hello there,
You said that you were focusing on other tasks during my work on filling bare URL pdfs when it came to BareRefBot. I have been making improvements to the bot for a while so I would love to proceed with the next steps (if you think the bot is still necessary) Rlink2 ( talk) 13:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
I saw the "bare URL" banner you added today to the page Comparison of orbital launcher families; after a little searching, I found one instance of a bare URL that someone added years ago (in the table entry for the Japanese H3 launcher) and proceeded to convert it to a regular reference with author, date, title, and link. Your comment to the edit adding the banner stated that there's still one instance of bare URL on that page, so this now should have been rectified; I'll leave it to you to remove the banner from that page in case there are more unnoticed bare URLs on that page. Cheers! Spotty's Friend ( talk) 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
http
in the search box, and press F3 to find successive occurrences.You've tagged many entries on my watch list with the "1 citation" tag (such as the opening tag at Works based on Alice in Wonderland) so there must be many more. If a page has dozens of cites, yet one or even more are missing data, it doesn't seem encyclopedic or helpful to add the subjectively ugly tag onto the entire page. Can you rethink using these? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
the "1 citation" tag, by which I assume you mean {{ One source}} ... but I don't add that banner to articles with more than one source. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BHG, I had very rarely seen Citation bot edits anywhere until a while back when we had an editing dispute, that I completely forget the details of. Now, they are present and made by you at nearly every article I edit. With this timing and the consistency, you cannot convince me it is a coincidence. Your actions are petty and inappropriate, and I consider it harassment. However you may try to justify it, even if you think you are making improvements, you cannot dispute that actively choosing to stalk my edits and then needlessly editing the same articles almost every single day is wrong.
Since these edits are occasionally meh, mostly detrimental (seriously, the tool is shit), but easy to ignore or revert, I have stayed silent, until now; I did not think an adult(?) could be using Wikipedia edits out of spite so consistently for so long, but that is a you problem.
No, I come here now because it is completely ridiculous to add maintenance banners at the top of articles for a single bare url, especially when tagging is an option. I do not know why you thought it was a good idea in the slightest; you tag bare urls on articles I edit all the time. I am struggling to find a good faith reason for
the edit, but will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
However, with the incessant history, it has prompted me to tell you that I do consider your targeted edits/stalking after an editing conflict to be harassment, and since these edits are now more disruptive, I request you stop. This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow. Stop, or I will take further steps to
resolution.
Kingsif (
talk)
06:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
stalkingand
harassmentare not just wrong; they are utterly unfounded. They are a blatant assumption of bad faith, and also easily disproven by any examination of the facts.
This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow.
A few hours after closing the discussion above, I got curious: what was my previous encounter with Kingsif ( talk · contribs)?
I found it in my archives at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 068#February_2022.
It's a pattern of conduct depressingly similar to that above. In February, Kingsif came to my talk, guns ablaze with bogus accusation, based on that occasion on a quote which Kingsif had fabricated. They launched into a barrage of personal attacks against me.
After that, I banned Kingsif from my talk.
I have no idea what causes Kingsif to fabricate quotes, to repeatedly assume bad faith, to ignore evidence, and to make streams of angry personal attacks. But I see no reason at all the indulge such appalling conduct, so for avoidance of doubt Kingsif, do not post on my talk page ever again, for any reason or on any topic. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank You BrownHairedGirl for Your help and I can still use more of it ...Please help me get this article to up to Wiki standards...I am just a novice and can use all of the help I can get. Thank You Once Again... Chico 9 ( talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I finished bare URL tagging as of the 20220920 WP:Database dump.
That means that on every article which had one or more bare URLs as of the 20220920 database dump, either:
This means that for the first time, Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations does actually contain all articles, because all are tagged.
Note that sadly, hundreds of new bare URL refs are added to articles to every day. Those are picked up in the next database dump, and either filled by @ Citation bot (CB), inline-tagged by my User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites AWB runs, or if CB fails after multiple passes I add the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner.
Thanks to everyone who has helped reduce the backlog. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to be another one of the people stopping by and letting you know that I thought the banner you’re dropping all over the place is ugly. Many of these will probably just sit at the top of these pages forever…. I routinely find citation needed templates that are over 10 years old. This is just adding to that same type of clutter. Regards ShaveKongo ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
dropping [the banner] all over the place. I have added it to ~16,000 pages this month, making a total as of right now of 44,006 pages with the banner. That is only 0'67% of all articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl are you no longer an admin? Ishan87 ( talk) 12:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you explain why you made this edit please? The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 06:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I decided to have a go at resolving some of the pages you'd recently tagged (after doing the one mentioned above), so picked on the initial "P", and hit a question on the first attempt: Push (2009 film). The bare URL ( https://www.cgccomics.com/census/search-results.aspx?title=push&issue=1&matchtype=anywhere) leads to a log-on page, no access for non-members. The link was added by an IP in their only edit. Where do we go now, to save other editors wasting time following the steps I've just done? Perhaps ask for an expert from a relevant WikiProject? What do you think?
Best wishes! Pam D 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
There's another in Port Adelaide, again added by IP. Pam D 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
In Klais Orgelbau, I looked in vain for the link rot, - in edit more I found that the ref with a bare url was commented out. I may have done that even, meeting a dead link and commenting it out, rather than deleting. I deleted it now, because I believe that the tag causes more harm for the article than not being able to find some history easily. Can the script perhaps be refined, ignoring bare urls in hidden comments= -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Truss denies.<ref>http://dailyscurillous.net/Truss-denial {{Bare URL inline|date=September 2022}}</ref>
References
@ Gerda Arendt: A wee update. I found my old code for commented-out bare URLs, and got to work. On my first pass of the ~44K articls with untagged bare URLs in the 20220920 database dump, I found 28 articles with commented-out bare URLs. I tagged all 28.
I then ran all 28 through my remove-redundant-{{ Cleanup bare URLs}}-banner script, which removed the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner from 12 of those 28 articles.
Out of ~44K articles with the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, 12 is a very low error rate.
However, this may not be the full total. Many web browsers accept as HTML comments markup which is invalid, but which is not too far removed from the correct syntax. This fuzziness cause difficulties for a task such as this, because it's hard to know how much to loosen the rules. I will experiment a bit more, and see where I get to. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
BrownHairedGirl,Hi and Thank You for Your Reply and I know You are very busy...When You can get a chance, could you take a look at the James Chico Hernandez article and take down the banner you put up...“This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as Reflinks (documentation), reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)” if it meets the Criteria of Wiki statdards...Again Thank You for your time as I tried my best to clean it up. Chico 9 ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to thank you for replacing the archive.ph with archive.today links on the MSNBC article. I didn't know that the owner requested links to archive.today instead of the individual domains until today.
I had a bit of a question about linking within citations and the citation process in general. I linked the MSNBC links in the citations on the MSNBC page itself because I sometimes copy the citation and paste it directly in another page and in those pages, the link would be functional. I understand it's normally pointless to self link on the page itself but I figured that it might be useful for those circumstances of reusing a citation. Is that alright or is it better to just not do that and let whoever may copy-paste the reference in the future handle that?
My other question was about references in general since you also seem to do a lot of work on them as well. I sometimes get hooked on a project of fixing up an article's references like I did with the MSNBC page but it is a time consuming process; I was wondering if it is useful work or if there's an automated process that does this efficiently. I use ProveIt and tried ReFill and several other tools and love them for what they do with doi's and ISBNs but have found most of them are more spotty if fed URL's or pdf reports so I end up doing those manually through ProveIt. I only ask because I'd hate to put in all the time to fixing them up if there's a different bot or tool that I don't know about that does it better. Thanks in advance. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Real life calls and I must stop hunting bare URLs for now: there is now only one left in the "P" section of Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from June 2021 - about an hour's work to take 12 articles out of the category - see my contributions list. (Couldn't resolve Pomeroy–Mason_Bridge - link to a US newspaper, dead to me and not in Internet Archive, which may or may not be a valid link from the other side of the pond). So at that rate your 95k articles, at 5 minutes each, should take us 7,916 hours of editing. Well, between us we can chip away at it. The ones I fixed were an interesting mix - pdf press release, a pdf of a journal article which I sourced to a better location, pdfs of NHRP inventory forms (there might be a template for those, but I couldn't find one on a quick check), etc. In almost all cases I could turn a bare URL into an informative reference. It's a valid and useful project, and you're doing the encyclopedia a great service.
Presumably some of these articles are on people's watchlists, though I'm beginning to wonder just how many articles are totally unwatched. This week I found an editor who for three years has been making edits which include a mixture of (a) converting inappropriately to US spellings, (b) changing spelling inside quotes, even in one case where it said "[sic]", (c) and generally showing that English isn't their mother tongue and that they are probably using some sort of spell-checker, as in changing "Bibliomemoir" to "Bibliometric" in Elizabeth Gaskell, which is what led me to them (I was reading the article and couldn't understand what "bibliometric" meant in that context!) and "to night" to "tonight" in "changed to night flying..." in Strategic bombing, as well as a lot of clumsy addition of "the" which varied from unnecessary to damaging ("where X owned property" to "where X owned the property", etc). Stuff like changing "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years sea state is a normal demand for design of ships and offshore structures." in Sea state to the unintelligible "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, the sea state is a normal demand for the design of ships and offshore structures.". Aaargh. I spent an afternoon cleaning up their mess, but only a tiny proportion of their edits (10%?) had been reverted, although most were made a couple of years ago. Depressing. When people ask "But surely anyone could add rubbish to Wikipedia" I always tell them that there are people watching the article and reverting rubbish edits: I fear there are not enough of us doing so.
Ah well, stay cheerful. At least you're not in the UK with our appalling new PM. Pam D 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I've tried to improve cites on Kentridge. Is the bare URL banner still needed? Thanks, Mick gold ( talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with old-style lang-sh invokation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G8
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. — andrybak ( talk) 19:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:Referendums in the Philippines has been nominated for 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. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia! You are appreciated. Bkatcher ( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
It seems that the Scottish rapper Darren McGarvey, known as Loki, has been watching Wikipedia:
First person punches second person in the face.
Second person: Ouch you c#nt why the f#ck did you do that?
First person: I am now drafting a letter to complain about your language. My punching you is neither here nor there. Words matter.
It's called GASLIGHTING
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This kompletely Kafkaesque. Tamzin's comment[2] at ANI "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil makes it clear that she is punishing me for describing the bad actions of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block has now expired. The consensus in the AN/I discussion was that it not be lifted prior to its expiration. 28bytes ( talk) 01:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to better understand something. What is the difference between a warning and a threat, if any? wbm1058 ( talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This is turning out to be a very interesting episode. Several editors have commented at WP:ANI#Unblock request about how they regard it as utterly unacceptable to describe another editor's actions as "sneaky", or "nasty". AFAICS, none of those who has expressed that view has made any criticism whatsoever of the admin who had made a series of very bad closes, and who sought revenge for WP:ADMINACCT by trying to get me blocked (the nasty bit) and who actively sought to do so without notifying me (the sneaky bit).
This is absolute textbook victimisation: punishing someone for making a complaint in terms which some feel are excessively blunt, but failing to even properly consider the substantive complaint.
I want to be absolutely and unequivocally clear about where I stand on this. Victimisation is a hallmark characteristic is a dysfunctional institution, aa is using tone-policing to suppress and dismiss complaint against authority.
I will not in any way concede to either of these tactics. I am over 50 years old, and have spent most of my adult life one way or another engaged professionaly in campaigns against injustice, most of them successful. I have worked at all levels of authority, up to meeting ppl at cabinet-level in government, and I have taken campaigns from being untouchable to having their goals legislated as statute law. So I have seen a lot of how those wit power handle dissent. I have also had significant experience in my own personal life of abusive conduct, and of the consequences of various strategies for handling it (I have tried most of them).
Over these decades I have learnt that those who behave badly will often try to deter criticism and to deligitimise their critics. This is a tactic used by institutions, by gangs, by political groups, and by individuals. It is an old tactic, and it often works -- which is why it keeps on being used.
But it is a tactic which is always used to divert attention away from discussion of the substance. And that's what's happening here.
If that is going to how Wikipedia is run, then that is sad. But no matter how big the pile-on in support of victimisation, I will not in any way bend to the victimisation.
I am aware that we are now into the re-victimisation phase. My objections to the sneaky actions of UtherSRG have been explicitly treated at ANI as being extra problematic because they follow me accurately describing as sneaky the actions of another editor more than two years ago.
Again, that is part of the pattern. The critic of bad conduct can be treated more harshly now because they had previously described bad conduct.
And of course, this pattern is common to many organisations, most of which start out with noble goals, but which in time ossify, and lose the ability to self-critique. So no surprise; just sadness. Wikipedia had a chance of being better, but seems to be choosing a culture of polite mediocrity which supresses debate and dissent. It's a old story. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I used two words to describe this policy-breaching conduct, which are not in any sense swearwords. They are common terms of reproach. But editor who blocked me, decided that my use of those two terms to describe a policy breach was the only wrong to be considered.While I agree Wiki drama can often be toxic and may have been in this case, if I can offer a nuanced reinterpretation here, and I apologize in advance, and please correct me if I'm not interpreting this all correctly: the community and the blocking admin saw this as a bright line and easy to ascertain wrong, and that's because of your history and past sanction, of which I don't know about the specifics, but it means the bar is low to treat minor infractions a certain way (whether that is fair or not, I cannot say, but that was a given and the status quo going in). It was not the only wrong: I believe UtherSRG's unwillingness to reopen his close was wrong, but then you responded to him in a way that came off as slightly snippy and miffed (probably unintentional, but that was the effect it had). His infraction is more complex given he agreed to step back from closes to revisit his approach, and as you say, the discussion had been closed before he sought to sanction you for the incivility, so it's hard to see a path forward on that since he is already agreeing to slow down and revisit. Unfortunately, his idea to sanction you had the effect of provoking you: you then responded with the curtailed "terms of reproach" as you say. The reason why "sneaky" and "nasty" are on the list, but "cruddy" might not be so clearly bad even, is because sneaky and nasty both imply some mental state by the actor, and some motivation and characterization of the origination of the activity. It's a side effect of Wikipedia's value system. It has nothing to do with etiquette or vulgarity, and everything to do with not assuming good faith. Had you simply continued to engage and point out concerns in an unemotional way without going so far to call the mental state of the opponent any specific thing, there would be no grounds to block you. Only offering this to try to be helpful. I have also noticed a phenomenon a few users that were watching you, and took an opportunity to opine against you when you came up on a noticeboard: something to be aware of, and certainly perhaps part of the toxic environment. Andre 🚐 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG
U:BrownHairedGirl. This is is very odd, and it looks to me to be a form which would arise from someone starting to link my name, but backing off to avoid pinging me. In other word, not just the omission of a ping, but what is probably the intentional avoidance of a ping.
I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, and invites Wbm1058 to apply sanction on me without any further discussion. In other words, UtherSRG, wanted me to be sanctioned without warning and without a prior discussion.
so far as I was concerned, the RM issue was over, and had been resolved to our mutual satisfaction.It seems to me that it had been resolved to your satisifcation but not UtherSRG's. Namely he was dissatisfied with the way you had addressed him during the interaction. Does that seem right to you as well? Assuming that the answer is yes, how would you like Uther to have raised this with you? Clearly the answer is directly but I'm actually curious about what specific words he could have used to help productively resolve that element of the issue. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise.
The decent, collegiate approach would have been that after all the RM issues had been resolved[14] on 5 Oct, UtherSRG should then have followed up with a message to me setting out their concerns. That could have been in a followup post on their own talk, or in a post to my talk.) is exactly what should have been done. If that approach was followed then there would be less drama. Aditionally BHG should have been pinged in the discussion with WBM. If there was a problem, they should have taken a stand against BHG there and then, not follow what she said and then engage in a backstreet conversation. Or even if they wanted the opinion of another editor, they should have had the courtesy to tag BHG in so she is not taken in by suprise. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BHG and her supposed incivility, this would indisuptably have been the right path to take. Rlink2 ( talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 North American wildfires etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:People from Chitinsky District has been nominated for merging. 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) 10:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:American Samoan male archers indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious if you of anything stopping anyone from maintaining Reflinks. The code seems to be at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/sources/. — Qwerfjkl talk 11:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
believethat?
I believeis a phrase best reserved for religious faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I apologize if I should be asking elsewhere - and if there's a better place, I will welcome redirection! An experienced editor recently removed a particular cite from a dozen or so articles, on the mistaken belief that the destination site of an archived url was a spam site. He posted a request to have the site blacklisted here - /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#arlingtoncemetery.org .
The problem I believe is how archive cites are worded/displayed "ArlingtonCemetary.org". an unofficial website.
Archived from the original on June 19, 2010. Retrieved March 5, 2015
The first hyperlink to arlingtoncemetary.org goes to the actual original archived content, but the hyperlink in the text "Archived from the original" takes the reader to the current cite - which is indeed a site with no content supporting the reference. I've clicked on the original a fair number of times myself over the years, which always causes a flicker of confusion because it's not 'the original'.
Is there a way to format the cite so that it either has the original link go to the archived url, or change the wording so it's less ambiguous?
Again, absolutely - if there's a better place to ask this please just point me there. Thank you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=unfit
or usurped
in the cite, the original is not linked at all. Maybe that accomplishes what you are hoping to achieve? –
Archer1234 (
talk)
00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.A tag has been placed on Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales talk 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Joseph Osei-Owusu—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Singlechart usages for Swiss Romandy has been nominated for 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. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear
I think the problem of bare link on the page Ivana Franke has been fixed. Can you please remove the maintenance template? Thank you, Rupert4471 ( talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.A tag has been placed on Category:2017 Bolivarian Games event navigational boxes indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. — andrybak ( talk) 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Douglas Shawcross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Banks Irk ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ==
afd Banks Irk ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
User 90.241.173.177 continually changes the status of Balfron to 'town' from 'village'. The community is referred to as a village in Local Authority documentation, and by the local Community Council. Although it is well provided for, it is still a 'village'. There is an explanation on the talk page but User 90.241.173.177 seems unable to accept that. It is a minor issue, but in my view worth dealing with. Can you help? Shipsview ( talk) 09:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Irish actors ( Colin Farrell) and writers ( Francis McCourt) have described what they have called a typical house structure, but are somewhat vague. I think it was described as two up and two down and front door at sidewalk level. You describe yourself as living in Ireland and you seem to be familiar with wikipedia, so I was wondering if such an article exists or you could start one 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 04:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Template:Bare URLs chart for May 2022 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. X5163x ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Cheers! For putting in 2 cents on my first-ever created page. I'm American, but my mother was born of two Irish parents from Limerick. So, cheers, again. Chaimon 02:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC) |
Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Rlink2 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Rlink2 ( talk) 04:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Original Barnstar | |
Happy New Year, BrownHairedGirl! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1110 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 6 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 ( talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC) |
BrownHairedGirl,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Col. Hauler indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axeman12 indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morethan3words indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
hello there,
You said that you were focusing on other tasks during my work on filling bare URL pdfs when it came to BareRefBot. I have been making improvements to the bot for a while so I would love to proceed with the next steps (if you think the bot is still necessary) Rlink2 ( talk) 13:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
I saw the "bare URL" banner you added today to the page Comparison of orbital launcher families; after a little searching, I found one instance of a bare URL that someone added years ago (in the table entry for the Japanese H3 launcher) and proceeded to convert it to a regular reference with author, date, title, and link. Your comment to the edit adding the banner stated that there's still one instance of bare URL on that page, so this now should have been rectified; I'll leave it to you to remove the banner from that page in case there are more unnoticed bare URLs on that page. Cheers! Spotty's Friend ( talk) 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
http
in the search box, and press F3 to find successive occurrences.You've tagged many entries on my watch list with the "1 citation" tag (such as the opening tag at Works based on Alice in Wonderland) so there must be many more. If a page has dozens of cites, yet one or even more are missing data, it doesn't seem encyclopedic or helpful to add the subjectively ugly tag onto the entire page. Can you rethink using these? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
the "1 citation" tag, by which I assume you mean {{ One source}} ... but I don't add that banner to articles with more than one source. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BHG, I had very rarely seen Citation bot edits anywhere until a while back when we had an editing dispute, that I completely forget the details of. Now, they are present and made by you at nearly every article I edit. With this timing and the consistency, you cannot convince me it is a coincidence. Your actions are petty and inappropriate, and I consider it harassment. However you may try to justify it, even if you think you are making improvements, you cannot dispute that actively choosing to stalk my edits and then needlessly editing the same articles almost every single day is wrong.
Since these edits are occasionally meh, mostly detrimental (seriously, the tool is shit), but easy to ignore or revert, I have stayed silent, until now; I did not think an adult(?) could be using Wikipedia edits out of spite so consistently for so long, but that is a you problem.
No, I come here now because it is completely ridiculous to add maintenance banners at the top of articles for a single bare url, especially when tagging is an option. I do not know why you thought it was a good idea in the slightest; you tag bare urls on articles I edit all the time. I am struggling to find a good faith reason for
the edit, but will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
However, with the incessant history, it has prompted me to tell you that I do consider your targeted edits/stalking after an editing conflict to be harassment, and since these edits are now more disruptive, I request you stop. This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow. Stop, or I will take further steps to
resolution.
Kingsif (
talk)
06:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
stalkingand
harassmentare not just wrong; they are utterly unfounded. They are a blatant assumption of bad faith, and also easily disproven by any examination of the facts.
This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow.
A few hours after closing the discussion above, I got curious: what was my previous encounter with Kingsif ( talk · contribs)?
I found it in my archives at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 068#February_2022.
It's a pattern of conduct depressingly similar to that above. In February, Kingsif came to my talk, guns ablaze with bogus accusation, based on that occasion on a quote which Kingsif had fabricated. They launched into a barrage of personal attacks against me.
After that, I banned Kingsif from my talk.
I have no idea what causes Kingsif to fabricate quotes, to repeatedly assume bad faith, to ignore evidence, and to make streams of angry personal attacks. But I see no reason at all the indulge such appalling conduct, so for avoidance of doubt Kingsif, do not post on my talk page ever again, for any reason or on any topic. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank You BrownHairedGirl for Your help and I can still use more of it ...Please help me get this article to up to Wiki standards...I am just a novice and can use all of the help I can get. Thank You Once Again... Chico 9 ( talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I finished bare URL tagging as of the 20220920 WP:Database dump.
That means that on every article which had one or more bare URLs as of the 20220920 database dump, either:
This means that for the first time, Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations does actually contain all articles, because all are tagged.
Note that sadly, hundreds of new bare URL refs are added to articles to every day. Those are picked up in the next database dump, and either filled by @ Citation bot (CB), inline-tagged by my User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites AWB runs, or if CB fails after multiple passes I add the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner.
Thanks to everyone who has helped reduce the backlog. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to be another one of the people stopping by and letting you know that I thought the banner you’re dropping all over the place is ugly. Many of these will probably just sit at the top of these pages forever…. I routinely find citation needed templates that are over 10 years old. This is just adding to that same type of clutter. Regards ShaveKongo ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
dropping [the banner] all over the place. I have added it to ~16,000 pages this month, making a total as of right now of 44,006 pages with the banner. That is only 0'67% of all articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl are you no longer an admin? Ishan87 ( talk) 12:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you explain why you made this edit please? The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 06:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I decided to have a go at resolving some of the pages you'd recently tagged (after doing the one mentioned above), so picked on the initial "P", and hit a question on the first attempt: Push (2009 film). The bare URL ( https://www.cgccomics.com/census/search-results.aspx?title=push&issue=1&matchtype=anywhere) leads to a log-on page, no access for non-members. The link was added by an IP in their only edit. Where do we go now, to save other editors wasting time following the steps I've just done? Perhaps ask for an expert from a relevant WikiProject? What do you think?
Best wishes! Pam D 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
There's another in Port Adelaide, again added by IP. Pam D 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
In Klais Orgelbau, I looked in vain for the link rot, - in edit more I found that the ref with a bare url was commented out. I may have done that even, meeting a dead link and commenting it out, rather than deleting. I deleted it now, because I believe that the tag causes more harm for the article than not being able to find some history easily. Can the script perhaps be refined, ignoring bare urls in hidden comments= -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Truss denies.<ref>http://dailyscurillous.net/Truss-denial {{Bare URL inline|date=September 2022}}</ref>
References
@ Gerda Arendt: A wee update. I found my old code for commented-out bare URLs, and got to work. On my first pass of the ~44K articls with untagged bare URLs in the 20220920 database dump, I found 28 articles with commented-out bare URLs. I tagged all 28.
I then ran all 28 through my remove-redundant-{{ Cleanup bare URLs}}-banner script, which removed the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner from 12 of those 28 articles.
Out of ~44K articles with the {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, 12 is a very low error rate.
However, this may not be the full total. Many web browsers accept as HTML comments markup which is invalid, but which is not too far removed from the correct syntax. This fuzziness cause difficulties for a task such as this, because it's hard to know how much to loosen the rules. I will experiment a bit more, and see where I get to. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
BrownHairedGirl,Hi and Thank You for Your Reply and I know You are very busy...When You can get a chance, could you take a look at the James Chico Hernandez article and take down the banner you put up...“This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as Reflinks (documentation), reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)” if it meets the Criteria of Wiki statdards...Again Thank You for your time as I tried my best to clean it up. Chico 9 ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to thank you for replacing the archive.ph with archive.today links on the MSNBC article. I didn't know that the owner requested links to archive.today instead of the individual domains until today.
I had a bit of a question about linking within citations and the citation process in general. I linked the MSNBC links in the citations on the MSNBC page itself because I sometimes copy the citation and paste it directly in another page and in those pages, the link would be functional. I understand it's normally pointless to self link on the page itself but I figured that it might be useful for those circumstances of reusing a citation. Is that alright or is it better to just not do that and let whoever may copy-paste the reference in the future handle that?
My other question was about references in general since you also seem to do a lot of work on them as well. I sometimes get hooked on a project of fixing up an article's references like I did with the MSNBC page but it is a time consuming process; I was wondering if it is useful work or if there's an automated process that does this efficiently. I use ProveIt and tried ReFill and several other tools and love them for what they do with doi's and ISBNs but have found most of them are more spotty if fed URL's or pdf reports so I end up doing those manually through ProveIt. I only ask because I'd hate to put in all the time to fixing them up if there's a different bot or tool that I don't know about that does it better. Thanks in advance. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Real life calls and I must stop hunting bare URLs for now: there is now only one left in the "P" section of Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from June 2021 - about an hour's work to take 12 articles out of the category - see my contributions list. (Couldn't resolve Pomeroy–Mason_Bridge - link to a US newspaper, dead to me and not in Internet Archive, which may or may not be a valid link from the other side of the pond). So at that rate your 95k articles, at 5 minutes each, should take us 7,916 hours of editing. Well, between us we can chip away at it. The ones I fixed were an interesting mix - pdf press release, a pdf of a journal article which I sourced to a better location, pdfs of NHRP inventory forms (there might be a template for those, but I couldn't find one on a quick check), etc. In almost all cases I could turn a bare URL into an informative reference. It's a valid and useful project, and you're doing the encyclopedia a great service.
Presumably some of these articles are on people's watchlists, though I'm beginning to wonder just how many articles are totally unwatched. This week I found an editor who for three years has been making edits which include a mixture of (a) converting inappropriately to US spellings, (b) changing spelling inside quotes, even in one case where it said "[sic]", (c) and generally showing that English isn't their mother tongue and that they are probably using some sort of spell-checker, as in changing "Bibliomemoir" to "Bibliometric" in Elizabeth Gaskell, which is what led me to them (I was reading the article and couldn't understand what "bibliometric" meant in that context!) and "to night" to "tonight" in "changed to night flying..." in Strategic bombing, as well as a lot of clumsy addition of "the" which varied from unnecessary to damaging ("where X owned property" to "where X owned the property", etc). Stuff like changing "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years sea state is a normal demand for design of ships and offshore structures." in Sea state to the unintelligible "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, the sea state is a normal demand for the design of ships and offshore structures.". Aaargh. I spent an afternoon cleaning up their mess, but only a tiny proportion of their edits (10%?) had been reverted, although most were made a couple of years ago. Depressing. When people ask "But surely anyone could add rubbish to Wikipedia" I always tell them that there are people watching the article and reverting rubbish edits: I fear there are not enough of us doing so.
Ah well, stay cheerful. At least you're not in the UK with our appalling new PM. Pam D 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I've tried to improve cites on Kentridge. Is the bare URL banner still needed? Thanks, Mick gold ( talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with old-style lang-sh invokation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G8
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. — andrybak ( talk) 19:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:Referendums in the Philippines has been nominated for 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. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia! You are appreciated. Bkatcher ( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
It seems that the Scottish rapper Darren McGarvey, known as Loki, has been watching Wikipedia:
First person punches second person in the face.
Second person: Ouch you c#nt why the f#ck did you do that?
First person: I am now drafting a letter to complain about your language. My punching you is neither here nor there. Words matter.
It's called GASLIGHTING
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This kompletely Kafkaesque. Tamzin's comment[2] at ANI "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil makes it clear that she is punishing me for describing the bad actions of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block has now expired. The consensus in the AN/I discussion was that it not be lifted prior to its expiration. 28bytes ( talk) 01:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to better understand something. What is the difference between a warning and a threat, if any? wbm1058 ( talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This is turning out to be a very interesting episode. Several editors have commented at WP:ANI#Unblock request about how they regard it as utterly unacceptable to describe another editor's actions as "sneaky", or "nasty". AFAICS, none of those who has expressed that view has made any criticism whatsoever of the admin who had made a series of very bad closes, and who sought revenge for WP:ADMINACCT by trying to get me blocked (the nasty bit) and who actively sought to do so without notifying me (the sneaky bit).
This is absolute textbook victimisation: punishing someone for making a complaint in terms which some feel are excessively blunt, but failing to even properly consider the substantive complaint.
I want to be absolutely and unequivocally clear about where I stand on this. Victimisation is a hallmark characteristic is a dysfunctional institution, aa is using tone-policing to suppress and dismiss complaint against authority.
I will not in any way concede to either of these tactics. I am over 50 years old, and have spent most of my adult life one way or another engaged professionaly in campaigns against injustice, most of them successful. I have worked at all levels of authority, up to meeting ppl at cabinet-level in government, and I have taken campaigns from being untouchable to having their goals legislated as statute law. So I have seen a lot of how those wit power handle dissent. I have also had significant experience in my own personal life of abusive conduct, and of the consequences of various strategies for handling it (I have tried most of them).
Over these decades I have learnt that those who behave badly will often try to deter criticism and to deligitimise their critics. This is a tactic used by institutions, by gangs, by political groups, and by individuals. It is an old tactic, and it often works -- which is why it keeps on being used.
But it is a tactic which is always used to divert attention away from discussion of the substance. And that's what's happening here.
If that is going to how Wikipedia is run, then that is sad. But no matter how big the pile-on in support of victimisation, I will not in any way bend to the victimisation.
I am aware that we are now into the re-victimisation phase. My objections to the sneaky actions of UtherSRG have been explicitly treated at ANI as being extra problematic because they follow me accurately describing as sneaky the actions of another editor more than two years ago.
Again, that is part of the pattern. The critic of bad conduct can be treated more harshly now because they had previously described bad conduct.
And of course, this pattern is common to many organisations, most of which start out with noble goals, but which in time ossify, and lose the ability to self-critique. So no surprise; just sadness. Wikipedia had a chance of being better, but seems to be choosing a culture of polite mediocrity which supresses debate and dissent. It's a old story. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I used two words to describe this policy-breaching conduct, which are not in any sense swearwords. They are common terms of reproach. But editor who blocked me, decided that my use of those two terms to describe a policy breach was the only wrong to be considered.While I agree Wiki drama can often be toxic and may have been in this case, if I can offer a nuanced reinterpretation here, and I apologize in advance, and please correct me if I'm not interpreting this all correctly: the community and the blocking admin saw this as a bright line and easy to ascertain wrong, and that's because of your history and past sanction, of which I don't know about the specifics, but it means the bar is low to treat minor infractions a certain way (whether that is fair or not, I cannot say, but that was a given and the status quo going in). It was not the only wrong: I believe UtherSRG's unwillingness to reopen his close was wrong, but then you responded to him in a way that came off as slightly snippy and miffed (probably unintentional, but that was the effect it had). His infraction is more complex given he agreed to step back from closes to revisit his approach, and as you say, the discussion had been closed before he sought to sanction you for the incivility, so it's hard to see a path forward on that since he is already agreeing to slow down and revisit. Unfortunately, his idea to sanction you had the effect of provoking you: you then responded with the curtailed "terms of reproach" as you say. The reason why "sneaky" and "nasty" are on the list, but "cruddy" might not be so clearly bad even, is because sneaky and nasty both imply some mental state by the actor, and some motivation and characterization of the origination of the activity. It's a side effect of Wikipedia's value system. It has nothing to do with etiquette or vulgarity, and everything to do with not assuming good faith. Had you simply continued to engage and point out concerns in an unemotional way without going so far to call the mental state of the opponent any specific thing, there would be no grounds to block you. Only offering this to try to be helpful. I have also noticed a phenomenon a few users that were watching you, and took an opportunity to opine against you when you came up on a noticeboard: something to be aware of, and certainly perhaps part of the toxic environment. Andre 🚐 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG
U:BrownHairedGirl. This is is very odd, and it looks to me to be a form which would arise from someone starting to link my name, but backing off to avoid pinging me. In other word, not just the omission of a ping, but what is probably the intentional avoidance of a ping.
I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, and invites Wbm1058 to apply sanction on me without any further discussion. In other words, UtherSRG, wanted me to be sanctioned without warning and without a prior discussion.
so far as I was concerned, the RM issue was over, and had been resolved to our mutual satisfaction.It seems to me that it had been resolved to your satisifcation but not UtherSRG's. Namely he was dissatisfied with the way you had addressed him during the interaction. Does that seem right to you as well? Assuming that the answer is yes, how would you like Uther to have raised this with you? Clearly the answer is directly but I'm actually curious about what specific words he could have used to help productively resolve that element of the issue. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise.
The decent, collegiate approach would have been that after all the RM issues had been resolved[14] on 5 Oct, UtherSRG should then have followed up with a message to me setting out their concerns. That could have been in a followup post on their own talk, or in a post to my talk.) is exactly what should have been done. If that approach was followed then there would be less drama. Aditionally BHG should have been pinged in the discussion with WBM. If there was a problem, they should have taken a stand against BHG there and then, not follow what she said and then engage in a backstreet conversation. Or even if they wanted the opinion of another editor, they should have had the courtesy to tag BHG in so she is not taken in by suprise. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BHG and her supposed incivility, this would indisuptably have been the right path to take. Rlink2 ( talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 North American wildfires etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:People from Chitinsky District has been nominated for merging. 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) 10:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:American Samoan male archers indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious if you of anything stopping anyone from maintaining Reflinks. The code seems to be at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/sources/. — Qwerfjkl talk 11:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
believethat?
I believeis a phrase best reserved for religious faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I apologize if I should be asking elsewhere - and if there's a better place, I will welcome redirection! An experienced editor recently removed a particular cite from a dozen or so articles, on the mistaken belief that the destination site of an archived url was a spam site. He posted a request to have the site blacklisted here - /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#arlingtoncemetery.org .
The problem I believe is how archive cites are worded/displayed "ArlingtonCemetary.org". an unofficial website.
Archived from the original on June 19, 2010. Retrieved March 5, 2015
The first hyperlink to arlingtoncemetary.org goes to the actual original archived content, but the hyperlink in the text "Archived from the original" takes the reader to the current cite - which is indeed a site with no content supporting the reference. I've clicked on the original a fair number of times myself over the years, which always causes a flicker of confusion because it's not 'the original'.
Is there a way to format the cite so that it either has the original link go to the archived url, or change the wording so it's less ambiguous?
Again, absolutely - if there's a better place to ask this please just point me there. Thank you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=unfit
or usurped
in the cite, the original is not linked at all. Maybe that accomplishes what you are hoping to achieve? –
Archer1234 (
talk)
00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.A tag has been placed on Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales talk 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Joseph Osei-Owusu—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Singlechart usages for Swiss Romandy has been nominated for 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. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear
I think the problem of bare link on the page Ivana Franke has been fixed. Can you please remove the maintenance template? Thank you, Rupert4471 ( talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.A tag has been placed on Category:2017 Bolivarian Games event navigational boxes indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. — andrybak ( talk) 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Douglas Shawcross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Banks Irk ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ==
afd Banks Irk ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
User 90.241.173.177 continually changes the status of Balfron to 'town' from 'village'. The community is referred to as a village in Local Authority documentation, and by the local Community Council. Although it is well provided for, it is still a 'village'. There is an explanation on the talk page but User 90.241.173.177 seems unable to accept that. It is a minor issue, but in my view worth dealing with. Can you help? Shipsview ( talk) 09:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Irish actors ( Colin Farrell) and writers ( Francis McCourt) have described what they have called a typical house structure, but are somewhat vague. I think it was described as two up and two down and front door at sidewalk level. You describe yourself as living in Ireland and you seem to be familiar with wikipedia, so I was wondering if such an article exists or you could start one 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 04:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Template:Bare URLs chart for May 2022 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. X5163x ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Cheers! For putting in 2 cents on my first-ever created page. I'm American, but my mother was born of two Irish parents from Limerick. So, cheers, again. Chaimon 02:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC) |
Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Rlink2 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Rlink2 ( talk) 04:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Original Barnstar | |
Happy New Year, BrownHairedGirl! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1110 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 6 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 ( talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC) |
BrownHairedGirl,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Col. Hauler indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axeman12 indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morethan3words indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)