User talk:BrownHairedGirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

who are you :)

- Sachein91 - Talk Page - 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sachein91! I like kittens :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Hi. Would you care to comment at this RfC for the article Artpop? It originally started as a proposal to remove an unverifiable statement decided upon by editors in a previous consensus but has moved to a similar proposal titled "Agyle's proposal". If not, feel free to ignore message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Dan56.
The topic isn't really my area of interest, so I don't want to put the time into reviewing the sources myself. Withoiut doing that, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment substantively.
However, I have read the discussion, and it seems to be going well, with a consensus developing around what appears to be a fairly cautious interpretation of the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

v/r - TP 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - TP 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks to you both (Adjwilley & TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - TP 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - TP 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry :( back on the case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambig/AWB[edit]

Hiya. I saw you disambiguate a link on Mick Fleetwood with AWB. Firstly thank you. Secondly, may I ask how you have your AWB set up to repair these links? I know and understand the ways to do it on the manual, but what way to you find works best? I have used several different ways, like using what-links-here to load a list from a disambiguation page and then going through using the link fixing tab on AWB, and I find the disambig page from the long list that Wikiproject: Disambiguation maintain - do you think this is the best way? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SGGH, and thanks for your msg.
Some time ago, I tried using the built-in disambig feature, but I found it very clunky. I can't recall exactly what it was that I disliked, but I haven't used it again.
So now I use AWB only for disambig only in the sense of fixing links after I have moved a page. I do that using the simple search-and-replace feature, and if any page turns out to be a false positive I just skip it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Systems development life cycle[edit]

Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the Systems development life cycle. -- Mdd (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdd
I was just closing a move discussion at Talk:Systems development life cycle#.22Lifecycle.22_vs_.22Life-cycle.22, and what I usually do in such cases is to move the page (plus subpages and talk pages), fix any templates which link to the page, and leave the bots to fix the double redirects.
But just for you, I have fixed them all in this case :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you very much. -- Mdd (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

List of successful rickrolls AfD[edit]

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls as "merge selectively". Would you explain why you chose merge over delete? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan
I saw no particularly strong policy-based argument in favour of any particular option, but the arguments against keeping it did seem stronger than those in favour of keeping it. The deletionists and mergeists broadly agreed that the list's scope was unclear, and unfixable.
With !votes split roughly evenly between the 3 options (7d, 9m, 8k, counting those who supported more than one option), that left a choice between merger or deletion; either option would uphold the same position that we should not have a standalone list of rickrolls.
The arguments in favour of deletion rather than merger were twofold: a) that the list title was an implausible redirect, b) that a previous set of examples was already present in the history of the page rickrolling.
Neither argument seemed very persuasive. The question of whether to just restore rickrolling#Examples or port across some of the content from the list can be resolved by normal editorial processes; deletion simply removes the option of copying across any material added to the standalone list, and I saw no particularly strong argument to justify cutting off that option. I accept that the list title may be an implausible redirect, and if created as a redirect it would likely be deleted; but keeping it as a record of the history of the list does no harm.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree with your analysis (less a quibble with your vote numbers) up to deletion argument (b). It was not just "a previous set of examples", but exactly the same list with minor edits to two items (cross-page diff, no material changes; diffs copied from my initial comment at the AfD). The misleadingly large diff in Barack Roll was caused by a heading correction/spacing change combined with a minor view count update. Two unsourced examples were added and removed: a Bill Nye death hoax (removed in 1.5 months) and "Full Screen Pokemon" (removed in 23 minutes). No one besides me mentioned them, much less argued for their inclusion. If someone had, I would have recommended that they add suitable sources to Rickrolling directly. My argument convinced Ansh666 (diff) and Spirit of Eagle (diff) to annotate or amend their merge recommendations. Gongshow, who also recommended merge, had no complaint with my restore from history approach. I feel that you counted merge opinions as opposing deletion (addressed by these comments) and that you overruled the small consensus (plus BDD) that the history should be deleted. I disagree with a page history having near-zero value being kept at non-zero cost. List of successful rickrolls technically violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia because its creation edit summary does not wikilink Rickrolling. I will have to add a dummy edit and {{Copied}}s to fix it. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Flatscan: Thanks for that explanation. You have persuaded me that I should have given more weight to the argument that there was nothing worth preserving, so I have changed my close to "delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
New closure as delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to consider my comments and for modifying your close. Happy editing! Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI Reply[edit]

I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>

I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: thanks for your msg.
I see your point, but I think that there are two types of block. One is handed out quickly in response to a clear crossing of a bright line; the other is a response to a pattern of behaviour which may not cross the line quite so starkly in any individual instance. The latter type often results from an ANI discussion.
In the case of Skookum1, it's the latter. The ongoing disruption is the low-level personal attacks, the complaints that editors who disagree with him are being disruptive, and the massive verbosity at so many discussions.
A 1-week block would prevent that happening for a week, and give Skookum1 a chance to reconsider their modus operandi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers Doc talk 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "cherry-pick a diff". I looked at the pattern throughout a whole discussion, in the context of other similar discussions. If I were to collect diffs, there would be a dozen from that discussion alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. Doc talk 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never had any engagement with Skookum1 on a substantive issue, and do not edit in any common areas; I have no stake in the issues he edits on. My sole encounters have been in an administrative capacity.
Per WP:INVOLVED an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers Doc talk 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tricolor move[edit]

Please see my comment at Talk:Tricolor#Bad move. jnestorius(talk) 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:People's Republic of Hungary[edit]

Can you please move this category in line with Hungarian People's Republic, per the recent requested move? Thanks, RGloucester 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Now nominated for speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. RGloucester 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording use in a close[edit]

I just saw this. I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current discussion. My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See Kwamikagami and JorisvS for a couple of examples. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi CBWeather
My concern was that the way your comment was worded appeared designed to convey the message that the guideline justified the move. As we agree, it supports either title, and it would have been much better for your !vote to acknowledge that explicitly.
There is a wider problem here, in that the specific guidelines on naming this type of article are repeatedly contested, so they do not appear to represent a community consensus. An RFC is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, you are right I could have made it clearer. There is a bit of a problem with starting a RfC. It would be required to cover two different but related guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), as both are causing problems and can't be seperated. Second, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues #2 says "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article." But from my point of view the problem is how the guidelines are being applied and I don't see a need to change them. And of course at this point I'm just not sure that I could "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@CBWeather: if there is no consensus on how to apply the guidelines, then then they ain't working. Or if they are being applied with some consistency in a way you dislike, then they need to be updated to reflect actual practice.
There is no prob with an RFC addressing an issue which relates to multiple guidelines. In fact, an RFC is the best way to address that sort of issue. If you don't think you could draft one neutrally, why not find an editor who disagrees with you, and work together on a draft which you both feel is fair? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 block[edit]

BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now appealed your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the Chipewyan people RM in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cúchullain
Sure. I had been closing a large bunch of backlogged RMs, including a cluster of discussions which had been opened by Skookum1. The Chipewyan discussion was a particularly severe example of the sort of disruption which had been ongoing for months. I can collect diffs if you like, but I hope that you can take the time to read the discussion yourself.
The unblock does not acknowledge that there was a problem with his conduct in that article. Do you agree with my assessment of that discussion?
Secondly, the battleground behaviour has not stopped. Look at some more recent diffs:
12 April: referring to those who he disagrees with as a "faction"
11 April: repeating a misrepresentation of policy The two-word Duwamish River title is not a valid candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC for the standalone term "Duwamish". The reality is that it depends entirely on the topic; in some cases a partial match may be used for something more fully referred to by a longer name. Variants on this comment have been spewed into countless debates. It is perhaps more of a competence issue than a conduct one, but when repeated so often it is highly disruptive. (See for example more of this at the Modoc People RM and at Nisqually People RM where he simply dismisses the other alternatives without checking the evidence. In the latter case he pronounces that "doubleword titles - never mind four barrelled ones like the National Wildlife Refuge are not in the running'")
9 April: dismissing yet another complaint about excessive verbosity `I mean what i said - people having difficulties with reading longer passages of text need remedial reading, period. Others do not have this issue and are able to understand me without complaint."
There is a real, ongoing problem here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your assessment that his behavior in the RM was problematic and part of a pattern of similar problematic behavior that is potentially disruptive at RM and elsewhere. My concern is that your rationale suggests you blocked him for something he'd done 11 days before, which doesn't really sound like a preventative measure. Understandably, his unblock request focuses on that, arguing that he's toned it down since that RM.
I won't be unblocking him, since it's clear the real problem isn't just his comments in that RM, but a pattern of behavior (which you touched on initially with the "fork in the road" remark, and gave examples of here), and he hasn't shown much sign of addressing that. I guess we'll see if another admin thinks differently. Thanks again,--Cúchullain t/c 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you vote in the ANI thread BHG? Why would it have been closed by you? By the way, can't blame someone for becoming disruptive in response to fly-by voters on RMs that had diddly knowledge in what they were talking about. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Floydian: We can't control what others post. Everyone has a choice about how to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

CFD/W[edit]

I notice that you fully protected Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tintin RM[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at Tintin as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains {{subst:rm bottom)}}, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, Matty.007 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to review the discussion. Best, Matty.007 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)