category:2008_crimes_in_Oceania - I think you might find an odd fit there... JarrahTree 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, how has ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 2,001–5,000 pages ended up inside itself? As a result, it's listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For the renamings at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Mostly_winter_sports_by_year, would it be best to create a specific template for each sport, like Template:Year in women's cricket category header?
Or is there / are you planning to make a meta template that could cover all these?
Also, what's the regex to replace all the current content using JWB, please? – Fayenatic London 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are some others that you might wish to do:
– Fayenatic London 21:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to help with more of these, feel free:
– Fayenatic London 21:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi BHG, one TV category was just renamed from Category:Television by country by year to Category:Television by country and year.
I found the helpful Template:Television by time category navigation, which links to several others "by foo by bar" that I believe should be "by foo and bar".
As they seem to be mostly your sole work, would you mind if I simply renamed them summarily and adjusted the template, under G7 / IAR? – Fayenatic London 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs on the article- Masoumeh Aghapour Alishahi, specifically with the categories. Please I need your help further on them. I want to add these templates... {{ wikiproject women}}, {{ wikiproject COVID-19}}, and {{ wikiproject Women's health}}, but I don't know how to go about it. Although I added it on the talk page of the article, I'm not sure if this is right. Then there is this campaign to create or edit more articles during this covid-19 pandemic that was started by a Wikipedian by name Sarmad Said. So participants were advised to put the category: covid-19 challenge articles to indicate articles created within this period. That's what I was trying to do but not sure I did it right too. Please I will appreciate your assistance with doing them the right way. ( Ptinphusmia ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC))
Hello there, thanks for your contributions to this discussion. Thank you for being respectful during the conversation. 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 04:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Nintendo Switch Online games, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. czar 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)