User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:46, 3 April 2010

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

CFD and WP:CRIC

Some unfortunate heat - but perhaps inevitable, though no less unfortunate, when two groups of passionate editors clash over the same issue.

I was wondering something (based on the link you posted, praising my comments in an archive). When Cats change, watchlists do go crazy and there is bound to be trouble from time to time, not just with our own WikiProject, but others too (I'd ~~love~~hate to see the results of a change to an Palestine/Israel Cat, or some such.)

I was therefore wondering whether you guys have ever considered some kind of mandatory approach to posting notifications to relevant WikiProjects? In fact, couldn't a bot do this relatively easily? --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your latest post at WT:CRIC. Never heard of Article Alerts before. Looks useful. I'll take a proper look at it when I find some time. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a very belated reply. Been a bit addled the last few weeks :(

There was some discussion at WT:CFD about this late last year, and there was some support for the idea, but it's not always practical.

Some cases are simple enough, because they involve only one WikiProject, and if it's a major change then I usually insist that a project be notified. However, my experience is that most WikiProject notifications produce no response at all, and those that do get a response usually attract only one or two editors.

In other cases, multiple WikiProjects are involved: an extreme case is the 150 categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 14#Cities.2C_towns_and_villages, which involved 150 wikiprojects. Notifying them all is nor practical.

I think that a bot is the best idea, and Article Alerts already does a lot of that for wikiprojects which want to use it. --22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cahir

It really needs its own category? Isn't a little over the top? Wouldn't a disambiguation page have sufficed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFD soft redirects

Ping. I have responded. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied on your talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured I should drop you a note to keep you up to date on the latest Cydebot update. See User talk:Cyde#CFD and soft redirects for the details on the change. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will take a look now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd closure

Hi there! I believe that the closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_27#Template:CB-support2 was very premature. Did you read the discussion in the template talk and considered that no new arguments were presented as per "Any request for undeletion should provide new arguments, rather than simply asserting that prior consensuses were wrong, or it is likely to be closed speedily."? --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed read it. Did you notice that this was not actually a request for undeletion? It was a request to delete.

And did you read Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Template:Support?

This issue is such an old chestnut, with numerous previous deletions upheld at deletion review, that there is no point whatsoever in wasting the time of editors in discussing it all again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I did. That's where I copied the sentence from. I think that, if you can apply a deletion guideline about a former template to delete these ones, I think you can apply the exclusion rule it mentions, don't you think?

Well deleting your own userpages was one such case too, but I brought that up once again and now it is being implemented. That is yet another way of improving wikipedia. We are not to use these guidelines as dogmatic.

Additionally, there were new arguments in this case and I think it should be given at least a chance to be discussed before it is dismissed. Too much hard work (not mine) was put into this.

Thanks in advance. I like your hair! --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so friendly about this: I know it's frustrating when your hard work goes up in smoke.

In situations like this, I would usually consider to letting the discussion run a bit to see if there really is any chance of a consensus to do something other than delete .... but I think that the history of previous deletions and deletion reviews means that this one is very clear-cut, probably one of the clearest I have seen. I'm sorry, but I am not going to change my mind on the closure, and I think that any further discussion of that point will get us no closer to agreement. Having quite properly taken the first step of trying to persuade the closing admin to change her mind, and failed, you are of course free to open a request for deletion review if you want to.

Wikipedia:Method for consensus building is a great idea: having used consensus-based decision-making techniques for nearly 30 years, I think that a deeper understanding of consensus-building tools and techniques is long overdue on wikipedia, so huge congrats to you and others who have worked on that page. However, after so many rejections of the idea of using templates to denote positions, I think that it was a mistake to put energy into creating such templates. I hope that this deletion is not mistaken for criticism of the rest of the valuable work of explaining how to build consensus. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel the need to copy arguments from the previous 7 discussions. As I pointed out, there was no substantial difference between those templates and the ones that have been deleted in the past 5 years. Where were the new arguments? I started the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Method for consensus building hoping that someone would provide such arguments and start a new discussion to use them, but got little more than non-arguments (consensus might have changed, what's wrong with them) and flat-out refusal to start a wider discussion before using them. I've said several times what you need to do if you want to use these templates in discussions. Mr.Z-man 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, I didn't actually contribute to that project by any means, yet still I feel kinda sad for the guy who did and will probably get frustrated by this. Plus, I really liked the idea of having graphical voting templates, which in essence are not different in any other way from the de facto ways of consensus building, we are currently using. It is beyond me how using support or oppose is any different from using a visual aid to do that.

Mr.Z-man, for a start, one argument was that such a template would be a drain on resources, was not valid. In any case, what would be wrong in allowing editors to use them and see if they gain popularity? If not, they would become deprecated by the community itself.

Anyway, I'm not even the creator, I'm not going to pursue a different outcome for this any more. The creator can if he wants. See you both around. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JokerXtreme, it need not remain beyond you why this sort of template is deprecated: just read the many previous discussions on the subject, some of which are linked from the latest TFD discussion at latest TFD discussion at. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CB-neutral

If your presently online, check out CAT:CSD. ;) Dlohcierekim 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization

Ciao! How can I try ot stop user:Monegasque to add his microcategory including just one person (see his last additions)? Thanks for help and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at User_talk:Monegasque#Friulian_microtown_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Algerian singers by gender

CfD nomination of Category:Hungarian singers by gender

20th and 21st-century rulers

Please stop naming calling. I will do it your way if this is the way you want to be, but I really wonder what you had hoped, or do hope, by doing it all this way. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, it's really simple: wait until a nomination is complete and then discuss it on its merits.

I didn't call you names: I just described your actions as disruption, which they were. If you don't like that, don't try disruptive spoiler tactics.

I don't know what you mean by "doing it all this way". A group nomination of a number of related categories is standard practice at WP:CFD, because it allows similar categories to be considered together rather than repeating the same debate dozens of times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you did a bit more than that. Like calling them "patently disruptive," etc.

Do you even care what I mean? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain your meaning, do so; if not, don't. But stop using my talk page for pointless whining and silly rhetorical questions.

I called your actions "patently disruptive", because that's what they are. If you don't like that, don't try disruptive spoiler tactics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sorry tale...

Hi BHG, Welcome back (again). Was away myself but am now refreshed, fired up and ready to rumble. However. In my excitement that the former "British Isles" geograph project changed their name I moved the article to Geograph Britain and Ireland. So far so good. But the divil got the better of me and for some reason which I can neither recall nor fathom I then moved it to Geograph Great Britain and Ireland. Which is wrong. But not being an Evil Admin I can't move it back to Geograph Britain and Ireland. But you are and you could...so... maybe you would? Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah

How could the divil ever get hold of you? You being such a saintly person and all that. :)

The only plausible explanation is that someone wicked spiked your tobacco. I have referred the matter to the Moriarty Tribunal, and expect a conclusion in double quick time ... or, err, more than 13 years.

Anyway, not sure why you couldn't move the page back again; it should be possible for a move to be reverted. But since I'm a nice admin, not an not an evil admin, I have done it.

And well done persuading Geograph to change their name to a real place rather than a fiction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta nice BHG! I'm loading photos to geograph by the dozen (so to speak) - have pinned three empty squares already :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And good luck filling in that map! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ships of the Royal Navy

Hi BHG, thanks for the categorization "Ships of the Royal Navy". Looking at the category, do you think it would make more sense for me to change the category "Hired vessels of the Royal Navy" to "Royal Navy hired vessels" to increase congruency with the other categories? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I found an uncategorised category, and put in the right place.

I'm not sure about renaming it. Category:Ships of the Royal Navy has 28 sub-categories of the form "Royal Navy x ships", and 18 sub-cats of the form "x ships of the Royal Navy", so a wider cleanup is needed. I may do a group renaming request at WP:CFD, but I'll need to investigate what form is used elsewhere in the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another 'by gender'

Category:Religious leaders by gender ... it's funny how one tends to think of PastorWayne when editors create categories without seemingly engaging in any prior cerebration. And here is one of his, aka EstherLois. Occuli (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Bus routes

Bearing in mind what I said about WP:London Transport redirecting the non-notable London Bus route articles rather than deleting them, and that it has been discussed that people are going to go through and weed out the non-notable ones, I don't think it is a good idea to just go around PRODing the articles. It just confuses the matter. If you really think it's not notable, redirect it to List of bus routes in London, though some knowledge of the subject may be required so you don't kill off the notable ones? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that discussion. It has been going on for over a week, and there are still 300 articles on bus routes.

I just took another 15 bus routes, and found only two with even a suggestion of anything which might possibly be stretched towards marginal notability, so I PRODed the 13 duds.

I have a degree of knowledge of it, having lived in inner London for 10 years in areas without tubes, but no specialist knowledge is required to see that an article has no evidence of notability per WP:GNG, and not even an assertion of notability.

It should only take a few hours work to quickly assess the rest, and then PROD or redirect them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while some have no evidence of notability (they should but don't), they are notable. i.e the 73 which you PRODed. As I say, redirecting would be better than PRODing as that's how the first lot of really rubbish ones went; it would keep things consistent. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of the 73 being notable, so I have AFDed it.

Anyway, redirect if you want to, but a redirect can be created after deletion, with less chance that someone will simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I've commented on the AFD itself, but I really think you ought to reconsider this one; the 73 is not only the busiest bus route in London (and I think the busiest in Europe, although I can't find a source for that) but the test-bed TfL and its predecessors traditionally use for new technologies (automated announcements, bendy-buses, GPS…); it really isn't appropriate to try to shoehorn it into a bullet-point on List of bus routes in London, as its entry will be 20 times larger than any of the others. – iridescent 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some evidence of notability, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the AFD; I've provided coverage of the route itself (as opposed to mentions in more general articles about buses) from a host of undoubted RS's (BBC, Guardian, Independent, London Daily News) and am only scratching the iceberg as I only checked Highbeam back for a couple of years (and haven't even delved into the murky world of "…in popular culture" yet—as the route that connects the media heartlands of Islington, Oxford Circus and Soho the 73 tends to be the bus used to illustrate pieces of drama set in London). – iridescent 21:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we kinda crossed in the post: I have just withdrawn the AFD nomination, after seeing your links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for withdrawing; I agree that it's a poor quality article but it does deserve a decent quality one, and a successful AfD would set a precedent should anyone want to recreate it in a better form. (While I'm here, could you do me a favour and unprotect User talk:Iridescent/Editnotice? There's no need for it to be protected any longer.) – iridescent 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection done. But what happened to your admin bit? I thought you used to be an admin, and indeed when I looked at the page log I say that you had protected its yourself, but I see you no longer have the admin flag. Were you court-martialled for failing to salute some sockpuppeteering edit-warrior? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dramatic story; I'd argued for quite a long time that adminship/cratship should be like Arbitrator status and follow a fixed term followed by a compulsory reconfirmation process if they want to keep it. I think the longer an admin has had admin status the more likely they are to make weird calls; a lot of admins become "professional admins" and don't get involved with the content-and-categories minutiae, and thus judge things by how they were done five years ago rather than how they're done now. After two years, I resigned to prove a point that losing admin status isn't the end of the world and there's nothing to be afraid of. (I honestly can't say I miss it.) – iridescent 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still showing as protected - could you try it again, the system seems to have lost the unprotect. – iridescent 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, looks like I just pressed "go" without actually changing the settings. Looks OK now, but do lemme know if there is a problem.

I know what you mean about "professional admins"; it's a hazard. Term limits might be a good idea, but RFA has become such a cautious process that we'd soon have no admins at all. Some ppl would say that's a good thing :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that…

If I were in charge, I'd have a simple reconfirmation process along the lines of the rejected AOR process; every year one's automatically added to a "reconfirmation list" for a week, and if within that week (say) twenty users with at least 1000 edits over six months each sign their name to a "no confidence" motion, you're desysopped. That would get rid of the trigger-happy blockers and the ultra-deletionists (not naming names, like), but hopefully protect against random people with grudges. If 20 long-term users think you're doing a bad job, you probably are. – iridescent 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl - I already prodded a load of West Midlands bus routes the other day but they were all deprodded and claimed to be notable. You might have better luck AFD-ing these London ones. Aiken ♫ 21:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a peep at those West Midland routes you PRODded, and so far don't see any grounds for keeping them. I'll AFD a few of them, and see what others think. --22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Why don't you redirect the bus pages instead of deleting them? C.bonnick (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The titles can be redirected after the deletion of the articles, so the two steps are perfectly compatible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of work to source these articles. Much of it may have been misguided as the sources aren't always reliable (I felt unreliable sources were better than no sources), so I don't have a major problem with you nominating deletion, but can you please stop linking to my comment praising London Buses route 187? I now accept that this was incorrect, so I would appreciate it if the link was removed from the AfD nominations. As an aside, I voted Redirect on route 187's AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of airlines of New Brunswick

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of airlines of New Brunswick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of New Brunswick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

As you continue with your disruptive editing, I have had no choice but to start an ANI thread here. Jeni ^(talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still trolling, Jeni? I thought you were taking a break. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, with respect, I think that you (as an admin) need to avoid making comments like that. Aiken ♫ 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aiken, maybe I should have found a more diplomatic word. But the endless attempt to use procedural devices to prevent community scrutiny of articles passed as "notable" under the WP:GNG-ignoring guidelines at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article is getting a bit wearing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto=size

Thanks for your comments. I had a question, see here. –xeno^talk 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will reply there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Sandboxes

Hi, you seem to know a lot about deletion on WP. How would I go about getting some of my sandboxed deleted? Please could you reply on my talk page. Thanks a lot Welshleprechaun 15:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{db-u2}}~~. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thanks a lot. Welshleprechaun 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I meant {{db-u1}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

discussion moved back to User talk:Okip

List nom?

I noticed on the Ireland assessment page that List of artists who have released Irish language songs was being questioned for WP:NOTREPOSITORY and/or WP:STAND. Perhaps you would nominate it if you think it qualifies as I am not up on list reasoning. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I haven't time to check it out now, but will take a look later. May take a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Green/Red

This is just being stubborn now. All editors that have commented have said keep. Are you actually waiting to see if anyone will agree with you? Or are you just being stubborn out of spite because this hasn't gone your way? Welshleprechaun 16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a mtter of insisting hat we have a reasoned discussion rather than avote.

Deletion discussions are not a vote, and a closing admin should not count heads. Nobody has provided evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG, and a proper closure should take that into consideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it is not a vote, but when all other editors have said keep, there is a very strong consensus. Several editors have pointed out the evidence and it is beyond me that why you have failed to see this. Welshleprechaun 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Several refs, but no substantial coverage. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green, the strongest example is a 180-word snippet.

If a pile-on of WP:ILIKEIT voters wants to ignore the evidence, that's up to them, but the criteria in WP:GNG are clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying and harassment

You know the rules Brown hair girl, yet you continue to harass me to no end. First by templating me for something that is strictly within the rules, then by sending me to ANI, and now attempting to delete my article. Your behavior is abhorrent for an editor, let alone for an administrator who should be an example to others. Okip 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing.

It's really really simple: don't engage in votestacking, and nobody will warn you about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New route article

Hi, what do you think of this? Just created it. The only other Manchester bus route I can find is Greater Manchester bus route 192. Manchester is probably the second biggest bus transport system in the UK after London so this is surprising. Aiken ♫ 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing]].
 :It's really really simple: don't engage in votestacking, and nobody will warn you about it. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
+== New route article ==
+Hi, what do you think of [[Greater Manchester bus route 43|this]]? Just created it. The only other Manchester bus route I can find is [[Greater Manchester bus route 192]]. Manchester is probably the second biggest bus transport system in the UK after London so this is surprising. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User:Aiken drum|<span style="color: blue;">Aiken</span>]] [[User talk:Aiken drum|<span style="color: black;">&#9835;</span>]]</span>''' 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)