User talk:BrownHairedGirl

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

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives



Hi BHG, I wanted to ask you more about the technical limitations of Categories that you brought up at the RFC draft. Do you know what work, if any, has been done? I liked a lot of the ideas you suggested and wanted to take a look to see how hard it would be to add some of these features. Are there any other improvements to categories you think could be done software side? Wug·a·po·des​ 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wugapodes.
WP:IECATNAVP is where I set out the start of the idea which was refined on the talk page (WT:IECATNAVP) into what eventually became {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}}. I think that in there there is a fairly good summary of my thoughts about the poor state of category software.
If I had to do a quick summary, I'd say that the key things needed are:
  1. Built-in navigation to sibling categories
  2. Breadcrumbs for navigation to parent categories
  3. A footers section for portal links, Commons links, navboxes etc
  4. Automatically available collapsible and navigable category tree
Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Still looking into this, but I found a script at meta:Help:User style#Moving categories to top that you might be interested in. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Wug. I'll investigate too! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Newshunter12[edit]

I see Newshunter12 recently tried to blame me for attempting to hack your account and I just wanted to tell you that it wasn't me (I did troll him and a few others) and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he the one that brought up the fact someone attempted to hack your account a few months ago before you had even said anything about it ? How could he possibly have known about it unless he or one of his cronies did it. (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence is not causality. But this is odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(I saw this at the AfD) Would you happen to be admitting to being the IP who's necessitated semiprotecting Newshunter12's talkpage? And the same person who left me the charming entreaties to commit suicide visible here? If so, I'll make sure to strike your comments at the AfD, since self-professed trolls who request editors kill themselves, while referring to them as "cunt" and "faggot", are not welcome to edit here. (See User talk:Zzuuzz#Proxy score of 65 from ipqualityscore and the second thread after it for context, I'm sure a CU would've turned up a good hand/bad hand situation) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I have said not one word anywhere about IP I don't know very much about IP addresses, but it certainly sounds like this person is admitting to being behind the socking, death threats, suicide demands, and vile insults sent to me and others under other IP's and username, not to mention block evading right at this very moment. For better or worse, all my edits on Wikipedia are through this account and I've never received worse punishment then a warning for my conduct. Actions speak louder then words, and given your history of abusive and disgusting conduct, attempt at framing me via a now banned sock, and corrupt use of technology, I'd say the person who tried to hack your account at least this most recent time has been unmasked, BrownHairedGirl. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Important not to let this get overlooked. Given the apparent revelation about just who tried to hack your account, I would like to apologize to you BrownHairedGirl for you being inconvenienced/hurt because of whatever reason that person has for harassing me and others. You and I haven't exactly been getting on, but I would never want you to be hurt in that manner. Gute Nacht! Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think your sad attempt at deflection is fooling anyone Newshunter12 the fact remains you were the one who mentioned the attempted hacking of her account before she even publicly mentioned it how could you have known about it unless you or one of your pals did it ? I'd be willing to bet your history on this site isn't as squeaky clean as you'd like us to believe. (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You are the one deflecting. I didn't mention the attempted hacking of her account - I made a joke that by chance or fate happened to near-parallel reality. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died 50 years to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Coincidences happen. You are the one with the known record of both vicious and tech based abuse, no bets needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear BrownHairedGirl blamed NewsHunter12 for the initial hacking attempt and the most recent one for the reasons stated above. (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of deflection, you haven't answered my question above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Now NewsHunter12 is going around lying claiming that some type of conclusion has been reached to cover his tracks and he's acting like he's been exonerated I don't know if there's any way to prove this but I'm not the one who tried to log or hack into your account and judging by some of the things Newshunter12 has been saying I suspect it's him I mean I know you suspected him already with the wink wink nudge nudge comments he made about hacking but I'm afraid my recent trolling may have given him an alibi and now he might try again and apparently he's convinced Zzuuzz to try and silence me so I hope you read this and take this all into consideration. I'm not sure if this is possible but maybe another admin can try to look up the IP that tried to access your account and prove that it wasn't me. (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC) WP:DENY troll — JFG talk 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to unravel the details if I saw either of these two warring sides actually trying to uphold Wikipedia policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that I just don't want to see your account get hacked and I'm convinced that Newshunter12 was the one trying to do it but I don't know what can be done to stop it I guess you couldn't get the IP of the person trying to hack it yourself ? (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC) WP:DENY troll — JFG talk 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some kind of closure[edit]

Hello @BrownHairedGirl. I posted in incident report on the Admin Noticeboard, but presumably because the thread has become long-winded, a judgement has still not been made, and it's moved into archive. [1] I scanned the Admin noticeboard, and thought you seemed very sober and thorough in your judgements, so would it be possible to make some kind of ruling on this issue? Otherwise the other party's reverts are likely to continue. To get your head around the issue, just reading the last three posts in the thread (where I sought a yes/no answer from the other party) may save time. Thanks for your assistance. ClearBreeze (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @BrownHairedGirl. I'm presuming you don't wish to deal with this. Is there a way to get the Admin Board to make some ruling because it's just sitting there and time is moving on. Thanks. ClearBreeze (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@ClearBreeze: you should really move on. You're not doing yourself a favour with this kind of behaviour. wikitigresito (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@ClearBreeze: sorry, I missed this when you posted it.

But after reading WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Editor:_Wikitigresito, I remind you that ANI is a place to resolve conduct issues. It is not a venue for content disputes. And this is a content dispute.

I agree with those who suggested that you raise it at Talk:Berlin Palace. If you can't find agreement there, then try WP:3O. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Has it not gone beyond a content dispute when an editor refuses point-blank to permit a full-referenced fact in an article, and, as he stated at ANI, refuses to negotiate on that point? Surely it then becomes an issue of conduct? ClearBreeze (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, unless the same conduct is repeated in many venues. There can be legitimate reasons to oppose the inclusion of sourced content, and in this case there hasn't been a proper examination of whether that's the case here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like a favor[edit]

I am going away from keyboard for a few weeks. Plus I have a serious real life issue which demands constant attention for several weeks. I have just now added myself as a maintainer for roughly a half dozen portals that either I think I can improve or that I think are important to improve. I'd ask that I be allowed a few months to work with those portals before you nominate them for deletion. I ask that if any portals come up for deletion in which I am listed as maintainer, please email me. Thank you BusterD (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi BusterD
After a decade of systematic neglect of the majority of portals, I have repeatedly been unimpressed by white knights who ride in to "rescue" portals, as if a once-off driveby makeover was some sort of viable substitute for ongoing maintenance. For a portal to fulfill its claimed role as a gateway to the the topic, it needs ongoing involvement from multiple editors with multiple points of view ... and the efforts I have seen come nowhere near that.
[Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019]
Remember that WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". If a portal has low views and a history of neglect and only one editor promising to do some maintenance in the future, then it's a million miles from the baseline requirements.
Despite the culling of so many of the worst portals, the graph to the right shows the vast majority of portals are simply unwanted by readers. It really is time to stop luring readers to this pile of abandonment ... and for editors to stop kidding themselves that they are doing anyone a service by creating a few more redundant content forks behind a superfluous interface.
I'm sorry to here that you are having troublesome life issues. I wish you luck in resolving them.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
So that's a "no"? BusterD (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed a "no".
WP:OWNership never applies, and it certainly doesn't apply to a page where one editor has merely indicated an intention to do something unspecified at some time in the future without even expressing an aspiration to address the fundamental problems.
Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Maurice Courteau[edit]

Hi, I believe you entered the death info for this old hockey player, and I'm wondering how you got Drummondville, November 20, 1985. Official death records for Quebec list DOD as February 14, 1985, but they don't include a city of death. Any info appreciated. Thanks. Researchguy (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your belief is almost certainly mistaken, because I have little interest in sports and believe that the WP:NSPORTS has left Wikipedia with far too many perma-stub articles on minor sportspeople.
If you are referring to the article Maurice Courteau, then you are definitely mistaken. My only edit to that article was to add a category.[2]
Best wises, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


Since you like to hide things, I'll try the direct approach.

Now that you've created the epithet the Notorious Portalspammer for User:The Transhumanist, can you come up with one for me? The Burgundy Templater perhaps? (Burgundy ribbons signify Multiple Myeloma, which you seem to find humorous. I've also created 7,570 active template pages.) Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: if you ever showed even a small fraction of the analytical capability that TTH displayed, I might consider it. But TTH is way out of your league.
Your attempt at flattering him as a portal creator two months after he wrote that portals are becoming redundant was a piece of comedy.
Now to the serious bit. Please keep discussion at XFD focused. That's what I collapsed your attempt to use it as a caht room
On every previous occasion when I have nominated at MFD portals in which User:Buaidh has an intrest, they have responded with an extraordinary range of misconduct including: sustained personal attacks, spamming messages, blatant canvassing, and flooding the discussion with multiple walls of text, and maliciously false allegations of harassment. I urge Buaidh to refrain from that, and to discuss the substantive issues at the MFD. If there is any resumption here of such disruption, I will go straight to ANI, without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I know you think me stupid, but I was employed for ten years as an unchallenged Expert witness. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I would find that assertion more credible if your activities on Wikipedia amounted to more than robotically creating convoluted sets of pointless pages, and if you demonstrated an ability to participate in reasoned discussion without so rapidly resorting to multiple forms of disruptive conduct to disguise your lack of substantive argument.
But there again, I have long held the view that the existence of expert witnesses in court proceedings (especially if unchallenged) is a perversion of basic and vital principles of evidence and of jurisprudence. Your evident unfamiliarity with the conduct of reasoned debate, and your reluctance to participate in it, reaffirms my view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That certainly constitutes harassment since you have no basis of fact. You really like to malign. Do you have any non-Wikipedia credentials?  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Buiadh, please stop behaving like a whiney eejit.
I didn't ask to have this conversation. I didn't ask you personal questions. You chose to come to my talk page try to flash credentials at me. I told you why I am unimpressed.
If you don't want to hear my response, then stick to discussing the substance, and drop your tediously pathetic efforts to personalise everything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your words speak for themselves. Your buddy,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I saw this section linked from another talk page. I feel that "if your activities on Wikipedia amounted to more than X" can rightly be perceived ad hominem, because it seems to disqualify any argument made by a certain (kind of) person, probably implying that they are "people without the necessary personal attributes", as said below. Similarly, "Do you have any non-Wikipedia credentials?" sounds like a personal attack. I personally appreciate the energy BrownHairedGirl has put in the effort to clean up the portals and I admit I chuckled at several of her strongly worded arguments on deletion discussions, but I wish we could avoid such unpleasant personal interactions. Sadly, it might be impossible. Nemo 07:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:South America[edit]

On a completely serious note, I am concerned about your redirect of Portal:South America to Portal:Latin America. Of the 27 countries of Latin America, only 11 are located in South America. Eight are located in the Caribbean, six in Central America, and two in northern North America. You wish to delete Portal:Americas, so that would leave no portal for South America. Seriously, what would you propose? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: Most of the navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups. Whatever else happens, your creation of a new automated junk portal is no benefit to readers. That's why I reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm not really sure how we got into this mini-feud since we both desire the same basic things for Wikipedia. You think deletion will get us there, and I think a few things should be preserved. Could we end the name calling? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: I have been trying for months to persuade you to do exactly that, to desist from your endless personalisations and other forms of disruption. Yet even today, you were at it again, playing factionalising games by badmouthing me as you tried to suck up to the topic-banned portalspammer TTH.
If you want to stop these games, that would be very welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. The name calling is over. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dlight92[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dlight92 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal redirects[edit]

Since you created Portal:Samoa, Portal:South America, Portal:Tokelau, Portal:Tonga, Portal:Vanuatu, and Portal:Wallis and Futuna, would you consider deleting them? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: you were also the creator of a bunch of the portal redirects in the Caribbean, so may want to consider G7 deleting those as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, @UnitedStatesian, I'll get onto them. I'm currently doing the backlinks to the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your Caribbean portal redirects are Portal:Bonaire, Portal:Martinique, Portal:Montserrat, Portal:Saint Barthélemy, Portal:Saint Kitts and Nevis, Portal:Saint Lucia, Portal:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Portal:Sint Eustatius, Portal:Sint Maarten, and Portal:Turks and Caicos Islands. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @UnitedStatesian and Buaidh:.
You might be interested in how I came to create all those redirects, because it's kinda part of how I came to learn about portals, having ignored them in my previous ten years on WP.
In January 2017, I was working on Template:Year in country category and several related templates, trying to make them automatically add a link to the country portal and relevant year/decade/century portals. This was because there were a few editors doing big AWB runs adding the portals manually, and that seemed silly. The AWB runs inevitably had some errors, but even the accurate ones seemed to me to a be a task which could and should be automated.
Inevitably, it wasn't as simple as I had thought. One of the first problems I encountered was that a number of countries didn't have portals, so just adding {{Portal|CountryName}} was generating redlinks. So I started creating redirects.
As I proceeded, I realised that colonisation/decolonisation and country name changes made the whole map quite complicated, so instead of piling up the redirects I created Template:YearInCountryPortalBox to allow a more complex mapping of countryname to multiple targets to better reflect the imperial age. The lookup table at Template:YearInCountryPortalBox/parse got rather big, but it did allow me to set vast numbers of categories to automatically link to portals.
As I did that, I paid little attention to the portals themselves. I was just making links.
But as the months went by, I began to follow through by looking at the pageviews for the portals to which these categs were linking, and was astonished to see that the were still abysmal. And after that I began to look at the actual portal pages, and see how poor they are. And later I began to follow through on that observation.
But now, two years on, those redirects are superfluous. Template:YearInCountryPortalBox filters out redlinks, and in late 2018 I got {{Portal}} modified so that it links only to portals which actually exist. So the redlinks don't happen no more.
So the redirects are no longer needed, and and in most respects they are a positive menace. So I will delete them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131

Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Possible Sockpuppet[edit]

I suspect that is a Sockpuppet of they have a similar editing style and often edit the same pages. Do you have checkuser access ? Can you confirm it ? (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't have checkuser access. Try WP:SPI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks. (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well I tried but one of Newshunter12's admin buddies just blocked me for no reason. (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Your ability to rapidly jump IPs when blocked suggests that the block had merit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@User:Someguy1221: does this IP need a block too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Timeline for nature[edit]

The links to the right of the graphic overlap, is there any way this can be fixed ?

I'm not sure how the messages on here work so can you please correspond with me via my email

Many thanks. Kerry McCutcheon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kerry
The best place to discuss changes to Wikipedia is on Wikipedia.
In this case, you should raise your concerns at Template talk:Nature timeline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please keep Wyoming portal links in place[edit]

I am working on a new Wyoming portal, so I am requesting for you to please stop removing links to the portal from various pages. When a portal is deleted, the links go blank anyway, so it's not a big deal. When I publish the new, revised, updated and maintained portal, it would be nice for it to already have links to it, rather than having to redo all of them again. North America1000 08:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@NA1K, a re-creation of Portal:Wyoming would be subject to speedy deletion per WP:G4.
I urge you to respect the WP:Consensus at MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, because with entirely new content, particularly articles, say 40 or so to start, G4 wouldn't be applicable; the content would significantly differ from the deleted version. Sure, some of the box header titles would be the same, and the lead would be the same, the categories would be the same, but the articles would not. North America1000 08:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, the portal was deleted because it fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
The fact of one editor doing some one-off work will not alter that underlying problem. Your sudden burst of energy does not and cannot amount to sustained maintenance by a "large number of portal maintainers".
If you disagree with the MFD outcome, you know where DRV is.
On a broader note, it is disturbing that you persistently refuse to respect the simple words of POG, which require that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Your various exploits have included serial attempts to misrepresent the guidelines by omitting the relevant text, and even more bizarre attempts to claim that "large numbers" doesn't actually mean large numbers.
If you wish to change the guidelines, you should open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The portal was not salted. The portal has potential to receive better page views, because it is possible that portals with lots of content may attract more viewers who check-in from time-to-time, particularly if they're updated with new content from time-to-time. It does not appear that you will stop removing the portal links, which then becomes a vicious circle, as you are working to keep page views down for a new portal before it is even created. Bummer. Less visible links is obviously correlated with lesser page views. Well, I tried. Guess I'll have to re-add the links if I create a new portal. North America1000 09:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, the bummer is that you remain in such deep denial of well-documented facts and policies that you must have either severe reading comprehension problems or a deep-seated aversion to acknowledging reality.
On pageviews, see the graph to the right. The most-viewed US state portal is Portal:California, with a pathetic 46 pageviews per day. It is utterly implausible to suggest that a portal on much more minor state could significantly exceed those abysmal numbers.
Please note that POG really does require that a portal be likely to attract a large number of maintainers. I note that you do not even attempt to advance any rationale for why we might expect more maintainers to appear for a small state.
And you also remain in denial about the fact that G4 allows speedy deletion for cases where the deletion reasons still apply, as they do in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It also states at WP:AWBRULES, "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits." When portals are deleted, portal links are blank on pages. So, your deletion of the links consists of a long series of inconsequential edits. They aren't necessary, and are only creating more future work for others, for no good reason, other than that you apparently don't like portals for whatever reasons. North America1000 09:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the "if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule" part of the rules, and since I obviously object, please cease and desist using AWB to remove portal links that have no noticeable effect on the rendered page. North America1000 09:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • NA1K, your objections are clearly founded on your rejection of the consensus at MFD. I would be willing to explain in detail my reason for removing the redundant links if you both accepted the MFD consensus and if I was discussing this with an editor who did not open with a bad faith statement that I apparently don't like portals for whatever reasons.
Please stop your attempts to game the system to circumvent consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No gaming here. Again, the portal was not salted. Consensus was for deletion of that version of the portal, not for permanent deletion of a Wyoming portal forever. There was no bad faith intended in my statement, so sorry if this offended you. At WP:ENDPORTALS you stated in part, "My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion..", and at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines you posted a long essay about your term "portalistas" (diff), which comes across as a bit negative toward portals and portal editors. Per all of this, I surmised that you don't seem to like portals that much. So, again, sorry if you were offended, and if my impression is incorrect. I would still like for you to stop misusing AWB, though. Please seriously consider this. North America1000 10:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, your assumptions of bad faith run as deep as your denials of the plain English in guidelines.
WP:SALTing a hard barrier to prevent disruption. Lack of salting is not a license for you to ignore the consensus that the topic of that portal (not its content) fails POG.
You continue to deliberately and misleadingly take snippets of my my views on the ideal policy for portals, and misrepresent then as some sort of lack of commitment to work within the existing guidelines unless and until they are changed by consensus. This is a fundamental issue of how Wikipedia works: it is expected and required that editors uphold a consensus even if they disagree with it, and that is what I am doing here.
I think that am probably responsible for creating more links to portals than any other editor on Wikipedia. By adding portal links to category header templates such as {{EstcatCountry}}, {{EstcatUSstate}} and many others I have created hundreds of thousands of links to portals. I have put significant time and energy into developing mechanisms to do this, such as Template:YearInCountryPortalBox/parse, which took about a full week of my time to get to a working solution.
So your ABF decision to view this as some sort of effort by BHG to dismantle links to live portals is as fact averse as the rest of your arguments.
There are tracking categories in place to allow detection and repair of links to non-existent portals: see Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and Category:Portal templates with all redlinked portals. Those tracking categories became unusable when they were overwhelmed and overloaded by the calls to deleted portals. The deleted portals overwhelmed those tracking categories, which is why last month I began removing the deleted portals in order to allow the categories to achieve their primary purpose of tracking and fixing errors. You desire to permanently clutter these tracking categories with entries arising from portals deleted by consensus would make it impossible to do the actual maintenance, because the signal-to-noise ratio would remain at the insanely low level it was at before I began the cleanup.
I assume that you do not want to impede the fixing of misnamed links to portals. If so, please support and assist this cleanup. And if you don't support link fixing, please explain why you wish to impede my longstanding and ongoing efforts to improve links to portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A short reply: First of all, I have no bad faith whatsoever, so sorry if you feel otherwise. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wyoming your nomination states nothing about topical broadness, and nor do any of the delete !voters. After quoting WP:POG, where broadness is mentioned within the quote from the page, you provided no subsequent qualification for deletion based upon this, instead stating, "But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers..." (et al.). Your subsequent comments in the discussion say nothing about topical broadness. You state above that you feel that the discussion led to a "consensus that the topic of that portal (not its content) fails POG", but none of the delete !voters qualified deletion based upon this. Rather, those for deletion stated reasons regarding page views, lack of updating, being outdated, not having enough content, and the like. Since User:Scottywong closed the discussion, pinging them for their take regarding why the portal was deleted. Perhaps the close can be addended, if need be. North America1000 10:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(TPS) If a portal is not maintained (left incomplete, outdated etc) over a long period (e.g. years) then that's evidence that the portal's topic fails to meet the POG requirement. DexDor (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @DexDor. That was the basis of the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, I really hope that you take some time to re-read and reflect on your post of 10:54.
As you say, I quoted the guideline saying that it requires X as measured by A and B, and then shows how it didn't meet A and B.
The whole point of A&B is that they are the test for X. Yet you seem to somehow regard them as wholly unrelated to the reasons for deletion. I really, honestly don't know how you can say that, because the connection is set out the start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As User:Northamerica1000 said, he pinged my talk page and is asking for clarification on why Portal:Wyoming was closed. I've read through the discussion above about re-creating the portal, and here's my take. Overall, the portal was deleted because it didn't live up to the requirements at WP:POG, specifically the requirement that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date." The way I interpret this guideline, the measure of a subject's "broadness" is whether or not its portal attracts "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". So, I believe that the MfD provided an implicit consensus that the subject isn't broad enough (based on the clear consensus that the portal had virtually no maintainers or readers), but there wasn't much explicit discussion about that point at the MfD. NA1k seems to be saying that the lack of explicit discussion on the "broadness" topic gives him an opening to re-create the article. However, I would regard this as a dangerous foundation on which to build a case for re-creating the portal after it was deleted.
It would be a shame to go through all of the effort to re-create the portal, just to have another MfD where the consensus is that the topic is not sufficiently broad. It would be far more preferable to have that discussion before the work is done to re-create the portal. What will you do differently this time to ensure that the portal attracts a team of interested maintainers, and a significant number of interested readers?
To quickly re-create the portal so soon after the MfD was closed, without considering the above points, would be irresponsible in my view. While you might be able to technically wikilawyer your way out of an immediate G4 speedy, the chances that the new portal will survive another MfD are low if the above problems aren't first solved. And, if a solution doesn't exist to the above problems, then that's a good sign that the portal shouldn't exist at all. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Scottywong. As I noted above, even the most-viewed Portal:California got only 46 pageviews/day. Wyoming has less than one 68th of California's population and only 1/78th of its GDP, so it's implausible to think that Wyoming could come anywhere near even California's lamentable figures.
As to the required "large number of maintainers", the MFD was open for 35 days and nobody volunteered to maintain the portal. The answer looks clear to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Scottywong: Thanks for providing your perspective. My view, and the view of many others at various MfD discussions through the months, is that a subject's broadness is a measure of the breadth of a particular subject, or overall available content on Wikipedia about a given subject. For example, the guideline page does not say "portals should contain broad subject areas, it states that they should be about, or based upon, broad subject areas. As an example, see Category:Wyoming and its many subcategories for an overview of available topical coverage about the state. In my view, this is sufficient to meet the broadness criteria of WP:POG. Many portals have been deleted at MfD in part per the rationale that the depth of coverage about a given topic did not qualify the existence of a portal, and in many cases, correctly so. For some examples, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lake Van and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Albany, California. Many more examples exist, which can be found at recent MfD archives. However, while the Wyoming portal was certainly qualified for deletion per lacking adequate content, it does not mean that the content itself is nonexistent on Wikipedia, the portal just wasn't expanded to include various content. North America1000 23:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @NA1K, it is utterly extraordinary that your reply makes no mention or acknowledgement of the fact WP:POG explicitly ties the question a topics' breadth to readership and maintainers.
As you know, evidence was presented at MFD that this portal has neither readers nor maintainers, but you plough on as if the guideline didn't exist or the evidence had not been presented.
What is wrong with you? What on earth are you trying to achieve by continually misrepresenting both the guideline and the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The guideline page simply states several factors in one sentence. It does not state that if a portal does not attract readers or maintainers, then a subject itself is not broad enough, it states, "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to...". In other words, broad subject areas are likely to attract said users, but a lack of said users does not mean that a subject area is then inherently not broad enough per a lack of said users. I get what you're saying, but the way the guideline is worded, it is a syllogism of sorts. North America1000 23:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, when a topic has failed to attract both readers and editors for a whole decade, then it is clear not "likely" to attract them.
Which part of that is so hard for you to understand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It's very simple, in my view, a subject area is defined as the overall scope of available coverage on Wikipedia about a given topic. A subject area's broadness should not defined by the number of readers or maintainers a portal has. Makes perfect sense, really. For example, per its present Revision history, the Physics article on Wikipedia does not attract a large number of maintainers, but it is certainly quite broad in topical scope. People would laugh heartily if the Physics article was nominated for deletion as lacking topical broadness because it is not edited regularly. Now, I know, I know, it's an article, but still. The syllogism at POG is a bit absurd. North America1000 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: It seems like what you're saying is that Portal:Wyoming failed to attract visitors and maintainers, not because the topic is too narrow, but for some other reason. And you seem to believe that if you create the portal differently (i.e. better content, links to more articles), it will begin to attract a significant number of readers, and an army of maintainers will join you in regularly maintaining the portal. Is that a realistic belief? ‑Scottywong| express _ 01:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Scottywong: The portal lacked sufficient content, so people would likely visit it, realize there's not much there, and then likely not go back. I feel that a potential exists for a functional portal to be created, with adequate content, say 40-50 articles, 20 images, etc. as a start. I feel that this would encourage readers to utilize the portal more compared to its previous state. Regarding your notion of an "army of maintainers", the guideline page states that portals should be "likely" to attract maintainers, not that hundreds of maintainers are absolutely "required", but I digress. Unfortunately, creating such as functional portal would now be even more uphill, since BHG has hurriedly, unilaterally, and rather eagerly continued to remove many links to the portal from various pages. At this point, it would take too much time, work and energy to start over from scratch, at least for me, so oh well, nevermind. North America1000 01:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


@Scottywong is probably well-bored with this by now, but if Scotty hasn't already given up, here's the problem: NA1K is conducting a prolonged exercise of deep denial of two simple realities: that most portals are almost unread, and do not have enough editors willing to sustain them. This is a long-standing problem, which both reflects the basic redundancy of portals, and the long-term decline in the ratio of editors to pages.
NA1K's denials of both the realities and of the relevant guidelines are so severe and so persistent that it is not possible to describe them accurately without appearing to cross boundaries of civility.
As of Feb 2018, there were about 1500 portals. Most of them were abandoned and almost unused.
That's what led to the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC, which proposed deleting all of them. The proposal to delete the lot was rejected as too extreme, but no alternative RFC was made for how to fix the problem.
So the solution adopted was to convert the portals to automated clones of navboxes. About 1/3 of the 1500 existing portals were converted to an automated format, and a further ~4200 automated pseudo-portals were created as spam, some of them just for the heck of it.
Unfortunately the automation created clones which added no value to the navboxes. So the instigator of the automation was topic-banned, and a moratorium was imposed on the mass creation.
The community narrowly failed to reach consensus on a proposal to speedy delete the spam (it got ~65% support in a RFC). Most of the navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups.
The converted portals were reverted to their old, abandoned state.
Since then MFD has continued to delete abandoned and underused portals, leading the total number of portals to be reduced to below 900 by late July 2019.
However, there are still many many portals which ave been abandoned and unused for years, and those are still being brought to MFD. This has caused NA1K and a few other portalistas to panic as the number continues to fall, so they are mounting various forms of excitable rearguard action o try to defend remaining portals, even when those portals are junk.
NA1K's chosen solution is a form of deep denialism. I can't tell for certain whether NA1K's denial is based on deep mendacity or on severe reading comprehension problems, but there is so much creative art involved that mendacity seems much more likely. But whatever the cause of the dysfunction, it is very clear that NA1K is engaged is systematic campaign of FUD to obscure the simple fact that the hard data shows that most portals have never reached a critical mass of readers and editors.
Note that graph of pageviews: most portals have abysmally poor readership. Across many hundreds of topics, readers simply don't use portals. Even the richest and most populous US State portal, California, gets only 46 pageviews per day.
NA1K writes I feel that a potential exists for a functional portal to be created, with adequate content, say 40-50 articles, 20 images, etc. as a start. Obviously, a lone enthusiastic editor can create a functional portal of decent quality. That isn't hard. The problem is that portals don't just require creation; they require ongoing maintenance, and the history of portals such as this is that the initial enthusiastic creation has very often not been followed up with maintenance.
NA1K writes I feel that this would encourage readers to utilize the portal more compared to its previous state. Note the lack of any evidence or metrics to support NA1K's assertion: we are asked to trust NA1K's "feeling", and implicitly asked to ignore the hard evidence that portal on this sort of topic (small US population states) simply don't attract readers or maintainers. NA1K offers precisely zero evidence that the proposal for a one-off upgrade will magically attract readers and editors, and ignores the fact that any older portals have already been through a cycle of upgrade followed by continued decline.
The bottom line here is that NA1K simply doesn't want to acknowledge that:
  1. portals are tools, not content, and are pointless unless the attract a decent number of readers. That's one reason why the guidelines have always required that portals be chosen to attract high reader numbers
  2. Without high readership, a portal is unlikely to attract maintainers. That's the other reason why the guidelines have always required that portal topics be be chosen to attract high reader numbers
  3. The pageview data consistently shows that only very broad topics consistently attract large number of readers and editors.
NA1K's endless wikilawyering deception is all just part of a NA1K's determination to ensure that Wikipedia retains large numbers of unmaintained, almost unread portals.
It's also sadly typical of NA1K's snarky mendacity that their comment closes with the remark BHG has hurriedly, unilaterally, and rather eagerly continued to remove many links to the portal from various pages. I was discussing those removals above with NA1K, and at 10:40 yesterday I wrote long reply explaining why I was doing so. NA1K hasn't even acknowledged that reply, and has instead deployedthe usual NA1K tactic of avoiding specifics and instead casting unfounded aspersions.
Far from rushing to remove the backlinks, I did no systematic removal of them (other than some manual edits to templates) until early July, which was 5 months after the portal culling began. I began clearing the backlog in early July because the tracking categories Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and Category:Portal templates with all redlinked portals had become swamped and overloaded with thousands of entries. Having cleared most of the backlog, I now try to keep on top of it by promptly removing backlinks to deleted portals. It's a tedious maintenance job, which I undertook because nobody else was doing it ... just I undertook the job of creating hundreds of thousands of automatic links to portals, because nobody was doing that either. By sadly, the serial liar NA1K prefers fantasies over facts, and prefers smears rather than honest dialogue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been lurking on WP:MFD for a little while now, and I have to say, I really have a problem with you repeatedly calling NA1K a "serial liar" and coyly suggesting "severe reading comprehension problems", no matter what the context behind it may be. Most editors wouldn't get away with that. For the sake of maintaining a relatively civil editing environment, please tone it down a bit.--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@WaltCip, I really do get that it is unpleasant.
But NA1K's serial lies are unpleasant and disruptive, and consensus-forming processes break when editors like NA1K repeatedly try to subvert them by lies, half-truths and FUD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with WaltCip. I'm certainly not the civility police; I'm not offended by naughty words or heated conversations. And I understand that there's a long history behind this situation that is likely very frustrating, and you probably want to express that frustration. But, if your goal is to convince people of your point of view (whether it be NA1K or others), being a rude asshole to them is generally not the most effective strategy for getting people on your side. And I'm speaking from experience... hell, I was even blocked back in 2012 for a whole 24 minutes, for incivility and personal attacks. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem, Scotty, is that the persistent pattern is that for the many months when I responded with civility and openness to NA1K's fantasies, it just meant that NA1K's campaign of mendacity, deception and gaming-the-system continued unchallenged. (To give you an idea of how far NA1K is willing to go, their campaign of disruption extended even to stealthily depopulating the key tracking Category:All portals because it was "used by deletionists").
So I have taken now to directly and explicitly challenging and confronting NA1K's disruptive mendacity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no intention to belabor the point, just saying that it's possible to challenge someone while being civil. They're not mutually exclusive. Of course, it's entirely up to you to decide how you'd prefer to interact with other people. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On the AWB edits to remove portal-inline links and the like (which are what brought me here), I'll note that I would prefer if an actual bot performed them, in fully automated mode. This would solve any issue with perceived inconsistency with the AWB-related guidelines and allow to specify more fine-grained conditions for the removal, if desired. Nevertheless, as long as there's no active bot doing the job, such edits are an improvement. Nemo 07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Northamerica1000, User:BrownHairedGirl - I have just reread the close by ScottyWong, and I see nothing specific in it about re-creating the portal. I see that some of the Delete !voters were silent on the subject. I see that I said to Delete without prejudice to a miniature Main Page, noting that a Main Page is a labor-intensive effort. Multiple groups of volunteers work on the Main Page every day. It isn't one-and-done. A US state such as Wyoming shouldn't require daily work on the portal, but we have seen many many one-and-one efforts to revise a portal that just revise the portal once. I will oppose any re-creation of Portal:Wyoming, or any deleted US state portal or national portal, that doesn't have a maintenance schedule, as well as opposing any re-creation of any deleted regional portal even with a maintenance schedule that uses forked subpages. I will take any re-creation with forked subpages of any deleted portal first to G4 and then to MFD if that fails, and will request silver nitrate. If you really want to make the case that you have a superior design for a portal, you have Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is probably now moot, because in recent MFD closes most of backlinks are being removed by the closers' scripts. So all I am doing is mopping up a few stragglers which the scripts don't handle, such as {{Subject bar}}. I am now in the process of removing lots of such links, which are now being tracked in Category:Subject bar templates with redlinked portals'after I added tracking to Module:Subject bar. Most of the instances I have encountered so far are of remaining subject bar link to add portal; the highest is six backlinks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
And no sooner did I write that, than the next set was about 130 backlinks to the miscapitalised Portal:Gender Studies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

Misinformation[edit] Here it's written: "The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization."

NATO intervention was NOT required, thus nullyfing the entire potency and purpose of the UN. Bombing other sovereign nations is not NATO's mission nor obligation as Serbia was answering only on attacks from Albanian paramilitary forces in Kosovo. Bombing Serbia should be under Controversy section of this article as they were also intentionally destroying state-owned factories and infrastructure, targeting civilians and helping ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo by killing people for organ transplants. Also they were using cluster bombs which are not allowed by Geneva's war convention.

Some references about NATO conspiracy against Serbia can be found on this page:

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the content of an article on that article's talk page, in this case Talk:NATO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Per WP:C1. This is not category redirect, but a redirect in category namespace which is also (now) an empty category.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –MJLTalk 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider you involved in this since you created the page as an admin action to enforce a close, so feel free to be the contesting admin if you so incline. –MJLTalk 21:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No objection from me, @MJL. I created it to avoid a redlinked category. But if it's an empty category, it should be deleted.
I'd G7 it myself if it was eligible, but I think it's probably not eligible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –MJLTalk 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Unlinking from Template:Subject bar[edit]

Thanks for removing links to deleted portals. However, I've noticed that the way you do it does not unlink them from {{Subject bar}}. Can you take a look at it? (see something like Saint Peter#External links for syntax). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop
Thanks for following this cleanup, and for spotting that glitch.
I was aware of it, but hadn't found a solution until today. The problem is that the other portal-linking templates (e.g.{{Portal}}) use unnamed parameters, so it's easy to just rip out an un-named parameter which matches the name of a deleted portals. I have one regex which does all such templates.
However, {{Subject bar}} uses named parameters, which would need a different regex. I only found out earlier today that it will tolerate gaps in the numbering sequences, which means that I can do it by just ripping out the whole portal3=John Smith code, without having to renumber any higher-numbered parameters.
So some time soon I will take the monster regex I have accumulated of deleted portal names, and I'll rework it to do a pass through pages susing {{Subject bar}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing! I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this. Thanks again! – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors in portal-inline[edit]

Thanks for your work cleaning out portals. However, in case you are planning to do more edits like this, leaving {{Portal-inline|size=tiny}} in the article gives "Lua error in Module:Portal-inline at line 16: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'root' (a string value)", see Johnny Cash#See also. I could fix the module so it outputs nothing, but that would leave an empty asterisk in an empty see also section. It's probably better to remove the see also altogether. There are currently 56 articles in Category:Pages with script errors and I think most of them are due to this problem. I could put a more convenient list of the 56 articles somewhere if wanted. I can fix these if you like but you are much more familiar with the state of portals. For example, I don't know if there are plans to insert something in the blank templates in the near future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq
Many thanks for being on the case here. This is really helpful.
I have had various attempts at eliminating the residual {{Portal-inline|size=tiny}} (and variants), but hadn't quite cracked it. Your msg spurred me on the fix that, so I ran the fixes across all the articles in that set, and fix them all in these edits.
The reason this was generating a script error was that I had screwed up my attempt[3] to add tracking for this to Module:Portal-inline. Now fixed[4], so in future these will be tracked in Category:Portal-inline template without a parameter.
The result of my new setup for doing the main removal of {{Portal-inline}} is that there will be some empty "see also" sections. I think that's probably best left that way, because I haven't figured out a regex which would reliably remove only empty "see also" sections without false positives. I am also not too worried about it, because a clearly empty section is an easy manual fix, whereas most editors wouldn't have known what to do with a {{Portal-inline|size=tiny|Foo}} which produced no output.
Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The Go Set albums[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Consider avoiding invective tones[edit]

Regarding some of your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf, surely you can convey your points about the strength of other editor's arguments without referring to them as "portalistas" or "liars". Even where legitimate rebuttals are made, the use of terms intended to describe the person being rebutted can overshadow the rebuttal itself. I would stress, in fact, that even if someone is a liar, the more effective counterargument is to treat their misstatements of fact as products of ignorance than of malice. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • If I were to contribute to these discussions, I would be doing so in close agreement with BHG’s detailed points and broad rationales. However, I find the abusive debating style repugnant. I think the damage to other editors exceeds the improvement to the project by removal of these pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412 and SmokeyJoe: Unfortunately, we have a serious problem. A bunch of editors who want to retain even abandoned junk portals (i.e portalistas) have taken to trying to sway MFD debates by repeatedly asserting as fact points which are demonstrably untrue and which they demonstrably know to be untrue.

I have taken to calling this out per WP:SPADE. But of course, I am open to suggestions of other ways to challenge these attempts to use mendacity to subvert consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

1. It saddens to see good people bickering. Try formal civility and bd2412’s suggestion.
2. I admit to not being able to understand the perspective of the portal enthusiasts. The method of arguing for the opponent can be very useful in these situations. It would mean asking them to help. I understand that you might consider this a waste of time delaying an already tedious process.
3. Guideline development I think is the way to go. I think you might become amenable to guideline work after you’ve eliminated portals clearly failing even the very loose requirements. Maybe another six months.
4. I find RfCs so hopelessly unformailised as to make them very unlikely to lead to progress. So many are opened with too-broad and unimportant questions, unilaterally. Let me know when they close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, the problem is that all these processes rely on editors acting in good faith.
Unfortunately, what we have here is a small clique of editors who persistently fail to act in good faith. They have decided that: 1/ all portals are inherently a good thing; 2/ The guidelines which require that portals should be used and maintained should simply be ignored; 3/ That deletions are inherently bad, and may therefore be legitimately impeded by strategic lying.
The main practitioners of the strategic lying are currently NA1K and Hecato, tho one other appears to be warming up. Wikipedia's policy of AGF makes it relatively easy for such mendacious people to game the system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that there are often groups of editors who come together to press incorrect policy ideas with respect to certain issues. However, the outside observer sees a dispute wherein one participant appears to be calling other participants names, which these other participants can then complain about rather than needing to address salient points raised. I would just say to focus on the salient points, the evidence of a lack of interest in the portal proposed for deletion. At the end of the day, you are writing to persuade the closing admin of this, not other editors whose mind is already set against the existing state of fact and policy. bd2412 T 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
First, thank you so much for diligent hard work to vastly (and I mean VASTLY) improve the portalspace. That said, I would echo the above encouragement: it saddens me to see to see WP:SPADE invoked, because the result is often hurt feelings that do not provide a net benefit to the project in the long run, so I would encourage kinder language that focuses on the edits, not the editor. (Especially since I don't think it has resulted in a single MfD closing as delete that would have otherwise closed as keep had invective been absent). If the editor is not an obvious active vandal (and none of the current MfD participants are) I try to put myself in the other person's shoes to support my continued assumption of good faith. Doing that here, here's where I get on your 3 points above: both 1/ and the first half of 3/ are valid opinions good faith editors can hold (I don't hold them, but that's not relevant here). On 2/, the key words (for them) from the guideline are likely to, and I have this analogy: is the Sun likely to expand to a red giant and engulf the inner planets? Yes, it just needs enough time. And so "likely to" enables certain portal editors (again, not me) to, in good faith, believe a portal meets the "used and maintained" part of the guideline: they view the portal's past history, like the Sun's, as irrelevant to what they, in good faith, believe is likely to happen in the future. Because there can be good faith differences of opinion on what constitutes "likely", "broad subject area", and "large numbers" (all terms from the WP:POG guideline), we should be able to have invective-free discussions about where a given portal falls on either side of the judgement calls for those term (just like we do elsewhere on what constitutes a reliable source, for example). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @BD2412: OK I'll try adjusting the phrasing.
But we have a systemic problem here which some day will need wider attention. It goes like this:
  1. Portals are a largely unscrutinised adjunct to Wikipedia.
  2. Portals have been built without regard to basic content polices, or with guidelines/conventions specifically excluding them. For example, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:WEIGHT, are all systematically flouted in portals.
  3. A few portals are maintained by editors who also build and maintain encyclopedic content. But many (maybe most) portals have been built and/or maintained by editors who work only on portals. Few of these editors have any significant track record of creating encyclopedic content. One has created lots of DYKs, but I have found none of the portalistas who claims credit for a GA or FA. Some of the portal creators have difficulty in basic communication: e.g. Happypillsjr, who created over a hundred automated portals, has repeatedly written such aysmally incoherent contributions to discussions that I am simply unable to believe their claims that English is their first language.
  4. At least one of the portalistas joined en.wp for the sole purpose of working on portals. A significant number of the other portalistas have stated that will retire if they don't have portals to work on.
  5. So what we have here is a clique of editors who are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some of the portalistas do have interests elsewhere in en.wp, but there is a significant group who are only here for the portals and lack interest and/or ability to contribute to actual encyclopedic content.
The result is in some ways a akin to a group of desperadoes, who feel that cornered in the only part of Wikipedia where they have a place ... so they fight with whatever means possible to defend any old junk portal, simply because it's their last piece territory in this site.
So even back in February when there was discussion about deleting the automated spam portals, there were howls of pained outrage. On prominent portalista declared even the spam removal to be a "war on portals".
This battleground mentality which the portalistas have adopted since February has had various manifestations. There has been a persistent barrage of personal attacks on editors supporting the deletion of abandoned portals. There has been active sabotage of tracking categories. There have been attempts to rewrite the portal guideline to remove all quality standards. There have been malicious allegations against MFDs nominator of racism, religious prejudice, prejudice against non-European topics, vendettas against portals of interest to particular editors. You name it, it's been thrown.
I had thought that this cleanup phase would have been over long ago. I repeatedly said I doubted we'd go below 1400, 1300, 1200 etc ... but now we have fewer than 900 portals, and still there seems to be no shortage of abandoned junk like Portal:Harry Potter and Portal:Armenia. I have another few dozen lined up for MFD.
So as the number of portals continues to plummet, the portalistas are looking at a massive shrinkage of the only part of this site most of them are interested in and/or capable of contributing to. So they are getting desperate, and are now tag-teaming MFD with barrages of co-ordinated, flat-out lies.
I don't think that ordinary rebuttal is sufficient to rescue consensus-building in the face of the lying campaign by the portalista desperadoes. Sooner or later, this will have to be dealt with at a more systemic level. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @UnitedStatesian.
On that question of "likely", I think you are being far too generous to the portlistas.
The reality in most off these cases:
  1. Long-term neglect of the portal
  2. Long-term low pageviews
  3. Long-term decline in pageviews
There is hard data on all of those points.
Similarly, that there is hard data that ratio of active editors to articles continues to fall, so the availability of potential maintainers continues to fall.
All of that data demonstrates that it is not "likely" that the trend of portals being unmaintained and unread will be reversed. It is of course possible that unexpected events or trends may emerge, but it is not likely.
That it is why I have challenged them for actual evidence to support their claim of likelihood, and they have none. This is where we disagree about their good faith: there is zero evidence on their side, and a mountain of evidence against them, so their claims are not a matter of interpretation or of weighing conflicting data: they are simply counter-factual.
Please remember that this is not a social club or a web forum. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we have a right to demand that those who want to participate in that process uphold relevant standards of analytical capacity and integrity. Insisting that something is "likely" when all the evidence presented points the other way is a pretty good marker of stupidity or mendacity or both.
For over a decade, portalspace has been the corner of wikipedia where low standards of integrity and competence have been institutionalised. We are now seeing the consequence of that, as people without the necessary personal attributes resort to anger and deception as their only tools to defend the only sandpit they can play in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • User:BrownHairedGirl, NA1K is not acting in good faith, and that he is repeated lying? This needs to be resolved. Is the editor lying at MfD. If no, then what, and you should stop repeating the allegation. If yes, then the community should take action, because lying is disruptive. I think if you feel justified to accusing an admin three times of lying in a formal discussion (eg an MfD), then it needs to go to WP:AN. It is not OK to have one admin routinely accusing another of lying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a pity that portals should cause such civil wars. If only the famous RfC had not received such a desperate response, the community could have found consensus on an ordinate disbanding of the unwanted portals, instead of the street by street urban warfare forced on us by the necessity to discuss deletion one by one. Nemo 07:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Error and Lying[edit]

User:BrownHairedGirl I agree with User:bd2412 and User:SmokeyJoe in particular as to the allegation than NA1k and others are lying. In English, there is a clear distinction between lying and the statement of seriously incorrect facts. We really should stretch the Assumption of Good Faith a long way for them. We know that they can't explain why they want portals, and the least unlikely explanation is that they believe things that we either can't understand or are just plain wrong. So I really believe that when they are saying things that are not true, they are not lying, but they have confused themselves or persuaded themselves of serious error. They aren't lying. Give them that assumption of good faith. Their stated facts are bunk, but they are bunk that they believe. (A Flat earth believer isn't lying when they say the Earth is flat. They believe it. It is just absurdly wrong. Similarly, the portal advocates have their own facts, and a man or woman is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts, but that doesn't make the non-facts lies.

Dropping the use of the allegation of "lying" would improve civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • On reading NA1K’s RfAs, I got an unexpected new perspective. He has a history of judgement difficulties and an affection for trivia? I think it is a conflict for WP:AN resolution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussions of administrators at WP:AN either get nowhere or get sent to the ArbCom, and there is nothing so blatant about NA1k that the ArbCom is likely to take a case. (Well, I did try to file an ArbCom case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Your ArbCom case was ill considered, there was no chance of them solving this obviously content-centred issue, and earlier steps of dispute resolution had not been attempted. If BHG’s allegations are true (I suspect that they basically are, although overegged in parts), then as a distasteful display between admins, WP:AN (or ANI Not sure, but I don’t think ANI’s 48 hour timeframe is right) is the right venue, and options on the table should be: Warning(s) about lying or accusation of lying; TBan from Portals; TBan from MfDs on portals. Alternatively, an RfC could be used, but not a half baked ill considered brain fart like the several currently muddying the water. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl - I see that the most common issue involved in allegations of lying is what the portal guideline, if it is a guideline, says. The advocates of portals actually believe that the noun phrase is meant to be the full statement of the rule and the qualifying clauses are merely detail. That is probably good marketing. It isn't good computer science or requirements engineering. I don't think it is good legal reasoning, but that depends on the school of legal reasoning. I was wondering whether it is good analytical philosophy, but I think that an analytical philosopher will develop a complex rule as to when the qualifying clause actually limits the noun phrase. A requirements engineer or computer scientist says that the qualifying phrase wouldn't be there unless it was part of the rule.
It is frustrating to argue with editors who have a different way of interpreting a statement than we do, but they are not lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal Harry Potter MFD correction[edit]

Hi. In your nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) you say that on the portal's talk page an editor "asked whether this abandoned portal should be deleted". That's incorrect; the editor was referring to an unused subpage of the portal. It might be a good idea to strike that part of the nom. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DexDor. Now fixed. [5]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please fill me in on portals?[edit]

Hello, I came across your above discussion on abandoned portals and became very intrigued about the topic. As you know, I participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) discussion after reading your thorough analysis and investigation of that portal, and reading the portal myself. I once spent a significant amount of time cleaning up pages for a different fandom, Fruits Basket, which included removing long abandoned junk articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyo Sohma, cleanup like this and more. It was all stuff created during the years the manga was still coming out, but editor interest sharply withered within a year or two of the manga's end. A new anime series based on the manga is actually currently coming out so there is some renewed interest now.

It seems like your portal cleanup is very similar in nature to the cleanup I did for Fruits Basket, so I am interested in understanding the portal cleanup effort. Is it just you who's undertaking this and what is the end goal? Where precisely would you ideally like to see the portal section of Wikipedia end up? I don't see myself nominating any for deletion, but would like to contribute to the cleanup effort now that I know there is a mess. (Since some people have been causing a lot of trouble in this sphere, it seems prudent to say that if I end up at any more MfD's, I'm doing so of my own accord, so no one can justly accuse BHG of canvassing me.) Thank you! Newshunter12 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newshunter12
Thanks for your msg! Several big questions, which deserve a longer answer than either of my braincells can give in the small hours. So I will reply properly in the morning.
In the meantime, some of my friendly talk page stalkers may choose to comment. And you might find it helpful to look at two essays by @Robert McClenon: WP:PWP and WP:GODOT. Robert and I have chewed over a lot of the issues with portals, and there are many areas where our thinking overlaps.
Until the morning, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


User:Newshunter12 – Thank you for asking about portals. I will try to add a little to what User:BrownHairedGirl has written. Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that can be used for showcasing, navigation, instruction or promotion, and for fun. Th.ey have always been a feature of Wikipedia, and, since 2006, have been in Portal space. Some editors are very enthusiastic about portals. I have never known exactly why, and I am inclined to think that, because they can't explain clearly what the advantages of portals are, they must be something that are liked because they are seen as technically neat. (I once worked on testing a computer system that may have had a lot of leading-edge software components that were selected because they were technically neat. It was a technical mess.) I don't know what value the advocates of portals think that they add, so I think that they must be seen as technically neat, rather than as functionally valuable.

As the essays that BHG has listed explain, portals are intended to be maintenance-intensive, but normally they are not maintained. I think that the advocates of portals, whom some of us call portalistas, are denying the need for maintenance.

In any case, early in 2018, when there were just under a thousand portals in existence (I think – I haven't checked my notes for the numbers), there was an RFC to delete all portals. It was closed with a consensus not to delete all portals, but with no other specific conclusions. Then a task force that I call the portal platoon decided that we (English Wikipedia) needed more portals, and decided to create thousands of more portals. They did this more or less quietly, and had created a total of 5700 portals, and most of the new portals were just automated crud. I then reported the thousands of portals at WP:AN, and since then some of us have been bringing portals to MFD for deletion. The portalistas have been claiming that we are waging a "war on portals". (I think they conducted a sneak attack by creating thousands of them, but that is only my opinion.) Most of the portals that were created in the wave of reckless portal creation were deleted in two bulk nominations to MFD that were expertly submitted by User:BrownHairedGirl. But since then, she and I and a few other editors who are skeptical about how much portals add have been working slowly to nominate some of the abandoned portals for deletion. We have the number of portals back down below a thousand now. Many of the portal deletion debates are bitter and unpleasant. Obviously the portalistas and portal platoon think that portals are valuable. I really don't understand what the value is, other than being technically neat.

Any informed assistance that we can be given in checking the status of portals and deleting the cruddiest ones will be appreciated. I don't think that we have a specific endpoint. I think that some of us who are trying to clean up portals would like to see a few hundred high-quality portals, and some of us would prefer to see more like twenty, or to delete all of them except for the main page, which is a super-portal and is labor-intensive. Do you have any specific questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for this very informative and descriptive breakdown of the situation, and information about portals in general. This, coupled with the information BHG provided and what I've picked up at MfD has pretty much brought me up to speed and I have no further questions about portals. I'm certainly interested in keeping an eye on portals at MfD and if I find time, will look for dud portals to funnel towards MfD. Thank you again so much for your detailed response. I can't emphasize that enough. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Helpful summary indeed, I had lost track of the discussion until I recently saw the removal of all those hideous links to portals from articles. I took the liberty to add some links and I wish this could be depersonalised and copied to some page in project namespace, possibly Wikipedia:The Problems with Portals. Nemo 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I stumbled across your page on Boleslaw Limanowski while doing a google search on myself and my family members. I couldn’t believe it when I saw my grandfather’s name come up in Wikipedia! Then I started reading and realized this was actually my grandfather’s grandfather, whom he was named after. I don’t know very much about this side of my family, so it was really amazing to see this information and to find out a little more about my ancestors. So thank you for publishing this article, it has given me real joy that I can’t wait to pass on to the rest of my family and hopefully one day future Limanowski’s too.

-Boneslaw’s great great granddaughter

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thank you for all the Cats (categories).

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal recommendation[edit]

BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon, I recommend Portal:Land of Oz be brought to MfD. It has essentially been abandoned for a decade (the creator only touched it for about a week and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2007). The DYK section was last constructively updated in 2008. The Oz books section has been touched twice since 2009, the last time in 2015. The things to do section last touched in 2012. The wikiproject section untouched since creation in 2011, while the associated wikiproject is long dead. The categories section last constructively edited in 2011. There was a rename in May and an editor claimed they were going to do a lot of work on it, but didn't follow through. All these little sub-pages got title updates in May, by the way. The page view count is abysmal. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 3 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is even more stark, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day.

As you know, this is my first time evaluating a portal and I did the best I could. I hope you find this helpful and please let me know if/how I can better prepare portal reports for your evaluation. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will be nominating it. It's a shame. I'm a fan of the literature, but the pageviews (nonpageviews) are conclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Newshunter12. That's a good analysis. And great to know that @Robert McClenon will be doing the MFD nom.
I'm still busy cleaning up the backlinks. Almighty slog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What are the backlinks? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Glad I could help with this effort. Good luck crafting the MfD, Robert McClenon, and with your work, BHG. Just try to channel Thomas the Choo Choo Train, BHG. I think I can, I think I can - maybe there's even a portal for that extensive topic? Face-wink.svg Newshunter12 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Here is another one for MfD. Portal:Jacksonville, Florida Just about everything on the page was last updated (aside from a name change by BHG) 5+ years ago when the portal was first created by Mathew105601, who last touched the portal in 2015, although they continued to edit on Wikipedia until April of this year. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 1 visit per day to the main page, while Jacksonville, Florida in the same period averaged 1925 visits a day. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 Yes. I see what you mean. I was in Jacksonville once. I didn't go by Choo Choo. The charter flight that we were on was diverted to Jacksonville on return to the United States due to blizzard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Interesting history. Florida is pretty safe from blizzards, I daresay, and has lovely scenery if you had some time to explore. See below please, and you also forgot to sign your delete vote in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quantum computing. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Another portal[edit]

Another crud portal ripe for MfD: Portal:NASCAR It has essentially been completely abandoned since the sole fan-maintainer (Nascar1996) left Wikipedia in 2017 (aside from a few stray edits elsewhere into Feb 19), but parts of the page have been abandoned for a decade (the creator only created the portal, never touched it again, and his last edit to Wikipedia was in 2012). Five of the six biographies are virtually unchanged since 2010, while one was created in 2016. All 10 pictures were uploaded in 2010-11 and do not well reflect current drivers, car designs, or league names in descriptions. The news section was last touched in 2015. but it is automated. However, the five pieces of posted news are from 2013-16, and three are from 13-14 about Jeff Gordon, who retired in 2015. He's a legend in the sport, so it's exceedingly noticeable to anyone who knows much about NASCAR. The DYK section was last updated in 2010. The selected article section has 15 articles, but 10 were added to the portal in 2010-11, two in 2012, and three in 2015, and they are overwhelmingly about individual races over just a few years. The wikiproject section is untouched since 2011, and while the two primarily associated wikiprojects are still active in 2019, those wider communities don't appear to have ever been a part of this portal; only the maintainer did both. The categories section has same content as in 2010. The topics section unchanged from 2010. The page view count is low. From June 1 2019 until July 30, there was an average of 11 visits per day to the main page. The long term trend is grim, given that per day rate in July and August 2015 was 20 per day. From June 1 2019 until, July 30, the head article NASCAR had a visit rate per day of 1330.

In sum, this portal was always just a fan creation of Nascar1996, built to their taste, generally stuck in 2010-11 and left to completely rot when they didn't want it anymore. It's also funny that the NASCAR portal is old, decrepit, and has declining popularity because that perfectly describes NASCAR itself! Maybe this portal does belong... It is stuck nearer happier years for NASCAR after all. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

dab page for Portal:New York[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I understand that the New York page is a dab page, however, I believe that Portal:New York should remain as a redirect to Portal:New York (state), because changing it to a dab page would "break" or at least cause confusion to hundreds of pages that use this Portal. I suppose we could change all the pages that pages that use this portal, most of which are meant to go to the New York state portal. Natg 19 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems that the Portal template for "New York",

, currently shows the flag of New York State. That can be changed, but this is the status quo. Natg 19 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Natg 19
AFAICs, there is no primary topic. So that means that we use a dab page.
Nothing is broken by pointing to a dab page. Links will be disambiguated as and when editors are interested in doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd merge them and have a single portal for the city and state (the city being in, and the most prominent element of, the state). The separation of the articles in mainspace is not binding on their treatment in portal space. bd2412 T 20:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: I wouldn't oppose a merger. But some editors would have strong views, so it would need some sort of discussion.
And meanwhile, the two titles are ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be a WP:surprise for users who see the flag of NY state and are pointed to a dab page? For a normal end user, that would seem to be unhelpful. I am typically for dab pages, but not when they break or change behavior for hundreds of other pages that use this Portal. Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Natg 19, now fixed.[6] See right.
The state flag now displays only for the state. If you want to suggest an icon for the dab page, it will take seconds to put it in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Inter-county Gaelic footballers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Inter-county Gaelic footballers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 2001:BB6:A94:7658:6576:CC5E:AF6A:DC2D (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Article titles for years <1000[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC_about_articles_on_three_digit_numbers. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the headsup, @Fayenatic.
I have added my oppose[7]: it's an ill-considered proposal which will wreck chronology categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Cheers; I thought it would affect the work you have been doing.
BTW, your antepenultimate para there has an incomplete sentence. – Fayenatic London 06:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ooops. Thanks, FL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Banning Problematic Editors[edit]

Take this to WP:DR or WP:AN. I am not a one-woman court to act as judge, jury and executioner in a cases of alleged misconduct in complex content disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
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'm interested in banning a disruptive user who has a long history of engaging in edit-warring, misrepresenting data, specifically targeting Wikipedia articles that revolve around a single topic to push an agenda, and is an all-around Wikipedia dragon who is just polluting honest discourse on the encyclopedia. He's widely disagreeable, with his disruptive edits going as far back as 2017. I've spoken with other admins over this topic and they've all pretty much said that it's all a very technical issue to go about with since he's been getting away with this behavior for so long, and has essentially created consensus with this aforementioned 2-year-long, trackable campaign. I'm positive I can prove he is being disruptive and is attempting to push a narrative through the wiki, which is why I'm pursuing this route rather than trying to debunk ALL of the information he has individually put out. What are my options with this user? HueyXocoatzin (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@HueyXocoatzin: I see we've been active on Wikipedia for about the same time. Without commenting on the situation, I just want to caution you that from my experience that it's really really hard for newer users like us to get an editor blocked if they have been here longer. That's at least been my experience anyways, so I tend to avoid interacting with such users whom I know to be poor actors. (talk page watcher)MJLTalk 02:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Thanks for the input. I at one point just disregarded the edits, but as I continue browsing Wikipedia, I see more and more of his edits with the exact same motive in mind; essentially whitifying Mexico.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] I don't know what his motives are, but I suspect their origins lie in specific internet forums that revolve around toxic politics, and I don't think this sort of influence should be on Wikipedia even if the editor's insistant on maintaining such influence on these articles. Cheers.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
@HueyXocoatzin: [Thank you for the ping] I'm really really uncomfortable getting in the middle of this.MJLTalk 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Sorry for the uncomfortable situation, I just needed to go a little more in detail on why exactly I feel the need to do this. I guess all there is now is wait for any admin to respond back, which I hope is soon. Thanks for keeping me company! Have a good night!HueyXocoatzin (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
Greetings to the administrator BrownHairedGirl, I know it may be out of etiquete but I feel that I have to intervene here, because as it happened months ago, the editor Hueyxocoatzing is greatly distorting the reality of this issue as portraying me as something I'm not, in fact the administrator that intervened in the previous conflict i had with this editor (Oshwah) acknowledged that he judged me wrongly and that I was the side of the conflict that was in the right (this, as well as the fact that I'm not the only editor that has reverted that kind of edits is what Hueyxocoatzin complains about "me creating concensus"). The reality here is, as is clear on my summaries in the article's edit [17] the editor Huyxocoatzin completely disregards what the sources say and removes them under completely false claims (here, he discredits a source saying that is from 1800 [18] but the book actually was published on 1960) that's his modus operandi everytime and is tremendously agressive when it comes to reverting, another administrator, Edjohnston blocked an account that had a similar editing behaviour [19] on articles regarding the ethnicity of Mexicans (agressively reverting whilst disregarding sources [20][21]) and also acknowledged that I was on the right side on said issue, I would appreciate your opinion on this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that Oshwah would ever say that you were in the right in regards to our little spat considering I spent some time sending emails back and forth with him explaining the situation. He agreed that your original edit made about 2 years ago (outright disregarding consensus without getting checked) were problematic and are currently tough to go around. This is how you've essentially built consensus on the many articles regarding "white Mexicans", "Mexican Mestizos", phenotypic traits used to subjectively "identify" these white Mexicans, and the Demographics of Mexico, both on the Spanish and English versions of these topics on Wikipedia. As for the recent exchange between you and I, it's in regards to, again your subjective interpretation of a survey conducted by a Mexican government organization, identifying it as a sort of census even though all it reveals is how a surveyed group of Mexicans self-describe their skin tone, with no categorization of race in said survey. But to remedy this, you instead conduct an unpublished pseudo-meta analysis, conjoing one antiquated census with a book with a survey, to clumsily "connect the dots". But I'm not the first to tell you, Iñaki, Evergreenfir, Wikiedro and others have as well[22]. These tenuous mental links are dishonest, unfounded, and frustrating. I and others have written back essays to you to no avail[23], which is why I'm no longer engaging with you specifically and am only advising you of what I'm planning to do.
And FYI, my point for disregarding that source wasn't specifically the time period--although it is still antiquated--it was the fact that you're trying to link a mostly unrelated anecdote to the pigmentism survey of Mexico[24], which (if you haven't caught on) one is a survey in the 21st century and the other is a brief mention of what they individually saw in a specific region in Mexico in the mid-1900's[25].— Preceding unsigned comment added by HueyXocoatzin (talkcontribs) 04:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
We'll have to see what Oshwah and EdJohnston think of this (here's the last exchange I had with him, on which he asks me to notify him if you become conflictive again [26]), he does not mention said emailing he had with you at all, and as you acknowledged he never agreed with you (you also mentioned early that "I have built consensus" which means that many users agree with me, in that reply of yours you acknowledge that you are on the thin end here and against the current consensus). What you are doing is to try to remove well sourced, official data taking advantage of how taboo the topic of race is on Mexico and still, in the article there are sources, both official and from third parties that stright out say that there are Mexicans that look like Europeans and on which said group is consistently delimited from other Mexican ethnic groups. Additionally there are also sources on which the segemnt of the population of Mexico who has light phenotypical traits/European appearance are refered to as "White Mexicans" [27][28], I guess I'll have to incorporate these onto the article on which we are having the conflict. This has been more than enough to create a new, reasonable consensus (with no mention of all the other research there are about phenotypical traits in Mexicans such as hair and eye color), which is why several editors besides me have reverted edits like yours, thing that can be verified in the edit history of almost every article you linked in your previous replies, and why no administrator has ever sided with you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
In that discussion you linked, he states that the dispute died down. That means that I became uninterested with the topic by that point. I haven't checked how much time passed since I last messaged him, but I'm guessing some weeks of inactivity passed by that point. After all, I haven't invested my life to raiding Wikipedia articles regarding the racial demographics of Mexico. I never "acknowledged" him not agreeing with me, I don't know how you gathered that, but I stated that he agreed that your initial edits on the Demographics of Mexico article[29][30] were problematic. He states, "Sure, not a problem. To answer your question regarding whether it's 'against consensus to make large, new edits that are contradictory to a previous narrative in a given article without explaining it in the talk page or even the edit summary': Technically, it would be, yes... however, the majority of editors that do this are usually unaware that such discussions took place or that consensus already exists from them."[31] And the defintion used for consensus is "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time."[32] This is the definition for consensus, not "widespread agreement". If it were the case that your edits are widely agreeable, then your edits wouldn't have a history of being so controversial in the first place.
Your citations continue to not be sourced from any scientific site or organization, but you continue to push this conspiracy that "Mexico is hiding the true demographics because they aren't pleased with the size of the white population". You cite tabloids to corroborate your claim that these light-brown-skinned individuals are white as if these journalists are scientific analysts. The studies continue to say "light skin" and they clearly conflate light-brown skin with fair skin, no mention of "European phenotypical traits". But don't fret about this ambiguity, because an actual organization dedicated to data analysis exists, and they're called Habitalia.[33] They've done the professional work and consultations, and they've distilled the data from various studies on pigmentation and have seperated "intermediate" skin from fair skin, as other editors have been pointing out and you've been looking over. They state: "El 67% de la población mexicana entre 25 y 64 años de edad autoclasifica su color de piel en tonos intermedios." That leaves the fair skin population at 12%, the OBVIOUS if you couldn't already gather that from the charts themselves. So there you go; no where to hide behind now.
By the way, I have recieved admin support, which is why you were temporarily blocked from editing for some period of time. And from what I've seen, I'm probably the first person to pursue admins the way I have with this dispute over the demographics of Mexico, albeit lazily because I never bothered to go through with my plan, I've only ever asked for advice. And you can continue fooling yourself that my deletions are unfounded, even though I've already gone in depth both in the edit history and talk page refuting your points: from your misinterpretation of "Calidad Español" meaning racially European to your misinterpretation of modern survey data related to skin pigmentation in Mexico.[34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HueyXocoatzin (talkcontribs) 06:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@HueyXocoatzin, it seems that my reply below may have been to subtle.
So I will be more direct: enough. This is is neither the means nor the place to resolve this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Sorry about that, I posted this at just about the time I checked for a response from you. I think I was probably almost done typing this out when you starting typing to me. Sorry for this ugly mess, I was specifically trying to avoid this by trying not to engage with him. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
@HueyXocoatzin, so you expected me to consider your request to ban an editor, and to do so without even hearing their side of the story? Wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

BHG response[edit]

@HueyXocoatzin: thanks for your message.

The first thing I need to say is that absolutely no way that I or any other responsible admin will jump at the request of one editor and ban another editor over a content dispute. There are too many layers of inappropriateness in that request for me to explain them all without a vast screed, so I'll summarise with a brief quote from my user page:

"like any admin, I am not your private army in a content dispute".

The core of this matter is a content dispute. Where two editors disagree about content, I would expect the disagreement to proceed roughly as follows:

  1. One or two reverts, but per WP:BRD, a quick move to
  2. Discussion on the article's talk page, assuming good faith, and trying to reach consensus
  3. If the discussion is deadlocked, try WP:3O.
  4. If that doesn't help, try WP:DRN
  5. If it's still unresolved, try an RFC

Instead, I see that you produce no evidence of any of those steps, just a request for me to parachute in and ban someone.

No no no no. I am not gonna do that.

Please note that I have not formed a view on who is right here. It may be that one of you is POV-pushing, or that the other is POV-pushing, or that you both are, or that nobody is POV-pushing and that it's all just a misunderstanding.

Please also note that I have not formed a view on whose conduct is better here. It may be that one or other of you is a saint and the other a miscreant, but I have not attempted to weigh that. Maybe you are both rogues? Or maybe you are both great editors whose wires are crossed.

What I am seeing here is:

  1. edit-warring
  2. lack of WP:AGF
  3. no sign of dispute-resolution efforts
  4. conduct allegations which might conceivably have some place if the content resolution steps had been tried and were being sabotaged.

So, please, both @HueyXocoatzin and Pob3qu3: take this to the article's talk page and follow WP:DR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I understand that no admin will just carelessly outright ban one editor at the request of another; I was planning on going more into detail on this case once you asked for more information. Just to confirm, and I've had this talk before, posting biased information/misrepresenting sources to push an agenda is strictly prohibited. Doing this to various articles related to the topic being altered is tendentious editing. This would make that editor a bad-faith actor, and thusly be labeled a disruptive editor who would ultimately get banned. Am I missing something here? It's been a while since I've been involved in this.
And just to clarify, I have attempted to reach consensus on this topic before[35] and so have other editors[36][37][38]. Consensus has never been reached, it appears that Pob3qu3 just isn't a very flexible or honest person, he's set in his ways and there's no changing it. He's got the time and dedication to these articles that none of us have, and that's turned out to be a problem.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
@HueyXocoatzin, you are stretching my patience.
I remain unpersuaded that you have made reasonable efforts to take this through the normal WP:DR pathways.
Even if you had done that, and believed you were dealing with a rogue editor, you have still failed to make a prima facie case that there was the misconduct you allege.
And even if you had made that prima facie case, you still don't get the core point that I am making: I have not asked for more info, and I will not ask for more info, because I am not your one-woman private army. If you want to pursue this as a conduct matter, please take it to WP:AN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Sorry For Offending You[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what exactly could've triggered a response like this. I don't know if I insulted you in some way or if I was being particularly rude. I wanted to present my case in full, and I'm sure part of the process would be to let the person being accused of disruptive editing make a case for themselves, I don't think I have any power over whether I want them to make a case for themselves or not. I think there was a misunderstanding of what I meant by "not engaging him", which I meant not continuing this toxic cycle of back and forths that go no where. I wouldn't want to interfere in the process to get this issue resolved. I think I came at this a little too hot, which I really shouldn't expect anyone to just sympathize with right off the bat given a massive lack of background. Again, sorry for offending you. I'd like to know where I went wrong in this. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@HueyXocoatzin, it all comes down to you expecting a lone admin to hear the case. That's just not the way that Wikipedia works.
And then being slow to take the hint that you should try other routes.
Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl thanks for the reply HueyXocoatzin (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
User:HueyXocoatzin - The way I see it,and I know nothing about the content background of the dispute, is that you dumped a too long, difficult to read complaint about third-party behavior at BHG even after she said that she wasn't going to fight your battle for you. I don't know who was right, but you unintentionally provoked her by continuing when she said to stop. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon In my defense, the bulk of the background related to the content was being discussed between Pob3qu3 and I in my previous talk section. I only asked her if my interpretation of tendentious editing was correct while providing evidence that I and other editors have attempted to discuss this in the past with Pob3qu3 on the article's talk page, which she stated she saw none of. This was my reply to her first reply to me. My second response to her was clarifying that my long response to Pob3qu3 was published at around the same time she published her first response to me along with an apology on my part stating that I didn't intend to have this long winded discussion with Pob3qu3 on her talkpage, which I was then accused of not wanting her to hear his side of the story.
I didn't intend to offend her, but my responses were taken as such and now you and I are having this discussion over some misunderstandings. Cheers. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For cleanup after portal deletions ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, @Kvng. It has been a long slog. About 100,000 edits so far, but it's nearly done. I am now down to about the least 2,000. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health, as well as social media addiction and internet addiction disorder[edit]

Hi there how are you? I noticed you were recently editing Addiction and thought if you had time and I could interest you could assist me as many others have in my cleanup and improvement of the Digital media use and mental health category.

Theres a few page move / terminology discussions 1. Here (social media addiction) 2. Here (Internet addiction disorder)

and also I have had a lot of input from others here for considering the FA nomination of the mother article, Digital media use and mental health, if you have any further input!

New question today about the inclusion of internet sex addiction in digital media use and mental health - here. Terminology - should we call it problematic cybersexual behaviour, for instance?

Thanks so much for any thoughts! --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article? I'm not American and am not sure about them. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Denisarona
My last edit to Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a month ago, on 13 July[39]. Looks fine to me.
What parts of that edit concern you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Publish one Draft[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, this is Fgt30256. I'm creating a wikipedia page for my company( As a wiki rookie, I've researched and followed all the rules to create the draft(please forgive me if there's still something wrong or missing). The article is objective and cited from well-known media.

My friend suggested me contacting a wiki editor to get the feedback and eventually get the articles published. Wondering if there's anything missing or I should do to get this draft published.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day.

Fgt30256 (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Vermont (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd avoid the p-------a word there for now. Leave it to brew for a while. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the label is a distraction, I'll drop the label, and revert to longer descriptive phrases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Ease up on the resentment hyperbole. Review Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. It is obviously the view of your opponents.

An admin is repeatedly accusing another admin of deception, lying. Let's get this resolved please. So many other things are hurt by being in its shadow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe I have used that approach continually throughout my career as a minor player on the edge of politics. I have long held that you cannot make our case effectively unless you can also make their case effectively. I routinely use position-swapping debate not only as communication practice, but also in policy formation. Sometimes the process reveals that on some point big or small, the other side is factually right or more in keeping with or values.
And in 13 years on Wikipedia, I have used that approach repeatedly in discussions.
However, that approach of Writing for the opponent only works if you believe that the other side is acting in good faith. They may be mistaken, or even massively mistaken, but so long as we believe the other side to be genuine, then the process works, and can be very valuable.
In this case, there was something I had never before encountered on Wikipedia. An experienced editor and admin was repeatedly saying things which are not only demonstrably untrue, but which they clearly know to be demonstrably untrue.
That required a different approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl - I haven't seen any statements that the experienced editor and admin made that they apparently knew were not true. They ought to know that they are not true, but they don't. Portals have a weird charm for some editors. So, as I have said at WP:AN again, it isn't necessary to lay off the 'portalista' word, but 'lying' shouldn't be said if the other party is deluded or self-deluded, and the portals have gotten them to be unable to parse a complex sentence in the guideline. Lay off the 'lying'. As we say at DRN, comment on content, not contributors. Tell the truth, but the untrue statements are not lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with advocating "Lay off the 'lying'". The allegation was made, the cycle repeated both sides, repeatedly. It needs a resolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Civility_issues_with_User:BrownHairedGirl. I would call this closed with wishful thinking that if both will wind back a notch then all will be well. Possibly. If you become certain that again an admin commits to engaging with lies and deception, I hope you will take it to WP:AN seeking for that admin to be counselled, and not escalate to the toxicity of repeated assertions of lying and deception. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe, as this escalated, I retained a hope that no admin would actually sustain mendacity when called out. Sadly, that turned out to be a miscalculation. So yes, I will bring any further occurrences to ANI.
Note too that this followed months of aggression by portal-focused editors who repeatedly engaged in both direct personal attacks on individual editors involved in cleaning up the sea of abandoned portals, and in general denunciations of "deletionists". In the interests of peace, I have committed not to using a collective term for those editors, but I will insist that this applies in both directions. So if there is any resumption of denouncing "deletionists", or claiming that there is a "war on portals", or more battlefield conduct from those editors, then I will also bring that to ANI.
Please note that if I had followed that bring-it-to-ANI approach for the last 6 months, I would have made hundreds of ANI complaints over that period. The consensus at AN was clearly that the battlefield atmosphere has to stop, so I will no longer make allowances for the sustained vitriol of members of the portal project. I hope that those who have mounted this 6-month campaign of abuse will desist, and that trips to ANI will not be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand. I suggest that the line for taking something to WP:AN (not ANI) is repeated deception/lying by an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, User:BrownHairedGirl - Yes, but.... I think that part of the problem is that a large number of editors had systematically deluded themselves, which isn't exactly lying, but is untrue. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We all have delusions. Deluded editors is the standard operating condition. There’s nothing new to get excited about there. It’s the head to head clash of two admins that must be resolved. An editor who systematically and deliberately lies to deceive should be warned then blocked. If the editor is an admin it is even more serious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, I don't see any basis for excusing this point as delusion.
But the main thing is that the deception has stopped, so we can all move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


  • "Some wikipedian user pages tell their life story or reveal all sorts of interesting details about themselves, whilst others define their interests and values. I want do neither, so a few boxes to the right is all you get."


  • "Some wikipedian user pages tell their life story or reveal all sorts of interesting details about themselves, whilst others define their interests and values. I want to do neither, so a few boxes to the right is all you get.?

Ched :  ?  — 02:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. I'll fix it now.
Some day, I really must properly proof-read that page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not even sure why I noticed it. Oh well - have a great day/afternoon/evening. — Ched :  ?  — 02:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 in Uzbekistani football leagues[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2019 in Uzbekistani football leagues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @UnitedStatesian. I created this cat to fill a redlink in Special:WantedCategories. It is clearly empty, but rather than wait 7 days, I have just deleted it per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople, not Istanbul[edit]

When I was in Rome, the priest who was our tour group leader said that he had been told when he was in the seminary that if you wrote Istanbul as the name of the city, you would get an F on the paper. That isn't why the portal gets an F, but it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert, I am with the priest. I always preferred Constantinople as a name. It sounds much more exotic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1421 in arts[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1421 in arts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)