This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

User talk:BrownHairedGirl

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! That's very kind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you elucidate me on the line-break topic? I only use <br /> becaus the other ruins the colour scheme in editing mode for me, however, I see no such reasoning in the guideline which even seems to prefer it in list-like surroundings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, and sorry for a slow reply.
See WP:LINEBREAK, which says unclosed BR is "better avoided for the time being", because of the negative impact on some syntax highlighters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I see it, but that passage really should be reworded for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, @Gerda. Seems clear enough to me, but maybe I'm too close to the issue. Maybe might you wanna try a rewording? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it shouldn't say "The <br /> or <br> tags are used for a single forced line break." as if they are of equal value, and only a while later say that one of them should not be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Insult at Olympic Games

I got as close as I have in years to a personal attack at the Olympic Games Portal MFD in response to Hecato telling you that your post was too long. I didn't say it about the editor, only about their comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, @Robert. Thanks for your support. I think you were well short of a personal attack.
It's a messy but interesting MFD, of a type which will become more common: broad topic, abandoned portal, WikiProject not interested, and a portal fan with no evident topic expertise who don't see that as an impediment to being a "maintainer". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I figured it wasn't a personal attack because I didn't say that the editor was s******. I said that their post was s******. I also didn't use profanity, because that is rude, and should only be used when one is angry, because it sends the message that you are angry. The excessive use of profanity is for the uneducated who don't know alternative foreign ways to say that sort of stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Trolling and disruption by Walter Görlitz

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Canadian Classique, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You're suggesting that a how-to guide is authoritative? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Not true, @Walter Görlitz. As you are already aware, see Help:Line-break_handling.
Please stop your disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not going to help, as far as I am aware, no matter what you say to Walter, he will always be the one who thinks he is correct. Just going through his editing history, he removes what he doesn't like when anyone tries to argue with him on his talk page, probably 90% of it is never archived, I call it, "trying to hide his transgressions". He has wages edit wars on and off for years with lots of different people. He has been blocked multiple times, the longest a week! Clearly it's not working. I am surprised no one has taken him to wiki-court for a longer suspension!! Govvy (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that background, @Govvy.
Walter's behaviour has been very odd, and it's useful to know that it's just not me catching him on a bad day.
Looks like I will have to take this to ANI, which is something I prefer to avoid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yuck. WG has one of the longest block logs I have seen of an editor who is "only" an edit-warrior and not a flamer or POV-pusher. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg
September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135

Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

CSD for portal templates

Could you speedily delete the selected X of deleted portal templates? There's no need to list them at TfD, they're usually deleted by G8 anyway. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trialpears, yes I think I could. In theory. Should have thought of that.
I haven't the energy to undo those TFDs, but I have WP:G8 speedied the other similar templates I have found since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Last Night's MFD Closes

A few thoughts,which I will share with you and User:Mark Schierbecker and User:Newshunter12.

The closes that were done last night, mostly by ScottyWong, were some of the most contentious since we started examining and tagging crud portals several months ago. The scope of the deletion nominations was the largest we have ever seen, if one stubbornly thinks that "broad topic area" is measured in square kilometers, including Asia, Antarctica, Jupiter, Mars, and Moon. It appears that there was no Consensus to Keep any portals. That is good. If I recall correctly, there was No Consensus on Portal:Solar system (which is not normally measured in square kilometers, but is actually nearly flat), Portal:Asia, Portal:Olympic Games, and Portal:Companies. I think that it will be useful to keep an eye on those portals and see whether there is any real maintenance, and whether there are actual maintenance plans. The portal platoon will no doubt say that if we are interested, we should be helping to maintain them, but I think that some of us think they don't know the difference between drive-by editing and maintenance. Some of the questions that I think should be asked as we watch those portals include:

  1. Are political events in Asia being reflected in the portal?
  2. Are preparations for the 2020 Olympic Games being reflected in the portal?
  3. Are the companies being rotated? Are their metrics being updated to reflect annual and quarterly reporting?
  4. Is robotic space exploration of the Solar system being reflected in the portal?
  5. Is there at least being discussion of a major redesign of any portals, especially of Portal:Companies, which could be semi-automated to use categories?
  6. Is there any minor redesign of any portals, such as the use of categories to select countries or places in Asia?

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I am busy now cleaning up backlinks after the flurry of deletions of Canada portals, but I will reply substantively later. Without having seen any of the closes you mention, I will just say that after watching Scottywong's closes for a while, they have all struck me of being good closes, where there has actually been a proper weighing of consensus against policy, and not just a head count. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree with Scotty's decisions in these cases ... but it does mean that I will review them as the actions of a closer with a good track record. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the closes. I don't disagree with any recent closes. Those are my thoughts in particular about the No Consensus closes. It will be interesting whether the portalistas disagree with any of the contentious Deletes enough to take them to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears that one editor might be gearing up to do just that. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I am far from persuaded that the editor concerned has a good grasp of either POG or the structure of the portal ... and Scottywong's reasoning looks robust, as usual.
If they still want to open a DRV, then that's their right. I don't think it will get any traction, and it might be useful for some of the more disgruntled portal enthusiasts to see what DRV makes of their severe and persistent lack of gruntlement at the repeated consensus that abandonment is grounds to delete a portal.
For the record, I also endorse Scotty's close of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System. It's not the outcome I would have liked, and personally, I would have been more likely to close it as "delete", but Scotty's close has very persuasive reasoning, so there's no doubt in my mind that it's a good close, based on sound reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:User Portal Ottawa

Wouldn't Template:User Portal Ottawa qualify for a {{db-subpage}} since it's dependent on a deleted or nonexistant page? You can probably swap out the MFD for that. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 15:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi TenPoundHammer, yes it would. Should have thought of that.
I haven't the energy to undo that one, but I have WP:G8 speedied the others I have found since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I was told to edit a new page that I created and remove copyright violations, I didn't know about the copyright violations, until today.

I've read about it and I'll take it very serious in the creation of my future pages.

In the meantime, I've edited the page and removed all the copyright violations and I will be very happy, if it'll be re-review.

By doing so, you'll ensure that I'm on the right track, so that I don't violate copyrights ever again. Thanks!

The page is located at Patrick Chuka. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nnadigoodluck
Sorry, I don't have time to review this at the moment.
However, I see that the copyvio was identified by User:Onel5969, and that you have already asked Onel5969 to review your changes.[1], so I will leave it Onel's hands.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot 😊 Nnadigoodluck (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edits at List of cyclists with a cycling-related death

Thanks for deleting the invalid Death Portal. I did have questions about some of the changes contained within your edit at the List.

  • You changed <br> to <br /> - I was wondering why since when Advanced editing is ennabled <b> is what the system gives the editor.
  • You changed <ref group = "Note"> (with a space before the text of the Note) to <ref group = "Note">(with no space before the text of the Note). When I put a Note together I put a space between the Note-coding and beginning of the actual text to make it easier for editors to find the text if they wish to change it.

Thanks for your time - I just like to know the "why" of things. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink
  1. The spacing change to <ref group = "Note"> is part of AWB's WP:GENFIXes. These are minor fixes which would be to trivial to justify as the only purpose an edit, but which are a handy small bonus if done as a part of another edit. They come as a package, and reflect consensus on such matter .
  2. <br> to <br /> is per WP:LINEBREAK. Either form works fine when the page is rendered, so as a general rule the simpler unclosed tag is mildly preferable ... but since it breaks some syntax highlighters, adding the slash is an easy fix when AWB is running, which makes editing easier for those who use syntax highlighting. It's my own addition, and not part of WP:GENFIX.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Review

I created a page 6 weeks ago. It was rejected a number of times, but was since updated a bunch of times, most recently by a senior editor and is now good to go. It's just awaiting someone to review it. I went to the Admin List to ask someone to take a peek and after scrolling through the #, A and most of the B, you piqued my interest. Not just because you're a mammal or mensa eligible, but because you won't stab me when I sleep :) MaskedSinger (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MaskedSinger.
If you're posting this, then you are awake now. Beware! Face-grin.svg
Anyway, what's the page you want reviewed? Link, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey BHG! It's Draft:Lightricks MaskedSinger (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Should I contact someone else about this? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, @MaskedSinger, but I think that would best. I haven't been able to find time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
No Problem, @BrownHairedGirl - I hope our paths cross again :) MaskedSinger (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Pending GA nominations

Hi User:BrownHairedGirl. I am writing to you in light of three pending GA nominations made by me. It has been around a fortnight since I nominated the articles on the Gateway of India and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 for GA. Today I also nominated the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019 article for GA (a fact from this article is currently on the main page DYK section). I had written about the first two pending GA nominations to another admin, a week or so earlier. They suggested me to reach out to others. You are the first I have reached out to since. I would be very thankful if you could help me by reviewing all or either of these three articles. I would be looking forward to hear from you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with merging categories

Hello there. I'm not native to the English Wikipedia and its rules, and I saw you deal with such categories a lot so I hope you can help me. I'm recently dealing a lot with Wikidata on items relating to bilateral relations, and I came across with a duplicated category: Category:France–Republic of the Congo relations and Category:Republic of the Congo–France relations. Can you please merge them properly? Mbkv717 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mbkv717
The duplication is obviously unhelpful.
The convention of Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of the Congo is to order the names alphabetically, using "Republic of the Congo" as the sort key. So I have redirected[2] Category:Republic of the Congo–France relations to Category:France–Republic of the Congo relations.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
It does :-). Thank you very much! Mbkv717 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I know those categories well ('cos I created most of them), so it was an easy fix for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1994 disestablishments in Bangladesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1994 disestablishments in Bangladesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MfD glitch?

Hi BHG, there seems to be a glitch happening at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The three MfD's that have been posted in the edit history that should appear under September 2 have not appeared on the list. In this edit, the bot took away the September 2 tag. Can you please fix this issue? Thank you. There was some vandalism earlier which I was able to partially revert (the bot had already archived some of it), which might have played a factor in the glitch, but I don't know. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newshunter12
Thanks for removing the IP vandalism. I'm not sure whether any residue of that was a factor in the bot's next edit[3] which moved Sept 2 after Sept 1 ... or whether the relisting[4] of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Charlie Hargrett caused the glitch.
So I have moved Sept 2 back to the top[5], and we'll have to wait and see whether the bot's next edit sticks with that.
If it recurs, we will need to raise it at User talk:Legobot. Unfortunately the bot runs old and cranky legacy code which is intolerant of minor variations in timestamps, and needs a complete rewrite which nobody has the energy to undertake. So sometimes a timestamp needs tweaking just to satisfy the bot. (Something similar happened a few months ago, and I blocked the bot, which caused a bit of a row. I don't wanna do that again.)
But we won't know until the bot's next edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've seen these date glitches before. I saw this one as two dates out of order,and now it has been corrected. I hadn't attributed it to being a complication of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert, my fix[6] remains the latest edit on the main MFD page. We won't know whether it sticks until LegoBot does its next edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Still running. The problem does seem to be that it is using old cranky legacy code, some of which stays around until somebody decides that it is the end of the world, or until somebody decides that that particular bot should be replaced by a newer bot so that the old bot can be sent to the Old Bot Museum. I have stories, but they can wait. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


I didn't agree not to refer to portalistas, and I have done it again, and I will whenever I think it is in order, although I will alternate it with portal platoon. In any case, my point is that tagging with the update template doesn't do anything. If a portal has rats, it should be torn down, and if tag it to be torn down, at least someone may wave a dead rat. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about admin mentorship

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I don't believe we've interacted directly, but we've edited in many of the same circles. I appreciate your editing style (I do think it's a style), and was wondering if you'd have any interest in helping me through the RfA process. Ergo Sum 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ergo, and thanks for the compliment.
I've seen your name around, and have struck me as a sane and thoughtful person. I haven't looked beyond that, but my initial reaction to the idea of you as admin is favourable. That might change in either direction if I did more scrutiny.
Anyway, my first thought when someone contemplates RFA is to suggest that they lie down in darkened room and hope that the urge passes. RFA can be benign (e.g. for Fayenatic london), but it can also be a hybrid between round-the-clock interrogation for a week, and a prolonged hazing exercise. Are you sure you are willing to risk the latter?
If you are keen to go ahead, the prime requirement is not to have too many sworn enemies still around. A quick scan of WP:RFAY shows that 20 no votes puts a candidate in trouble, and 60 would sink nearly any RFA. This is an unfortunate design flaw, because it means that a sustained disagreement with a few clusters of aggrieved idiots or POV-pushers can sink you, whereas walking away from their disruption boosts your chances of passing an RFA. That creates a perverse incentive, but there it is. So you should reflect (not on-Wiki) about how you stand in that respect.
The next issue is content creation. That's ultimately what this is all about, and if you have a decent track record of content creation, it reassures wavering editors that you are here for the right reasons. Lack of of content creation damages an otherwise good RFA, and will sink a weak one.
Then you need versatility. A few one-trick ponies make it through, but in general RFAs succeed when the candidate is well-rounded and some experience in a range of areas, with a broad record of good judgement. I don't mean all aspects of en.wp, but some wide subset is good. Perfect judgement is not required, but a demonstrable ability to learn from errors is very important.
Finally, whenever you do it, make sure that it's at a point when you re in a good frame of mind, felling unpressured and with plenty of time to respond calmly to issues that arise. When someone asks about the X incident, it's vital to be able to reply calmly and with some detachment, explaining what you think you got right and what you learnt from any errors.
If that framework makes any sense to you, I'd be happy to help. I may not have much time, but am happy to throw out a few thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Thanks for the substantial response. This is something I've been mulling over for some time. While I'm somewhat wary of the RfA process, as I've seen to go off the rails before, I think it's something I'm willing to undertake. As for any enemies, by my recollection, I've only gotten into two tiffs on the 'pedia and both were a while ago. Certainly I don't consider any other editors on here "enemies" and, I could be wrong, but I don't think any would call me one either. As for content creation, I think I've done quite a bit of that. My two biggest areas of work are creating (mostly)/expanding articles and improving templates. I have one GAN pending and would probably look to start an RfA once that clears. Would you be open to nominating me or chatting further offline (via email)? Ergo Sum 00:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum at RFA most users are looking for substantial editing experience, productive engagement with other users and a track record of involvement in admin-style areas (WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV etc.) I had a quick look through your contributions and talk page. On the first criteria, at least 10k edits over at least 2 years with no significant gaps in editing history, with content creation a bonus is the minimum, meaning you easily meet that. On the second, I don't see any major disputes that you've been involved in, but neither do I really see any disputes, and it's probably more helpful to point to some minor dispute where you can say that it was a little stressful, but you worked it out. You're fine on the second criteria. The third is the one that will cause you the biggest problem as I don't see much involvement. At WP:AFD you've only participated in 3 and those were back in 2016. CSD I don't see. Page patrol seems also to be from 2016 in the main and I see a lot of red there, though whether that's because you marked it as deletable or not, I can't view. WP:RFPP only 5, one of which is endorsing another user.
Ultimately the third criteria is what will cause you the issue. Users will argue that you don't need the tools and some may even, ludicrous though it is, use your excellent content contribs against you suggesting you should continue to focus on that. On all this I would definitely say that some track record, even with the odd mistake, would go down far better than no track record. Users will worry that you're unfamiliar with deletion criteria and will make mistakes due to lack of experience. My gut tells me you could pass, but you'd have much more chance if you spent some months working in those areas to build up a track record. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: I endorse the suggestion to participate at AfD, and any other admin-related areas that you may find interesting. You might try your hand at WP:Non-admin closure. Also, do read up on key WP policies; I had not done this before I was dragged into my RFA, and had a lot of catching-up to do during the nomination; I ended up booking two days' annual leave from work because of the time that my "benign" RFA took up. Before the actual RFA, you can get a quick trial of opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. HTH – Fayenatic London 02:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valenciano and Fayenatic london: Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions. I intend on pursuing RfA in the not-too-distant future, but will heed your advice of obtaining some experience in other admin-esque areas first. If any of you have any interest in mentoring my admin pursuit later, I'd appreciate it. Ergo Sum 02:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Empty categories regarding Disestablishment

Today, I was tagging dozens and dozens of these disestablishment categories as CSD C1 and wondered what was up. It seems like you changed a template a while back that has now left hundreds of these categories empty (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for some of these). I just want to make sure that this was your intent before I tag any more. I don't want to have to go back and untag them all if they end up being back in use in a few days. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Ooops!
I just checked. It tuns out I had made an error in Template:DisestcatCountry/core, which was placing disestablishments in the estab-by-year category. See e.g. Category:1991 establishments by country, which has all that year's estabs.
I have fixed it in this edit[7]. It will take a few hours for the templates to purge. Please can you rollback your CSD tags?
Sorry for the glitch, and thanks for telling me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
PS @Liz
I could easily do a quick AWB run to remove your CSD tags. Would you like me to do that? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to just be seeing this now but I've been off-line (apartment-hunting, argh). Sure, if you know a quicker way to undo this than manually, go for it! Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: Done, in these 47 edits.[8]
Sorry again about the wasted effort which my error caused you. Many thanks for being so nice about it.
And good luck with the home-hunting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

Template:WikiProject Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, which you created, serves to call two other templates: those for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Had this been executed within, say Talk:Markéta Luskačová, it would have been beneficial (ML was from Bohemia and is I think now based in the Czech Republic but did notable work in Slovakia). But I've a hunch that it's wrong more often than it's right: in Talk:Libuše Jarcovjáková, it added a Slovak connection that doesn't seem to have existed. I'm sure that the template was well intentioned; however, WikiProject Czechoslovak Socialist Republic doesn't exist; might it be better if the template didn't either? -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary, I created it as part of a series to allow big AWB runs to do WikiProject tagging by country name. If the template didn't exist, I'd have had to skip tagging such pages.
If it ends up tagging some pages with a superfluous project, that's better than not tagging them with any of the projects. In this case,the editor who used it might have been better to use another template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page write up & edits

Greetings. I’d like to get more information on how to render your services for creating. Wikipedia page as well as making some edits / corrections to existing pages. Thanks. [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:607:99A6:5936:3455:2D71:3CD5 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. My fees are €1 million per article, payable directly to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Payment in advance, and no refunds if the topic is ineligible.
Lemme know when the payments have been made, and which articles you want created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
More seriously, make sure the topic you want is listed at WP:Requested articles. You could help by adding links there to relevant sources, see WP:IRS. As for corrections, just do it, but make sure you provide citations. – Fayenatic London 02:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Tank you very much

Sherman m4a2e8 cfb borden 3.JPG Tank you very much
For the Tank portal updates. Also because I couldn't resist the terrible pun. creffett (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! And for the pun! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Closed. I assumed that all the falsehoods asserted by @FeydHuxtable were errors in good faith by a conscientious, competent editor with whom I could have a reasonable discussion.
Sadly, at least one of my three of assumptions about Feyd was mistaken, although I am not sure which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (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.

Please stop your personal attacks against NorthAmerica1000; they're starting to border on harassment.

You've been an exceptionally skilled and productive contributor here since 2006, so I guess you deserve a longer message. NA1K's user page is on my watchlist & I noticed a while back you was causing some distress with your repeated unsubstantiated accusations about his "dishonesty". I can't think of anyone I've met online who comes across as more honest & good natured than North. Reading your justifications on the AN thread & related pages, I didn't see a single diff showing the alleged deception. In worst case, your arguments together with a review of NA1K's contribs suggest he may have been interpreting WP:POG from an excessively Inclusionist POV. And even that seems highly debateable. It's perplexing you weren't admonished more directly for doubling down on the personal attacks. You must be a very popular editor!

When I read the AN page it looked like things might be dying down, per North's gracious support for a sanction free resolution to the AN. So it's disappointing to see you continuing to make incorrect assertions that appear to be attempts to discredit another editor. North made the hunger relief portal at my request (& even back then I'd already added over 100k of content to hunger relief topics. ) So your suggestion that North disregarded the guideline advise not to "expect other editors to maintain a portal you create." is nonsense.

To be fair it was maybe an easy assumption to make. But please in future avoid personalising Wikipedia discussion in a negative way. If you've developed an aversion to NA1K maybe stay out of his way, or if you want to continue nominating his articles, just make the policy based case for deletion, and cease the false & hostile speculation about his actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi FeydHuxtable
First, I urge you to consider the possibility that other editors have experienced NA1K differently to how you have encountered them. The fact that you have not encountered the problems does not mean that they didn't happen. If that ANI discussion had continued, I would have cited many diffs to demonstrate NA1K's sustained dishonesty, but it was closed before then. In brief, the core issue was not a point of interpretation: It was that NA1K continued to make !votes on the basis of claims about POG which cherry-picked one part of a sentence which contains other crucial points, and continued to do so in multiple discussions for several weeks after multiple editors had warned NA1K that they wee misrepresenting the guideline. This continued far beyond the point where there was any good faith excuse. That sustained repetition of faleshoods even after their falseness had been repeatedly demonstrated is why I described it as dishonesty. I have not changed my assessment, and I am glad that NA1K has desisted from their dishonest practice.
There was a secondary issue, of NA1K so flagrantly and repeatedly misusing statistics that I could explain it only as wilful dishonesty. Further discussion revealed that the problem was ignorance: NA1K genuinely did not understand very basic issues of statistics, and retracted their stance when multiple other editors explained the very basic errors which NA1K was making. So on that point I was mistaken in my accusation of dishonesty. I genuinely did not believe that there was any reasonable possibility that an editor could be so persistently and stubbornly wrong on something so simple, and I sorry that my over-estimation of NA1K's competence led me to misdiagnose the problem.
Now, as to WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hunger relief. It is a matter of fact that POG's lead has said since 2006 "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". It is a mater of fact that NA1K created that portal, and did almost no maintenance of it. Similar issues have arisen with many portals, and I have never refrained from pointing that out at MFD, because failure to observe that requirement is a major factor in why MFD has been clogged with portals for the last 6 months.
In this case, neither you nor NA1K has claimed either here or at MFD that either of you had any intention of maintaining the portal. Pointing out a breach of long-established guidance is not a personal attack. I urge you to re-read WP:NPA, and re-acquaint yourself with it ... and to withdraw both that false charge and your false accusation of harassment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the considered response. TLDR- WP:NPA: "When in doubt, comment on ... content without referring to its contributor at all."
The likelihood you had a different experience of NA1K was very much in my mind when I typed out the original message. While North is generally well liked, there's another admin who for years (& possibly still now) had a very dim view of NA1K. (And that editor is someone who I'm 99% sure is of excellent character as they seem similar to folk I know in RL)
So I didn't doubt for one second you sincerely believed there was wilful dishonesty. That's partly why I put some softening words in the message. If it had looked like the hurtful accusations against North had been made in bad faith, I'd have just wrote a short & blunt warning, regardless of the fact that overall you're clearly a hugely valuable contributor here.
WP:NPA doesn't give clear, objective guidance on the difference between attacks & legitimate criticism. As you know, if personal negative remarks are well founded they may be seen as helpful. But if they are spurious, then generally speaking they are PAs, regardless of whether the person making the remarks mistakenly but sincerely believes they are warranted. A key line in the lead seems to be: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and from the body: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
In the specific case of the hunger relief portal, I still find the justification for criticising North spurious. It's also matter of fact that North created the portal on request from another editor who had put much time into improving our coverage of the topic class. Your argument would be convincing if not for the big difference between the words 'commitment' & 'intention'. A commitment is relatively strong, even as volunteers we can deserve censure if we dont make efforts to keep our commitments. Whereas an intention is relatively nebulous, folk don't follow through with intentions all the time. If the guideline said there ought to have been a commitment, then it would have been the right thing for North to explicitly check I was indeed committed. As the guideline only use the word "intend" there was no need to explicitly confirm. I was implicitly intending to maintain the portal per the fact I'd asked for it, & that I already had 4+ years history working on hunger relief topics, including going back to some articles year after year to update them, and several major edits in the months immediately prior to creation. So I don't see there was any breach of WP:POC, unless it's interpreted in an overly literal way. And even if there were breaches back in 2013, things are different now. There's no need to repeatedly criticise an editor for past "mistakes" when they've already ajusted their position.
You could make counter arguments to the above, but there's also the question of venue. Generally speaking, the nomination statement of an XfD shouldn't be used to make negative remarks against a fellow editor, even if they're justified. There's more leeway for personal remarks later in the discussion if a voter says something provocative, but generally the nom should not make any kind of pre-emptive attacks. As the discussion starter, there's extra responsibility to set a collegial tone.It was in a way quite thrilling to read your Granada MfD as that was maybe the most impressive example of rhetorical force I've ever read on Wiki. But it did bring butterflies & wheels to mind. Perhaps it was justified at the time, but there now seems no need for that approach.
I didn't say there's been any harassment, I said "starting to border on harassment". If someone like yourself wanted to nominate every single portal North had created, and did so just by commenting on the content ("Portal fails WP:POC for reasons 1, 2 & 3") then that wouldn't be harassment IMO. But no matter how well respected the nominator, if anyone repeatedly uses XfD noms to make negative remarks against the same editor, then that does eventually become harassment.
In summary, I'm not apologising or retracting my request for the PAs to cease, as even after long reflection on all you say, I don't think that's warranted. I appreciate much of this hinges on personal interpretation – mayby you could get me sanctioned for making "false" accusations of PAs. If so, youd be doing me a favour as much as I value Wikipedia, I don't want to continue as part of the community if it's now became acceptable to repeatedly make negative remarks about someone in XfD noms. That said, I've no doubt you've also been acting in good faith, and I regret if this caused you any distress. You obviously do huge ammounts of good here. I'm also sorry for the length of this. I thought of shorter replies but they seemed to risk coming across as dismissive to your well articulated arguments. But no objection if you wanted to delete the whole section from your talk without reply. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@FeydHuxtable, first off, I don't censor my talk archives. I may close a discussion, but I don't remove from the record a post to an open discussion just because I disagree with it.
And in this case, I both disagree with you, and also feel sad that an experienced editor like yourself would damage your good name by doubling down on falsehoods. I don't know whether you repeat those falsehoods deliberately, or whether you have negligently declined my suggestion that you do your homework ... but either way, you continuing to attack me on the basis of demonstrably false assertions.
  1. You have not at any point produced any evidence that anything I wrote at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hunger relief comes anywhere close to the definitions of personal attack in WP:NPA.
  2. Your claim of "borderline harrassment" is therefore equally bogus.
  3. In that nomination, I commented on how the portal's creation appear to fail the portal guidelines as they stood at the time. Your continued efforts to twist, distort and misrepresent my analysis as a "personal attack" is a bullying exercise to try to censor my ability to present the full facts in an XFD nomination.
  4. AFAICR, this is actually the first time I have nominated at MFD a portal created by NA1K. So your assertion that I have repeatedly make negative remarks about someone in XfD noms is simply false.
Feyd, I heard out your criticisms of me because I assumed that they were made in good faith. I have tried to politely point out your repeated errors of both fact and interpretation. But your doubling down on blatant falsehoods makes it very clear that continued dialogue is pointless. It doesn't really matter whether you are intentionally misrepresenting me (as was the habit of your friend NA1K when citing guidelines`); or whether you are simply too lazy or stubborn to actually check the truth of what you are asserting. Either way, my attempt to have an honest and open discussion with you has clearly failed in the face of your deep lack of civility and your failure to AGF. I have had enough of remaining civil in the face of the deep rudeness of your persistent counter-factual assertions.
So I will now say to you exactly what I would say to someone who in real life sustainedly abused my open-ness to criticism: feck off.
You have exhausted my patience. Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Voltron language links

I think the foreign language version of Voltron should linked to Voltron (1984 TV series) instead what do you think? Voltron is about the media franchise whilst the foreign language versions are about the 1984 version. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, @Dwanyewest. I know nothing about the topic, and it's outside my areas of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dwanyewest: although BrownHairedGirl made the last edit to the article about the TV series, hers was merely a technical edit re portal links. I have checked the Wikidata links and you appear to be correct, so I have changed them as requested. – Fayenatic London 04:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Fayenatic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your race

Miss BrownHairedGirl, I do not know if anyone else has suggested your choice for your race is a great disservice to yourself. Yes, you are a mammal. But you are also homo sapien. But most importantly you are a member of the human race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:370:3070:74A8:1B11:96BA:CFC2 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that observation, 2600:1702:370:3070:74A8:1B11:96BA:CFC2.
I think my sense of irony may have escaped you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages using old version of Template EstcatCountry

Hi, BHG,

Should I mark this as a {{emptycat}}? I'm not sure exactly what is going on with these establishment/disestablishment categories. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: a gradual overhaul of templates is nearly complete. That cat is probably superfluous, but I want to do a few final checks to see if it populates. Please can you just leave it be for a few days? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).


Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


I admire your work here immensely, but you really need to stop referring to other editors as liars or dishonest in discussions (I am referring here to the OSU portal discussion), even if—and I must stress this—even if they are in fact blatantly lying. If you continue on this path, at the very least you will end up getting into a situation that will distract from your good work in other aspects of the project. bd2412 T 03:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I understand what you are saying, and your kind and helpful intentions in saying it.
But I think that this goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. We are trying here to build something unique in human history: a free-to-use encyclopedia built on core principles of verifiability and neutrality. Against all the odds, we achieved remarkable success: one the world's top ten websites, with a lot of very high quality content which has scored well in independent assessments.
Legions of critics said that crowd-sourcing couldn't achieve this. The fact that we have managed it is due in part to the very strength of crowd-sourcing, that many eyes make errors shallow and transient, as Raymond memorably observed 20 years ago about open-source software in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
Much of this process is as much social as anything else, conducting ourselves in ways which allow collaboration to continue through disagreements and even disputes. Policies such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are essential to that.
However, policy is also clear that we do not continue to assume good faith when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Those who breach the community's trust by acting in bad faith do immense damage to our ability collaborate and to make good decisions. We have seen headline cases such as the Essjay controversy and the Seigenthaler incident become global news, and caused long-term damage to Wikipedia which has been restored only by heightened vigilance.
I am not for moment suggesting that a discussion that discussion about possibly deletion of an almost-unused navigational page risks anything remotely near the same level of damage. But the principle is the same: that Wikipedia is a trust community, and it is damaged when that trust is betrayed. So far as I am concerned, deliberate untruthfulness is the most extreme form of incivility to other encyclopedia-builders, because it is injury both to the core both of our mission and to the core of our community.
I don't think that is wise to wait until the breach of trust has serious consequences before we challenge it. That approach would corrode all our working relationships, turning all our many routine discussions into some sort of warped game theory experiment.
So I genuinely ask: what your alternative? If we don't directly challenge editors who deliberately breach trust, how do we protect the integrity of or community discussions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that you show their facts to be wrong without commenting on their character. Everything piece of evidence that you provided in the referenced discussion would have had the same impact without commenting on the person. Where their assertions are clearly and demonstrably incorrect, that speaks for itself, without leading to a back and forth about whether the tone was inappropriate. From my perspective as a frequent XfD closer, seeing the facts laid out clearly is the more powerful argument. Closers are smart enough to sense when someone is lying (or seriously confused). bd2412 T 04:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


well you have problem with the word mankind, what about mother nature, mother earth, mother land ? they arent gender neutral. some words are used in feminine sense , some in masculine sense, so why only those that have masculine terms offend you? ah well this isnt anything to do with wikipedia and its all upto you, just saying its kinda biased thats all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't use those terms either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for answering, please dont mind me going off topic, take care great wikipedian :) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The gender of the word for country depends on what Indo-European language you are using. In German, after all, the word is Vaterland. There is an interesting inconsistency in Latin, which is that the word for country is patria, which of course means fatherland, but patria is a first-declension feminine noun. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion request

Hello! I am new to uploading images. I recently uploaded a fair use image to an article considering it's necessary as it representing about the company but i am not an expert about uploading images since it was my first upload. Someone told me that it doesn't meet fair use criteria. But as soon i found it. I was confused. Later after reading criteria, i came to understand. If you don't mind, Can you please help me with deleting it? Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lakshmisreekanth, I'd be happy to help. But I can't help unless you you give me a link the file.
Also, please tag the file with {{db-creator}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Here's the link for the file File:Jio Pokemongo.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmisreekanth (talkcontribs) 04:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lakshmisreekanth: done. And thanks for taking the time to read up on image policy, and initiate the deletion. If only everyone was as conscientious as you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: That's so nice of you and I'm so glad to meet such nice person as well. Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi, could you please speedy delete this empty portal category and this one to? Thank you! Newshunter12 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newshunter12: done. Thanks for spotting them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Another empty portal category. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Newshunter12. E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! This is an ex-category!!. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Ha ha. Oh boy, that skit is way to reminiscent of real portal MfDs. God, feel free to stab me in my sleep if that's what the next few months portend. Face-wink.svg Newshunter12 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, NH12. MFD needs your incisive analysis far too much to administer a mercy killing. Face-grin.svg --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, since at least the most recent MfD's have mostly been free of that type of nonsense, I guess I can hang on, if you insist. And to think portal fans actually believe they come across like this with their arguments. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Although, I will say portal fans do have something in common with this clip: the men make a lot of noise and a huge mess, but don't actually accomplish anything of substance or even know what their doing. Sound familiar? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
NH12 ... Changing the topic entirely, do you know that line from Macbeth: "it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I know many of Shakespeare's plays, but don't remember Macbeth well. What doth this line signify to you? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, NH12, it's just something random that came into my head. No possible connection whatsoever to what we were discussing before ... </innocent face> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, totally not relevent at all. On another topic, would you like to buy a Portal:Bridges? And I agree that you are an angle. Face-smile.svg Newshunter12 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Upon some research, I have realized that there are a large number of undeleted categories and even some sub-pages from many portal MfDs. Here is a list of such categories and sub-pages needing deletion:
  • Category:King_Arthur_portal This category should be empty, but the closer missed 1, 2, 3 sub-pages when deleting the portal. Actually, this shows they apparently didn't delete anything but the main page of Portal:King Arthur.
  • Category:Ohio_State_University_portal_subportals empty category
  • Category:Syrian_Civil_War_portal empty category
  • Category:Dentistry_portal empty category
  • Category:Computer_science_portal empty category
  • Category:Mining_portal empty category
  • Category:United_Nations_portal empty category
  • Category:Nazism_portal empty category
  • Category:Metaphysics_portal empty category
  • Category:Cycling_portal_selected_articles empty category
  • Category:Cycling_portal_selected_biographies empty category
  • Category:Cycling_portal_selected_pictures empty category
  • Category:Cycling_portal_selected_quotes empty category
  • Category:Cycling_portal_selections empty category, aside from having empty sub-cats.
  • Category:Cycling_portal empty category, aside from empty sub-cats
  • Category:Oriental_Orthodoxy_portal empty category
  • Category:Mars_portal defunct portal category with one entry and its empty Category:Mars_Portal former name.
I will keep checking all the past portal MfDs I have participated in for stray empty categories and surviving sub-pages. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Terrorism_portal defunct portal category with one entry, which is Template:Terrorism topics, which used to be a portal sub-page until TTH moved it, and I'm not sure if it's actually used in any articles or just on the now deleted portal.
  • Category:Elbe_Sandstone_Mountains_portal defunct portal category with one entry that is just a related portal's sub-page of related portals.
  • Category:Edmonton_Portal empty category
  • Category:James_Bond_portal empty category, save three empty sub-cats
  • Category:James_Bond_portal_selected_articles empty category
  • Category:James_Bond_portal_selected_biographies empty category
  • Category:James_Bond_portal_selected_pictures empty category
  • Category:Pokémon_portal_components empty category
  • Category:Piano_portal empty category
I have finished checking over the rest of the portals deleted at MfD since I first started participating in MFD for Portal:Harry Potter through the deletions today. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Newshunter12: all done. Thanks for finding them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of them all. You're as dedicated and tireless a worker as Hermione Granger (with the same color hair to boot)! Newshunter12 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Newshunter12. But I'm no good at magic Face-grin.svg --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, your magical abilities to help improve this encyclopedia are more then enough in my book. Although, it would be nice if you were a real witch, than you could vanish away junk portals with a flick of your wrist and wipe a particular group of muggles' memories that portal space exists. Ah, the possibilities. Face-smile.svg Newshunter12 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! That magic wand would be fun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • A few new empty categories:
  • Category:Asian Games portal and its one empty sub-cat Category:Asian Games portal selected pictures
  • Category:Africa portals by city is empty and there is nothing left that could go in it.
--Newshunter12 (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Newshunter12. Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A few more empty cats
  • Category:Apple Inc. portal
  • Category:Rajasthan portal and its empty sub-cat Category:Rajasthan portal selected content

On a different issue, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the potential of having a mass MfD for all portals with 16 daily views or lower (so 2 times or lower than the categories in your study)? Your accidental study on obscure hidden categories really got me thinking, and instead of us breaking our virtual backs cleaning up every junk portal one by one, we could use your study to remove a large chunk of the crud in one go. It's a factual point if utilized well that could be used to rally editors to the right side at this MfD. From January 1 to June 30, 315 portals failed this threshold, although a fair number would be higher if re-directs were included and some are already at MfD. For the sake of the argument, lets say 270 fail this threshold. This shows that these 270 portals are long term failures, and it should be easy enough to make a thorough, easy to follow nomination like you have done before. It would also be wise to mention how over 800 of the pre-TTH portals, (including multiple top 45 in views portals) were deleted for having lack of readers or maintainers and being complete crud. The exact evaluation numbers could of course be changed higher or lower. Brief examples of decay could be given from this group, and maybe a mention of how more or less the only maintained portals in that group are low-viewed single editor play things (Why do I suddenly feel like buying a Mercedes or going to Oktoberfest?). Please let me know what you think, and if you would like to proceed with this, I would of course be happy to help put it together. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hitchhiker's portal empty cat. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

replace link to deleted Portal:Cycling with Portal:Sports

Replacing the cycling portal may work in some circumstance, but not on the majority you've done. It would've much more helpful to remove it as I'll be doing that from now on for instance I see it on a cycling article. Something as large scale as this should've had some consultation. BaldBoris 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: I am very surprised that you say that.
I took some care to select only articles related to cycle racing, so I am unclear why you thing it was inappropriate to do so. Please can explain why you think that did not work on the majority ~1000 pages where I made this change?
What exactly is the problem that you see? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
"Sports" is no substitute for "cycling" in any sense. The portal links were added to direct readers to an area dedicated to cycling. I appreciate your work, but this was bad. I'm bit annoyed about not even being notified about its deletion, and this just tipped me over. BaldBoris 16:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@BaldBoris, I hope we can agree that cycle racing is a sport. If so, why object to a link to Portal:Sports? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
OK fair enough you did just do the obvious. BaldBoris 16:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For keeping Philosophy Portal links orderly. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1990s disestablishments in Bangladesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1990s disestablishments in Bangladesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Museu Nacional

Dear Madam,

As you took the Article of Museu Nacional of Rio De Janeiro to yourself, in the way you prefer do, I retire myself from the update Service. So continue regularly seeing the news about to complement the article according. It lacks latest information like is written here [] Please use google news daily about the Museu Nacional newspapers' articles to include daily like I did to represent the project of reconstruction, donations and all material about. Good Luck in your enterprise. Just do not pu 'United States' in portal like you did, because USA is not all over the world. --SeasSoul (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@SeasSoul, I have no idea what you are talking about, or why on earth you have chosen to accuse me of being engaged in some exercise of planting the American flag everywhere. (I'm Irish, not American).
Please can you provide a link to the page you are talking about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
as told you, you have to decide, two possibilities: 1. or you continue doing the updates in the page in a thema you nothing know and i dismiss or 2. I do the updates in the best way it should be... simply like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeasSoul (talkcontribs) 09:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@SeasSoul, please read WP:OWN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

understood, so do by yourself, good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeasSoul (talkcontribs) 09:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


I'd appreciate it if you would not ping me after I make it clear that I'm not interested in participating in a discussion. When my explicit reason for leaving the discussion is to cool off, pinging me is just deliberately provocative. If you want the last word, fine, but don't ping me again. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

But as a general principle, I always try to remember to ping another editor when replying to them or mentioning, as courtesy so that they know that they have been mentioned and can choose whether or not to reply.
I will try to remember to make you an exception, but I may forget. You are of course entirely free to ignore any pings you don't want to follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't expect you to be perfect, so no worries if you forget especially given that you intend it as a courtesy. Between on and off wiki stuff, I'm rather stressed at the moment and was on the verge of saying things that I would really regret. I didn't phrase it in the kindest of ways at the MFD, but it really is best if I stay out of that discussion unless or until I calm down enough to again recognize the good faith of you and others. Sorry if my lizard brain has caused you any additional stress. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi! How are you doing? I have uploaded an non-free screenshot for an article today. Can you verify it to confirm it has fair use rationale? Here is the image. File:Jio Saavn screenshot.jpg Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lakshmisreekanth
I'm a bad person to ask, because I deal with images so rarely that I have re-read from the ground each time to refresh my memory on the policies.
So I'm sorry, but you'd do better to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you'll find editors who are familiar with the licensing issues.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you BrownHairedGirl! No problem. Regards! -- Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Cymru Sovereign

Please note- the name of the Cymru Sovereign party is Cymru Sovereign as originally noted. Please kindly explain why this was changed without any need at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard the bread man (talkcontribs) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Richard the bread man
As indicated in he prominent editnotice visible at the top of this page when you edit it, please link to the page which are concerned about.
I have no recollection of ever editing such a page, let alone renaming it, so I dunno why you are asking me. But if you give me the link I'll look into it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Refund request

Hi! I recently became aware that the social movements portal was deleted (when you removed links to it from a couple pages I have watchlisted). Here is a comment from the mfd: a decade of hard evidence shows Social Movements are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. (MfD: source)

I would be very interested in seeing what the page looked like when it was deleted. I am not suggesting that I'm necessarily going to try to recreate it, since I see that there are a couple people (yourself included) who seem to think that would be a bad idea. It really strikes me as strange that a crowdsourced encyclopedia would have so much trouble maintaining a portal at a time when governments in Africa are being overthrown because of such movements (Algeria, Sudan), where millions are in the streets in HK, etc. ...

If you would be willing to refund this to my sandbox, so I can take a look at it, I would really appreciate it. I would also be interested in any comments you might have about what might make such a portal work beter (or why portals as a whole are dead, perhaps, and what would be a better (automated/wikidatian?) substitute). Thanks for your time BHG! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi SashiRolls
Portal:Social movements was deleted by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, so I think you'd better ask them. As a WP:INVOLVED admin, I think it's best that i don't use admin tools here, even for a WP:REFUND.
Personally, I am not in the slightest surprised that the portal failed. The overwhelming majority of portals have failed, because they are hard to maintain, and add no value for readers. Wise editors don't put their efforts into unread uselessness.
Web portals were a mid-1990s craze, which faded fast once Google offered powerful search and websites offered massive linking instead of just a "back to homepage" link. By the time Wikipedia adopted portals in 2005, they were already a redundant technology. So the more clueful editors abandoned them long ago, and the dwindling crew who tweak a small subset of the collection are bereft of any effective ideas on what to do with them. Their attempt at automation was a disaster, and since then their main concern is moaning about the deletion of junk portals which have been abandoned for a decade with almost no readers.
I thoroughly agree with what you say about how social movements are a hugely important topic area. So they need a good head article, because that's where the readers go. (After analysing hundreds of portals at MFD, the norm is that the head article is viewed somewhere between 100 and 2000 times as often as the portal).
So why not concentrate your efforts on the head article social movement? It's languishing as a C-class article which reads like a set of excerpts from a final-year secondary school testbook. It's dry as dust, and almost devoid of coverage of the explosion of social movements in the social media era. The theoretical stiff is great, but this is an encyclopedia article not a textbook, and it's missing the other components which make a well-rounded article. It would be wonderful to see you bring that article up to FA-class or even GA-class. And if you don't feel up to that, why not make a navbox? A good navbox is a zillion times more useful than any portal, because a) it displays all the links at the same time, and b) it's directly visible on every page in the set. If you make a good, comprehensive navbox with 100+ links, I can guarantee you that it will be on pages viewed by somewhere between 500 and 10,000 times as many readers as the portal. (No kidding on those numbers, BTW; that really is the scale of difference).
Hope that helps.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I appreciate your response. I'll follow up with the admin who actually deleted the portal, because I remain curious. While the technology may have been rendered less useful for en.wp with all its google juice, I imagine if en.wp were ever downgraded due to new algorithmetic, the older magazine approach might come back (and for those mediawiki installations without the google juice may still be interesting).
I agree a navbox would be a good thing, but sadly the 21st century navbox was renamed then deleted (after the rename moved it off my watchlist) by determined wikipedians back in June (the argument there was that the subject area was too broad, whereas it's apparently too narrow for a portal ^^) : §. There is a list one can link to, and a new "ongoing protests" nav-box which is nowhere near as well organized as the deleted navbox was.
Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I'll have a look at the social movements entry again and follow up with Jo-Jo Eumerus. Not being a specialist, I'm not sure that I know what would help an entry at that level of abstraction. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad that was of some help, SashiRolls.
To be honest, even if Google died and wp's internal search was killed, I still don't see how a portal would help. The magazine-format breaks if it goes much over 20 articles per set, no matter which technology is used, so it's no use for the scale of the topic. Automation doesn't work, because Wikipedia's metadata is far too crude and the software to process it is far too limited, even if WikiData is used.
Even if you exercised magic to produce something stunning, you'd still have the problem that nobody reads portals. Look at the daily average pageviews for all portals. The top 11 look impressive, but are those are linked from the mainpage, which averages over 16 million daily views. Set against that, 1,304 / day views of Portal:Geography is actually absymal. Only 53 portals, on v broad topics, get over 100 view/day .. whereas the article Social_movement has a median of 737 daily views.
The alternative "mega-navbox" format pioneered by Bermicourt (see e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) scales much better, and I was quite a fan of it for a while. But in practice, readers don't seem any more attracted to it ... so I now think that it would be much better implemented as a series of interlinked navboxes. For an example I made, see Template:County Antrim constituencies and the rest of the set of 31 interlinked navboxes in Category:Ireland constituency navigational boxes. I made that set a few years back, to cover 700 years worth of constituencies across 32 counties in 8 different parliaments. I think it works pretty well, because a) it provides a lot of rich data around each title, and b) it makes each constituency only two clicks away from any other constituency.
I see what happened at WP:TFD/Template:Political protests in the 21st century, and I should have thought of that and realised it's way too broad. But please don't give up on the navbox idea; it just needs to be broken down more. Sure it would take a lot of work to implement it, but it doesn't need to be all built at once, and each chunk of it would be way more valuable than a portal which readers won't want even if it's shoved in the face of 16 million of them every day ... which Portal:Social movements never will be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. I definitely got much more than my original investment out of this transaction. I appreciate both the nested templating example (nice work!) and the perspective! ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas Paul of Trinidad and Tobago

Good afternoon I am from Trinidad and Tobago and I am kindly informing you that the flying 200 meter men's world record havebeing broken by Nicholas Paul of Trinidad and Tobago recently can you kindly update this information on the chart please I will appreciate your effort thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What chart, where> and why ask me? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please edit Antifa page

Hey, BrownHairedGirl I read your Antifa page and noticed that you said that Antifa “engage(s) in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right”. I know for a fact that Antifa also targets, and threatens moderate conservatives as well. Two examples of this would be the one guy who threatened to car bomb Steven Crowder, and Andy Ngo being beaten up by a mob of Antifa Protestors. It’s important to me that the right and the left are able to both call out wrong when something is universally wrong, and the violence acted out by antifa is no worse than the horrors that the KKK did decades ago. Please make sure you note that Antifa targets moderates, not just lunatic alt right extremists do that we can all acknowledge and call out hate wherever it may lie. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeHoldt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlakeHoldt
  1. I don't have an "Antifa page"
  2. I never wrote those words.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you as you edited the Khan Sheilkhoun article. I want an article looked at for possible deletion as it seems of no merit, or reported on in RS, so I put the afd template up. The articles creator, without discussion, improvement of the article, or anything at all, removed it. I thought this was not allowed, but then reading the template it does say 'this may be removed if there is any objection at all to it without any reason needing to be given'. Something like that. So the creator of a worthless article has the ability to keep it there forever? Isn't that seriously leaky as a system? It seems to me to invite extreme and fringe figures to create all kinds of worthless articles and give them the ability to keep them there forever. Is there really no need for the creator of an article to provide RS discussing, in this case, his piddling extremist Party, not just a set of election results. Anybody can stand in an election, are they all worth having articles about? Bulldog Antz (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bulldog Antz, I dunno what page you are talking about, because you overlooked the line in my big editnotice at the top of the page when you edit it: "Please help me to locate what you are referring to, by including links and diffs in your message".
Khan Sheilkhoun is a redlink, so I dunno where to look. If you give me a link, I will look into this. But without a link, I can't comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, I mean I noticed you edited the chemical attack at Khan Sheikhoun page, and were an administrator, so I wanted to ask for some general advice about Wikipedia policy, in particular about 'articles for deletion'. How to keep an article for deletion template in place until concerns had been properly addressed. The page I am concerned about is Cymru Sovereign, as it looks to me like a page established by a Partys creator, without the Party being of any proven importance or interest whatever in Reliable Sources. If you have no experience with Articles for Deletion, then perhaps you could tell me an Administrator who has advice about that area, or if not, then I'm sorry to have bothered you with this. Bulldog Antz (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Bulldog Antz. That's clearer.
Basically. you seem to have gotten have confused between two different process: WP:PROD and WP:AFD.
You PRODded the page[9], then Richard the bread man removed the PROD tag[10]], as he was entitled to do. See how the tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason".
AFD tags can't be removed. But PROD can.
I see that you have restored the PROD tag, which you shouldn't have done, so I will revert that. If you still believe that the article should be deleted, you need to use WP:AFD. It's a bit of a daunting process at first, so take your time to read WP:AFD and also Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I'll read the policy statements as I do think the article should be deleted. Bulldog Antz (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bulldog AntzGlad that was some help!
I haven't taken a view on whether the article should be deleted. I am just trying to helping you to make whatever case you want to make. So here's a few further suggestions:
  1. If you decide to take the article to WP:AFD, install and use WP:TWINKLE. It makes the job much easier: just fill in the form and press submit. Otherwise you have to edit at least 4 pages, which is tedious and risks errors.
  2. Before you write the AFD nomination, take a wee while to look at other AFD nominations to see some examples of how to structure them. You'll find today's nominations at WP:AFD/T
  3. It's often easiest to daft an AFD nomination offline (i.e. in a text editor or word processor) and then paste the result into the edit window.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

An IP has resorted to ad hominem attacks which do not even see to be related to me at Talk:Research_and_Analysis_Wing#Addition_of_sources_and_information. Could you please look into this? --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There are around three IP addresses involved in this. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I am pinging @Yunshui: and @Titodutta: here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tamravidhir: That's nasty, PAs plus attempted outing. It doesn't matter whether or not you are any of the persons named; this is unacceptable.
Please bear with me while I figure out the next steps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that it doesn't matter. But as a matter of fact, I am not. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tamravidhir: best not to go there at all. Don't give them anything either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I shall do that. The full article here was earlier not showing up on my article earlier. I checked it on another device and it does mention the Ordnance Factory, should I include the same in the article for now or if you would be able to do it? --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick action. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Tamravidhir, but I haven't the time or energy to get into the article content, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. But I have blocked the IP, and WP:REVDELed the edits. I fear I have not done a great job om the revdels, so I have emailed oversight to ask them to sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. Thank you for the help and quick response I shall look into the edits. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Setting up automation

I haven't been able to figure out how to set up automation to automatically put the banner on pages related to H. P. Lovecraft, as reccommended. Can you help?--Auric talk 10:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Auric: I recommend that unless and until your ill-considered and unsupported project/taskforce actually gains enough participants to make it viable, that you desist from disruptively splatting its banner on talk pages from which it will need to be removed whenever this project/taskforce is eventually deleted.
As you know, right now it has precisely zero participants apart from yourself.
Tskforces don't need a separate banner. So if and when it does become a taskforce, then it should be included in {{WikiProject Horror}} and activated with a flag, just as is already the case with WP:HORROR's one existing taskforce, the Saw task force. The fact that the Saw task force is defunct should be taken as further evidence that you are just adding another item to the set of 3,968 defunct WikiProjects and 787 inactive WikiProjects.
You could of course ask at WP:BOTREQ. However, BOT request will be acted upon only if there is consensus for the proposed action ... so if you do ask, please make sure to that your request is clear about the lack of any consensus so far to crate this project, and to include links to:
  1. this discussion here (User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Setting_up_automation
  2. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft
  3. WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/H. P. Lovecraft
  4. User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Setting_up_automation
The same applies to any AWB user you you may ask. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at BOTREQ, but that page seems to be for bots themselves, not bot tasks. If or when something gets approved, I'd like to be able to have this task avalible, but I don't need a seperate bot.--Auric talk 11:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: The first sentence of body text of that page says "This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots". I don't see how that coulkd be any clearer.
Applications to authorise a proposed new bot are at WP:BRFA.
I was just scanning WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals. The lead of that page says If you do not have a group of people, then you do not have a WikiProject, even if you have created a WikiProject page. A WikiProject is the people, not the page.
Auric does not have a of group people, so Auric does not have a WikiProject. Please stop spamming the banner of this non-existent project onto talk pages. as you have been doing.[11] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
You yourself pointed out that I'd only tagged 14 pages, which I'd held off of doing. But since you seemed to think this was a mark against the project, I started doing it.--Auric talk 11:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: I noted all the actions you had taken. I did not ask or encourage you to add more banners. Please stop, and revert those you have added. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I will, but please stop reverting mine.--Auric talk 11:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple category pages with link to nonexistent Template:PortalUnited States

You recently made a number of edits like this one that link to {{PortalUnited States}}, which does not exist. It is unclear to me what your intention was. I tried to change the transclusion call to {Portal:United States|History}, but I end up with a page full of errors. Can you please take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PortalUnited States and correct your edits? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jonesey95: I have fixed these. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I had tried a colon instead of a pipe. I don't work with portals much. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, @Jonesey95. Thanks for the fixes, @BD2412. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Gosport constituency

Hey BHG. Could you look at Gosport constituency please? I'm having a right old back and forth with the not very neutral "Gosport Brexit Party" account. Thanks if you can help. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC) @doktorb: linky link, please? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hello, I have been thinking for awhile about how best to handle the various lists of oldest people by country/continent. Is it possible to have an RfC at the village pump about this? I long have wondered about what would be a "good" number of entries for a country/continent page, and as someone who long edited in that topic and followed it longer still, I've come to the conclusion that none of those lists has any merit. Wikipedia is not a directory of old people, and lists such as Oldest people, List of the verified oldest people, List of the oldest people by country, and List of the oldest living people adequately cover this topic at best, and are more likely part of the problem at worst. All of these lists were based on how the GRG did things, and while much of the overt deference to the GRG has been stripped away over the years, as have articles like List of oldest people by year of birth, List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2002, and List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, this whole topic on Wikipedia is still based on their cottage industry. (This dif has a good list of red links to deleted crud articles).

Whether it's 100 or 20 entries, we don't need horse-race WP:OR lists built around arbitrary age thresholds the GRG decided. Why don't old people in Latvia or Iran get lists, but old people in Denmark and Japan do? How come someone who dies at 109 in Sweden is considered so much less notable then someone from the same country at 110? And even at an age 110 threshold, are we going to eventually have a 100 strong list for every country on earth? The lists are built around age 110 because that was the target group of the GRG. They only do age 112+ validations now, so RfC's on country lists earlier this year stripped away the rule that someone needed GRG verification to be ranked, but the above fundamental problems with this whole set up remain. There is also heavy duplication of entires across lists, so that someone can be on 3, 4, or 5 lists and have an individual article. This is a maintenance nightmare.

There is also over a decade long history of repeated edit warring, sockpuppetry, the arbcom case, and endless disputes over inclusion or dates. The benefits of this information are not at all worth the overhead. An editor has also taken to adding religious nicknames to nun list entries and maiden names (often based on OR ancestry sites) to as many list entries as they can. This is pure fancruft and WP:NNPOV. When challenged about the nicknames, they said something like "Identity isn't fancruft," but they are not adding non-religious nicknames and "Big Bubba" is just as much part of someone's identity as "Sister Mary" is. There has always been an enormous amount of fancruft in this topic...

All of these lists are still primarily free webhosting of the GRG's data, and many news reports cite Wikipedia's lists, so there is certainly a degree of circular-reporting going on.

So in sum, ideally, I'd like to have a well-crafted RfC on doing away with such lists. Help would be much appreciated! Newshunter12 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Newshunter12
As I think we have discussed before, I have been concerned for a while about this, but from a different angle. The long-term problems of the appalling conduct of the GRG/WOP crew let to mind-warping battles with them. I personally did several months of tangling with Robert Young and his sidekicks plus their army of worker bees, and they were appalling people to deal with. Young couldn't even manage the technical issue of participating in a discussion: he was a rage ball jumping from issue to issue, and his posts were unreadable because he never learnt how to link to a diff, and instead splat-pasted huge multi-screenfull chunks of other discussions into his replies, while his minions with nothing to say piled into like an angry mob.
It took so many years to put an end to all that there was a lot of cleanup to do.
Both the battles and the sheer scale of the cleanup has left some good faith editors with a negative feeling about the whole topic. I fear that this has led some editors to delete encyclopedic articles simply because the GRG supported them, rather than because they fail en.wp policies. As you know, I stuck my neck out for a while to object to the systematic AFDing of articles which clearly did pass GNG, and I was horrified at the way there seemed to be a tag team which simply dismissed all evidence, and invented policy to suit their purposes.
So I am wary of any further deletions in this area. Being the oldest living person in a given country is clearly a notable attribute; even the quality newspapers pay attention to that, as they do to other cases of extreme longevity. And I am not worried about media referencing en.wp; it's a compliment, and it happens in many topic ares, though it is often unacknowledged. (My creation at List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland is often used by old and new media, tho rarely cited)
The threshold of 100, a "century" clearly has long-term cultural significance. The centenarian concept of Centenarian has long been celebrated. And the concept of a Supercentenarian long predates the GRG; see this from Ireland in 1870 []
The vast bulk of the longevity cruft has been cleared out, and what we are left with is mostly lists.
Lists are one of the things that Wikipedia does well, and they are popular with readers. We currently have 3,513 featured lists. The longevity lists seem popular too: e.g. List of Irish supercentenarians averaged 37 views per day in Jan–Jun 2019.
Deleting these lists would in most cases remove the last trace of this info from Wikipedia, and I can't see any justification for that other than a residual animosity from the last antics of the GNG.
Sure there is still a set of crazed fans making mischief, but that's a conduct issue which happens in many other areas, and it's no reason to delete a topic. I also think that you are mistaken in some of your concerns, such as adding the religious name of a nun; that's what they were known as for most of their lives, so it significant data abut someone's identity. Obviously, it needs proper sourcing; but if reliably sourced, it certainly should be included.
So I think that that if there were any effort to delete these lists, I'd oppose it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your view of this concern. I guess I won't pursue the matter any further and on a side note, I already had largely lost interest in the topic, aside from that issue, so we are unlikely to have any more friction there. For the record, I do personally have a lot of respect for nuns' religious identities, I just don't think there is anything policy-wise underpinning including those names vs. other NN. And what better way to get your mind off the troubles in portal-land would there have been then a trip to longevity-world. It's not like it would have been out of the frying pan and into the fire or something. Face-wink.svg (p.s. How do you think the portal RfC is going so far?) Newshunter12 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Which portal RFC, User:Newshunter12? The one that I am discussing below, or another RFC that is idle talk, or another real RFC? If you mean the one below, see below. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I meant the one currently at the Village Pump started by Bermicourt, that is presently slowly going off the rails. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 Which Village Pump? Policy? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yuck. I hadn't seen it. I now wish that I hadn't seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal guideline RFCs

As you and I know, there was an RFC that was shortnamed WP:POG2019RFC to re-formalize the portal guidelines. The RFC was, as planned, closed by Legobot on or about 17 or 18 August 2019. The RFC was then moved from Village pump (policy) to Archive 153. The shortcut still works, and now takes one to Archive 153, as it should. The RFC was then listed in the requests for RFC closure, and has been waiting for RFC closure for the past two weeks. I then added a separate smaller RFC on the purposes of portals. As we know, these RFCs did not get a positive response from the portal platoon, and a quick look on my part would suggest that the result of the first one, WP:POG2019RFC, should be No Consensus, which leaves us right where we started, unless someone is willing to try again. I think that I will mention in a few places, such as the MFD talk page, neutrally, that it is waiting for closure. Should we have some plan for what to do if it is No Consensus, which will mean that there are no official Portal Guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I think that de-guidelining POG would mean that portal MFDs will have to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE, a prospect which will be deeply traumatic for some of the more excitable members of the Guild Of Defenders Of Conceptually Krazy, Abysmally Maintained, Mostly Unread, Rubbish Design, Antiquated Portals (GODOCKAMMURDAP).
MFD will be able to proceed much as before, but with less wikilawyering. They principles of broad topic, lots of readers, multiple maintainers, and active/involved WikiProject are all common sense, so we can continue to assess portals in he same way against those criteria. Those who have claim that POG supports a page which displays one topic at a time with a purge-to-see-next-random-item from an invisible list, or that 15 items is a broad topic, or a selection of 20 make a useful portal, etc, will have a very hard time defending that as common sense.
I hope that some support services will be available for GODOCKAMMURDAP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is a distinction between common sense and WP:COMMONSENSE. You will notice that in the nomination for Portal:Nintendo, I referred to the common sense of the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, which is the same as the common sense of the philosophers of the Roman Empire. French and German philosophers of the eighteenth century may or may not have used common sense. I also noted that the portal advocates didn't appear to have common sense. But the loss of the guideline won't stop the wikilawyering, because they still believe that the guideline only refers to broad areas, and they also really still believe that what is a broad subject area can be determined a priori, that is, by consulting a continental philosopher. They really apparently believe that what is a broad area can be determined abstractly by some sort of portal mysticism, because portals apparently have some mystical quality. Of course, if you read the discussion of portals in fiction, the portals really are mystical. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:POG is a fraudulent guideline, and should never have been tagged as one, and should be detagged immediately. It denigrates every other policy page to have a fraudulent dream page tagged as {{guideline}}. The current "The status of this page as a policy or guideline is the subject of a current discussion" can at least be tolerated. Unfortunately, the discussion was derailed by the multiple gratuitous half-baked RfCs that some people throw into air every time a question is difficult.
It fits my old observations that led to my proposal at WT:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Too many RfCs. Require a seconder for every RfC. Regrettably, that proposal was not supported by my usually agreeing friend, User:WhatamIdoing. However, I still think I am right. Wikipedia culture is not very advanced when it comes to running RfCs. The difference between a successful discussion and a failed discussion is often the question posed. Can I suggest that neither of you launch another RfC on Portals without at least two people in explicit agreement on the quality of the question? Also, for the watchlisting benefits, please make it its own subpage of the most relevant page.
In the meantime, it is unpleasantly humorous to watch so many abysmal portal failures fail the hopelessly lax guideline, but at some point, as the portal MfD nominators work their way along the quality spectrum from the long poor-quality end, its going to get more interesting, and honesty about objective measures would be more honest. WP:POG does not provide meaningful objective measures of the function of a portal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, I entirely agree about half-baked RFCs, and the end for seconders (personally, I'd say 5 co-signs). Bermicourt's VPR thread has now been turned into another badly designed one.
For the record, I have no recollection of me ever opening a portal RFC.
A to portal MFDs, I have been astonished by the length of what has turned out to be a long tail of abysmal portals. I initially thought it would be about 200, but it's already at nearly 900, and I reckon there's at lest 100 more failures to be MFDed. Thereafter we will need to start seeking consensus on criteria, which will be a nightmare because a) some of most zealous and vocal portal fans are not very bright, and are hard to reason with; b) for most of the key portal fans, their priority seems to be to be able to keep on making/maintaining pages which don't require them to engage with the much more demanding requirements of writing a actual article. So it won't be a pleasant or fruitful process. The best solution would be to move all portals to project space, where those who want to play with portals can play away to their heart's content, untroubled by us nasty people who insist on utility and quality. That may be the kindest thing to do for GODOCKAMMURDAP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
You have no recollection of ever opening a portal RFC? Sorry. You started a pre-RfC userspace discussion, inviting four individuals, but not me. And I think you may have started a discussion on multiple pages, or maybe you were just there, I get confused easily by multiple parallel discussions.
I predict that the portal MFDs will continue deleting until the last 100. In the last 100, the delete !voters are likely to be so well trained that they may push to the final 10. Then I think a better discussion may start.
The pageviews count attrition, from Main page, to main page linked portals, to the next level, show a ~ thousand fold attrition, if you subtract from the baseline an estimate for web crawlers and Wikipedia bots. I think after the top 20-100, the reader page views are ~zero. Its all webcrawlers, bots and gnomes. One thousand fold attrition across two levels is basically proof for me that when a reader enters, they then almost always turn around and walk straight out again. This is not the Wikipedia they came looking for. That for sure was my experience, when I first met a Portal, when TPH nominated one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SmokeyJoe that this will very likely entail MfDing far more then 100 more portals. I also disagree with you BHG that we need to push for new guidelines after about 100 more, in the sense that we should hold off on that for as long as possible. The fewer portals there are in play, the easier new guidelines will be to enact or to eliminate portal space. Portal space has always been protected by its mass. From my understanding, no one competent outside realized what an enormous disaster it was until after TTH's spam drew attention to portal-land. So many resist eliminating portal space because of the dream that portals are this great reader asset and we have so many of these great things. Many portal fans just aren't bright enough to understand that these abandoned wrecks are helping no one or that nearly all portals are abandoned wrecks or are essentially unviewed by humans.
As unpleasant as it is, just continuing to MfD junk portals one by one is our way forward for now. Open question: is there any way to estimate the number of non-human portal views? That's a largely unused point at MfD. Also, how much does anyone want to bet that Bermicourt uses the failure of their own RfC to argue there is community consensus to keep all portals? Newshunter12 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

New Consensus on Criteria?

User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: “I initially thought it would be about 200, but it's already at nearly 900, and I reckon there's at lest 100 more failures to be MFDed. Thereafter we will need to start seeking consensus on criteria, which will be a nightmare because a) some of most zealous and vocal portal fans are not very bright, and are hard to reason with; b) for most of the key portal fans, their priority seems to be to be able to keep on making/maintaining pages which don't require them to engage with the much more demanding requirements of writing a actual article.” Then don’t seek consensus on criteria, but continue the salami-slicing until the portal fans stop whining and start thinking, or until they actually explain what they want portals to do. I think that there may be a few hundred more portals deleted, not just 100 more, before the portal fans (and I will call them portalistas and a portal platoon) are willing to discuss. I see no value to forcing the nightmare. A nightmare occurs between waking and sleeping. Let them sleep until they wake up. I made my effort to seek consensus on criteria, which some of us thought had always been the criteria. I don’t see the need to seek consensus on criteria again any time soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconds on RFCs?

I respectfully disagree that there should be no RFCs without a second. There is at least one situation in which RFCs are necessary, and may not get a second, and do resolve things. That is to resolve content disputes where discussion has failed because there are two opposing viewpoints, such as including a paragraph and excluding it. The neutral party may have to write the neutrally worded RFC alone, without support or opposition from the parties who otherwise would be edit-warring, and may not be able to get a second because both parties may prefer two different non-neutral RFCs. Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is primarily referring to policy and guideline RFCs, but I don’t know a straightforward way to distinguish between a content dispute RFC and a policy and guideline RFC. The real problem has two parts. The first part is non-neutral RFCs, which are typically worded non-neutrally in order to guide the consensus toward the author’s position, but which often wind up as trainwrecks instead. The second part is very open-ended RFCs that are really Requests for Comments rather than Requests for Consensus, and that really get comments, and may work for brainstorming but do not resolve anything. Just requiring a second may not help much, and requiring multiple endorsements will make resolving content disputes harder, because it will require that the two sides canvass for endorsers before writing the RFC. I don’t see a simple answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Marco Visconti

Hi there: your recent edit to Marco Visconti seems to have broken (for me, at least) some formatting in the lede section; but I am afraid I don't understand enough to fix it. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zero sharp, a link would have helped. But done.[12] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh my god I am *so* sorry. I sincerely hope you're somehow able to reclaim the 11 seconds or so it must have taken you to deduce the correct article from a) the name of this section and b) the phrase "your recent edit to". Zero sharp (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Zero sharp: I have made about 4,000 edits so far today, and over 50,000 this month so "recent edit" doesn't narrow the field much. And a link would have taken you about 1 second to paste in.
But hey, if you like playing guessing games in communication and then getting snippy about it, be who you wanna be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg
October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140

Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Comment on Snit and Regional English

You wrote: 'The community is not "discussing the future of portals". It's having it's time wasted by a false binary proposition which Bermicourt tabled when he was in a sulk about his rant at another MFD being rebutted.' Yes, but that may be a little confusing to an American who is not familiar with parliamentary terminology on the east side of the Atlantic. In the United Kingdom, and evidently in Ireland, to table a proposition means to put it on the speaker's table in front of the hall for consideration. In the United States, to table a motion sidetracks it, essentially moving it to a table in back of the hall. In ordinary American deliberative bodies, a motion that is tabled is postponed, and can be taken up by taking it from the table at any time. In the United States House of Representatives, tabling a bill is an alternate method of killing it. He tabled his proposition using British English or Irish English. A closure of No Consensus tables it American style. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, "Divided by a common language", as Winston Churchill (allegedly) said, in one of the rare moments when he wasn't threatening Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have also heard that aphorism attributed to George Bernard Shaw, and he was Irish. The American parliamentary use doesn't make sense, anyway, except that it is the way we refer to a way of forgetting about something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't yet replied to the RFC. I think it is dishonest. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, @Robert. It's the second such pseudo-RFC we have had in the last few months. Moxy did an even more transparently fake RFC a few months back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Mine was a real RFC, with a specific objective, to ratify the portal guidelines, and the responses to it were too scattered to be useful. Oh well. In 45 minutes I will watch stylized violence that has a winner and a loser, which is more than can be said for some of the stuff said about portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)