Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taal Saptak (talk | contribs) at 04:08, 19 June 2020 (New discussion added.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 19 June 2020 at 04:08 by Taal Saptak (talk • contribs • logs)

Hi my name is shannon staschik, my father hans staschik was a member of cast in the movie nullabor hideout. And his father hans staschik and mother helene lived in cook in the early 60s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.14.143 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to improve an article related India and its geography

Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378 

 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.

  • Support
  • Strong Support
  • Agreed

Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end. Taal Saptak (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station categories in Sydney Australia

Following your changes over the last few days I noticed there are two categories (not caused by your changes) in Sydney [1] which covers conventional train stations and [2] which covers Sydney Metro stations with the second a child of the first. There were a number of errors which hopefully I have corrected this morning. But there are two stations including Chatswood railway station which are correctly included in both and there will be more in the future. With such stations included in both should the two categories be at the same level instead of one being a child of the other? Fleet Lists (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleet Lists, you are right that articles such as Chatswood railway station (which is both a metro and mainline station) is correctly included in both. This exposes a slight glitch in WP:SUBCAT, which doesn't adequately cover this situation of partial diffusion, where an article belongs both in the distinguished subcat and in its parent. (Pinging @Marcocapelle, DexDor, Fayenatic london, and Oculi: for their thoughts on this).
Category:Sydney Metro stations is definitely a subset of Category:Railway stations in Sydney, so it is correct to have it as a subcat thereof.
This could in theory be resolved by splitting all rail categories between heavy rail and light rail, so that Category:Railway stations in Sydney became a container for two subcats Category:Sydney Metro stations and subset of Category:Heavy rail stations in Sydney. But in practice, I don't think that the distinction between light and heavy rail transport is clear enough to make such a split practical. WP:TRAINS has a lot of expert editors who could give a much better-informed comment on that than I can, but passenger_rail_terminology#Heavy_rail seems to support my ill-informed view that the distinction is too fuzzy and too variable between countries to allow for objective categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two possibilities which are both applied. Either the metro stations is a subcategory of train stations (apparently here in Sydney, and for example also in Barcelona), or the metro stations category is a sibling of train stations category (for example in Madrid and Bucharest). Neither is necessarily wrong. There is also the matter of local language, for example in the United States the light rail stations would definitely be a subcategory, while in mainland Europe it is more likely that metro stations would be perceived as a sibling category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A thought experiment: Foobar Airport has a metro station, but wp doesn't have an article about the metro station. The airport shouldn't be categorized in the metro stations category. Note: Some editors might want to create a redirect at Foobar Airport Metro Station in order to make the metro stations category complete, but IMO that that would be wrong (or at least unnecessary) as a category is a list of wp articles not a list of things (cf lists).
If there's an article (primarily) about a (heavy) railway station that also has a metro station (e.g. Liverpool Lime Street railway station) then (following the same logic as the airport example) that article should not be in the metro stations category.  Chatswood isn't such a clear example, but I think (historically) it's primarily a (heavy) railway station.  Applying strict categorization like that an article shouldn't be categorized as both a (heavy) railway station and a metro station and the SUBCAT issue is solved. DexDor (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that, DexDor. If the article on Foobar Airport or Foobar Mainline Rail Station includes coverage of the co-located Foobar Metro station, then Foobar Airport or Foobar Mainline Rail Station should be in the metro stations category. It's a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For an example, see London Victoria station, which is correctly categorised as both a heavy rail station and a London Underground station. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What if the airport article also mentions that the airport has a police station, a control tower, a radar tower, a car park, a security fence (and dozens of other things) - would you put it in the categories for all those things (and then remove that category tag if the material is split off to a separate article)? DexDor (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor, just apply WP:DEFINING. Also being a rail station sure is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about DEFINING so perhaps a better example is an article about a hospital that begins "Foobar Hospital is a general hospital ... Its facilities include the country's main centre for cancer treatment and research, a memory clinic ...". Arguably, cancer is a defining characteristic of the hospital (it passes the reasonable-to-mention-in-lede rule), but (IMO) the hospital shouldn't be in Category:Cancer. If the hospital was categorized in that way then when a separate article is created about the cancer centre the article about the hospital would (presumably) be removed from the cancer category, but that's not how categories should work; whether the cancer centre has its own article or not doesn't affect the topic of the hospital article. Whenever, there's a situation where an article is removed from a category because "that category is now carried by another article" it shows that the category is being (mis)used to create a list of (real world) things, not being used to create a list of articles (about a particular topic). DexDor (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:SUBCAT misses this situation, and IMHO it is worth changing it to do so. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with Japan train station articles

WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
I've noticed all the work you are doing on the Japan train station articles. Thank you very much for your time and effort! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Nihonjoe. That's very kind of you.
Category:Railway stations in Japan by year of opening is now fully-populated, i.e. with all the articles on Railway stations in Japan which are categorised with a year opening. There are 8,494 of them. That's very impressive coverage.
A further 595 articles on Railway stations in Japan have no category for year of opening, but my AWB tools can't do anything with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do: Some like Chigasaki Station have the opening year buried in the text or the station infobox. Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hugo999, I just used Petscan to find the Japanese rail station articles which have a year of opening in the infobox, but no year-of-opening category: 107 stations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thanks for helping with categorising all those Japanese railway articles. I've tried to always categorise the opening date, but there was still so much to do. Nihonjoe beat me to it, but have a brownie anyway! RubenSchade (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @RubenSchade. A treat to accompany my morning tea break!
All I have done is to use WP:AWB to diffuse the articles from e.g. Category:Railway stations opened in 1933 to Category:Railway stations in Japan opened in 1933. I could do that only because the articles were already categorised in a by-year category ... so all I did was a quick mechanical polish on other editors's hard work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian railway station categories

Hi your new ones are populating a load of Year establishments in Russia categories - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the list. The problem is the country was "the Russian Empire" then. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Timrollpickering. I know about that, but for various reasons it was easier to populate the categories this way, then rename them afterwards. I will sort it out later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The categories have just been sent to the working page. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Timrollpickering. I am on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. As far as I can see, it's all sorted now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion for barnstar categories

You're invited to join a rename discussion for barnstar categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computing kitten

I liked your proposal on changing the Computer science by time categories to Computing by time. I think that was a very keen observation. Thanks for doing that!

BthompsonHV (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @BthompsonHV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I would have fixed this but I couldn't figure out what they were trying to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utu Under Family, there's errant code. Probably a simple fix too complicated for my simple mind lol. --Armorbeast (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Armorbeast, they had placed the wikilink code in the file name, rather than in the caption. Fixed.[3] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbeast (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by A by B

Did we sort out anything on this? You seem to have created Category:Categories by country and century and Category:Novels by country by century recently. We have Category:Television by country by century, Category:Television by country by decade but Category:Television by country and year (and yet Category:Television by year by country). I personally prefer Television by country by year: (Television by country) by year (all the contents should end with 'by year'). Oculi (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, I'm not sure that we reached a conclusion on "by A and B" vs "by A by B".
Like you, I prefer "by A by B", where all the contents should end with "by B". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(Dis)estCatUSstateCentury

This one's creating problems for a move of several categories in Category:17th-century establishments in the United States to Category:17th-century establishments in the Thirteen Colonies. Is there any way to override "in the United States"? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering@ The solution is don't use it ... because those categories are not in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done in these edits/[4] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Category:Articles containing Panjabi-language text has been nominated for deletion

Category:Articles containing Panjabi-language text has been nominated for deletion. 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. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category questions

Speaking of categorising by geography and year on the railway stations CSD, is there a tool out there which would help me search for articles that have been tagged as say "Buildings in Ireland", but not "Buildings built in *"? Figure you would know if anyone knows. Thanks in advance! SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, by "tagged", do you mean "categorised"?
If so, then WP:PETSCAN: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/
Note that constructing searches takes some care and precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, precisely. Thank you very much! SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, SportingFlyer. Petscan is a brilliant tool, when it's actually available, which for the last month or three has been a sadly intermittent state. Best time to try is mid-morning UTC (about 6am to 11 am), when the Americans are asleep and the Europeans are still getting their caffeine fixes. It seems to load up heavily thereafter.
It is very powerful, and once you get your head around it, you can do amazingly complex things with it. But the main thing to watch out for is the depth of category recursion ... esp since many categories are not "clean", so you often need to add negative categories. One of the worst cases I have dealt with was subcats of Irish people, because Category:Kennedy family was a subcat of Category:People from County Wexford, and Category:Kennedy family includes Category:John F. Kennedy, which in turns includes Category:Presidency of John F. Kennedy and all it subcats. So my searches for Irish people by county were pulling in tens of thousands of articles on US politics ... which led to lot of WTF curses from me until I tracked down the glitch.
That was an extreme case, but there are many smaller ones. For example, when I was working on the GB railway stations, I thought I had gotten the category trees clean, but then found that my list included Gare du Nord in Paris. That was because Category:Railway stations served by Eurostar was a subset of GB, even tho it included stations on both sides of the English channel ... so I had to create Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Eurostar and remove Category:Railway stations served by Eurostar from GB (see [5]). You will almost certainly find lots of such cases, usually where you are least expecting them. Sometimes it can take an hour or two of fixing the parenting of categories before Petscan gives me clean results.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Success

Congratulations, you did it! El Millo (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s has been closed[6] as rename to "shows".
@El Millo, yes I am pleased about the outcome, but that was not my work alone; it was achieved by the work of everyone who stuck to policy and collected evidence. Your evidence collection was a very important part of that, and it was a great pleasure to see how how rigorous you were.
At times that discussion had me very depressed. I was not down feeling about the possible outcome, because in the big scheme of things the naming on en.wp categories isn't a big deal; I was feeling down because of the sheer volume of contributions by editors who repeatedly demonstrated no interest in policy or evidence, and who repeatedly failed to critique their own stances. If Wikipedia is going to survive into the future, it needs to find ways that voices with so little of substance to say are exercised a lot less, and that a much higher value is placed on critical thinking.
But this time at least, the closers wade through the dross and got to the core. Didn't I tell you to keep faith? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did, and I'm very happy indeed that higher value was placed on critical thinking. El Millo (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El Millo, it's now at WP:Move review/Log/2020 May#WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Television_program(me)s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back at it again, apparently. El Millo (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, BHG. I hope you have been keeping well. I discovered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia World and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Lorraine that an unknown number of articles on Wikipedia are using archived links to this website, which the more I look at, seems clearly self-published and not reliable. Here is a good example of the archived source in action, and this is where the self-publishing is described. The publisher was a pageant fan with no listed credentials and given the website is defunct, it's not going to ever improve. Is there a formal way we can get this website invalidated as a reliable source, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants lists under its "Resources" section? Thank you for any help or guidance you can provide. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHGbot error

Hi BHG, hope you are well. Just a quick question, do you happen to know what happened with this edit on Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Not sure what would of caused it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3, oops! No, I don't know what would have caused that, but it is clearly a serious malfunction. Many thanks to you for altering me, and to User:LordApofisu for reverting[7] the bot's error.
I have stopped the bot until I can find the cause and fix it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LuK3, that was weird. I fed the page back into the bot, and it didn't repeat the error. The edit to the same page was fine.[8]
So I have no idea how it happened, which is annoying.
I have added some safety checks to the AWB module[9], and will keep an eye open for any further glitches. Thanks again for your help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up! There was another bot edit before yours so I thought it might be related to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1990s Philippine television seasons

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

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

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 21:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Nationality television series debuts or endings by decade category

Hi! It seems that the above template has depopulated Category:Scottish television by decade and created the red cat Category:Television in Scotland by decade?

I noticed this on Special:WantedCategories Gjs238 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gjs238.
The problem was that the rest of the "nationality television by decade" categories had been speedily renamed to "television in Countryname by decade", and Template:Nationality television series debuts or endings by decade category/core was updated[10] to reflect this … but Scotland had been omitted from the list, so the revised template populated the redlinked Category:Television in Scotland by decade.
I fixed that by boldly renaming the category[11], and also did the same for Wales.[12] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Denmark–Togo relations

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

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

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 01:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update him

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolis_Lauk%C5%BEemis# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.101.182 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHGbot: Hamilton, Queensland

BHGbot didn't deal with the unusual situation found at Hamilton, Queensland very well. This is probably a rare thing and may not need any special coding changes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael Bednarek. Yes, that situation of the eponcat being duplicated in a comment is rare, which is why I didn't code the bot to look for it. The regex to exclude category-within-a-comment adds a heavy load to the parseing of a page, which I didn't feel was justified by the rarity of the issue.
Thanks for cleaning it all up, and removing the comment.[13] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BGHBot error

Hello. I’m not sure what happened here but a paramilitary force is not a living person. Sildemund (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sildemund, thanks for your message. I am sorry about that edit, and also bewildered, because I cannot see any way that this could have been done by the code in use (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 6/AWB module).
Thanks for your revert.[14]
The best I can do with the bot is to restart AWB, in the hope that the problem was that it had somehow become corrupted. All very weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, stranger things have been known to happen! Sildemund (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article undeletion

Hi:

I'm Nahshon Anderson an artist, writer and African American Transgender. In March, my Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion. In April, it was deleted. Since then, I have received two grants from national arts organizations. Though the grants have not been mentioned in the press (as of yet), I can provide you proof via email. Will you please consider reviewing them to restore my Wikipedia article or are you the wrong person to ask?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nahshon_Dion_Anderson Shootingrange78 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shootingrange78
  1. an article about you is not your article. You don't own it.
  2. I don't see any way in which grant awards are relevant to a determination of WP:Notability.
  3. I see from your contribs list[15] that you have posted similarly-worded requests to a total of 6 editors: me plus @Bearian, Materialscientist, Abecedare, Neutrality, and Keith D. That sort of campaigning is not helpful to your cause.
I wish you luck in your artistic career, but suggest that you reputation would be much better served by allowing others to make decisions about whether you are suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTPROMO.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shootingrange78, I would not mind writing an article about you at a future time, but be aware that BrownHairedGirl is correct. Once you hit the "Publish changes" button on Wikipedia, you give up your rights to what you write: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Be careful what you ask for. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

This users mass editing of categories came to my attention; this looks like the sort of thing that should have consensus, but I'm not well-versed in the area of category policy and convention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Wales East (Senedd Cymru electoral region)

Hey BHG. Hope you're well. I'm reaching out to people who have edited [[South Wales East (Senedd Cymru electoral region)] and, in particular, people who know how to edit the table of list members. The Conservative Senedd member Mohammed Asghar has died and having tried to just enter "Vacant" underneath his name, I've got lost in a mathematical haze of rowspan=x rowspan=z rowspan=q confusion. I just can't for the life of me work out which rowspans and column spans and other numbers I have to increase by 1 to add the word "vacant" underneath his name. Could you either help or do this for me please? I had the same problems with European Parliament regions, I just get brain freeze whenever I try to work out what to do with rowspan numbers and I'm too scared to just go ahead and wish for the best!

Thanks for any assistance :) I'll post a version of this message on a few other editors pages too just in case there's someone else about. Speak soon doktorb wordsdeeds 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to User: Arms & Hearts all is well. Stand down! doktorb wordsdeeds 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject peer review categories due for a cleanup

Hi BHG, I hope that you're well - don't think we've interacted before. I edit in the anatomy and peer review spaces. As part of my biannual cleanup of peer review I've been trawling through the categories associated with peer review. I have seen you at categories for deletion and would like to ask for your opinion about the contents of this category: Category:WikiProject_peer_reviews. I can't find a single Wikiproject there which has open peer reviews. I opened ten randomly and the most recent review I found on any was in 2012. In fact most of them link to pages that may or may not have been edited (c.f. Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe/Peer review).

I feel they should be deleted because (1) they are unused and clutter WikiProjects (2) if they become reused they may waste or soak up lots of time when we have a fine and up-to-date and slightly more viewed project already, and (3) they encourage WP ownership of reviews which is a no-no. Also, (4) I think overall it's better if we can just have a single way to do this, which can be maintained centrally and is easier for editors to learn how to use.

I wanted to ask your advice before putting these up for nomination because (1) I want to see if you think this is a reasonable request and the category has lots of associated pages, associated with Wikiprojects, and (2) I'm not sure about how I should go about this discussion. If I do this in the wrong way it will end up devolving into people commenting about how it was filed wrong, needed notifications, isn't possible for logistical reasons etc.; my goal would be to somehow post the discussion in a place and manner where a discussion on its merits can occur.

Over to you, and thank you for your advice / help! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&oldid=963318559"