Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 9 February 2017 (→Tornado close: re Amakuru: I will re-open-and-relist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Happy New Year!

Dear BrownHairedGirl,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Talk back

(second response)

Request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Hi, I know it probably falls out of your area of interests on Misplaced Pages but I wondered if I could possibly ask you to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State and give your comments as an admin? It's a little-edited topic and, considering the lack of third-party feedback in the article, I'm worried that the confrontation could escalate. Seasons greetings, —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron, and Happy New Year.

I have taken a look at the dispute there, and have formed some preliminary views. There is clearly quite a large divide between the two sides, and the issues are big, so I am going to sleep on this and have another look tomorrow. Then I will respond properly.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm sorry to bring this up again - I had hoped that this dispute was over but the user has returned to the article. He/she is continuing to ignore my comments (as well as those of two other users) and is getting increasingly belligerent and incoherent. (I suspect that part of the problem results from the user's grasp of English language.) I have never come across a situation like this before on Misplaced Pages and wondered what options there are to proceed further? Given the user's apparent inability to engage in reasonable and productive discussion - and the fact that his/her arguments keep shifting - I am pessimistic about the likelihood of a good outcome. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have raised this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State but have had little response from actual Admins. Could you provide a comment? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron

I am very sorry that having promised you a few weeks ago that I would contribute, I have not done so. This has not been an easy time offline, so I have been avoiding difficult stuff on en.wp where possible ... but I should have kept my promise. Sorry.

On my way to ANI now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My ANI comment is here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey it occurs to me that you're using the word "aggressive" frequently and you just disclosed how this word is related to your personal life, which is very regrettable to begin with. Please note however that your writing style in general may be taken as aggressive too, by certain editors, in the sense that your mere writing style may strengthen them to disagree with you even while they know they're actually wrong. A more moderate tone of voice may at times be more productive. (Fair enough with me if you immediately remove this note from your talk page.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation, Marcocapelle. It was well-intended, so I certainly won't remove it. And I will think about it.
Would any of my friendly talkpage stalkers like to comment on Marco's observation? I'd be genuinely intersted in feedback.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see your writing style as aggressive, and I do agree with you that Nyttend's seems to be. Especially, threats of actions to be taken (and especially when stated by an admin) would be difficult not to take as aggressive. I have interacted with Nyttend before, though not for some time now, and it has nearly always been rather unpleasant. Omnedon (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Swimmers

Just a quick heads-up. Your use of Cat-a-lot to move Category:Male swimmers to Category:Ghanaian male swimmers resulted in Category:Sammarinese male swimmers, Category:Haitian male swimmers & Category:Guam male swimmers being categorised as Ghanaian. Oops! All fixed now. Cabayi (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn!

That was really clumsy of me. Thanks v much, Cabayi, for spotting it, for fixing it, and for being so nice about it.

I'll take more care in future. Thanks again, and best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kuwaiti female bobsledders

A tag has been placed on Category:Kuwaiti female bobsledders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —swpb 16:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request declined

Hi BrownHairedGirl. The Arbitration Committee has declined the BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Thornley

Hello BrownHairedGirl, I just saw this ticket at OTRS. The customer claiming to be a relative of Thomas Thornley believes that the spelling of the surname should be Thornely not Thornley so can you please investigate a little bit. Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 12:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi GSS, and thanks for the headsup.

I can't view the ticket. Please can you give me a link to the page concerned, just so that we can be sure we are talking about the same article?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm talking about Thomas Thornley sorry forget to link in my comment above. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No prob. I guess you knew that the link was in the OTRS ticket, and were unaware that I lacked access to that.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I am checking it now. Will reply substantively when I have checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure take your time and I think this image published by National Portrait Gallery, London help you a bit. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, GSS.

I have had to divert a non-WP issue, but my initial checks reveal that your correspondent is right: Thornely was consistently used by multiple reports in The Times newspaper, and in Hansard. Together, I think that those two give a definitive answer.
The name used is an error in an unreliable source, viz. Rayment, and when I created the article I should have gone with the spelling used in the scholarly FWS Craig source I cited.
I will try later today to collect the refs and fix the article. In the meantime, please would you be kind enough to thank the relative for pointing out the error, and to pass on my apologies for the mistake? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah! I also notice diffrent sources show diffrent spellings but the image published by NPG cleared my confusion. Sure I will thank the relative for pointing out the error, and will pass your apologies also if you are busy do you want me to move the article without leaving a redirect and fix the pages which link to Thomas Thornley? Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, GSS, but the pedant in me would prefer to have the article updated with the refs in place to support the move. I will do it some time today or tomorrow. Is that OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, take your time . GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Have you managed to collect those sources to move the article? GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl any updates reagrding the changes? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cedric Manhoef

Hello BrownHairedGirl, can you put back this article please for me? It was already created some years ago, but it didn't meet the rules, criterias of Misplaced Pages regarding kickboxing. Since then, this guy is top 10 in the world at lightweight. #6 actually, highly ranked. http://liverkick.com/index.php/rankings Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco s (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Franco s

The article was deleted through the AFD process, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cedric Manhoef. So I cannot simply undelete it.

However, there may be other things I can do to help, so first a question for you. Are you sure that you now have enough sources to demonstrate that the problems identified there have been resolved, and that you can create an article which does meet the notability guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Martial arts/Kickboxing_task_force#Notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

People

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've: fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), WKA (through 2000)), been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source, or been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.

Of course, he is ranked world top 10 by LiverKick.com publication. #6 lightweight actually. Please check and undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco s (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Franco s, as I noted above, I will not simply undelete the article.

Now, to the evidence you supplied:

1. Do you have a link for the actual page with supports your claim?
2. The guideline prefers more than 1 publication to list him in the top ten. Is there another one in this case?

... and finally, please sign your posts. Instructions are at WP:SIG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kickboxing only has this site. He beat many top 10 fighters and is also ranked top 10 now. http://liverkick.com/index.php/rankings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco s (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, BrownHairedGirl. I'm responding here to the comment you left at WP:CfD, because discussion appears to be straying from the focus of that board. You made a request that I should "Please repopulate the category so that it can be nominated at CFD and discussed", which has me a little confused. I am unfamiliar with how a Misplaced Pages editor would "repopulate" a category. I hope you did not mean that I should re-insert inappropriate categories into articles where I removed them, which would be against Misplaced Pages policy. As I explained at CfD, I had removed the category from a few articles into which they had been improperly inserted. For example, this removal, from a stub article which not only fails to mention anything associated with the category, but the article is completely unsourced as well. (Categories must be verifiable, non-controversial and should be supported in the body of the article.) On some other articles, I renamed categories to match what was conveyed in the article body. These renames and removals have indeed resulted in a lightly populated (if not empty) category, but I do not see why that would be an obstacle to the renaming or deletion of categories. I haven't removed any categories which were either supported in the body of the article or indicated as applicable by the sources cited in the article. So I guess I'm asking for a clearer explanation of what it is you are requesting of me. (And FYI: I do intend to initiate a deletion discussion for the category.) Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Struck intent to propose deletion. Will leave that to others. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic

You wrote at CFD/S that you thought that Category:Persecution by atheists nonsense empty category inaccurately intended for, but redundant to, Category:Persecution by communists, Category:Anti-clericalism, etc.

Fine. You are entitled to that view, and I'm sure you can make a well-reasoned case for it.

But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it. It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles, but when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus.

That's why I and @Marcocapelle both asked you to repopulate. Please do so, or I will simply go through your contribs list and rollback the relevant edits ... and that may also rollback other changes you made to the same articles.

Once the category is restored, feel free to open a CFD nomination for deletion. Make your case and see where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This all seems so Kafkaesque. I think I see where the problem is here:

...when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus.

That isn't my starting point, that was my conclusion. If I thought the whole category should not exist, I would have simply emptied it in under 10 minutes, almost a year ago. Instead, I recently spent 4.5 hours carefully reviewing the last few remaining articles and their sources to determine if the remaining categories were properly added or not. My conclusion that the category was either redundant to existing cats, or applied in a "nonsensical" way, came after I had checked those articles. I've found and corrected hundreds of articles mis-tagged with that specific category for almost a year (you wouldn't be expected to know this - see June 2016, July 2016, etc.). I've also engaged in discussions with some of the editors adding the cat (including the creator of the category), so this isn't some impromptu ploy or gaming to have a category deleted because it is empty. My edits really have been made in a good faith manner.

But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it.

If your concern is really that other editors "know what was in it", it seems the best solution would be for me to provide a comprehensive list of all of the articles along with my deletion request. I can do that. Neatly formatted, alphabetized and Wiki-linked in a collapsed list format. That way, reviewing editors will be fully informed on the history of the use of the category (not just the most recently removed), while we avoid re-mis-categorizing articles with a non-applicable category. Alternatively, if you are concerned that nominating a category for deletion after the removal of inappropriately tagged articles is somehow a "backdoor deletion without consensus", then I'll strike my intent to propose the deletion of the category now. Someone else can get around to proposing it and doing it if the community decides it is necessary.

On a side note, the last thing I want to do is get in a squabble with one of the more even-tempered and sensible admins we have. (Yeah, I remember you from a looong time ago.) If neither of my above proposals work for you, and you are sticking with the "roll back your edits or I will do it for you" position, could I trouble you to clarify just how much re-population you want (the past 2 days; 3 months; 6 months; 1 year or more)? And when you say "It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles...", could you please clarify how many and how frequently would be acceptable to you, because after I've "re-populated" the category with problematic articles, I intend to improve those articles (read: re-remove the policy-violating cats). I just don't want to ruffle any feathers or trip over any red tape in the process. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've CFD'd the category and trust that Xenophrenic is willing to share a list of the content that they removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Marcocapelle: Thank you for starting the CfD, which I've since joined. I've added a table of previously categorized articles that have been removed or renamed by editors (not just by me - , , etc.), and I've joined you as a co-nominator of the proposed deletion so that I could give actual policy-based reasons for the nomination, if that is okay.

BrownHairedGirl: I'd like to apologize to you for being so incredulous (above) that you would ask me to "repopulate" a problematic category with some articles totally lacking in the required reliable sources. I just read for the first time at WP:Categorization:

"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

So I see now there was some precedence for your request. I still would have balked at your request, choosing instead to abide by Policy (WP:V) over editing Guideline (WP:CAT), but I certainly wouldn't have come off so gobsmacked. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's wheelchair basketball players

I have a problem with the moving of Category:xxxx female wheelchair basketball players to Category:xxxx women's wheelchair basketball players. Obviously, the two are not the same thing. Since the women notable enough to have articles invariably play in mixed competitions as well, you have to add them all to Category:xxxx wheelchair basketball players. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7

AFAIK, I moved only those categories which I had just created, per WP:C2E. Since the parent categs are named "FooCountry women's basketball players", I see no need to depart from that naming convention.

There is no need to place the articles also in the ungendered parent category. The fact that a woman plays is eligible to play in women's basketball obviously does not preclude her from playing in mixed competitions, just as men and women tennis players can play together in mixed doubles, but are categorised by gender. Please also note that I have cross-linked between two sets of gendered categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the two are not the same thing. One refers to men who play wheelchair basketball, the other to people who play men's wheelchair basketball. Except at the international level, there are only mixed (eg NWBL) and women's (eg WNWBL) competitions. There is no men's competition except at the international level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, Please stop mass-changing my work. I will restore the categories as I crated them, then we can discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, OK, I have restored the categories. Please let them stand while we discuss. (Sorry for he slight delay while I finished another task).

I really think you are making far too big an issue of the linguistic distinction. I take your point about the predominance of mixed competitions, but it is those who play at international level who are most likely to be notable per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBIO. The majority (probably the overwhelming majority) of the articles in the categories are of international-level players.

And in any case, I think that it is a semantic distinction with little practical difference. Whichever label we put on it, it's exactly the same set of people .. so why not just stick with the existing naming convention? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be the case if notability could only be garnered from wheelchair basketball. Take, for example, Eric Boulter. His notability is as a swimmer. So he has only played NWBL, ie only mixed basketball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, @Hawkeye7, and he's probably not the only one like that. But so what? He's a wheelchair basketball player, eligible to play in men-only games ... but plays in men+women's games. You are reading into the title an exclusivity of meaning which isn't there. The title is "men's wheelchair basketball players", not "men-only wheelchair basketball players". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. He's eligible to play octopush too but... We can define the categories to mean whatever we want; it's just that they lose usefulness if we don't understand them. But I'll leave it up to you. You're the one with the brown hair. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Not sure if you are aware of this, but another move discussion has been opened at Talk:Trump over whether Trump should redirect to Donald Trump. Considering the rather thorough move discussion that was closed just months ago, a moratorium should be put in place.--Nevé–selbert 01:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

CFD question

Hi, this diff you removed Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2016– but you didn't seem to add it to WP:CFD/W. I'm not entirely familiar with the CFD process, but I'm just wondering if the category will be moved? st170e 14:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi St170e

Sorry! That was simply an error on my part. Now fixed, and the bot should get to work soon.

Many thanks for pointing this out to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you! st170e 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

All done now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Murdeshwar

Respected Madam, I saw on Misplaced Pages Murudeshwara page that you had earlier participated in a discussion about my hometown Murdeshwar. I request you to revisit the page and provide your expert comments about my new posting on the talk page of Murdeshwar. I am new to Misplaced Pages and do not know how to contact members for getting help. It is my earnest request to all experienced members of Misplaced Pages to help me in getting back the correct spelling of my home town. In my humble opinion, a mistake made by the first author should not be allowed to carry forward. Please take some time out of your busy schedule and help us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Murudeshwara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.204.92 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Need to contact you re leane family information pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.194.62 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ivan Boteju

An article that you have been involved in editing—Ivan Boteju—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dan arndt (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Constitutional referendums in Ireland

A category which you created has been nominated for upmerging here. Laurel Lodged (talk)

narrow-gauge stuff

Thanks for being the one admin brave enough to close this mess. But as noted, I'm disappointed. Unhappy even. And thinking of filing a move review. I've started to draft it at my user subpage User:Dicklyon/mrv (which will need a subst: obviously). If you have constructive comments, or, unlikely I know, decide to let it influence you to modify your close, I'll be interested to see. I haven't really decided yet whether to go this route, versus straight to an RFC, which I can see the logic of as well. Just thought I'd give you a head's up on my thinking re your close. Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, and thanks for your message.

You are of course quite entitled to open a move review if you want to.
But I have a question for you: why a move review rather than an RFC?
Whichever option you choose will take similar amount of work for you and other editors. The difference is that an MR may settle the issue for one article, but an RFC will likely settle it for the whole set of articles. Why chose the less productive path?
I did read your draft MR. My own view, which you are of course quire entitled to reject, is that much of it comes across as rather obsessive and point-scoring against other RM participants, and very short on AGF. As such, it does not seem to me to cast you in a favourable light. As I say, that's just my reading of it; YMMV.
So I would suggest three things:

1. Ask yourself what you want to achieve here: a win of a single article, or a broad consensus? And which is those two paths is more compatible with Misplaced Pages's principles of collegial working?
2. Take a day or two to mull this over. When I have been annoyed by a closure, I found that at least one night's sleep before further action lets the annoyance pass and helps me focus on what I really want out of the situation.
3. If you still want to proceed with a review, have a re-read of WP:MR. It seems to me that you might have missed some of it.

Just my suggestions. It's your decision, and whatever you decide: good luck.

Brest wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will certainly take my time and think about it. The trouble with an RFC for me right now is that it should really be drafted by someone more neutral, and I'm unsure where to do it. Suggestions? Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon I suggest drafting an RFC jointly with someone who takes the the opposite view to you. That way, if you are both happy that it is fair and neutral, it probably is.

There are some suggestions at Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request BHGbot 3

Someone has marked Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Category deletion

A non-admin closed a CFD which had zero participation and has summarily removed the category from all articles. Is this allowed? I thought that (A) Non-admins cannot close anything as "Delete"; (b) Particularly not when there was zero participation; (C) CfDs need participation, or at the very least relisting, before closing; (D) Only an admin should close a CfD with no participation. PS: In addition, the category creator was never notified of the CfD. Take a look: . -- Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, and thanks for your msg.

I agree that in general, non-admins should not be performing non-keep closures. But feminist is right that given the scale of the current backlog, this may be a time to relax that principle.

If it had been me, I might have relisted the discussion, but I would not have criticised an admin for closing it now, as feminist did, because it wad already been open for nearly 3 weeks. The nomination is based on the performer-by-performance-venue guideline which reflects very long-standing consensus against this type of category, and it would require a strong local consensus for a closer to consider creating an exception to the broad consensus. There is also no requirement to notify the creator. It would have been better for the closer to explain the reasoning for the close, but again that's not a requirement.

I see that the closer has now reverted the close, so the discussion can resume, and I have added a !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Argentine female archers

A tag has been placed on Category:Argentine female archers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Romanian female archers

A tag has been placed on Category:Romanian female archers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ivorian female archers

A tag has been placed on Category:Ivorian female archers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Latvian female archers

A tag has been placed on Category:Latvian female archers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Manufacturing companies established in 2017

You have created this category (I'm guessing so you can be "first") - but all it contains is numerous subcategories. The only ultimate articles contained in this convoluted tree are Pod Save America, Dear Archimedes, How Are You Bread, Ruby Ruby Love, Tanhaiyan, The Eleven Little Roosters which are contained in the categories podcast debuts and web series debuts respectively. Pretty silly. This along with the many categories you have created such as the now deleted Category:United States Virgin Islands male archers, Category:Faroese male archers and Category:Icelandic male archers seems to suggest a robotic quantity-over-quality approach. We don't need thousands of useless empty categories for obscure sportspeople from tiny islands. AusLondonder (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

AusLondonder, if you could manage even a wee hint of AGF, I might give you some in return.

But since you have chosen to launch straight in with an unfounded accusation, I will reply in your style and guess that maybe you are just a very rude and very stupid person who prefers the confrontational style of assuming malice rather than asking the simple question of why someone did something which you find perverse. (Hint: I have been editing for over 11 years, and been an admin for nearly 11 years. In that time have created thousands of articles, and made huge contributions to the category system. If I really was running amok, I would inevitably have been restrained at some point).

It's not nice being addressed like that, is it? So don't do it. (And of course I don't mean that degrading comment about your character -- I was just mimicking the hostile style in which you addressed me).

And note that the editnotice displayed when you came to comment here says "If you think that I have screwed up, please do tell me. But please do try to assume that I acted in good faith, and do remain civil".

WP:AGF is a long-standing guideline: study it, and follow it.

Now I will reply substantively, on the assumption that you have digested AGF, and that all that is behind us.

On your first point, the reason I created Category:Manufacturing companies established in 2017 is that it was one of the many red-linked categories Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links, in which I have been clearing the backlog. Last week's list had 931 entries; this week's had only 340 entries, all of which have now been resolved. In most cases, that has been by creating the category; in others, it has been by re categorising a miscategorised article.

In some cases, the categories concerned are likely to be heavily populated in future. 2017 has only just started, so it's hardly surprising that categories of companies created this year are pretty slim. To see the potential, look at the previous years. For example, Category:Manufacturing companies established in 2015 looks reasonably-sized, tho it would be better if it wasn't sub-categorised. Category:Manufacturing companies established in 2002 looks quite healthy.

In others, particularly the by-year categories, it seems that there are many whole sets of by-year categories which are so narrow that they are unlikely to be more than sparse sets of low-single-figure categories for the foreseeable future.

Doing this exercise has left me alarmed at the proliferation of these sets of increasingly narrow by-year categories. I am coming to the view that most of them should be massively culled, probably by replacing them with by-decades categories, and in some cases by-century. If you had looked at WP:CFD, you would have seen that in the last 12 hours I have tested the water with two group nominations to do just that: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Years_and_decades_in_Rivers_State and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Agriculture_companies_by_year. It would be great if you would take a few minutes to review those nominations and add your comments. If you don't like the solutions I propose there, maybe you can suggest a better solution?

Depending on the response to those two discussions, I intend to launch an RFC proposing a much wider trim-back of by-year categories. (The nature of the RFC will depend on how those proposals are received).

But in the meantime, the non-empty red-linked categories need to be filled, because they are currently barriers to navigation. Don't blame me for that; blame the editors who started all these overly-narrow by-years series, which by design chop up small sets of articles into tiny slices.

Now, to the sports categories.

I presume that you will have noticed for example that the categories in the notifications above (Category:Romanian female archers, Latvian, Ivorian, Argentine etc) are not "tiny little islands". They are sizeable countries, and 3 of the 4 are in global terms, quite prosperous.

I did not go around creating hordes of empty categories; I created categories which I promptly populated with existing articles. What I did not realise in doing this (I only learnt it this week) was that User:Sander.v.Ginkel had been mass-creating biogs of sportspeople using some sort of tools or unauthorised bot which created lots of errors. (When I went looking for what happened, I found for example WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram.)

As a result of that, some 16,000 articles have been moved to draft space, and therefore removed from categories. AIUI, they were mostly biogs of sportspeople, and that has emptied many of the categories which I created and populated ... and since the articles were not tagged with any warning, I was unaware that I was wasting hours of my time. Not my fault; I acted in good faith, creating valid categories which were promptly populated.

As to the small islands, well here's a thing. There are a few dozen small island nations. A nations, they have the same right as any larger nation to compete in international sporting events. And their sportspeople need to be categorised in the same way. Per WP:SMALLCAT, if we are categorising people by nationality, we don't omit small countries from the set. That means that a series of sportspeople categories will inevitably have some sparsely-populated edge cases, but that's how it is with nearly all occupations. It seems, for example, that en.wp has articles only 2 Eritrean poets -- but how would it help readers to navigate between articles is we didn't have that category, or we also omitted the category for the 1 Vanuatuan poet?

Hope that explains things a bit. I look forward to your thoughts on it all.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Hi. I'd appreciate your thoughts with this page move. Thanks. Lugnuts 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the whole choir of angels singing the Banana Boat Song. That's a bogglefest.

Thanks for the pointer, Lugnuts. On my way to comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia category

Hey BrownHairedGirl, regarding this discussion, I think there is consensus here. I've phrased it as "rename A to B" while User:Zoupan phrased it as "delete A and create B" but the effect would be the same. Zoupan, please correct me if I'm wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: The discussion didn't seem to make that clear. But feel free to make a new nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Less housekeeping needed

Thanks for closing so many discussions! For info, to make your life a bit easier, you no longer have to update the list of open discussions manually, since a bot is updating the list automatically and overwrites any manual changes. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle:. Thanks! The backlog was getting terrible, so I decided to have a big run at it.
I just spotted that AnomieBot is updating the list, but thanks for the pointer. And what a useful thing it is, a great timesaver. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Protestantism in Albania

Please review the categories (and their sortkeys) of Category:Protestantism in Albania. I suggest that you put Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Self-categorized categories on your watchlist, several of the categories listed this week were either created or most recently edited by you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64

In the last fortnight, I have been working my way through Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories and Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links. There was a huge backlog, which is now largely cleared, but clearing it involved creating several thousand new categories because many of the redlinks in the database reports were quite deeply in the caegory tree, and required several layers of parents.

To speed up the job, and minimise errors, I created a series of custom AWB modules to create the categories consistently. However, a few hundred were done manually, and it seems that in a small proportion of those I made an error.

Thanks for spotting the errors. I'll go do a cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tornado close

Hi BHG

Re the RM at Talk:April_6–8,_2006_tornado_outbreak, there was a small consensus following my vote, for moving to the Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006 format, and I was hoping to ping the other participants to get their thoughts on that. However, I see you've already closed the RM. I'm not sure which way you're closing it, but is it possible we could hold off to give that alternative compromise title a chance? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru

Thanks for your timely message. I was in the process of drafting a close which was going to summarise the discussion as it stood, but it was clear that both sides took a strong view and that any outcome was going to leave a number of editors discontent.

So although it may be a bit odd procedurally, I think that it would be appropriate to re-open and relist the discussion. I have no idea whether your suggestion might sink or swim, and no personal preference either way, but I think that it would be perverse for the discussion to close without a significant alternative being considered.

So re-open-and-relist seems like the least-worst option. And if that's a bit WP:IAR, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Redhill–Tonbridge line

Re your move of the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article made per a RM. I accept that your move was done in good faith. However, the RM itself was not made in good faith, being the third one filed in four days. The two previous RMs were closed due to massive opposition to the actual request, and due to mass nominations going on at a single page. This is part of a campaign by Dicklyon to move a great many railway line articles to titles which are not supported by many members of WP:TWP and/or WP:UKT. I would also add, that Dicklyon made no effort to notify any WP of the third RM request. Having recently been at ANI over these moves, his behavious is firmly in WP:IDHT territory now. I will be taking this matter further in due course. As you've unwittingly been caught up in this, I thought would be a courtesy to let you know. I'm not going to reverse your move, but I am appealing to you to reverse it and move-protect the article at its original title pending further discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)