User talk:Chris.sherlock/Archive 2

April 2020 at Women in Red

 * Chris, having noticed Rosie's message, I've joined the Wikiproject. On the Ashby article – do you prefer open en dashes for interruptions – or closed em dashes—for this purpose. These are the two options according to MOS, which says that usage should be article-consistent (minus direct quotes and titles, of course). I introduced the former without checking, but either way is fine. Just needs a choice by you. Tony (talk)  07:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't know the difference! I'd prefer closed mdashes though. Sorry for the delay in responding, I got flat out at work. BTW, awesome to see you joining Women in Red!!! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong format for em dashes
You are using spaced em dashes, which is not allowed. Use either spaced EN dashes or UNSPACED EM dashes, or desist from editing. WP:MOSDASH. Tony (talk)  07:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I got very confused. It didn't help when you reverted all the entity encoded dashes with that script, which you know is not what should be done. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I notice you don't follow your own advise. See this diff, which is why I got so confused. After you made that change with the script, you produced the following:
 * She returned to Sydney and from between 1903 to 1904 she worked on the monthly magazine The Home Queen, where – according to the Australian Dictionary of Biography — she was the editor.
 * Notice the spaces between the mdashes? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are doing a profound disservice to new editors. Now you've finally got your em dashes properly formatted, ask any editor whether they find it easy to recognise your gobbledy html squashed into the text in edit mode. Ridiculous bee in a bonnet. Don't count on any help in fixing your casually imprecise version of the English language. I'll just turn my nose up at a distance and smirk, rather than assist as I'd begun to. And you'd be best not to reintroduce breaches of our style guides. Tony (talk)  08:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best for you to keep your distance from me altogether I think Tony. I don't particularly like people who "turn my nose up at a distance and a smirk". I think we'll be better off without interacting. I certainly didn't start the interactions with you, I never asked for your help (though I have appreciated it) and I'm fairly certain we'll do just as well not being around each other. The fact that you are so upset that I prefer entity encoded html, and you can't actually follow your own instructions (you used spaced mdashes! lol) says more about you than me. I'm not sure why you are so upset, but I think it is safer for me if you would cease interacting with me given you have so far told me that you have "smirked" at me, and called me a "pest" and threatened me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To make this very clear, don't post to my user talk page again. Please take your unpleasantness, overweening sense of superiority and talk of "gobbledy html" (whatever that means) and leave. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sylvia Rose Ashby
Hello! Your submission of Sylvia Rose Ashby at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of post-nominals
Thank you for your recent edits on Joan Stevenson Abbott. There was, however, one error in your coding. For post-nominals in infoboxes, you need to use size=100% (not width) to get the desired effect. For myself, I need to remember to use this parameter when creating new infoboxes of people with post-noms! Happy editing... Oronsay (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry about that! Thanks for letting me know, I’ll watch out for this in future... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hattie Hasan has been accepted
 Hattie Hasan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hattie_Hasan help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!  DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for your help in cleaning up this article so that it can be published. I appreciate it :) TealTortoise (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zara Aronson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zara Aronson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Toni Collette
In what way is it a BLP violation to provide d.o.b.? Consider WP's policy, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The subject provided birth date (and other details) for SBS-TV's Who Do You Think You Are? (see first ref in article). The birth date is widely published by reliable sources.

Why add the Categories 20th-Century Australian women and 21st-Century Australian women? These are already covered by 20th-century Australian actresses and 21st-century Australian actresses respectively.

I have reverted both of these edits. If you wish to discus the matter reply at the article's talkpage, Talk:Toni Collette.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a reliable source, just because she said it on Who Do You Think You Are, she may have said it wrongly. At any rate, I feel we should not include the DOB, only the year per "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT
Please have a look at WP:SUBCAT. People in (for example) do not also need to be included directly in   (example edit) because the former is a diffusing subcategory of the latter. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that is only for diffusing categories. The category I am changing is a non-diffusing category. This means it can be in the parent and the subcategories without any issues. The is a subcategory of }. Why do you think it cannot be in both categories given the category is a non-diffusing category? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (for example) is a diffusing subcategory of - subcategories are diffusing unless stated otherwise. Being a non-diffusing subcat of "Australian artists" does not make it a non-diffusing subcat of "Australian women".
 * Per WP:DUPCAT: "if the pages also belong to other subcategories that do cause diffusion [e.g. ... Australian women artists], then they will not appear in the parent category [e.g. ... Australian women] directly."
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No actually, what it says is "there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mary Hannay Foott
I think between us we've given her a creditable page, and how well she deserves it! https://allpoetry.com/Where-The-Pelican-Builds. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can’t take any credit, thank you for your amazing work! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alison Marjorie Ashby ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alison_Marjorie_Ashby check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alison_Marjorie_Ashby?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Victor Harbor
 * Olive Anstey ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Olive_Anstey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Olive_Anstey?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Shoalwater

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is a discussion regarding your conduct over at ANI.Rain the 1 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Sylvia Rose Ashby
—valereee (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Category: 20th-century Australian women artists
Reading the discussion you pointed to I do not see any consensus for the course of action you are taking in deleting Category:20th-century Australian women artists. Also it should have been discussed in relation to the Category:20th-century women artists which until recently had over 2500+ entries and of which 20th-century Australian women artists is one of several sub-categories. In the past few weeks I have populating these sub-cats as the parent has become so large as to be of limited use.14GTR (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not correct at all. It was discussed, extensively. did you want to intervene here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussed extensively ?? Really, the discussion you pointed to dosn't mention artists at all and where's the Categories for discussion entry ? 14GTR (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was! You don't seem to have been following the thread terribly well - the issue is that we don't want Australian women + occupation. That was the wider discussion, artists included. The only tricky one is actors vs actresses, where I have started a new thread. By all means, you may participate but you are a little late to the party. We did extensive discussion to find a compromise in a tricky issue, all the many parties agreed that this was probably the best way forward. Given that as a bunch of Australians who are extensively researching and documenting Australian people, we have a reasonable take on the category structure for Australian people. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are these not useful categories? E.g. Category:20th-century Australian women writers. Ditto women artists. I'm surprised to see these being depopulated. SarahSV (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey :-) we are particularly concerned that the category system for Australians violates the principle espoused at WP:EGRS. One of our members,  probably put it best:
 * being a 20th century Australian woman writer is not an occupation, nor is it a defining characteristic, or subset of 20th century Australians by occupation... there are people who wrote especially for women and or about women in various magazines, those writers were of all genders. 20th century Australian woman writers are a subset of the 20th century Australian women, and 20th century Australian women by occupation.
 * In particular, under point 1. WP:EGRS states that:
 * Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.
 * I hope that makes sense. There was a lot of discussion about this amongst the Australian contingent. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But see WP:CATGENDER. We have lots of categories that are women + profession. Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge, for example, was one of just a few well-known female Australian artists in her early career, when women weren't even allowed to join certain related institutions. Anyway, I'll stay out of it because I'm not a categories person, but I did notice the removal and wondered why. SarahSV (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, Category:19th-century American women politicians. Would you say being a woman isn't a "defining characteristic"? I would say that's wrong given how difficult it was for women to be active in public life. SarahSV (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t do it in a vacuum :-) it was discussed fairly extensively here. I’ll check out that link. We all concur however that in Australia it’s considered somewhat problematic to call someone a “women writer”. We just don’t do that. A journalist, for instance, is a journalist, there gender has no baring on their occupation. Perhaps that’s how it works elsewhere, but us Aussie’s tend to pride ourselves on egalitarianism. Most of the time :-)
 * As for being a women politician - no, our populace doesn’t think so by and large. We were the second country in the world to give women the ability to stand for parliament and we have had a woman Prime Minister, and even the Conservative party prides itself on a high(ish) number of women in its party. Being female or male is kind of irrelevant.
 * I recognise it’s probably different in the U.S.? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I just read that link. It says to only split by gender when there is a specific gender split, like in sports events like golfing. The categories we are changing should be gender neutral, in fact the article you link to specifically says this :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another P.S. :-) in terms of usefulness, it would be great to have a way of doing a set intersection of Australian women AND Australian writers. That would achieve the same thing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (2 x ec) It's usually men who make those arguments (that being female is irrelevant). Women tend to think that sex/gender matters and makes a huge difference. Obviously even more so in the 19th century. With every possible respect to Australians, I'm not sure one Wikiproject should decide which categories to depopulate, because we need consistency across countries. This is more about women than about Australia, at least from my perspective. SarahSV (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a wide cross section of views on the debate. Females included (I assume, it’s hard to tell on Wikipedia). The guideline I point to and the one you referenced actually supports our decision. And I definitely acknowledge that men have been making these arguments, and I am obviously a male. We are, however, trying our best to be as gender neutral as possible and only categorise with gender specificity where it makes sense. I also don’t think our Wikipriject is doing anything outside of the guidelines. That said, I totally respect you may have a different viewpoint, and I am listening because of my deep respect and friendship I have had with you over the years :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it's the effort to be gender neutral that's the problem. It feels like white people telling black people that race doesn't matter. It was significantly harder for a woman to become an artist in 19th-century Australia, never mind an internationally known one. But in an effort to be gender neutral, Wikipedia has depopulated the category of women who tried or managed to do it. That's a pity. The world isn't gender neutral. SarahSV (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t disagree, groups of people who have been discriminated against and oppressed have had a dreadful time of it. I recently wrote the article Ellen Atkinson and my blood was boiling what white people did to Ellen and her community. It makes me sick to my stomach what she, her family and her wider community endured, just because she was an Australian Aboriginal.
 * FWIW, I don’t think gender neutrality on this matter is an attempt to whitewash history as you can still derive the categories via an intersection. The truth is also that the guidelines are pretty clear and it looks like they are being ignored, whereas it seems those on AWNB (not a Wikiproject, btw) are making an attempt to fix the issue. The person who is most in favour is The Drover’s Wife, btw. It was her suggestion AFAICS. I ran with it as it seemed well thought through :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Miasma Eternal TALK 05:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What attack are you referring to? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * that was not a rhetorical question. You have threatened to place sanctions on me for allegedly making personal attacks. I would like to be able to address this, so I respectfully ask again - what specifically did I write that caused this threat of sanctions? A prompt response would be appreciated, it’s fairly cruel to have a threat like this hang over ones head and then leave and refuse to clarify what the problem was. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what I need to do to get a response. Given this is a threat of admin sanctions, I feel I may need to take this to ArbCom if I don’t get a response soon. Currently I consider this to be an attempt to chill speech, and unless I get a response soon I will have to find the very limited time I have available to have this reviewed. Please note that I do not really want to do this, but you are leaving me with very few options if you do not respond. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW
Chris, after saying more than 2.5 hours ago that you really needed to sleep, there is only one 45 minute gap in your editing. You also said you were feeling a lot of stress, about this and RL. Can I gently (and not patronizingly, I promise) suggest you just not post any more today? Get some sleep, take care of what you need to take care of IRL, de-stress some, and we'll be here when you get back, whether that's in one day or several months. The case isn't going to be accepted, you aren't going to be blocked. You don't need to stay online. First priority: Stay well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category changes
Hello, Chris,

I'm using rollback to undo some of your category edits, not because they are vandalism (which is typically when rollback is used), but because of their number and the fact that it is much quicker than to undo them. Please take no offense. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All good - no offense taken :-) I was trying to find a more automated solution, but it's a bust. I'll see if I can make some fixes for the "A" category today of Australian women, at least before my very last day of work. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry to hear about this, Chris. COVID-19 has hit the world hard. I've already lost two relatives to this virus. I hope things turn out better for you and your family, sooner rather than later. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Categories are their own little world. If you participate in CfD discussions, you'll see that the primary concern is the entire category structure, and how individual categories fit into that, rather than evaluating them on an individual basis. So, this dispute was less about the "Australian" part of the category than the structure that surrounds "writers" and "women writers", globally. And, believe me, disputes about gender are nothing compared to the ongoing disputes surrounding religion, ethnicity & descent. These aspects are the subject of perennial nominations & discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * contrary to popular belief, I was fairly logical in the way I went about my edits. I made the DOB, etc. non category changes first, and then I made the category change. You should be able to just undo the last change, which I used the edit summary "+cats". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you can hold off till the end of today, Australian time, I reckon tonight I can set aside some time and fix these in about an hour, hour and a half tops. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

SUBCAT revisited
Do you still disagree with my edits such as this one where I remove the article from a parent (Australian women) when the article is in a subcategory (Australian women writers) that is diffusing on occupation (writers), not gender, of that parent? (Note that other editors have explicitly stated that such edits are correct. )

I don't want to actually discuss the details here (the discussions has been fragmented enough already), I merely want to know if you still disagree. If you still disagree with my edits, I'll restart the discussion about those specific edits at WP:AWNB – the original issue got lost in all the subsequent disputes about deleting categories, behaviour etc. If you are not going to dispute my edits, I'll continue with my original process of removing articles from the parents where appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t dispute them (technically). I am pretty appalled that we pigeon-hole women based on their occupation, that seems very paternalistic. Please feel free to continue, but note this is only on technical grounds. Certainly not on moral grounds. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Leonensia/GA1
Chris.sherlock, there has been a response to your GA review (though not by the nominator). Please return at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for taking this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ada Winifred Weekes Baker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surrey Hills ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ada_Winifred_Weekes_Baker check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ada_Winifred_Weekes_Baker?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)