User talk:BrownHairedGirl

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

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

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

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

Merge Proposal

Hi there!

Rembrandt research in Australia

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie

Nikola Kicev

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Addition to list

Hi... Actress /Model Carmen Electra is From Ohio

👍

Quackery

WP:INVOLVED. Please let somebody else close this. Have you seen Category:Murderers? Your argument makes no sense. Please revert. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman

The decision at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists/WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2 was based on exceptionally broad participation, and the principles agreed in that marathon exercise are v clear.

So I am very surprised and disappointed that an experienced editor like your good self could say that it makes no sense. You may disagree with that very detailed discussion and with the eloquent 3-admin closure and with the subsequent DRV, but makes no sense is an extraordinary dismissal of the broad community consensus established in 2014.

Note that the OED definition of "quack" explicitly ties the term to dishonesty. That's makes it an attack category per WP:G10, and a serious WP:BLP issue when applied to living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Stop with the excuses. Revert your improper closure. The earlier discussion resulted in a renaming, which is where this discussion was likely headed until your biased and involvled closure. What you did was admin abuse. Don’t make me take this to Arbcom. Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• A more civil tone would help, @Jehochman, as would some WP:AGF. I have not written excuses; I have explained the policy basis for my action. You are not obliged to agree with my explanation, but it is not acceptable for you to imply dishonest intent by calling them excuses.

If you don't want to engage with the policy-based reasons I gave, then of course you should free to open a WP:DRV. If you do so, then please be sure to link to this discussion.

Alternatively, if you want Arbcom to review your rudeness rather than having DRV review the closure, then you may of course prefer to go there.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

How do your actions comply with WP:INVOLVED? You have a sever conflict of interest closing that discussion. It looks awful. Please reverse your error. If I were rude I would revert you, but I am polite. I came here to talk with you, but you are choosing to be intransigent and wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield. Polite words do not make your rude actions ok. You supervoted that discussion. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 08:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Step back and let some other admin close the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 08:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman, I have given you a substantive explanation of actions which i took in good faith. If you were actually being polite, you would engage with that rather than simply dismissing it as makes no sense and excuses.

You claim that I am choosing to be intransigent, but anyone reviewing this discussion can see that you have simply declined to make any reasoned response to the pints which I made. Your claim of wrong, wrong, wrong is just another round of you choosing exhortation over reasoned discussion.

As to your claim that I am wielding civility as a sword, rather than a shield ... the only sword wielded here has been your threats.

It's up to you to decide how you wish to proceed.

I would prefer that you took a deep breath and actually engaged with the points which I made in my prompt reply to your initial post here. But if you choose to follow another path, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been watching this discussion and it looked like it would result in a renaming to a NPOV title, as you had requested. BLP enforcement is not a card you can play here. You haven’t demonstrated that the category was improperly applied to any biography. If it was, you could simply have removed it from that biography. As for threats, I don’t see any. It is not a threat to use dispute resolution. As an admin Arbcom is the only proper venue to review an allegation of admin abuse. You’ve been here a long time and apparently think rules don’t apply to you. I like IAR too, but if you do it, you need to get the decision right, or the consequences are on you. Jehochman ^Talk 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also raised at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Bulk_deletions_on_'stale'_CfDs? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman, it appears to me that you may not have fully read the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists.

So I will quite here the passage which informed my decision (emphasis added by me):

The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization.

The bolding of the final sentence is added by me, because it is the critical point: per WP:BLP, do not categorise individuals as "pseudoscientist".

I see no reason to doubt that the closer of the 2014 discussion would have responded would have been even firmer if the blatantly pejorative term "quackery" had been used in the categories under discussion there. Those BLP reasons are why I acted promptly.

I remain disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself shows so little concern for the WP:BLP issues involved here. I cited BLP in my closure, and in my initial reply to you ... but in 4 rounds of discussion, you have not even acknowledgded that BLP is factor.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for stepping in here, but Category:Autism quackery contained non-biographical articles like Autism Research Institute and Rope worms. So it's not entirely the same as the previously deleted categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't bother to answer, since it is already on WP:DRV. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• It will get sorted at deletion review. I recommend you not do an involved close again. You’re entitled to be forgiven the occasional error, but this one was pretty severe. Please have the last word. I leave in peace. Jehochman ^Talk 10:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: for the reasons set out above (which you seem astonishingly unwilling to even acknowledge), I continue to disagree that it was an error. I hope that DRV will sort it by upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and that it will not support WP:FORUMSHOPping, but we will see.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Undelete the category and rename it “Autism pseudoscience” or “Pseudoscientific autism treatments”. You can then remove the category from any page where BLP is a problem due to insufficient references. This was your original opinion and the consensus of the discussion. It will save everybody a lot of grief if we achieve a harmonious conclusion. If you do that I will endorse the close and we can all move on. The “Quacks” category is a tougher problem. I think “Medical pseudoscience” is an allowable category. You could undelete and rename that one or merge into an existing pseudoscience subcategory. If pseudoscience is an allowed category so are subcategories to help organize the entries by topic. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, I would support this. I'd prefer “Autism pseudoscience” over “Pseudoscientific autism treatments” as I'd like to be able to include things like Rope worms which are a consequence of taking a claimed treatment (bleach enemas). Also the idea that MMR vaccines cause autism is not strictly a treatment either. My phrasing on the original category was "Related to unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments for autism" so that the category could cover treatments, side-effects, ideas and those promoting them. After the various discussions, and if the category can be restored in this way, I'd suggest removing 'quack' and also adding "Caution should be used when applying this category to living persons" or some other form of wording that highlights the possibility of libelling someone or attacking their views. Fingers crossed... thanks, Jo :) JoBrodie (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman & JoBrodie: the matter is being discussed at WP:DRV, and I think it best that we all accept the outcome of that discussion, whenever and however it is closed. So my close will stand unless and until overturned at DRV.

Jehochman, please check your facts before making statements about the views of editors:

1. my original recommendation[1] at the CFD was a bolded "delete". I suggested a renaming as an alternative, but noted the problems in using the loaded term "pseudoscience"
2. the discussion had not run its course, and per WP:NOTVOTE I disagree that there was a consensus to rename rather than delete.

I also urge both of you to drawback from your pursuit of WP:THETRUTH, and to read http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=Freedom_from_bias. That's where one of the world's biggest and most respected news agencies asserts principles such as "take no side, tell all sides". They do so under the pressures of deadlines and breaking news, so there is no reason why a encyclopedia with no deadline cannot take the time to ensure neutral terminology. Note for example, how in https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-autism-interventions/sensory-and-diet-therapies-for-autism-lack-strong-evidence-idUSKBN18M2MJ Reuters describes all the criticisms of such therapies and entirely avoids the use of the stigmatising terminology which you two are both pursuing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What terminology do you suggest using? What do you want to call quack cures for autism? We have Category:Pseudoscience. Do you propose to delete that too? Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I suggest that you take a step back from the combative tone which you have adopted throughout our discussions on this page, and rethink this from a fundamental starting point of WP:NPOV and the Reuters principle of "take no side, tell all sides".

Instead of asking what label is best applied to a grouping created with a clear intent to stigmatise and malign, I suggest starting from first principles and asking a set of questions about how best to organise en.wp's coverage of topics related to autism without taking sides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interesting in expanding the scope of discussion so wide. I want to solve the problem on the table, and move on. What do we call all the unscientific, unproven autism pseudo-therapies? There should be an NPOV term that describes them without attacking. I agree with you completely that "quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. Can we start from that point of agreement, and see if we can enlarge it? It will save the community a lot of time if we can put forth a mutually agreeable proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman I am glad that we agree that the term "quackery" is entirely inappropriate word choice for an encyclopedia. I think it's the first time in this discussion that we have explicitly agreed on anything, so I welcome that

However, I don't think that it is helpful to start from the basis of a category designed to stigmatise. Much better to start from basic NPOV principles, away from the specifics of the intent to stigmatise.

We already have Category:Alternative medicine as a broad-spectrum grouping for unconventional approaches, using neutral terminology. We also have Category:Health fraud for outright fraud.

Do we have any general categories for concepts such as "unproven treatments" or "treatments proven harmful"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mastcell: can you answer this very interesting question? Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

On another note, your comment here is good. Could you possibly restore the category, reopen the discussion but as an interim measure rename it to anything non-attacking? The discussion can then gather thoughts and resolve what the best name would be. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman, sorry, but as I noted above, the matter is now in the hands of DRV. The DRV will eventually be closed, and in the meantime I don't want to pr-empt its outcome. Now that the category has been deleted, there is no longer a BLP/G4/G10 case for unilateral action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you object if somebody recreated the category from scratch using a neutral name, such as Autism pseudoscience? Generally it is not allowed to recreate deleted things, but here the idea is to change the name and lose the edit history. Are you OK with that? Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, @Jehochman, I am not Ok with that. Just let the DRV run its course, rather than pre-empting its outcome and creating yet more procedural tangles.

What's the rush to re-create?

In the meantime, it would be a really good idea to start a broader discussion somewhere about how best to neutrally categorise topics relating to alternative medicine in relation to their position on a spectrum of something like effective—unproven—disputed—disproven—fraudulent and/or harmless—harmful.

The issues in doing so apply to all types of alternative medicine, so it would be best to do this at a broad level, to build a consistent hierarchy of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• The discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Category:Autism_quackery) about del / keep / rename for Autism quackery seems to have reached a natural end with 'rename' the preferred option. Can the category be renamed to Autism pseudoscience or does the discussion need to stay open for longer than since 19th Jan 2019? Thanks JoBrodie (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The use of country, state and county flags in infoboxes

May I please request your assistance on the talk pages of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Springfield, Massachusetts articles, under the heading Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox. I believed adding such a comment to each article's talk page was the correct way to proceed, but, in hindsight, I now believe I should have asked your advice before doing so. My Favourite Account  ^😊 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@My Favourite Account: thanks for the msg, but I have no idea why you think that you should have asked me.

If you can't reach a consensus on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I suggest a WP:RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know who else to ask. In my haste to resolve the issue, I mistakenly referred to a clause that was not relevant, and as it turns out, a consensus is not in fact needed on each article. I do, however, recall there being a general consensus many years ago regarding this, and now, looking at any number of "settlement" articles, it soon becomes apparent that flags are not used in these fields except for a select number of articles, mostly in the United States.

My Favourite Account  ^😊 17:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason I thought you'd be able to help is because I wanted to avoid an edit war.

My Favourite Account  ^😊 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no sign of an edit war breaking out unless you continue reverting.

And please, make that sig less intrusive before you post here again. What on earth is the bolded timestamp about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies - AWB error

I goofed on this one - I apologise Lyndaship (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally directed comments

I see you saw my reply to your comment at wt:NRHP and that you replied there too. It is off-topic there, but I think I do take offense at your comment there, because it came across to me as needlessly denigrating me, and perhaps as if you are proud of having imposed a block upon me. You label me as having IDHT attitude there. There was not call for your comments, which are personally directed. It seems you are making a pre-meditated strike against me, to label me as an invalid participant.

Also, you make charges, some which might be opinions about me which you are free to have, but are not appropriate to just come out with that way, and some of which are factually wrong IMO, and then you appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective). I do agree it is not appropriate to go further into debate there about whether your statements about me are false or true, or insulting or not. But it's not right to do that. About what I feel is factually wrong, that includes your characterizing the former categories about NRHP architects etc as "private", and your seeming to imply (my interpretation) that it was just me creating all the NRHP-related style categories that do correspond to NPS/NRIS categories. I am not wanting to overstate your position as horribly bad; I would have to agree that factually some categories that I created or recreated have been brought to CFD, because that is true, and I would even further understand you could possibly have a negative opinion about my communications or actions related to some of the past stuff, but that still doesn't call for you to go on negatively about me in such a personally directed way as if I am a somewhat evil person (my perception) in a new discussion at NRHP. I don't know how to talk about this situation exactly, it seems to have to do with AGF and having basic respect for one another or not.

Hey, I don't care too much about this, really, and I probably don't much want to go further about this if you turn out to want to simply dismiss me here, though I hope you won't. (Perhaps we could chat about what do you think should be done, or should have been done already, process-wise, about situation of disagreement about Early Commercial architecture or other styles?) But I think that for my own sake and for sake of continuing quality of the NRHP wikiproject discussion forum that I ought to register that I do object to what you said / how you said it. I would appreciate if you would try to see and acknowledge my perspective about this here. At the NRHP discussion, I do hope you will continue to contribute on the content subject, about Early Commercial architecture as a valid thing for Wikipedia coverage including by categories. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: as you well know, I did not suggest or imply that you are evil. And I take no pride in blocking anyone.

But a lot of your editing indeed has been problematic, and you have had a very poor approach to consensus. I do not, as you claim, go on about this. I wrote two short paras about it in a discussion which I joined because I had been pinged, and where your conduct is relevant context.

And as to AGF ... when you re-create a deleted category 3 times and still showed no understanding of why you were blocked for that, I think that my comment about Doncram's WP:IDHT approach to consensus was mild and restrained.

Also, please look again at which I actually wrote. You claim above that I appear to try to cut off discussion about it ("leaving aside Doncram's" perspective), which is not what I wrote. I did not try to cut off your perspective; I tried to separate your long history of misconduct from the substantive case for such categories.

I wish you well, but this post here does not suggest to me that you have learned the lesson of that block, which is that while you are entirely free to disagree with a consensus, you need to work within it instead of disregarding it or trying end runs around it. There are scores of categorisation issues where I believe that the consensus is wrong, but I work within it. If you did likewise, you would face much less criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

About trying to cut off discussion, let's not get sidetracked with semantics. Your observations about me were pretty negative, and you alluded to "leaving aside" that, which with AGF I do interpret as suggesting the negative stuff does not need to be hashed out in detail there. I am not accusing you of anything bad with the suggestion (given you made the negative comments), I agree with that suggestion, I am not wanting to have it out there.

Right, I will volunteer that I coulda/shoulda done more work to develop sources about a category and then opened a new CFD to come to a new consensus, rather than creating new categories sometimes. You are right, I was wrong about some of this.

I don't know if you can be sympathetic, but there is some explanation too. I am not trying to get out of all blame, if there was to be a blame-assignment exercise, but others or everyone or nobody is at fault in some general ways. A big obstacle, at least in my perception, is a sometimes/often poor atmosphere around NRHP-related stuff, wherein it is not feasible to get discussion to happen or to be handled properly to come to a consensus decision. Maybe CFDs are different and would work, but there are numerous RFC-type issues which I have personally tried to have RFC-type discussions about, where it did not work. There simply exist long-running unresolved editorial decision issues which continue to rankle, and it is beyond me to fix the overall situation. I have done what I can to have RFC-type discussions on specific issues. About "needing to work it out" would your advice be to have it out, to force confrontation, about every rankling issue? I also even tried suggesting someone else run a general process to manage the nagging issues, e.g. to informally vote on which issues should be addressed by the NRHP wikiproject in a given year, with RFC-type discussions. I perceive low tolerance. Frankly, about Early Commercial architecture right now, where I did post some sources, I feel pretty negative about likelihood of the current discussion being productive, really, in getting towards consensus among NRHP editors.

E.g. I don't recall what I knew (whether I knew about the CFD or not) when i apparently recreated the Early Commercial architecture in the U.S. category. I think I would have used the weirdly named 2014 CFD version if I did know about the CFD. And I don't know why a simple redirect is not still in place. But it does seem obvious to me, from what I know, that Early Commercial architecture should be a valid Wikipedia article and set of categories. And it doesn't seem likely/feasible to get that properly acknowledged. So when creating new articles that need the category, it can seem simplest, best or even tactful not to seem to force an unwelcome discussion. I can see how you can view my actions poorly, but there's other stuff you don't see, and I and others can only tolerate so much. So anyhow people, not just me, are left to just blunder along, when creating new articles.

I wonder if you can perhaps make a difference in a positive way there where I can't, if you would be willing to discuss and take some leadership on some issues. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to Red Dirt Skinners wiki page

Recent changes have been removed because you thought I was just practicing making changes. These weren't practices, they were updates, I have re-instated the changes. I was adding awards from year end notifications. If there's a problem here, please advise. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmusicfan (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Renewing one of the by-philosophy discussions

Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Category: People of Celtic descent

Thanks for the ping - I did not have the category on my watchlist so would have been unlikely to see the discussion. I don't know if you recall Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was topic-banned from this area a while ago. I don't have much time to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, as I am dealing with a family bereavement. If you see something you think I should know about then could you drop me a message on my talk page? That sends me an email so I can take a look when I can. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Duncan

I'm v sorry to hera of your loss. Hope you all find some peace in the goodbyes.

Sure, I'll keepo an eye out, and try to notify you.

BUt don't worry too much about en.wp at the moment. You got more important things tight now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored a lot more subcats the nominator had removed. I also added the CfD template to the category page, which he had forgotten to do. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:People of Celtic Descent

I have nominated this for deletion here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_31#Category:People_of_Celtic_descent - and intend to propose all related categories for deletion such as the one you created, Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please add your thoughts. I remain puzzled by the need to create such bizzare categories, and as neither you nor DuncanHill have seen fit to explain why my deletions were reverted (or at least use it appropriately for Iron Age folk), I feel this is the only course left. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Botswana

I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:WikiProject Botswana as it assists editors in tagging. If that is the case, could the deprecation notice be removed? Deprecation means that the code should not be used and is scheduled for deletion in a future date. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: This should probably apply to all the African country wikiproject Templates. Per [2] it was decided that they should not be deleted, but they should all be marked as subst only.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Just checking if I missed something, does subst also mean deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: no, it's a different thing. Subst-only just means that the template shouldn't be trandcluded directly on to a page, it should be placed with "subst:" so that the content of the template is saved rather than the template itself. That means a "what links here" will have no pages listed. It can still be a useful template to have available to editors though, which is why it's not deprecated. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just what I thought. I'll remove the deprecation template on it then. Thanks for the info. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: should the US templates at Category:Deprecated templates from September 2011 also be subst and not deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You Got Mail

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...

I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.

Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)

All the best,

Praevalebit

Game to help a college class that is learning to write for a Wikiproject?

Hey, BrownHairedGirl,

I am teaching a course at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA that is teaching students how to write Wikipedia Articles for a WikiProject. You made an edit on one of them and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate so that we could get it right.

What we are looking for is someone who is willing to let people make mistakes and give them a shot to correct them in Draft so that they learn. Is this something with which you would be willing to assist with what time you might have available? Please.

Thanks, mkurowski Mkurowski (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mkurowski

There's a lot of leeway on draft articles.

Which article are you referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not me, Gov

Thanks for the "better to use a category which actually exists" reminder at Template:Template rating/doc, BHG. But the category was already there before I touched the page --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, RexxS. Seems I misread the diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Stranger Things (television series)

Just wondering if there was a reason as to why Category:Stranger Things (television series) couldn't be at Category:Stranger Things? Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: because that title is ambiguous: see Stranger Things (disambiguation).

The TV series may be the WP:Primary topic (tho I haven't checked), but categories are better unambiguous, to avoid miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. It is the primary topic, existing at the primary name for the topic. However, in this case, the category would better be situated at Category:Stranger Things (TV series), to comply with WP:NCTV. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: thanks for that pointer. I meant to check the convention, but forgot.

I have now listed it[3] at WP:CFDW for speedy renaming per WP:C2E, and the bots should rename it shortly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No problems, thanks. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

Hello! You protected Languages of the Republic of Macedonia and maybe you are right. The North Macedonian language should not have been changed indeed. But the article should definitely be Languages of North Macedonia as should the "Republic of Macedonia" elements be replaced. thx! --APG1984 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of renaming and moving of articles and categories regarding Macedonia right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the main article move to North Macedonia see that talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page[4].

Please see my comments at WP:Requests for page protection#Languages_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia (permalink) about the need for less haste and more consensus-building here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A request

Could you please close this AFD[5]? I mistakenly started it. He does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: done[6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia CFD

Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination.

Apologies for any inconvenience. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89 I would add the 8 categories which include "Republic of Macedonia" in their title. However, sadly the CFD has been prematurely closed by non-admin @MattLongCT (see discussion below and at User talk:MattLongCT#CfD_Macedonia).

Would you be kind enough to revert that WP:BADNAC, and reopen the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened. Would you like to add the 8 categories or would you like me to? — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89. I have added the 8 cats to the CFD[7], and tagged them.[8]

Thanks again for spotting them, and for notifying me. It took me a few hours to build the list (because the category tree is heavily polluted), so I'd have missed them otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Legacypac, do read WP:MULTI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North Macedonia

Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't hate me. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but closed the WP:CfD just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be really bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MattLongCT, I agree with the comments on your talk page by @Marcocapelle[9] and @Oculi[10]. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (see WP:BADNAC#2), because it is a controversial closure.

The article name of the country has already been agreed at Talk:North Macedonia#Requested_move_8_February_2019, where the closer @MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.

The adjectival forms are indeed being discussed at the RFC, but they have been explicitly excluded from the CFD. So the CFD and RFC can run in parallel. Please revert your closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PS See also WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question".

So far as I am aware, you don't have that extraordinary experience of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Another request

Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek[11] who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here[12] and here[13], he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern.

I've tried asking this editor myself[14] and a few other occasions and been ignored[15]. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here[16] and here[17] for two recent examples. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clothing companies

Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of the roof?, who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Wikipedia category at [18] you have chosen to revert only me for--see Category:Clothing companies established in 1958, Category:Clothing companies established in 1959, Category:Clothing companies established in 1960, Category:Clothing companies established in 1961, Category:Clothing companies established in 1962, Category:Clothing companies established in 1964, Category:Clothing companies established in 1965, Category:Clothing companies established in 1966, etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and the roof? have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Wikipedia categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Wikipedia, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at [19] consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. Doprendek (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the above is not a tu quoque argument. By singling out one category year (1963) to differ from the ones directly preceding and following it is to break the logical structure of the existing categories. Any application of a rule such as WP:SUBCAT must be weighed against producing such inconsistencies. And there should presumably be discussion and a plan in place to address the subsequent inconsistencies in existing categories if the change is put forward. This is not a trivial operation. It deserves discussion and a plan of action, not cherry-picking me as some miscreant who needs personal attention. Doprendek (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please consider what a good faith reversion per WP:SUBCAT of these categories might look like. Many of these "Clothing companies established in year XXXX" categories were created by user User:Look2See1. (Please note: No criticism implied. Thanks for your work, User:Look2See1!) So if one was, in good faith, trying to correct subcat errors, one might notify this user as well as me for a discussion. In fact, a general discussion of this--how does one systematically change subcategorization issues across horizontally-organized categories such as "in year XXXX"? and how does one do it?--IMO needs to be done, but hasn't been. Then, one could presumably come to a conclusion and divide the labor to make the changes. Or, one might WP:BEBOLD and just go ahead and change the whole category one by one by oneself, although this is very labor intensive, as someone who has done such work before can attest. But it should be clear that what one would NOT do--if one was actually interested in solving a subcategorization problem, rather than targeting a particular user--is single out only one of the horizontally-organized categories for change and leave the others directly adjacent (presumably equally incorrect) intact, which actually WORSENS the existing situation. Doprendek (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who is taking it personal and taking the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach rather than still adding shit to category pages when you know its wrong. I have been cleaning up behind Look2See- who got indefinitely blocked for the messes he was creating- and Hugo999 not just you. I didn't cherry pick. You are refusing to stop this bullshit so I came here because nothing else (Multiple messages on your talk page) was working....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Doprendek a little more WP:AGF would help a lot. As would less verbosity, and more focus on the substantive issues. (BTW, I have changed the heading of this discussion to a more descriptive and less accusatory title)

I know that @WilliamJE can be an acquired taste, but that doesn't mean he is wrong; best to evaluate his comments on their merits. And User:Look2See1 has been indef-blocked since 2017 for repeated disruption, so we can ignore that editor.

So, to the substance.

Why do you think that it is insufficient for clothing companies to be categorised under both manufacturing and design? Why do you think that they also need to be in the undifferentiated parent cat "companies"?

Or is your objection simply about consistency, that that they should all be either included in the parent or all removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

He never did reply to you. Not surprisingly, because there is no logical explanation for his edits. Just personal attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your fork

About Special:Diff/883889340 - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run #REDIRECT [[User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js]] as javascript code. See User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DannyS712. I learnt the hard way that it broke, so the next edit[20] changed it to importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' ) , which works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Critics of transhumanism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Critics of transhumanism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112|Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen]] Geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/113|Francophone Women]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman]]
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|talkpage]] Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sindbad edits.

Hello I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaboi1956 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mediaboi1956: are you referring

1. to this edit[21], which I reverted in this edit?[22] ... or
2. to these edits[23], which were reverted[24] by User:Dl2000? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How To Make Edits That Are Acceptable

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Can you please give instruction on making the edits that we tried to make to Glenn Hetrick's Wiki page?

We're not trying to do anything wrong, libelous, or against Wiki rules...

The images of Mr. Hetrick are old; we wanted to take them out and put in his image as the host of SyFy's FaceOff! which he was for years.

All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistants.

How can we update his bio? Do you need authorization from him?

What are considered reliable sources? I tried my best and had no clue I was using what Wiki considers "unreliable" sources.

IS it possible to have you reply also in my personal email? Wiki is very awkward for me and honestly hard to figure out.

Is it possible to forward the changes he wants to you? Can you enter them properly on his behalf?

serenascholl888@gmail.com

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiwunderkind

Sorry to use numbered points, but I think it's clearest:

1. I keep discussion about Wikipedia articles public on Wikipedia, so I won't be emailing you.
2. Wikipedia articles must use relaible sources. You didn't; your edits[25] used unreliable sources including Wikipedia and IMDB
3. Since you say that All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistant, you have a Conflict of Interest, and therefore you should not edit the page See WP:Conflict of Interest

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I see that I had already left a note[26] on you talk page about the Conflict of Interest. Please read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHariedGirl,

I gave my email address because there's a bug red bar across the notes from you that say indicate you'll be answering on the talk page unless we give another way to answer --- not because I want to take the talk off this page.

I was hoping for a more human response however, and one that would actually help.

I don't understand 9% of what you sent out to me. It might as well be in Greek. And navigating through this site is really unfathomable. It's just not understandable or intuitive.

I do get it that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits... So WHO IS?

Can I replace the old version of the Wiki page before I made edits? (I kept a copy of the code version) so that at least we know that version is acceptable to you/Wiki?

Instead of reams of Wiki rules, is there anyone in the Wiki Admin world who can help with making legit updates to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Wikiwunderkind.

I'll try to explain this very simply.

1. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia. This is, a reference work which summarises knowledge published elsewhere by reliable sources
2. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. If anyone wants to promote Hetrick online, they can set up a blog or website, or use social media or buy advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service
3. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality. So an article should not edited by anyone with a conflict of interest. That means that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits on to articles about him.
4. You or Mr Hetrick or anyone else is free to edit Talk:Glenn Hetrick to request edits to the page
5. To request edits, follow the instructions at Template:Request edit.
6. Note that any changes will rejected unless they are sourced to independent, reliable sources. So, for example, a scholarly book or a newspaper article is appropriate; a blog or a press release or a company website is not suitable.
7. Your requested edit will be reviewed by independent editors, who will decide whether the change improves Wikipedia.
8. The previous edits which you made contained copyright violations, so have been removed.
9. All other versions of the article remain in the article's history ... but you need not worry about that, because you won't be editing the article.

Please remember that Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers. I have volunteered as much help to you as am willing to give. If you would like further assistance, please ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is set up to help new editors.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Module:See also if exists

Module:See also if exists has been nominated for merging with Module:Category see also if exists. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Pppery it would be great if you could divert your energies to adding functionality, instead of these ill-conceived merge proposals. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Irish problem...

I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. GiantSnowman 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

You became involved in a bit of drama recently, as did I. I do not wish to grave dance, nor rehash the controversy, so I will refrain from naming names or specifics. Regardless, it was important that an editor of your magnitude stood up for the idea of civility. Too often, we're forced to choose between respecting serious but uncivil content contributors and respecting the ideal of civility itself. You demonstrate an exemplary stance that the two sides are not irreconcilable. You stood up for what was right in the face of controversy. Additionally, while you technically were in the right in terms of policy, you demonstrated that you were able to accept criticism that you likely didn't agree with, and overturn your own administrative action. This demonstrates wisdom, restraint, and a balanced temperament, which are important qualities in an administrator. So, in sum, I just want to recognize you for both your assertiveness in standing up for what's right, and your restraint in not unnecessarily escalating an already-heated situation. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia

We are in the process of moving all Macedonia categories to North Macedonia. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Current_requests. When you alter templates it makes the moves all the more difficult. I shall revert Template:User in North Macedonia. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have just proposed that they be moved. The requests remain open for 48 hours to see if there are any objections.

Please wait until the processing starts before you alter the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Category|Controlled lakes

Greetings User:BrownHairedGirl. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the Control Lakes listing at the {{NYCwater}} template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page Controlled lake and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100

I did ping you![27]

However, I was working off the latest update of my list of redlinked cats, and had forgotten that having whittled down the 100 other entries which were there earlier today, the latest update was mostly going to be v recent edits. Looking at the page history, it seems I jumped way too quickly (only one minute after your last edit). I should have left it for longer; sorry about that.

I hope that my edit summary didn't come across as sarky. I have taken to trying to be more informative in edit summaries, so that's one of my new std summaries for these cases. I used to just write "category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT)", but that seemed a bit terse. Maybe the terse form is better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)