User talk:Brough87

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Brough87. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Brough87. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Brough87. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Germanic peoples - Yes, my revert made little sense[edit]

I must have had a fit - my revert at Germanic peoples indeed made no sense, as you correctly spotted. Sorry! Batternut (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, bud. Brough87 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Australian people of Celtic descent[edit]

Hi, why are you emptying Category:Australian people of Celtic descent? DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: because the concept of "Celtic" in the modern era is an arbitrary categorisation that is not supported by the required sources, and is causing endless controversy on talk pages. What Encyclopedic benefit does it offer to categorise such groups on a such a spurious basis? Brough87 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Then you should nominate the categories for deletion, not empty them. You should also use edit summaries. When editors see someone emptying a mass of categories with no attempt at explanation, they are likely to assume vandalism. You should re-populate the categoris, and undo your blanking of the category pages, and then nominate them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: unfortunately these categories have been made en mass by one editor over the last few days, with no consensus sought nor explanation given. Brough87 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, these categories were emptied en masse by one editor over the last few hours, with no consensus sought...". Actually, for example Category:Celtic diaspora which you nominated for speedy deletion as being empty was created in 2013. You need to revert yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And what about the Argentine people of Celtic descent, you just reverted that out of hand. Brough87 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec)I see that after you were advised of trhe correct procedure you then nominated the categories that you had emptied for speedy deletion on the ground of them being empty. This is clearly not acceptable. You have also continued not to use edit summaries for these actions. Please stop behaving in this way. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: the categories were not set up using the correct procedure, why have you chosen to go on a mass reversion spree? Brough87 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No need to ping me every time. You have been emptying categories out of process, you hae violated WP:BRD (I not you removed my warning about this here, you are not explaining your edits in summaries, and you are abusing the Speedy Deletion criteria. You are also doing this to some categories which have been around for years, contrary to your claim above. Nominate for deletion following the correct procedure. If you continue I will take this to ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You have violated the procedure, you've just gone on a mass arbitrary reversion spree with no explanation and no accounting of the reasons for initial edit. Yes, Category:Celtic diaspora was in existence since 2013, however things like Argentine people of Celtic descent is but one example of a very recent one. Brough87 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To help me understand your recent evidently controversial edits, could you perhaps explain this edit you made, removing a Celtic category from a subject that seems to have good Celtic connections? Thanks. (I'll watch this page) Batternut (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: First and foremost I believe that the existence of the Category drew an odd link between Ancient Celts and modern ethnic groups supposedly descended from Celts; there is a significant distinction between antiquity and now. I have no issue with the existence of Category:Ancient Celtic women I think that the creation of another would be far more apt, I also have no issue with the existence of Category:1st-century BC Iranian people for the same reason. If my views were primarily about an overarching political conspiracy (as asserted by my primary accuser) why would I not try and expunge the existence of any category mentioning Celts? Brough87 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Why then did you not replace the category on that article with Category:Ancient Celtic people? Also, you left Category:Iranian people of Greek descent on that article - surely that made the same type of link between ancient and modern Iranians. If the ancient/modern link was the issue, would you not have removed both at the same time? Batternut (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to Category:Iranian people of Greek descent, the overwhelming majority of those are figures from antiquity (bar 2), and while I may not agree with the name of the category, it was not so much of an issue. The "People of Celtic descent" category was primarily directed towards "modern celts" while this one was not. When it comes Category:Ancient Celtic people, I must admit I'm not without fault; I had multiple tabs open and didn't think to make the category change on that particular point. Brough87 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to make clear that shortly after that edit, I was distracted by the other user's query and I prioritized that. Brough87 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, can I enquire why you removed category Category:Celtic nations from Ireland in this edit? Thanks, Batternut (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: because the primary justification for that categorisation appeared to be the Celtic League, a political campaigning organisation that seems to be a poor source of academic classification of countries/peoples; and therefore of questionable encyclopedic value. Note, I did not remove the 'Pan-Celtism' template because that refers primarily to a international political movement and therefore it's inclusion does have encyclopedic value. Brough87 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
When the article discusses Celtic stuff so much, and the "Culture" section states "Ireland is regarded as one of the Celtic nations", the existence of some campaign group is a weak justification. Categorization follows article text - if one disagrees with the category one has to change the article text first, which in this case would take quite some discussion. I suspect that would be obvious to most people familiar with Ireland and its people. Batternut (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is there seems to be no agreement as to what constitutes a "Celtic nation" amongst users (as well as the broader categorisation of ethnic groups). How should we proceed on this topic? Brough87 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Celtic nations seems pretty stable, which does indicate consensus. Any changes you want can be discussed there. Batternut (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Then I accept that is what I should have done. However if you can advise on how to start a broader discussion on how we would define particular ethnic groups as X or Y (across the whole of WP), I would be grateful. Brough87 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentiment at ANI is, in my inexperienced view, not going your way. My advice is for you to step back from ethnicity and its categorization for a significant period. Subsequently, if still interested, WP:CFD is the place for such a debate. The ANI discussion is where you should make any such voluntary declaration. Batternut (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's not going my way, it's not going my way. I just happen to dislike the abuse I've received from Hijiri 88. Brough87 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing restrictions[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that you are indefinitely banned from making any edits related to the topic of Celts, broadly construed. In addition, you are warned that you will be blocked indefinitely if you engage in any inappropriate addition/removal/modification of categories, or page blanking, without further notice. These restrictions will be logged at WP:EDR. Swarm 18:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Global Anarchy[edit]

Your information is clearly wrong. I know for a fact,you don’t have credibility with 2 of your posts. Thank you for the realisation that information on Wikipedia isn’t reliable and your views are opinion’s only without evidence. I will never use this website again. Dirk Alexander (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)