This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page
Latest comment: 5 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion
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 America100008:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
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 America100008:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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.
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 America100009:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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.
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.
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 America100009:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
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 America100009:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
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 America100010:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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 America100010:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
(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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
@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 America100023:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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.
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 America100023:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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.
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 America100000:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
@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 America100001:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019@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:
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
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
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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").
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)Reply
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. Nemo07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
No. That discussion needs some follow-up anyway - there were a few categories that didn't fit the naming convention which I left as-is. MER-C13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Was not involved in the CFD discussion, fully agree with creating the television tree. Should the title be episodes vs. shows though? Often there are many different screenwriters for individual episodes of a series.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring)01:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@Robert McClenon, I don't see any basis for excusing this point as delusion.
User:SmokeyJoe, User:BrownHairedGirl - Yes, User:Northamerica1000 is doing something unacceptable, which is using numbers in a way that is technically true but misleading, that will confuse a good-faith editor who is not mathematically literate, by using gross pageview statistics rather than daily pageview statistics when multiple other editors have been using daily pageview averages. Yes, they are doing something wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SmokeyJoe, XFD is supposed to be a reasoned debate, like any other consensus-forming discussion. When an editor tries manipulative tactics (as they have confirmed), and digs in to stubbornly demonstrate low comprehension of the matter in hand, noting that failure is relevant to the discussion.
The severe CIR issues displayed there do raise wider issues, which some day will need to be tackled. But for the debate to properly examine the matter in hand, those issue cannot be entirely ignored in the debate. There is a fine balance to be struck when dealing with someone who is both far out of their depth and apparently unaware of the fact, and I dob't claim to always get the balance right. But letting nonsense go unchallenged betrays our enyclopdeic purpose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is very difficult in any collaboration for others to strike an suitable balance between humane civility and the needs for error correction when dealing with those who lack both competence and awareness of their limitations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I assumed you knew that I knew very well what CIR means. CIR would mean lacking of deceptive intent. Both CIR and deceptive behaviour are incompatible with being an admin. I know this is difficult. I feel better positioned to offer you constructive criticism because I am on your side. I don't know what advice I could give to the other side, given that I am at a loss to understand their motivation in wanting to support mass portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, @SmokeyJoe, and sorry I missed the understandings.
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sustainable development, I stated, "A problem with relying upon the average page views as a statistic is that this method consistently misrepresents the views a page actually receives, to a lower-than-actual number. For example, when multiplying the average page views of 93 x 30 days, the total is 2,790 views. However, the actual page views are 2,891, over 100 more than using the average" (as per this). I understand the point BHG is making about a better comparison being available using the average, but isn't that comparison also slightly compromised by rounding? There is no dishonesty intended in my comment at the discussion or elsewhere; it seems more honest to provide both the actual page views as well as the average, relative to the WP:POG standard of a portal page being "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers." However, I am also willing to be convinced if there's something inferior about providing both figures, and welcome input about the matter. This is a serious inquiry to see where others stand about the statistics matter, and again, I am open to other's views. Furthermore, per recent discussion at the portal guideline page, and as I stated at the AN discussion, I have moderated my views regarding portal "notability". I'm an honest person by nature, and value honesty. Pinging SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon who have contributed here. I am really looking forward to moving on in a manner that is congruent with everyone getting along. I understand stats and mathematics just fine, that's not the issue. Ultimately, just convince me that the thirty-day total page views are an inferior metric relative to WP:POG's "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers", and provide rationale why. You may be surprised that I may actually agree with you. North America100007:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:Northamerica1000 - Do you have a question,since you named me? If there is a problem with the tool or with roundoff, please explain it somewhere else. It still does not warrant using a statistic that is not comparable to the daily pageview statistics that the rest of us have been using. You will notice that I quickly raised the matter of a high-readership portal using its daily pageview rate at about the same time as you did with the raw count, but I think that my mention would have been better understood by the audience for comparison. What is your question for me? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
No particular question. I noticed some concerns here about my generic page view post at the discussion, so I included you in pinging, as I have no idea if you watchlist this page or not. See below where I start with "I've thought about it a bit more...", which I have. What it comes down to, since the status quo/consensus is to post the average daily page views, I'll do that then. It's not like I'm going to now rush to post page views, but when nominators don't post them, it comes across as equitable to provide them, to provide a more objective overview of the state of the portal's existence. Sorry to have bothered you if that's the case. The intention is to acquire input. North America100014:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think raw pageviews are a distraction, but that 30 per day is negligible, and 1000 per day is a threshold level. I think portals are broadly a failure, and that only the mainpage listed portals are viable portals. I think WP:POG existed as a backwater dream, disconnected from community consensus, and that "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" is a faulty criterion. "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" appears to encourage the glossy promotionalism of a tourist bureau posters, and is unconstrained by matching guidance to actually be useful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SmokeyJoe: Well, it wasn't meant to distract, although I will admit to a small bit of laziness on my part, since it's easy to just post the thirty day breakdown and report the total views as a general quick overview, particularly since the nominator at the Sustainable development portal MfD said nothing in the nomination about page views. The intention was to provide some neutral information about page views. However, BHG is stating that this method is not neutral, whereas posting the average daily views is. Perhaps it's best if I just provide the average views from now on when doing so. If there's no objection to that, then I can just do that instead. Not a big deal, really. North America100008:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is also easy just to report the average. If your point was to provide a quick notation that Mark S was nominating high-view-rate portals, you will notice that I did exactly that, using daily pageview rates. Either you weren't thinking, the good-faith assumption, or you were trying to mislead by throwing in numbers that are much higher than daily rates. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've probably said enough here, so keeping this short. The intention was solely to provide a quick notation. As I stated, from this point onward, if posting this type of data, I'll use the daily page view average. However, maybe I'll simply leave it to others to do so. Maybe it's not even that important, particularly if a portal is headed for deletion regardless of whether or not page views are presented in the discussion. North America100014:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SmokeyJoe: Regarding your views about portals in general, while I don't entirely share your view, I understand where you are coming from. I have resigned to the fact that some portals just aren't going to make it, as has already been demonstrated. I've edited portals through the years from time-to-time, and feel that while they have some merit, conversely, some just aren't getting enough views or maintenance. I also understand how some feel about outdated content in portals, because I agree with them. Part of the goodness in using transclusions from articles right on the main portal pages to present content (e.g. such as with Template:Transclude random excerpt) is that the content is always up-to-date relative to what's in articles. North America100008:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've thought about it a bit more, and I can see how the provision of only page views in a thirty day period does not provide enough context, per its open-ended nature. I did just fine in statistics in college; competence is certainly not an issue. The fact of the matter is that my comment was simply meant to provide some simple page view information, since the nominator did not address page views in their nomination whatsoever. My comment was just that, a comment, not an !vote of any sort. I did not state whether or not I felt this was an adequate number of views relative to WP:POG; it was just a simple, open-ended post to provide a bit more context. Again, I can see how the level of context provided was inadequate.
Personally, when actually considering page views relative to WP:POG, I've been somewhat thinking at times along the line of the views providing relevance compared to the page views that other portals receive. As a generic example, the Sustainable development portal receives a daily average of 93 page views, and when compared to, say, a portal about a small African country that only receives around 10 daily average page views, the Sustainable development portal would be doing comparatively better, and thus more likely to meet WP:POG's criteria of attracting adequate numbers of interested readers.
However, it appears that comparing page views of the corresponding article and portal is what people are more interested in. So, compare the Sustainable development portal's 93 average daily page views (link) against the main Sustainable development article's average daily views of 2,347 (link). Of course, it could then be surmised that the portal is a failure in attracting "large numbers of interested readers" compared to the views the corresponding article receives. However, portals almost always receive much lower page views compared to their corresponding article. A question is, what sort of ratio is acceptable for a portal to meet WP:POG? Should a portal receive at least 1/4 the page views that the corresponding article receives, 1/6/, 1/8? There's no specific quantification provided in the guideline. As such, users are going to assess a portal meeting POG's reader attraction criteria somewhat subjectively. North America100009:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Yes. And that sort of turns around the priest's reason, which is that Istanbul is a Muslim place name and Constantinople is the Christian place name for the city. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
With regard to the portal, I would have liked to find some reason to ask what continent the city is in. If it is in Asia, Delete. If it is in Europe, Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Robert McClenon, I am fascinated by the idea of alternative geographies, in which a person's religion determines the placename. We have some of that here in Ireland, with "stroke city" as the neutral term for Derry/Londonderry/Doire, but that's only start. If we added in extra names for use by each of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Shinto, Bahais, Sikhs, Jews, Wiccans, Pastafarains, Rastafarians, etc, then we'd have hilariously huge road signs.
In my youth, I used to write software which asked questions like that. I did it as a kinda harmless fake virus, which posed a bundle of questions to the user, and the regardless of the answer, pretend to destroy the computer. It was set up to work only the first boot of the day, when the user would not be at their most alert, and then be unable to replicate the show. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, that city on the island of Ireland (to avoid naming a colony) has two Catholic names, since we can assume that it is mostly Catholic nationalists who speak Gaelic, and a Protestant name. The city that is sometimes in Turkey has a Christian name, a Muslim name, and a Greek pagan name, Byzantium. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It looks like you and I are both swimming upstream against the current of nominations, mostly good, being created by Mark S and NH12. I see that occasionally you refer to me, concurring with my analysis, for something I did several days ago. It is hard to keep up with them both busy, and you still at work also. And, as I noted, I feel like I am swimming upstream with three good extremities and one in a brace. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Indeed, @Robert McClenon.Reply
The portals nominated by @Mark Schierbecker are nearly all well-chosen (tho I have some about with a few), but the rapidity with which Mark is making scanty nominations leaves a lot of work for others to do in writing up the research. It would be more helpful if Mark made fewer nominations, but accompanied them with more explanations of his research. The current practice carries a significant risk that some well-justified MFDs may fail simply because the facts have not been set out.
I have long list of portals which I think should be brought to MFD, but I launch the MFDs only in drabs and drabs because writing up the research takes time ... and much of my available time is taken up filling in the gaps in over-hasty nominations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I have a long list also, because I have a list of 631 portals that I have information about, and some of them need deleting, but, again, I will only nominate them when I have time to write them, and I also think that I am filling in the gaps on some hasty nominations. We don't have Legacypac making good and bad nominations any more, and UnitedStatesian seems to have changed his focus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Robert McClenon, it has been interesting to watch the changes in personnel in the 6 months of portal cleanup. Legacypac was highly energetic, and did a lot of good work, but his inability to recognise and correct errors was a real problem which drained time and psychic energy. I wish he could have been persuaded to be more conscientious, but my efforts in that respect were a complete failure. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
This testbed category was not my testbed, and I can't recall who was using it for what.
I have quickly scanned the backlinks at Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:X1, and there seems to have been lots of discussion of it in many places, but I haven't dug deep enough to identify whether it is currently in use.
AFAICR, it is one of a series of Xn categories used for whatever tests editors want to perform. There is a recurring need for such testbeds, so I can't see any benefit to deleting it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
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) 06:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
This was a big cleanup after a whole load of Canadian portal deletions on the 22nd. I wanted to replace portals with the most specific alternative where possible, which for the provinces is Portal:Canada.
In hindsight, you're right about Toronto. When I was assembling this AWB run, I added the two city portals (Portal:Toronto and Portal:Vancouver) to the list of provinces, because the same regex would handle them all, but neglected to change the edit summary. And I overlooked that Portal:Ontario had not been deleted.
It's done now. Al the direct links to Portal:Toronto have been replaced. Tomorrow, I will look into adding Ontario to the Toronto pages. Portal:Ontario is one of the few Canadian portals not up for deletion, and I dunno if it will stay, but in case it does stay, I'll try to reinstate the links.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Portal:Santiago was created last year by The Transhumaist (TTH). I think it's automated, but am not completely sure how to tell. It and its redirect only had 3 views per day from June 1 - July 30 2019. TTH last edited the portal in February, so it is without a maintainer. Could BHG or Robert McClenon please nominate this one for deletion? Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Newshunter12: Portal:Santiago uses an embedded list of topics. So it is curated, but without the faff of sub-pages.
It has 61 pages included. I don't know whether he copied them from one or more navboxes or categories or lists. On its face, it looks like a mega-navbox portal. The only obvious problem with it is that it averages 3 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon, I recommend Portal:Buenos Aires be brought to MfD as well. It has essentially been abandoned for nearly eight years (the creator is still active on Wikipedia, but last touched it in December 2012, save for a picture they added in the Things to Do section in 2016). Seven articles were last updated in 2011 and three in 2012. Of the 11 district or barrio articles, 10 were updated in 2011 and one in 2012. The DYK section was all created and last touched in November 2012, and I suspect they are not real DYK's, but don't know how to check that. The picture gallery last touched at creation in 2011. The things to do section last touched at creation in 2011, save for a cosmetic picture swap in 2016.
The wikiproject section untouched since creation in 2011, and while the associated WikiProject Argentina is semi-active (people still post there, but no actual discussions take place), it appears to have never had anything to do with this portal. Interestingly, the portal creator Bleff is listed as a member of this project, but has never once edited the project main page or talk page. The city map section last edited in 2011. The page view count is abysmal. From June 1 - July 30 2019, there was an average of 9 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 25 per day. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It just occurred to me that because this portal is so outdated, it doesn't have a bio or mention at all one of Buenos Aires's most famous native sons and longtime residents: Pope Francis. That seems worth mentioning at MfD, does it not?! Newshunter12 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Newshunter12, It is very much worth mentioning. That omission shouts neglect.
And I'll mention something else too. You have basically written the nomination already. So why not nominate the portal in your own name? If I picked up and ran with it, I'd feel like a plagiarist. I'd be happy to review a draft if you like.
The only missing is the DYKs. Here's how I check them:
Go to the talk page of the linked article. Since about 2011, a bot has taken each successful DYK nomination and left a note on the talk page (see e.g. one of mine at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845))
Thank you for the encouragement and help, BrownHairedGirl! The DYK's are actually all real, but obviously still just acting as WP:TRIVIA. Here is my MfD draft I would love for you to review it.
Abandoned portal on a narrow topic. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has neither large numbers of readers and no maintainers. The portal has essentially been abandoned for nearly seven years (the creator is still active on Wikipedia, but last touched it in December 2012, save for a picture they added in the Things to Do section in 2016). The page view count is abysmal. From June 1 - July 30 2019, there was an average of 9 views per day to the main page (while the head article Buenos Aires had 2,369 views per day in the same period.) There is a stark long term downward trend in views - the July and August 2015 portal rate was 25 views per day.
Of the 10 articles, seven were last updated in 2011 and three in 2012. Of the 11 district or barrio articles, 10 were updated in 2011 and one in 2012. The DYK section was all created and last touched in November 2012, while WP:DYK states: "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this seven-year-old set has nothing to do with new or expanded articles, so its only effect is as a WP:TRIVIA section. The picture gallery was last touched at creation in 2011, as was the Things to Do section, save for a cosmetic picture swap in 2016. The city map section was last updated in 2011.
WP:POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal.". However, WikiProject Argentina is only semi-active (people still post there, but no actual discussions take place), and it appears to have never had anything to do with this portal. While the portal creator, Bleff, is listed as a member of the project, they have never once edited the project main page or talk page, and there has never been any mention of this portal on the talk page and it is not currently mentioned on the main page.
Furthermore, this abandoned junk portal has no bio or any mention at all of one of Buenos Aires's most famous native sons and longtime residents: Pope Francis. His ascendency to the Papacy in 2013 and reign as Pope has garnered enormous coverage of his life and works, many decades of which happened in Buenos Aires, where he was born and worked his way up the church hierarchy. The complete lack of any mention demonstrates the abject abandonment and decay of this portal into misleading irrelevance. It's time to just Delete it. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
All bases covered. Throughly researched, well-explained, clearly-written, and solidly based on the guidelines. You're a natural at this!
I'll mark it as 19 points out of ten. The only reason I don't give it twenty out of ten is that I don't see a link to Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Buenos Aires, which is handy to include because it helps other editors verify your research.
It was helpful. The nom is done and dusted. I had to revise it though as I didn't realize the tabs at the top of the project page were to pages with separate edit histories, so the creator has posted on that project and the portal does have an obscure mention on the very bottom of the project portal page. Thanks for your encouragement! Newshunter12 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oops. I was right the first time. That "project" page is just Portal:Argentina, which has been built to appear as part of the wiki-project's suite of pages itself. I'm not used to working around such dynamic project headers, which is why I got confused. I'm going to stop digging now and quietly exit the back door! Newshunter12 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I noticed these categories recently emptied because of portal MfD's still exist: 1 (with three sub-cats), and 2. As an admin, could you delete them? The Vancouver cats have already been nominated for speedy deletion by someone else. Thank you for any help you can provide. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 1970s in Foo, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?13:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah, @User:WilliamJE, go easy. It's a test page created about 3 seconds ago, and it's very obviously a test page. I'll delete it when I am done with it in an hour or so ... and in the meantime, please stop wasting time with splatting speedy notices around. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Remove your edit summary from the page above or take you to ANI. I can point out multiple instances of this behavior and it is uncalled for. Per WP:CIVIL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?14:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dawnseeker2000: She attacks me in a edit summary but the gutless sycophants around here don't have guts to put an end to this bullshit. This woman couldn't more wrong or despicable. She thinks I am traumatized by her stupidity. Traumatized is watching my newborn son die 14.5 hours[2] after his birth and after my wife spent two months in the hospital in order to save him. That's trauma. What we have here is a disgusting piece of garbage. The woman should know better than write the shit she did and she couldn't have picked the worst target for her hateful venom....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?00:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Give it a rest, William. You made a misjudgement, and doubled down on your error, and then went on an unsuccessful grievance hunt, alleging a back catalogue of alleged "personal attacks" whch were not personal attacks.
I am very sorry to hear of the death of your son. I have friends who have suffered similar loss, and their grief is immense. My heart goes out to you. But I am sure you can do much better by yourself and your family than to try the shameful stunt of misusing your son's memory as a cheap stick to beat me with. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Humorous1234 has given you a puppy!Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've revised the canned text. It now says that portal DYKs are fun, and are a way around the rule against general trivia,and are not a reason to keep a portal. Of course, the real reason for the DYKs is that general trivia are fun, but the real reason for portals is that creating portals is fun. (Maintaining them is work.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The DYKs seem to me to be another aspect of what I am coming to think is the core problem of the wikipolitics of portals: that portals are not just fun to create, but also easy. Just as it's easier to make new reader-facing page by lashing a few content forks into a portal skeleton than by writing a referenced article, it's also much easier for an editor to add unsourced assertions to a portal than to any other reader-facing Wikipedia pages. The complex structure of portals combines with trivially-low viewing rates to mean than it's extremely unlikely for this unsourced trivia to to be subject to the WP:v/WP:RS/WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV challenge it would face it added to any non-trivial article.
So my working theory is that the result of the above is that portals became for some editors the only space where they could work without the normal scrutiny and debate. Some of them have a track record of significant contribs elsewhere, but many do not. So the MFDing of so many portals is a double whammy for them: threatened loss of safe space/playground, and debate with which they unfamiliar or uncomfortable. My theory is that this explains (but doesn't excuse) why some of them lash out when the appear at MFD, and why so much so the discussion at the portals project is either moans or half-baked proposals to wikilawyer against deletions ... rather than find credible solutions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I mostly agree, but will think about this, perhaps while I rest my injured leg. That explains that some of the portal advocates really were using portals as a sort of a game. I have an engineering toy based on portals also, but it is a database with 668 records, and it isn't on the Wikipedia servers but on my C: drive (of my laptop, until I go home). Portals are a game, and DYKs are informative in that they are a particularly clear example of why portals are just for fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I got as close as I have in years to a personal attack at the Olympic Games Portal MFD in response to Hecato telling you that your post was too long. I didn't say it about the editor, only about their comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I saw that, @Robert. Thanks for your support. I think you were well short of a personal attack.
It's a messy but interesting MFD, of a type which will become more common: broad topic, abandoned portal, WikiProject not interested, and a portal fan with no evident topic expertise who don't see that as an impediment to being a "maintainer". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I figured it wasn't a personal attack because I didn't say that the editor was s******. I said that their post was s******. I also didn't use profanity, because that is rude, and should only be used when one is angry, because it sends the message that you are angry. The excessive use of profanity is for the uneducated who don't know alternative foreign ways to say that sort of stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's not going to help, as far as I am aware, no matter what you say to Walter, he will always be the one who thinks he is correct. Just going through his editing history, he removes what he doesn't like when anyone tries to argue with him on his talk page, probably 90% of it is never archived, I call it, "trying to hide his transgressions". He has wages edit wars on and off for years with lots of different people. He has been blocked multiple times, the longest a week! Clearly it's not working. I am surprised no one has taken him to wiki-court for a longer suspension!! Govvy (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The closes that were done last night, mostly by ScottyWong, were some of the most contentious since we started examining and tagging crud portals several months ago. The scope of the deletion nominations was the largest we have ever seen, if one stubbornly thinks that "broad topic area" is measured in square kilometers, including Asia, Antarctica, Jupiter, Mars, and Moon. It appears that there was no Consensus to Keep any portals. That is good. If I recall correctly, there was No Consensus on Portal:Solar system (which is not normally measured in square kilometers, but is actually nearly flat), Portal:Asia, Portal:Olympic Games, and Portal:Companies. I think that it will be useful to keep an eye on those portals and see whether there is any real maintenance, and whether there are actual maintenance plans. The portal platoon will no doubt say that if we are interested, we should be helping to maintain them, but I think that some of us think they don't know the difference between drive-by editing and maintenance. Some of the questions that I think should be asked as we watch those portals include:
Are political events in Asia being reflected in the portal?
Are preparations for the 2020 Olympic Games being reflected in the portal?
Are the companies being rotated? Are their metrics being updated to reflect annual and quarterly reporting?
Is robotic space exploration of the Solar system being reflected in the portal?
Is there at least being discussion of a major redesign of any portals, especially of Portal:Companies, which could be semi-automated to use categories?
Is there any minor redesign of any portals, such as the use of categories to select countries or places in Asia?
Hi Robert. I am busy now cleaning up backlinks after the flurry of deletions of Canada portals, but I will reply substantively later. Without having seen any of the closes you mention, I will just say that after watching Scottywong's closes for a while, they have all struck me of being good closes, where there has actually been a proper weighing of consensus against policy, and not just a head count. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree with Scotty's decisions in these cases ... but it does mean that I will review them as the actions of a closer with a good track record. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't disagree with the closes. I don't disagree with any recent closes. Those are my thoughts in particular about the No Consensus closes. It will be interesting whether the portalistas disagree with any of the contentious Deletes enough to take them to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am far from persuaded that the editor concerned has a good grasp of either POG or the structure of the portal ... and Scottywong's reasoning looks robust, as usual.
If they still want to open a DRV, then that's their right. I don't think it will get any traction, and it might be useful for some of the more disgruntled portal enthusiasts to see what DRV makes of their severe and persistent lack of gruntlement at the repeated consensus that abandonment is grounds to delete a portal.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could you speedily delete the selected X of deleted portal templates? There's no need to list them at TfD, they're usually deleted by G8 anyway. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Trialpears, yes I think I could. In theory. Should have thought of that.
Can you elucidate me on the line-break topic? I only use <br /> becaus the other ruins the colour scheme in editing mode for me, however, I see no such reasoning in the guideline which even seems to prefer it in list-like surroundings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it shouldn't say "The <br /> or <br> tags are used for a single forced line break." as if they are of equal value, and only a while later say that one of them should not be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't have time to review this at the moment.
However, I see that the copyvio was identified by User:Onel5969, and that you have already asked Onel5969 to review your changes.[3], so I will leave it Onel's hands.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for deleting the invalid Death Portal. I did have questions about some of the changes contained within your edit at the List.
You changed <br> to <br /> - I was wondering why since when Advanced editing is ennabled <b> is what the system gives the editor.
You changed <ref group = "Note"> (with a space before the text of the Note) to <ref group = "Note">(with no space before the text of the Note). When I put a Note together I put a space between the Note-coding and beginning of the actual text to make it easier for editors to find the text if they wish to change it.
The spacing change to <ref group = "Note"> is part of AWB's WP:GENFIXes. These are minor fixes which would be to trivial to justify as the only purpose an edit, but which are a handy small bonus if done as a part of another edit. They come as a package, and reflect consensus on such matter .
<br> to <br /> is per WP:LINEBREAK. Either form works fine when the page is rendered, so as a general rule the simpler unclosed tag is mildly preferable ... but since it breaks some syntax highlighters, adding the slash is an easy fix when AWB is running, which makes editing easier for those who use syntax highlighting. It's my own addition, and not part of WP:GENFIX.
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I created a page 6 weeks ago. It was rejected a number of times, but was since updated a bunch of times, most recently by a senior editor and is now good to go. It's just awaiting someone to review it. I went to the Admin List to ask someone to take a peek and after scrolling through the #, A and most of the B, you piqued my interest. Not just because you're a mammal or mensa eligible, but because you won't stab me when I sleep :) MaskedSinger (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
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. LizRead!Talk!20:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't agree not to refer to portalistas, and I have done it again, and I will whenever I think it is in order, although I will alternate it with portal platoon. In any case, my point is that tagging with the update template doesn't do anything. If a portal has rats, it should be torn down, and if tag it to be torn down, at least someone may wave a dead rat. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Template:WikiProject Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, which you created, serves to call two other templates: those for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Had this been executed within, say Talk:Markéta Luskačová, it would have been beneficial (ML was from Bohemia and is I think now based in the Czech Republic but did notable work in Slovakia). But I've a hunch that it's wrong more often than it's right: in Talk:Libuše Jarcovjáková, it added a Slovak connection that doesn't seem to have existed. I'm sure that the template was well intentioned; however, WikiProject Czechoslovak Socialist Republic doesn't exist; might it be better if the template didn't either? -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Hoary, I created it as part of a series to allow big AWB runs to do WikiProject tagging by country name. If the template didn't exist, I'd have had to skip tagging such pages.
If it ends up tagging some pages with a superfluous project, that's better than not tagging them with any of the projects. In this case,the editor who used it might have been better to use another template. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi BHG, there seems to be a glitch happening at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The three MfD's that have been posted in the edit history that should appear under September 2 have not appeared on the list. In this edit, the bot took away the September 2 tag. Can you please fix this issue? Thank you. There was some vandalism earlier which I was able to partially revert (the bot had already archived some of it), which might have played a factor in the glitch, but I don't know. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for removing the IP vandalism. I'm not sure whether any residue of that was a factor in the bot's next edit[5] which moved Sept 2 after Sept 1 ... or whether the relisting[6] of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Charlie Hargrett caused the glitch.
So I have moved Sept 2 back to the top[7], and we'll have to wait and see whether the bot's next edit sticks with that.
If it recurs, we will need to raise it at User talk:Legobot. Unfortunately the bot runs old and cranky legacy code which is intolerant of minor variations in timestamps, and needs a complete rewrite which nobody has the energy to undertake. So sometimes a timestamp needs tweaking just to satisfy the bot. (Something similar happened a few months ago, and I blocked the bot, which caused a bit of a row. I don't wanna do that again.)
I've seen these date glitches before. I saw this one as two dates out of order,and now it has been corrected. I hadn't attributed it to being a complication of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Still running. The problem does seem to be that it is using old cranky legacy code, some of which stays around until somebody decides that it is the end of the world, or until somebody decides that that particular bot should be replaced by a newer bot so that the old bot can be sent to the Old Bot Museum. I have stories, but they can wait. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Today, I was tagging dozens and dozens of these disestablishment categories as CSD C1 and wondered what was up. It seems like you changed a template a while back that has now left hundreds of these categories empty (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for some of these). I just want to make sure that this was your intent before I tag any more. I don't want to have to go back and untag them all if they end up being back in use in a few days. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!03:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to just be seeing this now but I've been off-line (apartment-hunting, argh). Sure, if you know a quicker way to undo this than manually, go for it! Many thanks! LizRead!Talk!22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I don't believe we've interacted directly, but we've edited in many of the same circles. I appreciate your editing style (I do think it's a style), and was wondering if you'd have any interest in helping me through the RfA process. Ergo Sum22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've seen your name around, and have struck me as a sane and thoughtful person. I haven't looked beyond that, but my initial reaction to the idea of you as admin is favourable. That might change in either direction if I did more scrutiny.
Anyway, my first thought when someone contemplates RFA is to suggest that they lie down in darkened room and hope that the urge passes. RFA can be benign (e.g. for Fayenatic london), but it can also be a hybrid between round-the-clock interrogation for a week, and a prolonged hazing exercise. Are you sure you are willing to risk the latter?
If you are keen to go ahead, the prime requirement is not to have too many sworn enemies still around. A quick scan of WP:RFAY shows that 20 no votes puts a candidate in trouble, and 60 would sink nearly any RFA. This is an unfortunate design flaw, because it means that a sustained disagreement with a few clusters of aggrieved idiots or POV-pushers can sink you, whereas walking away from their disruption boosts your chances of passing an RFA. That creates a perverse incentive, but there it is. So you should reflect (not on-Wiki) about how you stand in that respect.
The next issue is content creation. That's ultimately what this is all about, and if you have a decent track record of content creation, it reassures wavering editors that you are here for the right reasons. Lack of of content creation damages an otherwise good RFA, and will sink a weak one.
Then you need versatility. A few one-trick ponies make it through, but in general RFAs succeed when the candidate is well-rounded and some experience in a range of areas, with a broad record of good judgement. I don't mean all aspects of en.wp, but some wide subset is good. Perfect judgement is not required, but a demonstrable ability to learn from errors is very important.
Finally, whenever you do it, make sure that it's at a point when you re in a good frame of mind, felling unpressured and with plenty of time to respond calmly to issues that arise. When someone asks about the X incident, it's vital to be able to reply calmly and with some detachment, explaining what you think you got right and what you learnt from any errors.
If that framework makes any sense to you, I'd be happy to help. I may not have much time, but am happy to throw out a few thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Thanks for the substantial response. This is something I've been mulling over for some time. While I'm somewhat wary of the RfA process, as I've seen to go off the rails before, I think it's something I'm willing to undertake. As for any enemies, by my recollection, I've only gotten into two tiffs on the 'pedia and both were a while ago. Certainly I don't consider any other editors on here "enemies" and, I could be wrong, but I don't think any would call me one either. As for content creation, I think I've done quite a bit of that. My two biggest areas of work are creating (mostly)/expanding articles and improving templates. I have one GAN pending and would probably look to start an RfA once that clears. Would you be open to nominating me or chatting further offline (via email)? Ergo Sum00:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ergo Sum at RFA most users are looking for substantial editing experience, productive engagement with other users and a track record of involvement in admin-style areas (WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV etc.) I had a quick look through your contributions and talk page. On the first criteria, at least 10k edits over at least 2 years with no significant gaps in editing history, with content creation a bonus is the minimum, meaning you easily meet that. On the second, I don't see any major disputes that you've been involved in, but neither do I really see any disputes, and it's probably more helpful to point to some minor dispute where you can say that it was a little stressful, but you worked it out. You're fine on the second criteria. The third is the one that will cause you the biggest problem as I don't see much involvement. At WP:AFD you've only participated in 3 and those were back in 2016. CSD I don't see. Page patrol seems also to be from 2016 in the main and I see a lot of red there, though whether that's because you marked it as deletable or not, I can't view. WP:RFPP only 5, one of which is endorsing another user.
Ultimately the third criteria is what will cause you the issue. Users will argue that you don't need the tools and some may even, ludicrous though it is, use your excellent content contribs against you suggesting you should continue to focus on that. On all this I would definitely say that some track record, even with the odd mistake, would go down far better than no track record. Users will worry that you're unfamiliar with deletion criteria and will make mistakes due to lack of experience. My gut tells me you could pass, but you'd have much more chance if you spent some months working in those areas to build up a track record. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ergo Sum: I endorse the suggestion to participate at AfD, and any other admin-related areas that you may find interesting. You might try your hand at WP:Non-admin closure. Also, do read up on key WP policies; I had not done this before I was dragged into my RFA, and had a lot of catching-up to do during the nomination; I ended up booking two days' annual leave from work because of the time that my "benign" RFA took up. Before the actual RFA, you can get a quick trial of opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. HTH – FayenaticLondon02:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Valenciano and Fayenatic london: Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions. I intend on pursuing RfA in the not-too-distant future, but will heed your advice of obtaining some experience in other admin-esque areas first. If any of you have any interest in mentoring my admin pursuit later, I'd appreciate it. Ergo Sum02:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dwanyewest: although BrownHairedGirl made the last edit to the article about the TV series, hers was merely a technical edit re portal links. I have checked the Wikidata links and you appear to be correct, so I have changed them as requested. – FayenaticLondon04:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: a gradual overhaul of templates is nearly complete. That cat is probably superfluous, but I want to do a few final checks to see if it populates. Please can you just leave it be for a few days? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Miss BrownHairedGirl, I do not know if anyone else has suggested your choice for your race is a great disservice to yourself. Yes, you are a mammal. But you are also homo sapien. But most importantly you are a member of the human race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:370:3070:74A8:1B11:96BA:CFC2 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Canadian Classique, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You're suggesting that a how-to guide is authoritative? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
