User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 071

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Categorizing redirects

If only one section of a Wikipedia article is about a particular category, is it advisable to create a redirect pointing to that section, and then put the category at the bottom of that redirect, instead of at the bottom of the article? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, @Anythingyouwant.

I guess that the answer is "it depends". Categorising redirects in content pages can be controversial; if possible, it's preferable to categorise the actual article.

Which article do you have in mind? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a moot point now, because I put some categories at redirects but got reverted and I don’t feel like quibbling about it. But I was curious about this for the next time the question might arise. The category in question was Category:Attacks on the United States Congress. I started the category a few days ago, and arranged its contents so that every ~~subcat~~ item listed in the category began with the year, and thus everything would be chronological, plus I made some of the redirects point to article sections instead of whole articles. But like I said, it’s moot now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that. I didn't notice that you had added those redirects. I was looking at the entries and noticed that many of them were redirects, and that just seemed wrong to me, so I proceeded to fix it. I had no idea about the background and am now curious about best practice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I can't really comment on the redirects without seeing examples of what redirects were categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I did this while using the contents of Category:Attacks on the United States Congress and made the edits in a short time period, leaving contents that were not redirects. Here are diffs:[1][2][3][4][5][6] Edit summary: "rmv category from redirect". I added the category to the actual target articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take a look at Flag of Minnesota

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I noticed you are an administrator on Wikipedia and knowledgeable of Wikipedia polices. If possible, I would like to request that you review the article revision history for Flag of Minnesota. I have edited the article to attempt to include critical commentary from a newspaper op-ed written by a scholarly authority on a topic related to racism. The topic itself is related to white supremacy. Another user suggests that this source cannot be included. As someone without much Wikipedia experience, I am uncertain about whether this other user's removal is reasonable. After reviewing the policy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations, I remain uncertain. I would greatly appreciate your time to review, whenever possible, either to re-include what was removed or to help me understand what would be appropriate to include (or not include) as I make edits for the future.

-Anonymous User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4C80:4EB0:C096:6590:ED3:3C82 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass tagging bare URLs

I noticed you thanked Special:Diff/1081759415. I just thought i'd mention here that I modified your Bare URL script at User:Qwerfjkl/.js so it can run on Bandersnatch (a userscript) so can easily be run on a list of pages for mass tagging. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkl talk 20:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qwerfjkl

Sorry for a slow reply. I meant to take the time to explain some of the issues with this, but got distracted. Now I see that you are doing the mass-tagging.

Please will you stop? I will write the explanation now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with mass inline-tagging is that not all the available tools support the inline tags. In particular, WP:REFLINKS won't fill any such refs.

This is a problem, because WP:REFLINKS has several virtues which make it the best tool for some purposes. See User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Dense-in-itself

Hi. I see that you recently edited the topology article Dense-in-itself by editing one of the references. You added information about the authors of the article and the journal (Illinois Journal of Mathematics) it supposedly appeared in. But the researchgate version was pointing to Houston Journal of Mathematics instead, vol. 21 (year 1977) in particular. So I went to check their website: https://www.math.uh.edu/~hjm/Electronic-Editions.html#The%20Archive and I don't see any such article in the four links they have for vol 21. Do you? If you don't see it either, can you remove the reference to an incorrect journal? Maybe the authors were planning to publish it but never did. PatrickR2 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, I also checked the Illinois Journal of Mathematics for the year 1977 (which coincidentally is also vol 21), and I can't see this article anywhere: https://www.projecteuclid.org/journals/illinois-journal-of-mathematics/issues/1977 PatrickR2 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickR2: thanks for the headsup.

Here's my edit: [7]. I followed the link to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228597275_a-Scattered_spaces_II/, and then used the "download citation" link to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228597275_a-Scattered_spaces_II/citation/download. The latter one is the where I grabbed the data for the citation.

And now I see that the two pages give difft data.

I have been filling hundreds of bare URL refs to ResearchGate, and have concluded that the site is crap.

In this case, you evidently know a lot more about the topic than I do. May I leave it to you to do whatever is needed to sort this out? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll remove the journal itself from the reference. ResearchGate indeed does not seem overly reliable. PatrickR2 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging "by period" and "by date" container categories, or not?

Please check this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated tag fixing

Hey! Do you think you could edit or request an edit to your User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 019 page? The page currently uses deprecated source tags. Replacing these tags with <syntaxhighlight> tags will fix any issues with it. The page is fully protected, and I've been advised to inform the archive owner of this instead of requesting an edit myself. Don't worry - the page will have no visible effect, this is just a maintenance thing. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aidan9382, and thanks for your msg.

Actually, I do mind. Not much, but as a general principle, I prefer not to have changes made to archive pages. That is why I protected them.

Why not simply change the software so that userpages with this markup are not categorised in the tracking cateory? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the background behind this, but I don't believe theres good reason to exclude categorisation on user pages specifically, as it's deprecated regardless of what page it's on. Don't worry about it - it's not like it's an urgent issue, it's just something im trying to cut the use of down as its deprecated. Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan9382: it's not a big deal, but so far I don't see any need to edit these archives: to my mind, the problem isn't serious enough to justify rewriting the historical record. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I was trying to say in my previous message is that its fine to leave the archive untouched - as you said, its not serious. I was just commenting on your other comment about changing the software. Thanks for the quick replies! Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email

check your mail Rlink2 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: thanks. I am at it now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: You have mail. Sorry it took so long. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas Bruster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page To Be or Not to Be.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fixed[8]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you still editing

Hi BHG,

I remember your edits from back in 2004 when I started on Wikipedia. I don't edit much anymore but I was looking at the recent burst of edits on Running Up That Hill and saw your cleanup edits from April. You are still here, working away. Is your hair still brown, after all those edits!!

- 2A01:4B00:822B:EE00:31BB:580D:2138:9705 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC). That was by me: - Rye 212 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC). See, I even forgot to login.[reply]

Boushaki cosmological operator

Hello BrownHairedGirl.

This article relates to the research undertaken by Professor Mustapha Ishak Boushaki on the expansion of the universe, and it is listed in the scientific literature under the name Index of Inconsistency (IOI).

The professor's research team at the University of Texas at Dallas is working rigorously on this subject, which has captured the attention of astrophysicists and cosmologists.

If there are third parties or people who are bothered by the highlighting of these results that have been sponsored by NASA and other institutions, it is not acceptable to please and accept their request for deleted article which was noted as being of high importance for the development of scientific research in the United States and around the world.

Sincerely and warmly.--Authentise (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Authentise: I am sorry, but I am unable to understand what you want. In particular, your paragraph beginning If there are third parties or people makes no sense. You write it is not acceptable to please and accept ... which is so far from proper English grammar that I don't know what to make of it.

I don't know why you are writing to me about this. Why do you think I have any interest in this?

Also I note that you have sent similar messages to other editors: Cullen328 [9], Mako001 [10], M.Bitton [11].

If there was a deletion discussion, this would be unacceptable WP:CANVASSING. But there is no deletion discussion ... so what are you trying to achieve? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but I think they are referring to this request by Mishak1967 (who is obviously Mustapha_ishak, the editor who claims to be Mustapha Ishak Boushaki). I'm not really sure why they decided to complicate things further by creating a new account, when all they had to do is follow the instructions that were left on their main account's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O Lordie, @M.Bitton. So Authentise is broadcasting a request by a sock of a COI editor?

What a mess. I hope that some admin will sort this out. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a mess. Hopefully, Cullen328 will sort it out. M.Bitton (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so, @M.Bitton. Cullen328 usually handles these things well. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two threads on my talk page about this matter. If the topic is called "Index of Inconsistency" then why is the article titled "Boushaki cosmological operator"? It is a mystery. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All very odd, @Cullen328.

I am going to spare my brain the job of unravelling it all, and leave the remedies in your capable hands. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Zayatte

Hello, this edit did not really achieve what I think was intended. I have now removed the spaces from the URL to get a valid link. You may want to revisit and tag with one of the bare link tags. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Keith D.

The edit went as far as I dare go using AWB, which in this case was removing the space between the <ref> and the http ... because that space excludes the bare URL from my on-wiki searches for bare URLs in between database dumps, such as this search for all unbracketed bare URLs. In theory, I could of course include \s* before the http, but unfortunately that makes the searches time out.

As you spotted, that URL had been mangled by spaces, and thanks for fixing it. I am currently doing a wider cleanup of various malformed URLs, and continue to be amazed by the assortment of creative ways which some editors find to break URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have the same trouble of creativity of editors over dates, but the error category is slowly diminishing! Keith D (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Keith D. When I was working on some dates, I was very impressed by the ability of AWB's WP:GENFIXES to rescue some dates from extreme creativity.

I know that some exceed even that tool's ability, but I hope that you are trying AWB first, to reduce the effort in your good work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am using some basic AWB functionality to handle the simple things that are wrong, one of BattyBot functions handles more AWB fixable things. I think that it is now mainly manual work, unless I come across an error that covers a number of articles and I can work out an ABW fix that does not screwup something else. Keith D (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Period inside ref tags

FYI, this edit removed periods after a <ref> tag before an url. Looks like the period was misplaced, and should have been moved outside the tag. Not sure if AWB can be smarter in such cases. I glanced through a couple similar >.http => >http edits and only saw one other period that could have been moved instead of deleted. PaleAqua (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PaleAqua

You are clearly looking at this from a different perspective to mine.

What I was doing was removing stray characters from the start of a bare URL, so that tools such as Citation bot or WP:REFLINKS can fill the ref. I did this with various characters: letters, digits, /, comma, dot, curly bracket. I took no notice whatsoever of anything outside the ref tags. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD closing instructions

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#CfD_backlog_and_closing_instructions. Your input would be most appreciated, if only because I still have a few questions about the current text (as indicated in the proposal). I realize you are no longer closing CfD discussions, but in the past you have closed so many that you probably still know what is important or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just a random person wanting to say thank you for your behind the scenes work. You are noticed and appreciated. 24.179.59.46 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Masked X[reply]

Thank you! That is very kind, and much needed right now, 'cos I am feeling a bit tired and worn.

Rath Dé ort BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding archive.today to long form

Some example edge cases you may encounter:

https://archive.today/Fcxt/image (and https://archive.today/Fcxt/image/)
https://archive.today/wip/Fcxt (and https://archive.today/wip/Fcxt/)
URL has a #selection which jumps to that portion of the page

Remove #selection then re-add after expansion to long-form

https://archive.today/TJbuX#selection-10133.0-10133.31

Also recommend conversion of the 6 domains to archive.today and https to normalize the URL, if not already.

-- GreenC 04:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @GreenC. I know that you have a lot of experience with archived URLs, so your input is much appreciated (especially after last night's horrible encounter with an editor who displayed high aggression and low comprehension).

There are many points here, so I hope that you will forgive me for a long reply.

Basically, I have approached this as a four-step job:

A/ Make lists of articles with non-bookmark form inline refs to archive.today and its aliases, as part of my set of routine scans of the database dumps for bare URL-related issues. (I had actually been making these lists from each of the last 5–10 dumps, but only in the last week did I find time to start work on them). The three sets (shortcut URL in: i) bare URL inline refs, i) |url=, iii) |archive-url=) added up to just over 10,000 pages.
B/ Scan all those articles using an AWB custom module to extract the URLs to a simple list file.
C/ Use a Perl script to grab the long-form URL from each of the archive URLs in that list, using the <link rel="bookmark" href= in the page's headers. That script ran in the background for about three days (using a random sub-10-second delay between HTTP requests to avoid triggering bot protections), and left me with a bit over 23,000 expanded URLs, plus a few hundred failures to get a bookmark.
D/ Use another AWB custom module to edit the wiki pages found in step A, replacing non-bookmark URLs with the expanded URLs which I have placed in a big C# Dictionary. (It is not the most efficient approach, but simple to implement, and hence reliable).
That job is being done in two passes, with half of the URLs in each batch. The first pass is underway, about 40% done.

There will be some followup tasks, but those 4 steps A–D cover the vast bulk of it.

I have logged all of this extensively. If those logs are of any use to you, I will happily email copies.

Pls forgive the numbered para reply style to your points. It's a bit formal, but I think it may be clearer.

The /image will be ignored by my method, because image files don't contain the HTML header on which I rely. They are part of the failure list in step B above, and will show up as residue later on, when I will try to figure out what I can do with them. Do you have any thoughts?
the /wip/ work-in-progress URLs have all been dealt with, by an AWB run to simply remove the /wip/: (?<url>https?://archive\.)(today|is|md|ph|fo|li|vn)/wip(?=/) -> ${url}today.
I have saved the AWB settings with the wiki-text regex search which I used to find them, and will re-run the job periodically.
I caught the #selection thing early on, in my initial test of a regex to just find the unexpanded URLs. Luckily it was easy to include that in the relevant regexes: (?<url>https?://archive\.(today|is|md|ph|fo|li|vn)/(?![12]\d{11,})[^/>< \|\[\]\}\{#]+)(?<anchor>(#[^#>< \|\[\]\}\{]*)?)
i) conversion to archive.today: The <link rel="bookmark" href= appears to always link to archive.today (rather than .is/.fo/.md/.ph etc), so the URLs which I am expanding include that conversion.
I have not checked whether it is safe to assume that the domains are always fully interchangeable, so for now I have separate entries in my conversion table for the difft domains: e.g. archive.fo/aBcDe and archive.ph/aBcDe are treated as distinct cases. I was not aware of any exceptions to interchangeability, but when working on big sets I think it's best to be safe.
If you feel confident to assure me that I can safely rely on 100% interchangeability, then I will incorporate that in future runs ... and when this run of the expansion is complete, I will do a further AWB run to canonicalise all the URLs to archive.today. But only if you feel sure.
ii) conversion to https. In the 23K cases I have listed in this round, the <link rel="bookmark" href= has always given an insecure "http" URL, so I have used that as found. If you can assure me that it's safe to always convert to https, then I will incorporate that immediately.

One thing I found along the way is that the short-form URLs are indeed being used to evade the WP:Spam blacklist edit filters, which get triggered when I try to save the expanded URL. So far I have just been skipping these cases, because they are hard to log, but as a later pass I will start logging and fixing.

With about 25% of URL uses processed so far, I guesstimate that about 50 pages have been skipped, suggesting that the total might be very roughly 200 articles out of the ~10,000 articles I found in the 20220601 database dump. Once the backlog is cleared, I have a hunch that the blacklist evasions will form a significant proportion of new cases. It would be nice to do the blacklist checking directly on my list of expanded URLs (from step C above), but I haven't figured out how to do that. Do you have any ideas?

Also, when I have finished work on the inline refs, what would you think of doing the same expansion process with other URLs in articles?

Thanks again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 4 & 5, https://archive.today will always work. The owner of the site wants us to use the today domain, is different from the others, it's a redirect server that sends requests to one of the actual servers (domains) where the content is located. This gives him flexibility in case a domain is ever blocked or goes offline he can redirect somewhere else. Apparently he has problems like that sometimes temporarily due to blocks and other things.

Re: blacklist yes there is evasion. It's time consuming to deal with, you could log a list, maybe the community would go through them.

Not sure I understand articles with non-bookmark form inline refs to archive.today and its aliases means (CS1|2 templates only?), but you could process all archive.today and its aliases why not. I have a script to do this in a single pass and have been slowly building a system based on Streams detection for full-auto on all 300+ wikis on a regular basis, but it's been on the back burner for a while. Enwiki is probably 30-40%. -- GreenC 15:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @GreenC.

That explanation re the site structure is helpful. So I tried including all 23K URLs in my AWB module, and to my surprise it all worked smoothly, even tho the module is 4MB. Having pre-parsed the list of articles, there are now 6,200 edits to do ... and all the URL expansions in this batch (and future batches) will use https://archive.today/. I will cleanup the residue at a later point.

Sorry that non-bookmark form inline refs to archive.today and its aliases was unclear. By bookmark I mean the form of URL used in the <link rel="bookmark" href= header, i.e. with the date as a single string of digits, e.g. https://archive.today/20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php

This is distinct from the "canonical URL" also provided in the headers. For https://archive.today/20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php, those headers are:

<link rel="canonical" href="https://archive.ph/2003.09.20-142606/http://www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php"/>
<link rel="bookmark" href="http://archive.today/20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php"/>

I have been using the "bookmark" URL, tho now modifying it to use https. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I wasn't aware of those, have always used

<input id="SHARE_LONGLINK" style="width:600px" value="http://archive.today/2003.09.20-142606/http://www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php"/>

(with https and no -.) .. the problem with boomark it looks like 20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl the "http" is missing. This is not ideal, my bot detects and fixes those. Could you use canonical with . and - removed from the timestamp? - GreenC 18:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: I was not aware of id="SHARE_LONGLINK". So it seems that there are three expanded options, plus the shortcuts. We are spoilt for choice.

I don't see why you say that the http is missing. I just checked https://archive.today/20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php again, and both book mark and canonical are as I posted them above.

In the 23k pages I checked, I found no cases of malformed bookmark URL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes three and none exactly right but all workable. In the bookmark I wonder what else might be incorrect like maybe missing anchors or percent encoding not right, would need to verify.

Diff of missing http:

http://archive.today/20030920142606/www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php
http://archive.today/20030920142606/http://www.ryczace20.pl/onas_martinez.php GreenC 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, @GreenC. I see it now: it's the "http" or "https" after the archive date in the middle which is missing. Sorry I was a bit slow.

Damn. I will stop using the bookmark.

That means dumping all the URLs I have grabbed so far, because I can't reliably choose between http or https. So I will have to grab a new set from canonical, basically re-starting the whole process.

Oh well. My framework doesn't need all that much adaptation, but it will benefit from the rewrite. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that sucks, well thank you for restarting. The one's that are done, I can fix those. In the past 3 days, you made 3,030 edits with an edit summary containing "with more transparent URL" shouldn't take too long to process. -- GreenC 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you for that, @GreenC. If you can fix those already done, that would be great. But ... how will you determine whether to use http or https?

Also, how did you count my edits with that summary? That's a handy thing to be able to do.

Restarting isn't too big a deal. I had already identified ways in which my process could be more efficient, and this gives me a poke to do it better. It shouldn't be too much work for me, just a few days of sweat for my utility PC. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been looking at your edit history and it appears archive.today only eliminated the http when it's http, not https. You might want to double check but that should make things easier.

The edit history is a tool called wikiget, the command would be wikiget -u BrownHairedGirl -s 20220618 -e 20220620 -i "with more transparent URL" to list the 3,030 article names. -- GreenC 21:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @GreenC. That tool looks very handy! Nice work. I will be using it a lot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, maybe its possible to remove the "/wip/" part of the url, since anything with the wip prefix will just redirect to the archived page (without the prefix)?

Of course not required but it could be something to think about.

Thank you for all that you do BHG. Also don't forget to respond to my email. Rlink2 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Rlink2. See above: the backlog of /wip/ is gone, and I will do periodic further cleanups. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, glad you might find use for it. I use wikiget often for many things couldn't get by without it. The -a option is best for searching for articles containing certain domain (not -x). For example to find all ryczace20.pl wikiget -a "insource:ryczace20.pl insource:/([.]|\/)ryczace20[.]pl/" -- GreenC 00:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding false negatives, examples Bad Wolves & Bee Movie. -- GreenC 02:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: Special:Diff/1087130959/1094085942 .. which required the fix Special:Diff/1094085942/1094272698 .. surprisingly in about 1/3 of the pages, or about 1,000 pages out of 3,300 so it's common people are adding archive URLs in the |url= field. I know you did work before to shuffle URLs around in this situation, maybe it can be included in this process, after the expansion. Similar: Special:Diff/1079153135/1094086052 -> Special:Diff/1094086052/1094272783 -- GreenC 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC, you are psychic!

That sort of thing is exactly what got me into expanding the short URLs.

For the last few months, I have been running a few archive-related tasks after each database dump: to extract the original URL from refs with |url=archive.today/|url=web.archive.org, and from bare URL refs to both sites.

However, there has been an annoyingly big chunk of a few thousand cases of |url=archive.today/shortlink, which provide no original URL to extract. Nearly 3,000 in all, as of the 20220601 database dump.

That has frustrated me, and after much pondering, this month I set about expanding them ... so that my original-URL-extractor could work on them. That is still my plan, when I have rebuilt and re-run my URL expander (incorporating all your very helpful advice, for which many thanks).

I prefer to keep separate the two processes of URL expansion and original-URL-extraction. My computing skills began by hacking a PDP-11 back in the days when the man from Plains still lived in a plain wee Irish-designed shack, and somewhere deep in me the Unix philosophy is hard-wired: simple, single-purpose tools, which can be combined in various ways. God be with the pipe!

I am still a bit headachey and dopey today after losing some sleep 2 days ago due to my nasty encounter at bed-time with the vicious know-nothing who was reverting the URL expansion. I need to unplug for a bit and catch up on rest, so once I have finished setting Citation bot to work on the bare URLs from the 2022620 dump, I am taking time away from my the screen, to overeat Kashmiri curries and fall asleep to requiem masses which ha ve been slaughtered by the hideously bombastic ex-Nazi.

But I hope that by the weekend I will be back on the case of the archive.today links.

Thanks again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you were actually targeting those, that explains why there are so many, I knew they existed but not at that density. Well take it easy, I think everything should be fixed up within an hour or so. I didn't know you planed on a second round (which is a fine method) so didn't mean to take your fire, there will be plenty more of this kind of work, endless. Yeah I'm also a Unix/pipe geek don't know how anyone gets by without it. Some programmers often try and do everything within their favorite language (Python, PhP, JavaScript) but they are stuck in a boat, Unix is the ocean. -- GreenC 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's BS!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for consistently—and tirelessly—doing the gnomish tasks that few will tackle, and even fewer seem to notice. That's rough work. Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down. You are great! GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Bot data for Zotero

Here are the first copies. They are big. Note that fail could be for any reason and could be transient. I have bzipped them and added set number 2 of data.

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.1.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.1.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.2.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.2.bz2

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to make these logs, @AManWithNoPlan. This should be very valuable data. @Rlink2 may also be interested.

I am just unzipping the 20220601 database dump, and processing that usually takes a few days. Then I will start analysing this data. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS @AManWithNoPlan: you will probably have noticed that for the last ten days I have bene driving Citation bot hard with bare URL jobs, using up a good chunk of the bot's enhanced capacity.

This is producing great results. My crude regex search for all untagged bare URLs gave a total of 98K pages on 20 May. Right now, it reports 86K.

That's a huge reduction, because it doesn't reflect the many pages that had multiple bare URLs, but where not not all of them have yet been cleared. I reckon that by the end of June, we will probably have got the total as low as can be achieved with any tool relying on the zotero servers. Then I hope that BareRefBot will be starting to make a big dent in the remainder.

This has all been made possible by your hard work on Citation bot. CB is not the tool I have been using, but it is the main one. Without CB, I'd never have been able to bring the total count of articles with bare URls down from ~470K at the start of May 2021 to the ~130K which I estimate to be the counts from the latest database dump. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AManWithNoPlan. This is v helpful.

I have almost finished processing the 2022061 dump. Then it will be analysis time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.3.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.3.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.4.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.4.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.5.bz2

https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.5.bz2

Many thanks, @AManWithNoPlan. That latest batch is timely, 'cos I planned to the analysis today, before the 20220620 database dump becomes available tomorrow. I will include the latest sets in the analysis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@AManWithNoPlan: Analysis underway.

Counting complete, now gotta work on the comparison.

counting worked zotero requests: 3025169 requests, 228945 unique domains
counting failed zotero requests: 5060471 requests, 336337 unique domains
count total: 8085640 requests, 403206 unique domains

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned off the logging. Here are the final files. This is ALL the log files combined into a single file. I sorted the data before compressing and that really helped the compressor shrink them more. I also used xz compression format and that makes the files much much smaller than bzip/zip/7zip etc. All the other files are now deleted to keep us under disk quotas. https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroFailed.xz https://citations.toolforge.org/ZoteroWorked.xz AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @AManWithNoPlan. I have downloaded both those files, so feel free to delete them if needed.

I think you are right to turn off the logging. A whole month's logs are enough for our purposes here.

I will re-run the collater with this all-in-one log. A single Perl script handles the whole task, so it's easy to do.

Thanks again for doing this logging. It has been very useful. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

archive.today question

Hello, BrownHairedGirl, I noticed your bot "replaced 5 archive.today URL(s) with more transparent URL from <link rel="bookmark" " on Bad Brains discography. I am still new to all things Wikipedia editing, but I think what happened was the bot changed my shortened archive URLs to URLs with more 'stuff.' In the future, should I instead use the long archived URLs and not the short ones? Any quick notes or insight on why the shortened URLs are not as good would help me understand the bigger picture as well. Thanks for your time and for everything you do here! CharlesTStokes (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your dedication and diligence on Wikipedia to keep things in order and straight. Most people don't want to do your thankless job which we all need done!!! ... my heartfelt appreciation and thanks... Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Bridges Race

BHG,

Thank you for updating the Westminster Bridge Handicap Race page.

I'm the current organiser of the race...and likely to be the last one too.

I've canvassed the 250+ runners on the latest circulation list and the response was poor, to say the least.

I'm fascinated to know how you discovered us.

I'll re-read the current page and get back to you with any 'corrections'.

Thank you,

Hmm, I do have a Wikipedia login name, it might be Winston127 Should I have logged in before I started this?

Richard Whiting [...now retired]

Midnight_Voice@Hotmail.Com

146.90.232.191 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently, I'm WinstonRoad!

BHG,

Thank you for updating the Westminster Bridge Handicap Race page.

I'm the current organiser of the race...and likely to be the last one too.

I've canvassed the 250+ runners on the latest circulation list and the response was poor, to say the least.

I'm fascinated to know how you discovered us.

I'll re-read the current page and get back to you with any 'corrections'.

Thank you,

Richard Whiting [...now retired]

Midnight_Voice@Hotmail.Com

WinstonRoad (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WinstonRoad

You did not link to any article, so I had to search for it. The best fit seems to be the the article Bridges Handicap Race.

I did not "update" the article; I just made a single technical edit[12] to alter how dates are displayed. This was one of tens of thousands of articles to which I made similar semi-automated edits over a few days, whilst paying zero attention to the content of the article.

Sorry to disappoint, but I have zero interest in this topic. If you think that the article should be modified or updated, please be aware that Wikipedia has a policy on conflict of interest, which applies here: see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. In a nutshell: please do not edit the article yourself, but feel free to go to the article's talk page at Talk:Bridges Handicap Race, where you can propose changes.

Please note that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, so please include with any proposal the third-party source which supports the change you propose.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks

In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down

Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?

Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, BLPPROD drafting bid pulled

Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it

Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose

Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?

Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed

Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals

Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit that keeps on giving

Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter

Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235

Online events:

New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Saints

Could you perform your clean-up magic at:

--evrik ^(talk) 23:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik are there any specific issues? Or just general tidyup? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General clean-up. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik done in these 6 edits. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 00:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AWB cosmetic edit

Be careful out there, or maybe adjust your script? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: my purpose is to do various ref-related fixes to articles with bare URL refs, especially merging duplicate refs (which AWB does v neatly), cleaning up ref dates, and removing whitespace before the open-ref tag.

Unfortunately, AWB's WP:GENFIXES doesn't allow selection of just those changes, so some trivial edits are part of the set. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WaPoCheckDates

Hi, I see you created {{WaPoCheckDates}} and added it to Creative technology, an article that for some inexplicable reason I have on my watchlist. I see Category:WaPoCheckDates, too.

Is this a paywall thing? I'm a WP subscriber and can have a look at these if that's helpful. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TJRC! Thanks for being so eagle-eyed, and for your kind offer of help.

This is not a paywall problem; it is an inconsistent metadata problem. The Washington Post (WaPo) uses weirdly structured webpages, and not even consistently weird: the structure has been through several major revisions.

As a result, @Citation bot cannot fill WP:Bare URLs to WaPo. And other tools such as WP:REFLINKS and WP:REFILL do a poor job.

This left a backlog of over 900 en.wp articles with bare URL links to WaPo, the biggest backlog for any website (see this search of WaPO bare URLs). I spent a day writing a Perl script to fill WaPo refs, and got it working well, but with one glitch: I could not establish a clear correlation between the dates I found in the metadata and the dates displayed on-screen.

After tearing my hair out for a while, I decided that where there was ambiguity, I would just mark the ref as needing a manual check of the dates. Of the 142 articles processed so far, 42 are tracked in Category:WaPoCheckDates.

I was planning to do tackle this myself, and check one-by-one whether the dates in the cite templates tally with those displayed onscreen on the WaPo site. But if you (or anyone else) has the energy to help out by tackling some of them, that would be great.

The "pay up" box which appears without a sub usually leaves just about enough visible to check the dates. But it would be easier with a subscription, and no "pay-up" notice. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get the Citation Bot to "[Change] bare reference[s] to CS1/2."?

I've used the citation bot from the activate page pointed to by User:Citation bot, with "Thorough mode" requested.

On at least some occasions, I think it hasn't converted bare URLs to citations.

This edit by the Citation Bot did such a conversion, and it looks as if you pushed the button to do that.

Is there some button I'm missing that I should be pushing? Or is it that sometimes Citation Bot is in a mood to do that and sometimes it's not? Or is it that, in those cases, for whatever reason Citation Bot couldn't manage to find a title that it could use in a citation template?

(I love fixing citations, but the more work that I can get a bot to do, the less work I have to do....)

Thanks. Guy Harris (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guy Harris! Hope you are well.

After a year of working full time on bare URLs, I could give you a v long answer, but I will try to keep it brief.

In a nutshell, not all URLs can be filled by CB. Some websites block the bot, some return junk; some links are dead, some ave intermittent availability, and other links are in non-HTML formats which have no metadata. "Thorough mode" is required to fill URLs, but success is not guaranteed.

Furthermore, I am using various methods of list-making to keep CB busy on bare URLs: basically, any bare URL will be processed by CB about 7 times per month, or until it is filled. So the residue is almost entirely stuff which the bot cannot fix. So it probably isn't worth your while running CB to fill a bare URL unless it has been newly-added.

Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Guy Harris (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsequential edits

Hi! It looks to me as if this edit, made with AWB, made no visible difference to the rendering of the page – am I wrong? It certainly made no significant difference. Would you kindly refrain from making any more pointless edits of this kind? – they create annoying watchlist clutter and do nothing to improve the encyclopaedia. The Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use (#4) are very clear on this "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits". We've already lost a number of editors who just would not stop doing exactly that; could you not find something better to do? Please? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: please see my reply above to another editor, at #AWB cosmetic edit. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note and note well that it doesn't matter one whit what you are trying to do if it leads you make edits that are specifically prohibited to users of AWB. All that matters is that you stop making those trivial edits. Please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: a few months ago, a put a lot of effort into writing code to specifically target duplicate refs, but I couldn't get it beyond a very low strike rate. Just running WP:GENFIXES gives a higher cleanup rate, albeit at the price of false positives which fall foul of COSMETIC.

To reduce the COSMETIC problem, after your first msg I turned on skip if only whitespace. That halves the number of edits, albeit at the price of skipping the space-before-ref tag issue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS please see my edits since 15:10 UTC, and lemme know how much of an improvement that is. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PPS After my comment above, I reset the counter.

I am working off a pre-parsed list, which had eliminated 70% of the pages in my initial list of ~88K articles with bare URLs, giving me about a 1% skip ratio on the remainder.

With skip if only whitespace, since resetting the counter, I stopped after the first 100 edits, by which time I had skipped 101 pages. So that's a 50% reduction in the edit rate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're potentially running foul of too much in the way of cosmetic edits; Special:Diff/1095963655 is entirely unnecessary and I've seen a few dozen of these edits today alone. I originally came here to ask what your search criteria were to maybe narrow it down a bit (speed was not a concern, just total volume), but based on this and the above conversation it definitely sounds like you are casting too wide a net with too many options ticked (or not, as the case may be). Primefac (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: unfortunately, the GENFIX options do not include a duplicate-URL-only option. If there was, I would check that, and have 100% accurate targeting ... but I can't do that.

So the current settings seem to be the best I can do, unless skip-cosmetic-only avoids skipping duplicate URLs. My recollection of previous tests is that it did skip some dup URLs, but I will run some more tests. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's really your responsibility to make sure that your edits are appropriate, but I've looked at a few recent ones. I didn't see any spaces-only edits, but this makes no difference to the rendered page (that I can see). Why on earth can't you just do one thing at a time – if you want to remove punctuation after references (a useful task, I think, and probably uncontentious too), search for and fix that and that only? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: some misunderstanding. Punct after ref is not my target here. (I do that as a targeted task after database dump searches, using specific code which gives no false positive edits).

These edits are aimed at duplicate URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After some sandbox tests, I have turned on skip-cosmetic and skip-only -minor-edits.

The first page edited with those settings is Pecos League. I reset the counter, and so far AWB has made 8 edits and skipped 70 pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update @Justlettersandnumbers & @Primefac: since I turned on more skip options (skip-cosmetic and skip-only-minor-edits), my AWB job has now done these 213 edits, and skipped 2649 pages. That a 92.6% skip rate on my pre-parsed set, and about a 97.% skip rate overall.

I hope that this has resolved your concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Greetings. Is there a tool that automatically corrects editing errors such as word spacing with the push of a button? Thank U ÆBBÄ§ ĶÃVĪĂŇĮ ^(Talk) 15:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ABBAS K.CH: WP:AWB's WP:GENFIXES does that, but since word spacing in the wikisource does not impact the output, it is regarded as a WP:COSMETIC edit, which is deprecated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ÆBBÄ§ ĶÃVĪĂŇĮ ^(Talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help

I know you from your work on List of federal political scandals in the United States. I have been preparing my first article, a companion piece, List of State and Local Scandals in the united States, and had set up User:Johnsagent/sandbox when I suddenly caught(?) a virus of some sort which is eating up all my R/S's. Every time I delete it it gets worse. Any ideas? Johnsagent (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lower Saxony Wikipedians has been nominated for merging

Category:Lower Saxony Wikipedians has been nominated for merging. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Your account is truly horrible. I'm so sorry you experienced that, I had no idea it had escalated beyond their talk page. I hope you like this kitten :)

Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Polyamorph. That is very kind of you. I love the kitten!

And thank you too for taking the time to open the discussion at WP:ANI#Persistent_disruption_by_User:CreecregofLife. I hope that it will lead to a curtailment of that editor's appalling conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French Kitesurfers

Hi, I write to you because you're the last to do an edit on the category. I think - but could be wrong, that it should be renamed "Category:French kitesurfers", like the others in Category:Kitesurfers by nationality, but am unsure how to request a move. Is that something you could help with, thanks in advance. TherasTaneel (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @TherasTaneel. You are right.

I have listed it[13] at WP:CFDS for speedy renaming. The magic of WP:TWINKLE makes this easy to do, once you know the Speedy criteria. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Nadhu

I impressed you editing and your achievements, I would like to talk to you you. Nadhukerala (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk away, by writing here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user you once suspended is continuing the behavior

User BeenAroundAwhile is once again adding the word "affluent" to ledes. A few years ago, this user was warned on multiple occasions here and here and here and here and here and to stop with the disruptive editing that went against community concensus.

You had gotten involved when you were an administrator and this behavior ultimately got the user suspended in 2017.

He is now engaging in the same exact behavior that got him suspended.... an editor inserted "affluent" into the lede, another editor removed it citing consensus, and then BeenAroundAwhile reverted that edit to restore "affluent". This is the exact same scenario that got him suspended in 2017.

Here is the West Hills, Los Angeles page [14] showing his stated reason that community consensus was "Not really consensual; simply how some editors feel about accurate reflections of neighborhood prosperity, or lack thereof". Here is the page comparing his change to the previous version[15]

I realize you are no longer an administrator, but I don't know how to approach this and am looking for guidance. When you last addressed him, you threatened further suspensions if he continued doing this.

If anything can be done -- other than simply reverting the edit -- please advise.

yours, 2600:1700:5AB1:67E0:FDB4:D124:A695:E481 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ANI. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 20:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin any more, and have no energy for this. As OHC says, take it to WP:ANI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crainne Conole

Sorry this is not about wiki - but trying to contact Crainne the last contact I had is 10 years old when she was at University of Leicester - I wanted her contact and if you are in contact the news is about Mary McPartlin who died yesterday my name is Kim Henrick and if possible can you give her Mary's brothers details Gerry McPartlin <redacted> hoping for a reply 147.147.120.89 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear of the death, but I have no idea at all who any of these people are, or why on earth you would contact me about it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

I sent you an email. I recently did some extra work on the bot, its basically ready to go. You already addressed the big concern I had, so other than that, we are ready when you are. Rlink2 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, @Rlink2. It has been a stresful week offline, and I have fallen behind on many wiki tasks. What wiki-time I have had has been dominated by this ANI, which thankfully achieved the right outcome (albeit a sad one).

I'll get onto your email now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: reply sent about an hour ago. My emailer gave me some odd msgs, so lemme know if it hasn't reached you, and I will re-send. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl replied. Hope you feel better soon. Rlink2 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes

AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl

Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue

Bureaucrat changes

Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

Technical news

user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

In the process of undoing an edit-warring individual's un-discussed changes. I may have accidently undid an edit of yours, at the Australia page. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @GoodDay. I have re-done it.[16] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 12#Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the nomination. All the best. TartarTorte 14:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Common Misconceptions not showing up in the Dynamic Lists category

Hello! You appear to be a very knowledgeable and venerable Wikipedia entity, would you mind helping a clueless Wikiscrub with a problem? The list of common misconceptions page has the dynamic list template on it, but it isn't showing up on the list of dynamic lists - at least, not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure why this might be, and it seems wrong. Is it wrong? If so, could you please help me figure out why it isn't showing up? Thanks in advance for any help! Sincerely, Joe (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in Category:Dynamic lists. It is sorted using the sort key 'Category:Dynamic lists| ' and so appears here. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, herp derp, so it is, I'm just an idiot. Thank you kindly! Joe (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another cry for help!

Hi BHG

Looking for some advice. When rating articles, some parameters such as “importance” are obviously specific to each project. Others, like quality class, “image required” and “needs-infobox” should be same across projects.

For a missing image, I now use **reqphoto** outside the confines of the IrlProj tagging.

We should have a similar generic tag relating to “infoboxes”, “attention needed” and quality class.

Maybe we do! If so, can you tell me what they are? Sarah777 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must have developed leprosy :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Sarah777, not all. I wasn't ignoring you; it's just that I developed overload and heat exhaustion.

Anyway, here is my belated take on this.

AFAIK, there are no generic tags for infoboxes etc. And I don't think that there is any need for them.

For those article improvement issues, the project banners work fine. The category trees are integrated, e.g. in Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request, and can be filtered using WP:PETSCAN.

Photos are a different kettle of fish, 'cos because they need someone to travel around in meatspace to take the photos. (I think you are one of the people who helpfully takes such photos). That's why there is such a well-developed system to group image requests by subject and location.

For example, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in County Roscommon allows a photographer to easily locate where in that county to travel to take a needed photo. But they don't need to travel an inch to add an infobox, so geography is less important. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot rebooted

Probably need to start over where it left off. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup, @AManWithNoPlan. I was just about to start some new lists, so the reboot was well-timed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

😊Timeline of Cambridge, Massachusetts😊😊like a boss The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar.Timeline of Cambridge, Massachusetts:.winner

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	amazing work 186.69.128.134 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Cambridge, Massachusetts:great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.226.238 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dash’s Designer

@Blutogrniz ignored my request to go away, posting some overt trolling[17] which I reverted.[18]
Thankfully, @Floquenbeam blocked this troll,[19] but I have had enough of trying to be helpful to passers-by who repay my helpfulness by throwing muck at me. So it's time for this page to be semi-protected.
@Floquenbeam, Fayenatic london, and TheSandDoctor: please could one of you apply that semi-protection? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I saw you wrote the Dash’s Designer entry, thank you for that. How did you know so much about the store/family? Blutogrniz (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blutogrniz

I did not write the article Dash's Designer, and I know nothing about the topic. I have no interest in the topic, and I have not even read the article. As you can see from the article's history, I made 3 technical edits using a tool called AWB. That's all.

The editors who did write the article should have cited all the key facts to reliable sources, which you can see in the article's references section. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up. Thanks for the info. Blutogrniz (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blutogrniz: Sod off, you snarky menace. Do not EVER post on my talk page again, about anything at all.

You are a new editor, so I took a few minutes of my time to explain how Wikipedia works, trying to gently correct your misunderstanding.

Your snarkily dismissive response is unacceptably rude, and I do not tolerate that sort of conduct. Go read WP:CIVIL, and try to follow it ... or your time on Wikipedia may be short. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Faroese expatriate sportspeople in Denmark has been nominated for deletion

Category:Faroese expatriate sportspeople in Denmark 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. Crowsus (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Filling

Can you fill in the sources recently added to Lake Clifton Eastern High School? Shktriib1 (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shktriib1

Yes, I can fill the sources. But I won't.

The most fundamental task of any editor is to use reliable sources, and to cite them correctly, by filling in a citation template. I don't want to deprive you of the chance to practice doing that, and learning how to make it easy and instinctive.

So, please read WP:HOWTOCITE, and go fill those refs. I will happily answer questions and (if you want) give you feedback and review your work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I meant could you suggest to Citation bot to fill them in? Shktriib1 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shktriib1: I know that's what you meant.

But Citation bot won't fill WaPO refs.

In any case, Citation bot is a cleanup aid, not a magic wand. There are many websites where it cannot get any data, and even when it can, it never does as through a job as a manual cite (except perhaps on some academic journals which use structured identifier systems such as DOI).

So, you need to learn how to fill a ref manually. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ejiama

Hi, thanks for the update on the above article earlier today. Much appreciated! As being new and considering your expertise and number of years here, I wanted to clarify some issues with one editor regarding the page - Sarah Ejiama. The editor challenges her notability and reliable sources but from all I gathered, she's co-author over 4 different publication which she has contributed to and these were published in reliable journals as you will notice.

Please could you kindly review and advise thus?

Kind Regards

Oceanview1590 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanview1590: as requested in the big notice displayed when you edit this page, please link to whatever article you are talking about. I have no recollection of making any such update. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl :) Apologies, I used the article as the title of my message thinking you will pick this up. My oversight. I viewed the history and I saw you did an update on the article - Sarah Ejiama thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanview1590: thanks for the link. It help a lot.

All I did[20] was to tag a bare URL ref, as part of a semi-automated drive-by task doing the same thing to a batch of articles. I did not update the article in any way.

As to the notability of Sarah Ejiama, please see WP:NACADEMIC. At a quick glance, she does not appear to meet any of the criteria listed there, but I may have missed something. I suggest that you study those criteria.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Thank you! Oceanview1590 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I have just added another userbox to my collection and it has occurred to me that I owe you thanks. I visited your page a few weeks ago and saw how you have formatted your boxes, so I must confess I stole (well, borrowed) your idea. I had half a dozen boxes at the time which were in a pile at the bottom of the page. Your arrangement is much better. So, albeit belated, thank you very much.

Sistorian (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss

Hello! A non-administrator has removed a sourced article from The Times about the subject having had an affair that led to the end of a marriage. WP:BLPN is cited, but I can see nothing there justifying the removal. Can you advise? Thank you very much. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billsmith60: see the big editnotice which appears when you post to this page: please provide links and diffs to help me see what the issue is.

I dunno how you could think that I can offer any useful contribution without that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any big editnotice on this Talk page, but no matter. You edited the Liz Truss page recently, but I see it's only one of the millions you fix. Hence, no worries. Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billsmith60: when you open this page to edit it, User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Editnotice is displayed at the top of the page.

But no notice should be needed. I am sure you mean well, but please don't waste anyone's time by asking for guidance about a specific issue on an unidentified page.

Best wishes BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Looking at the history of this talk page, it looks like Billsmith60 is editing via mobile. Unfortunately edit notices aren't displayed to mobile or Wikipedia app editors. It's been a feature request on Phabricator for four years now, though it looks like after an RfC that closed about a week ago mobile edit notices will be enabled soon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sideswipe9th. That explains the non-spotting of the notice ... but still, the notice should not be needed. If an editor wants to raise a concern about an edit, then it's not rocket science to see the need to identify the edit concerned. Leaving it to the other person to go hunt to try to figure out what you are referring to is a form of passive aggression, and I am fed up with it.

In future, I may just revert such pointless posts on my talk. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fair. While I don't want to encourage such behaviour, I have found both the edit in question and the 2014 BLPN discussion on this issue. The BLPN discussion makes for confusing reading, which isn't helped by massive walls of text.

@Billsmith60: I would recommend posting about this on Talk:Liz Truss, and possibly at WP:BLPN. A lot can happen in 8 years, and consensus can change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to get systematic. I will in future revert such vague requests, and I have made a boilerplate response which I will add to the edit summary of such reverts:

If you want me to review an edit, then I need links and diffs to identify the edit. A vague request which leaves me to go hunt is a form of passive aggression, and a waste of my time. You withheld that info, so I withhold my help.

I don't want to be hostile to newbies, but since most of my work on Wikipedia now consists of small referencing improvements to large number of pages, I seem to be a magnet for this sort of silliness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "a form of passive aģression" is a bit strong for the edit note? Just "thoughtless" or "inconsiderate" might be better and keep things calmer? Possibly include also something like "Note that I make many "housekeeping" edits to articles where I have zero interest in the topic.", to explain further? PamD 05:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if I've stirred up a hornet's nest simply by asking this hardworking and experienced editor for assistance. I couldn't have been more polite, but I won't bother her again. Regards to all Billsmith60 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I thought I had made it very clear that a vague request which omits crucial details is not polite, because it leaves me to do work to find info which was available to the requester, and which could easily have been provided.

But it seems that none of the various terms suggested here describe the problem clearly enough for @Billsmith60. So yes, Bill, please do not bother me again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

I have performed additional testing and the results are in your inbox. Rlink2 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just sending a reminder message Rlink2 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239

Online events:

New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Edits in Milan malpensa page - 30 July 2022

Hi

please do NOT remove legit edits (e.g. add of new routes) only because some filling of ref.s are not acceptable for you. You can correct what is wrong. You have removed legit information.

Available for any information.
Riktetta (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Riktetta: It is a matter of common courtesy to give a link to the article you are talking about - Milan Malpensa Airport here - so that the person you are talking to can go there with one click. You may, or may not, have seen a popup "edit message" telling you this when you came to this page (depends on software), and it is displayed boldly at the top of BHG's talk page, but please remember to do this in all posts on all talk pages. Thanks. PamD 16:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Riktetta: please read the edit summary in my revert.[21]

I did not object to the filing of refs. I reverted because you had changed a correct date to a wrong date, added unlinked URLs, and used non-specific URLs which did not support the facts asserted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:Again, I maybe wrong with dates and urls, but, instead of undid a bunch of edit (much of them not related to these errors), you could have just correct what was wrong or, alternatively, inform me about mistakes.Riktetta (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Riktetta: obviously, I considered partial reverts. But there were so many problems that it would have been too much work to unpick any good bits. When a bunch of edits includes multiple refs which do not support the facts asserted, I distrust the whole lot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something

News and notes: Information considered harmful

In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap

Op-Ed: The "recession" affair

Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)

Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Community view: Youth culture and notability

Opinion: Criminals among us

Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement

Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country

Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us

Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July

Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists

Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot

In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool

On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories

Essay: How to research an image

Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed

Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia

Gallery: A backstage pass

From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened

Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British Overseas Territories

Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Overseas_Territories Dreddmoto (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: I am unclear why you want my input. "Article could be expanded" is uncontroversial. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some of your edits and have liked them. Some people don't like including new parts of articles or, might think they would be better in a new article. If you could think of anything else regarding BOT police uniforms that would be useful. That's why. --Dreddmoto (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, @Dreddmoto ... but to be honest, police uniform is a topic of no interest to me anywhere, let alone those in the absurd remnants of a cruel empire which we in Ireland were able to shake off only by a war because the Brits refused to accept the outcome of the first almost-democratic election which they allowed us to hold, banned our national parliament, and deployed state terrorists to suppress our democracy, even burning the centre of a major city.

However, if that topic interests you, then that's great. Editors should work on topic that interest them, and I hope that you enjoy your work on it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered reply. I'll do more research, including seeing those links which are new to me. The views of others regarding edits are a form of helpful advice for me so, I appreciate that. --Dreddmoto (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Albwiki001&action=view reverted my edits based on "vandalism" with no further reason. I explained my edits when I made them, I even opened a discussion in the respective talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edi_Rama#Mako%C3%A7i's_testimony_in_divorce_hearings . Besides that the user called me "Rama Minion" and I'm not the first one to be name like that. What I should I do and have I done anything wrong? S.G ReDark (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S.G ReDark

It's hard to understand what the issue is when you don't provide diffs of the actions, but from what I can see, it doesn't look like anything I would want to get involved with.

You may want to raise this at WP:ANI, but I have to warn you that you won't get far there without diffs. See Help:Diff. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I forgot to add diffs. Also thanks for your help. S.G ReDark (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do next....help....

hello. I created a page that got moved to a draftspace. The notation was that the paraphrasing was too close to the source used. I have since rephrased those sections of Draft:Virgil Village, Los Angeles. Does it look okay to you? Help! If it looks okay, what do I do now? Help?!? Thanks, Phatblackmama (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Phatblackmama, but I have a huge todo list, and no spare time or energy to review drafts.

If you think that the problems have been resolved, then the next step is to submit it for review at WP:AFC. There are instructions on that page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category header template for crimes by country and century

Hi BHG, all best wishes for the summer.

As you have done such a fine job with the templates in Category:Crime chronology category header templates, e.g. Template:YYYY crimes by country category header, please would you do a similar one for centuries?

Unlike years and decades, with centuries there is an additional opportunity for cross-linking between crimes and criminals, e.g. Category:21st-century crimes in India and Category:21st-century Indian criminals (I have manually linked those two).

It would take me considerable time to understand & mimic your previous templates, so I hope this is something you would like to and have capacity to do yourself. I would be willing to help with the roll-out. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fayenatic london -- long time no speak. Hope you are well.

Today the 202208101 database dump became available, so I will be flat out for the next few fays running a huge bunch of scans and AWB jobs to tackle the bare URL backlog. (I currently have 8 AWB jobs running in pre-parse mode on this PC, and the scans on my other PC, and it will be like that for a few days).

But once I have most of that in hand, it should be fairly easy for me to make the extra template. If I don't get back to you by Friday, please gimme a poke.

While we are on the subject, I have long thought that this whole whole tree is misnamed. It seems to me that it should be a topic category "crime" rather than the set category "crimes", to allow inclusion of crime sprees, policing activities, legislation etc ... instead of limiting it to individual crimes. Do you have any thoughts on that? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have touched on this before, and I disagreed about renaming the whole tree. I'd rather suggest a parent Crime category where it would be useful. For now, I've been renaming some crime parents to crimes. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

It's been a few weeks, I've been waiting for your response to my email. Hope all has been well. Thanks. Rlink2 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in British Honduras has been nominated for merging

Category:Years in British Honduras has been nominated for merging. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods.com

Is behindwoods.com a reliable source? Deepika o (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepika o: I dunno. I haven't investigated; I am just filling WP:Bare URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you please investigate? You are filling many links using reflinks. Deepika o (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepika o: I have not added any links. I am just filling them.

And no, I won't investigate. Sorry, but I am busy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you. Deepika o (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, hope its okay to message directly to get some insight from you. I noticed that you were recent editors of the List of places for NSW and Victoria and was keen to get a perspective of a well informed person.

Are Urban Centres the actual city/town boundaries that most every day Aussies think of when they think of their cities? Do every day folks even know or care about the boundaries defined by the GCCSA and SUA of the same capital or major city ?

And I get that the LGA is not even considered as a place in the hierachy of places (Suburbs/Localities->Cities/Towns->State).

Thanks! Sdinesh2222 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdinesh2222: you didn't leave a link, but it appears that you are talking about e.g. this page. Although BHG was the last editor to change the page, that was four months ago and a purely technical edit, so BHG (i) may well not remember it and (ii) probably has no specific knowledge or interest in the topic of your question.

If you look further down the page history, you will see which editors actually expanded the encyclopaedic content. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) (WP:TPS)[reply]

@Sdinesh2222: my helpful friend @Fayenatic london is correct. My edit[22] was a purely technical edit, to add {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}

As Fayenatic guessed, I have no specific knowledge or interest in the topic of your question. All I know about that place is that it appears to be on the underside of this planet, where people have to wear velcro on their shoes to avoid falling off the earth and hurtling into space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Duncan

I'm rather confused by your recent edit to the Meg Duncan article. You added a reference to the WorldCat search page. When I did a search several books written by Meg Duncan came up. However, the article is about a fictional girl detective, and not about an author. Could you tell me the reason for adding the reference? Perhaps I could refine the reference if you found something about the subject of the article. I don't want to revert your edit if there's a good reason for adding the WorldCat page. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: No, I did NOT add a reference to the WorldCat search page.

What I did do was this semi-automated edit[23], in which I filled an existing bare URL reference to http://www.worldcat.org ... which is the home page of Worldcat

This table shows what I did:

	wikicode	text rendered
before BHG's edit	`<ref>http://www.worldcat.org</ref>`	http://www.worldcat.org
after BHG's edit	`<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.worldcat.org/ \|title=Home \|website=worldcat.org}}</ref>`	"Home". worldcat.org.

My edit was done at speed, using WP:AWB. I never even viewed the page; all my checking was done in the code I had written.

But I agree that it is a pointless reference, for all the reasons that you set out. So who did add that pointless reference?

I checked the article's history, and found two relevant edits.

Working backwards in time through the article history, I first found this edit[24] on 7 January 2014, in which User:BG19bot converted the text <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref> to a proper URL: <ref>http://www.worldcat.org</ref>

So who added the <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref>?

I found it, in this edit[25] on 23 March 2013. The pointless reference <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref> was added by ... guess who?

Yes, it was added by @Karenthewriter.

So I suggest that you write a complaint to @Karenthewriter. Or alternatively, please take some to learn about how to read an article's revision history. The best place to start is Help:Diff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my dreadful mistake. I am so sorry for bothering you. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publishing in the Soviet Union has been nominated for merging

Category:Publishing in the Soviet Union has been nominated for merging. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table code

Hi there. Could you explain the reasoning behind the changes to the table code in this change at Mahamadou Diarra? Is "style="text-align:center;"|" to be preferred over "align="center"|" Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robby.is.on

Short answer: yes, it is to be preferred. align=center was the markup used in old versions of HTML, but is now deprecated in facour of CSS styles.

In this case it was done automatically by WP:Reflinks when I used that tool to fill a bare URL ref.

Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That helps indeed. Thank you!

WP:FOOTY probably should update the table code at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics to adapt to the deprecation. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: yes, if there is a standard skeleton used for such articles, it should be updated.

Since I have the tools, would you like me to do it? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page is used as a template.

That would be great! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: 'tis done.[26] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are v welcome, Robby. It has been a pleasure to meet you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Robby.is.on (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting your time editing an article in my sandbox

User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Jacob Ezekiel That article is an obsolete draft that's years old. deisenbe (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: that edit[27] was just one of a set of 408 semi-automated edits made to implement the outcome of WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_3#Template:Cite_article. Almost no effort involved.

If the page is an obsolete draft, it might be better to delete it or blank it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox RFC

I suggest you move your comment into the bottom of the "Survey" section, please and thank you Andre🚐 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, @Andrevan, and for the headsup. I am tired after wasting tie fending off abuse from a serial liar in another discussion, and I guess I misread the forest of section headings.

Done[28] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, sending good vibes your way! Thanks! Andre🚐 23:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Despite the recent outburst of drama over bare URL filling, the work you have been doing there is definitely appreciated by me and no doubt many others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks, @Pppery -- both for the v kind barnstar, and for the very thoughtful and well-informed input you offered at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template ... especially for pinging me to a discussion where the editor complaining about my work made no attempt to notify me of the discussion, and indeed seems to have intentionally omitted the basic courtesy of notification.

I despair of the Wikipedia community's willingness to tolerate timewasting mischief-makers like that one, who has chosen in that discussion to repeatedly lie and insult (apparently with impunity) ... but the pleasure of working with thoughtful, skilled decent folk like you is what keeps me here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, Row the Boat Ashore

BHG: Thanks for the alert that this article still contains bare URL cites. I will try to resolve those deficiencies later today or perhaps tomorrow, as I think I may be responsible for some of them. PDGPA (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @PDGPA. That's great! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Take a look when you can, and either remove the banner or let me know what more needs to be done. PDGPA (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a slow reply, @PDGPA.

I just took a peek, and found this edit[29]. It is very nicely done: you have filled out the template fields very thoroughly. You got this figured out!

One thing, tho. The two refs which you worked on so well were not actually bare. They were formatted crudely, and are much the better for your good work ... but they were not actually bare URLs, which are refs without any accompanying information about the linked page.

There is still one actually bare URL in the article: the last one, https://hymnary.org/node/14783?ref=related

Do you want to fill that too, and then remove the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Done! Thanks for your guidance. This is one of 75 or so pages I keep an eye on and tinker with from time to time, for various personal reasons, so I was very glad to have your encouragement to improve it. PDGPA (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More good work, @PDGPA!

I like seeing a {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner removed 'cos it is no longer needed, but their removal does not always follow such thorough work as you have done. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi, can you help? What is the difference between 19 October 1610 ( inserted with &n b s p; ) and 19 October 1610? And are there particular regulations for their use?. Sorry to disturb. Regards Denisarona (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Denisarona:   is a non-breaking space.

There is some guidance on their use at MOS:NBSP.

Hope this helps BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for the help. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: 'bare url' in my Permaculture edit

OK, THANK YOU. I will work on a remedy for this, and will RTFM in more detail. I'll find better/additional references too. I'll get this done in the next 24 hours. If insufficient, and my edit/contrib us backed out, no problemo I've saved it and will re-do as appropriate. Thanks again. Tom.jennings (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Tom.jennings. There is no deadline, but bare URLs are best fixed soon, while the link is still live.

If you would like in how to format a citation, see WP:HOWTOCITE and {{cite web}}, or ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. And if you'd like me to review your citation, just lemme know.

Good luck! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mbappe

Hey @BrownHairedGirl, I noticed that you have edited Kylian Mbappé frequently recently. Perhaps you would like to help address the concerns for the ongoing GA review? Just a suggestion, you don't have to. I just would appreciate some help from someone. Feel free to say no, I won't be offended if you decline. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paul Vaurie

My edits to Kylian Mbappé have all been drive-by technical edits using WP:AWB. I have never even read the article, and sports are not my area of interest.

Good luck with the GA review, but I won't be taking part. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks anyways! Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The title of the URL you changed in Special:Diff/1103131480 is "Realcork", so why you title it "Home"? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: because it's the home page of realcork.org.

Old ref: http://www.realcork.org/

New ref: "Home". realcork.org.

If you feel that there is a better way of filling the ref, please feel free to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by actually filling in the title. I have just checked a random two dozen of your most recent edits, none of which had a title of "Home". Please revert so that people know that the correct information still needs filling in. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: no need to revert. If anyone thinks that there is a better title to use, it easier for them to do so when there is already a cite template in place. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. A bar URL obviously triggers some sort of notice or awareness that there is an issue. A {{cite web}} with a title of "Home" tells no one that anything needs fixing. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: a title of "Home" clearly indicates that it is the homepage of the website. Anyone who thinks that is an inappropriate title can see it clearly. Think of it as a placeholder, like |title=Archived copy

And because the cite template is in place, they simply need to replace te value of |title= with whatever they chose. That's much easier than having to add the cite template.

Nearly all these bare URL refs to root have been like that for months or years. Citation bot hasn't fixed them in multiple passes, so a manual cleanup is needed. These adds remove no info from the display, are clear to the reader, and facilitate further improvement. It's an incremental step forward. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I interpreting this correctly that you are actively (and intentionally) adding incorrect information just so that someone might find it "easier to fix" down the line? If so, I find that unacceptable, and unless you can get consensus, I must insist that you cease making these changes. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: no, I am not adding incorrect information, and I resent that prejudicial misrepresentation.

I am adding an accurate generic title which in most cases is good enough, and which in all other cases facilitates improvement — just as IAbot does. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Home" is not an accurate value for |title= when that is not the title of the page. Please leave |title= blank, which will generate an actual error message that will draw the attention of gnomes who are willing to insert an accurate title for the web page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I stopped that job 11 days ago.

I still take the view that it is a good enough placeholder for a website's homepage, and better than either a bare URL or the ugly output of a missing title.

But since you and @Primefac disagree, I will leave the remaining ~7,000 such uses as ugly and unhelpful bare URLs.

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple simultaneous big Citation bot batch runs

Not that I'm complaining (as the vast increase in the bot's capacity occasioned by AManWithNoPlan rebuilding it a few months ago meaning that it no longer poses problems for others, and as all the citation-fixing thereby accomplished is a great help to everyone)! But, out of curiosity, how do you manage to run multiple simultaneous huge Citation bot runs (currently four, judging from the bot's contributions page) without the bot locking out all but the first? Usually, when one attempts to start a new run encompassing more than three pages, while there is still an unfinished run of more than three pages started by the same user, the preexisting big run blocks the subsequent one(s), which can only be started once the first has finished; how do you avoid this? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 15:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Whoop whoop pull up!

I don't think it would be a good idea for multiple-jobs to be widely used ... so per WP:BEANS, no comment.

Alternatively: that's a very good question, and I am very glad you asked me. Let me just say firstly that I take tis matter very seriously, so I am very grateful for the excellent work done in this field by Mr Joe Soap. As many of your viewers will know, Joe is a really wonderful man, and a huge credit to the fine community of Ballyporeen, where his family have farmed for more generations than most of us can count. I can assure you all that I stand resolutely by the farming community, and I deplore the vicious and cruel attacks on farming by ... BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. :-) I can live without knowing. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 16:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]