User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 018

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

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

DYK problem

Lord Cunningham-Reid needs some more work (or he'll fight): see T:TDYK#Alec Cunningham-Reid. Ucucha 02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alec Cunningham-Reid

On November 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alec Cunningham-Reid, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! And for your help in tweaking the hook to get it there.

I notice that the hook finally used was the shortest of that batch, but I get the point -- that you want hooks as short as possible. I was trying to add a little more colour to the hook while staying within the 200-character maximum, but I take the point about prioritising brevity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot request

Now that you seem to be active again is there any chance you could follow up on this bot request? ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about this if you think you can take the time for something different. TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG, did you ever get to think about this? ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ww2c, I have been very rude. Meant to reply to you before, and it shouldn't take four asks from you to get answer. :(

But yes, I think I can do it. Just copy-pasting your earlier msg in here:

Now that you seem to be back, at least for a while, welcome back. I asked User:Anomie and User:AnomieBOT if he could tag all the Motorcycling WikiProject articles as stub-class which have the motorcycling stub {{Motorcycle-stub}} in the articles for our recently formed assessment department. I estimate about 2,750+ articles use the stub. The talk pages that are already (mainly incompletely) tagged use the {{Motorcycling}} project banner. There is also a redirect from {{WikiProject Motorcycling}} which is been used in about 100 talk pages and should possibly be replaced or at least checked for during the process. However, despite posting replies to others my request have been ignored for more than a month by Anomie! Your bot did such work of the Ireland project, so I know you can do it, but do you have the time? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, just clarifying what is to be done:

1. Preliminary task: On any article talk pages which use {{WikiProject Motorcycling}}, replace that with {{Motorcycling}}
2. Main task: the set of articles to be worked on is those tagged with {{Motorcycle-stub}} (hereinafter referred to as "the set")
3. All of the talk pages in the set should have {{Motorcycling}} added if not already present
4. All the {{Motorcycling}} banners in the set should be changed to {{tl|Motorcycling |class=Stub }}

Please check whether I have got that right. The only bit I am unclear on is step 4, because some of those banners may already have other parameters set. In those cases, I propose to skip setting the class=Stub parameter, at lesat in the first run, because I don't want to either complicate my replacement or remove other parameters.

Is this okay? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That sound just about right. In step 1 I presume the rest of the filled in parameters, if there are any will be left alone otherwise drop this step as one is a redirect to the other. In step 4 you might add {{tl|Motorcycling |class=Stub |importance= }} instead. When you have a set worklist, because I presume you will do as previously, I will ask someone else to review it as well as myself. Brilliant. TIA I'm offline after this until much later. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, and I think we have clarified things. I'll create worklists as before; gimme a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Biggar

Hi, I'm curious about why you removed the category Irish nationalist politicians from Joe Biggar. I'd thought that was exactly what he was. ?? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because he is already in Category:Home Rule League MPs and Category:Irish Parliamentary Party MPs, both of which are sub-categories of Category:Irish Nationalist politicians. See above, in the thread #Categ:_Irish_Nationalist_politicians.

Except that now that I check, they aren't, because Osioni (talk · contribs) has removed the sub-cats. I'll restore them now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Coogan Succession

Hey, sounds kinda cool, rather like The Bourne Ultimatium - "Coogan's back. And this time - its political". Anyway, thanks for that. I am going to add more info to each bio but I just wanted to get the dammed things up for once and for all. Hope all is well with you - what's Santa bringing ya? Fergananim (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New problem

My page on Thomas Tierney, and a number of other Mayors, has reverted to Mayor of Galway. I was just about to expand every relevent page. What do I do???Fergananim (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For those which said nothing other that what was in the list, I have redirected them to Mayor of Galway.

Feel free to resurrect them if you are going to create real stub articles. To do that:

• click on the link to the article
• It'll take you to the Mayor of Galway, but at the top of the page you'll see a link to the redirected article. Click on that
• When you get there, click on the history tab.
• When you see the history, select the last revision before it was redirected, and edit that.

Alternatively, if you are using WP:POPUPs, you can do the whole thing just by hovering the mouse over the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Categ: Irish Nationalist politicians

Hello ! I see you removed two Irish MPs from this categ (maybe more) on the grounds that it was a superfluous categ and that they were in the categ IPP MPs. However the categ. Irish Nat. politicians is a cumulmative categ not just for IPP MPs, but also for MPs of other Nationalist groupings, such as All-for-Ireland League MPs, Home Rule League MPs, Independent Nat. MPs and some Nationalists who were active politicians but not MPs, such as Andrew Kettle. I will therefore permit myself to restore Esmonde and Gwynn to the categ. again which I hope you will be in agreement with. Greetings Osioni (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Osioni - thanks for your msg. It was kind of you to let me know about this.

First thing is trivial: in this edit to Edward Barry (South Cork MP) you replaced [[Member of Parliament]] (MP) with [[Member of Parliament|MP]]. Per Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, abbreviations shoud be spelled out when first used, so I have expanded that one again.

As to Category:Irish Nationalist politicians, I should say that in the last few days I have been doing a lot of work on Irish MPs from 1801 to 1922, and have been trimming superflous categories from lots of them. The two you spotted are only the tip of the iceberg, and I have probably removed dozens more from that category.

The reason I removed them is that there is a long-standing general principle that an article should not be in both a category and its parent category. There are a few exceptions to this, but I saw no reason at the time to treat this as one of the exceptions, and a good reason to apply that rule here: most MPs end up in so many categories that including them in a parent category like this rapidly causes category clutter.

Now that I have been made aware of your intention for the category, I have been looking at it again, and I'm sorry to say that I still don't think it's a good idea.

That's partly because of the problem of category clutter, which is particularly acute in this area, with so many parties involved -- many of the MPs belong in three or more of the subcats of Category:Irish Nationalist politicians, and adding them to the parent category is avoidable overload.

But it's also because the inclusion criteria for the parent are vague, and I'm not sure that they can easily be fixed. The current definition says "This category lists politicians whose nationality is Irish" ... whereas the category name clearly excludes unionists and others. It also notably excludes post-independence politicians in the 26 counties, most of whom would be taken aback not to find themselves labelled as nationalist. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the category definition you intend is something a long the lines of "Politicians who meet the following criteria:

• politicians whose nationality is Irish
• Nationalist outlook
• active in the 1801-1922 period
• plus Northern Irish nationalist politicians since 1922, but not Republicans
• no 26-county politicians since 1922

That's a rather fuzzy and complex definition. Many categories share a similar fuzziness, but I don't think that sort a category is a good candidate for trying to create a complete set, because it doesn't have firm enough boundaries or simple enough criteria. It might make a good list, but not a category.

I won't depopulate the category any further while we discuss this, but similarly would you be kind enough to hold off repopulating it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. I might confess I created the categ Irish Nat politicians originally in order to have a single overview list of Nat. politicians for the period in question (really from about 1860-1918. There were also Irish Liberal and Irish Conservative MPs. (I think they are also my creation or at least categorizing them as such certainly). I have spent best part of the year adding missing categories and am a bit perturbed at them been deleted again.

Regarding your Nat politician's categ definition - I do not find it fuzzy, strangely enough. I found it a pity to have them scattered and partly lost in so many party groupings, either early Home Rulers, some Independents, different Leagues, a few only anti-Parnellites, two or three active but not MPs (Andrew Kettle comes first to mind), and so forth. A category such as Irish diaspora is a little diffent, as it includes military, political and cultural diasora. Nat politicians were commonly active over a particular period with similar goals, but with differnt allegiences. At least that is my attempt to justify my 108 categ edits. You are on a hierachially higher pedestal. Osioni (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Osion, I hope no editor is on a pedestal over anyone else, least of all me!

But I do have a general wariness of catch-all categories, because they can proliferate and cause category clutter. I have no problem with the category existing, because it's a useful parent for the various sub-cats; my concern is solely with adding it directly to so many articles which are already in the appropriate subcats. Dispersing the articles to the various sub-categories doesn't invalidate your work, it just builds on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I leave it with you if you wish to reverse all the categs again. However, I feel we need to create a categ for non-MP Nationalist politicians, such as a Categ: Irish Nationalist activists, as a sub-cat of Irish Nat politicians, Kettle and some others could belong there. Osioni (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad there's some debate on this category, Category:Irish Nationalist politicians, which I always felt was a bad idea.

And now we have another unhelpful category, Category:Irish Nationalist Movement

Politicians are members of political parties, and there are categories for each Irish home rule/nationalist party. That's were the politicians should go. As to creating a parent category for those, something more accurate than Irish Nationalist politicians needs to be found as that title doesn't give any hints on what period we're talking about.--Damac (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Damac, but you are right. Over the last few days I have spent a lot of time reverting some of the inappripate categorisations done by Osioni (talk · contribs), and have just left a lengthy message] at User talk:Osioni#Categorisation setting out the problems.

I have stuck my neck out there and asked Osioni to refrain from further category edits, but I think there is a case for deleting Category:Irish Nationalist Movement; Irish Nationalism is a hugely important topic, but I fear that it's just too diffuse a subject to be labelled as a single "movement". Some similar category may be appropriate, but I don't think that this one works. I'm less opposed to Category:Irish Nationalist politicians; with some restructuring, I think that it may have a place as a parent category for the politicians-by-party categories. What do you think?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I’ve taken time to give thought to the issues. Firstly I am sorry for having had you explain your moves in such detail, was really unnecessary. I accept your authority on categories. In some cases I thought I had overlooked pages when I made what appeared to be a reversal with a second edit (something I wouldn’t dare do without checking it out) not noticing that you were close on my heels and had reverted my original edit. Pity we couldn’t have sorted out the disparities in two minutes over a pot of tea.

I originally created the categ. Nat. politicians in good faith to accommodate a distinction between "real" nationalist politicians who on the one hand were active in land reform or the home rule movement, from those many general politicians (some not nationals) who on the other hand were not nationalist activists, returned short term, or simply through some internal IPP arrangement. I am opposed to calling all IPP MPs automatically 'Irish nationalist' politicians.

Now that the pages have been whittled down to 34, it is unlikely anyone takes on the task of re-instating the deleted pages. Therefore simply de-populate the rest. Two will remain, the non-MPs Andrew Kettle and James Daly (and others of a kind who may follow). I am against having them disappear into an uncategorized limbo. Either they stay or we create a category Ir. Nat. activists? The present categ. should definitely remain a parent category because readers would normally begin a search under the term ‘nationalist politicians’ rather than under one of its sub-categories.

Regarding the categ. Nationalist Movement, I accept it could cover other areas than the period we are talking about. My case for upholding the category rests on the fact that it categorizes a significant inter-related period of nationalist history covering land reform and the constitutional home rule movement, supported by its many pages. A suggestion would be to move the categ to Ir. Nat. Movement (1860-1918). Not intending to divert attention, but there are other "Movement" category/pages where focus is just on one singular aspect of, for example, republicanism, whereas categ. Nationalist Movement relates to a whole eventful period of Irish nationalism. Osioni (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC), Osioni (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC), Osioni (talk)

Help! (with Galway mayors)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I've tried reverting the changes you made to the Mayors of Galway list but am unsuccessful. As I said before, I first created them, THEN added political and biographical details. Could you please revert your reverts? Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying — I was just finishing off a first stab at an article before saving it.

Anyway, sure -- if they are going to be expanded I will restore the stubs. But really, it's much much better to create a well-formed stub article before going on to the next one. By redirecting them, I helped to avoid them being speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A3, and that's one of many good reasons not to make a batch of articles which are only list entries.

While I'm reverting the redirects, could you perhaps take a few minutes to read WP:MOSBIO, which gives useful guidance on how to lay out a biographical article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Sure. Sorry, the brain-waves are very scrambled today. Fergananim (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, all the redirects have now been reverted. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you!!! Brilliant!!! I love it when a plan comes together! Please be sure to check if if **** up! Fergananim (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bussy Mansel, 4th Baron Mansel

BHG, help. I have started an article on Thomas Mansel, 1st Baron Mansel, but both father and son were MPs for Cardiff and Glamorgan, but a Bussy Mansel was and MP well before Thomas. It's been wiki-linked as the same person, but he would have been an MP at the age of 110 if this was true, and I think born before his father. As one of our best connected political editors, could you try to solve this one. Thanks in advance, FruitMonkey (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't him; the linking was wrong. See Leigh Rayment's pages; the 1st Bussy Mansel died in 1699. Choess (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow in responding here. I can't quite tell how things were a few days ago, but from a quick glance it looks like Choess has sorted it all out (as I'd expect of Choess!). Lemme know if there's anything still unresolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Deasy (MP)

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Deasy (MP), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics.

As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the pointer, RA. I have added my name, and hope that something like this can get off the ground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a basic page at Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration with some starting ideas and marked the page with a brainstorming template. As someone who replied to the proposal, please contribute some ideas or comments on the page. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised an admin has signed next to this - which is a very sudden and un-formed idea. Don't you think it is fundamentally sectarian? I'm not happy on a number of levels, and these things need to be formulated before people actually sign them, don't they? People should be able to read what they are signing. I feel a bit uncomfortable with what you did to be honest - I expected the other sigs, but not yours. At very least it should be called 'Britain and Ireland' (not British-Irish) and should be utterly neutral space, without any punishment nonsense. Demanding 'collaboration' hasn't worked in the past either - it should be a British and Ireland Wikiproject really. It's funny, but I often find that Wikipedia always has the best routes in place. When people avoid those routes, and new ones are created, they seem to be fundamentally flawed. As it stands, I feel people are running from the British Isles taskforce anyway (the idea of a compromising guideline specifically), and this is partly made as a sideways step. You must know that nobody will ever fully win anything in these matters, and that common-sense guideline space, which new users can refer to (and admin can admin by) has to be the natural and encyclopedic way forward. We won't get to them by sticking to the same schizms, and failed ptocedures. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union

Please reviev: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_16#Amended_suggestion. - Altenmann >t 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your created articles

Reading a complaint in your user page: here is a merry Christmas to you from St. Mikkalai: User:BrownHairedGirl/contribs, per this. Rgds, - Altenmann >t 19:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Page move, revisited

Hi BHG. Would it be possible for you to take a look at the following discussion at the above page which appears to be the purest stitch up of any discussion I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It was opened just before 8pm last night and closed at just after midnight this morning. Of the contributors, only one is a regular contributor to political articles, some of the others I have never come across before. Bear in mind that this is within days of a previous debate coming to a wholly different view here [1] Of course this debate was open for a week, not four hours. Oh I was notified about the new discussion btw, at 23:48 all of 16 minutes before the discussion was closed. All this looks like a pre-arranged stitch up BHG and I hope you will consider looking into this as it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Thanks - Galloglass 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Galloglass, sorry for a slow reply. I took a look at the discussion, and it does seem to have been rather hasty; though I think it was more likely a good-faith WP:SNOW early close rather than a stitch-up. However, it appears that a new RM discussion has been opened, and the article moved back pending a conclusion to that discussion. Am I right in thinking that things are now back on track for a proper discussion of the move?

BTW, great to hear from you again. Hope you are keeping well! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for making the points I was unable to at the discussion on this issue BHG. Work commitments leave me with very little time to even read wiki these days but its good to see you back and busy as ever :) Cheers - Galloglass 12:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I seem to have been a lone voice in the latest move discussion there, but I don't actually see any persuasive reasons for the rush to move. All very odd.

Anyway, look forward to seeing more of you round here when you are less busy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack White

Jack White (musician) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC[2][3]. Please can you arrange to have the articles moved back to where they were, which only an admin can do now because of your subsequent editing. thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The musician does not seem to me to be significantly more notable than all the other Jack Whites put together, which is the relevant test for a primary topic. Whatlinkshere is a highly misleading indicator, for a number of reasons including:

1. The musician is included in several large navigational templates, which hugely boosts the number of internal links. For example {{James Bond music}} is transcluded into about 80 articles, which generates 80 incoming links, even though White is relevant to only two of those 80 articles. I have some doubts about the merits of large-set navigational templates, but no doubt at all that is false argument to cite the consequences of their use as evidence that one article is a primarytopic.
2. Jack White's field of endeavour (contemporary American popular music) is one of the areas which is proportionately great over-represented in wikipedia, as a form of systemic bias. I do not in any way object to the extent of coverage of popular music, at which many editors work very diligently to produce a lot of well-referenced articles on clearly notable topics ... but I do object strongly to the presumption that this systemic bias should then have a knock-on effect of impeding the ability of editors working on other topics to disambiguate the links to other people of the same name (popups) cannot be used to disambiguate if one article has been selected as a primary topic. That barrier to editors fixing the links combines with the impeded access to the disambiguation page to place an un-necessary barrier on the way of readers interested in other people called Jack White, who include a number of people of long-term historical significance, such as:

• Jack White (VC), a winner of the highest award for gallantry in the UK armed forces
• Jack White (trade unionist), a highly significant Irish socialist revolutionary
• Jack White (politician), a pioneering black Canadian politician

As noted above, I have no complaint at all with the diligence of the editors who have painstakingly documented so much of the career of the musician; I just wish that more editors would follow their good exanmple and bring similar thoroughness to the coverage of other areas of knowledge. What I do object to is the self-referential claim that this systemic bias is sufficient grounds to impede readers and editors interested in other areas. There is no need to breach the principle of neutrality by making a subjective choice between the very different fields of human endeavour which are involved here, because a disambiguation pages works the benefit of all readers and editors.

So, no, I won't move the article back. But I will of course finish disambiguating links, as is the responsibility of any editor who moves a page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst "What links here" on its own may be misleading, in combination with popular search terms it is obvious that the musician is clearly the primary topic:

• +"jack white" +"white stripes" -wikipedia gives 555,000 ghits
• +"jack white" +"victoria cross" -wikipedia gives 409 ghits
• +"jack white" +"union" -wikipedia gives 193,000 ghits
• +"jack white" +"cupe" -wikipedia gives 613 ghits

Which one do you think is the obvious target for a search on Wikipedia of "Jack White"? --JD554 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Google doesn't search old printed material in libraries; it indexes only that which is available on the web, which is biased towards material which a) was published since the mid-1990s; b) was published in English in major developed countries; c) reflects the dominant themes in mass media. As such, using a google search will always produce results which are skewed by several orders of magnitude towards the interests of contemporary mass media. That's no criticism of Google, because its bots simply index what they find, but relying on google in this sort of comparison is tantamount to a declaration that "I value contemporary popular culture over all other fields of human knowledge". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the thousands of non-contemporary sources required to show that the other Jack Whites stop the musician from being the primary topic ;). The fact is we should be helping people find the most likely article for the search term, and like it or not, that will be the musician. It's clear I'm not going to persuade you so I'll open this up to the wider Wikipedia community. --JD554 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The fact as I see is that we should be facilitating readers by proving clear, accurate and neutrally-weighted pathways to whatever aspect of human knowledge interests them, not structuring the encyclopedia to mimick the results of a popular search engine.

Anyway, it seems you're right that we are not going to agree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is perhaps whether we are writing an encyclopedia aimed at early-21st-century under-30 Americans, or a general encyclopedia. I favour the latter, so agree with BHG that a currently famous singer is not the Primary Usage. The Trade Unionist (though not described as such) is the only one listed in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. PamD (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

CFD-Rugby players/footballers

As mentioned in the original nomination, there are two discussions about this matter, on the WP:RU project talk page. Consensus has been reached, with the one you refer to (in your objection) being the second "courtesy-notification" after the consensus was already reached in the first link here. This idea comes from the wikiproject itself, so concern for our inclusion is appreciated, but not necessary, thanks. Would you consider removing your objection so this mammoth task can get under way? Thank you in advance. - Sahmejil (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Sahmejil. Objection withdrawn.

However, it is important to ensure that a change which affects so many categories and articles is clearly advertised, because there have been some quite vocal objections recently to CFDs where editors felt that inadequate notification had been given. I understand that you felt that the issue had already been discussed at the wikiproject, and consensus reached, and my objection probably appears to have been a piece of nitpicking ... but to avoid any scope for objections after the fact, it would have been much better to have left an explicit note at the project's talk page saying "CFD proposal to rename", per the discussion here. Maybe you could bear that in mind next time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. PS: You mention the subcats in your objection withdrawl comment. What is the next step to insure speedy renaming of all the subcategories? (This is my first CfD) - Sahmejil (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Formally, the subcats should not be renamed without a further CFR, because the new name is not an "established convention" (per the speedy criteria #4); it's a new convention. However I think that since WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY you should probably be OK to just wait until the CFD has closed and then list all the categories here. Just make sure to link to the the current debate when you list them for speedy renaming, and to notify the wikiproject promptly of the proposed speedy renaming.

Hope this helps, and let me know if you need any more help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any easy point

To understand the slippages and overlaps and domains and donts and dos of united kingdom projects? I was on mull a few months ago and have a few books i want to check things against - and noticed you had identified 2 projects - scottish islands and scotland - has any one done a map or explanation of what project fits where? I also cat tag a lot and such a guide would be very helpful not to raise ire of those who watch cat tags SatuSuro 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro

If you are looking for a centralised list of projects, the WikiProject Council maintains a rather good directory, which can be useful.

However, if I am looking at a particular topic, I tend to adopt two paths:

1. take a peek at some of the better-developed articles in that field, and see what wikiprojects have placed their banners on the talk page
2. if it's a geographical article, there is nearly always a wikiproject for the country as a whole, and that project's page is a good place to look for a list of related projects

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - yes it is some help - (but shucks I thought some smart brit would realise their whole project confusion for UK and the subsidiary ones - there are parts that are confusing I can tell you -- guides or no guides) needed an explanation somewhere :) SatuSuro 11:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Brits, smart?

As an Irish woman I find that an interesting concept. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(reply) For some reason or other I seem to think this has something to with cups of tea - but cannot just place where SatuSuro 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I suppose thatWikipedia:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe#United_Kingdom - juxtaposed is probably what I am after - sorry to be a nuisance SatuSuro 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Politician

Hi BHG, regarding the change in WP:Politician (which I only recently became aware of), about first level sub-national political office, or in Ireland's case local city and county councillors. I see you are engaged in AfD for Billy Cameron but the main effect of this change is to allow anyone to create an article for an elected councillor (1627 of them in the RoI), and link a mention in a local newspaper and a passing mention (probably of local election results) in a national newspaper and say that the person meets notability guidelines. This is NOT a positive development, imho. Any suggestions about what can be done regarding this issue? Snappy (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

I think we are in agreement here that this would be bad news, because most local councillors are deeply obscure.

As discussed at the Billy Cameron AFD, I think that the interpretation being placed on WP:POLITICIAN by Mkativerata is a misreading, but like you I only just became aware of Sandstein's well-intentioned change to the guideline, which has evidently given some scope to those who don't want to know how severely limited the powers of Irish local councillors actually are, and don't want to understand that a free local newspaper in a small Irish city simply does not have the journalistic resources to engage in the sort of fact-checking which characterises a reliable source. (I have been politically active for 25 years, and both in Ireland and the UK I find that local freesheets are so hard-pressed that will pretty much print whatever anyone tells them, so long as it doesn't carry any obvious risk of controversy or defamation. Many of hem have literally only one or two journalists, usually a young cub on their first job).

So what I intend to do is to restore the wording before Sandstein's change, and post an explanation on the talk page of WP:BIO. I hope it won't be controversial.

This episode does remind me of how in general I don't like any of the specific exceptions to the general principle of WP:BIO, because these exceptions lead to the creation of inadequately-sourced articles. Notability isn't just some sort of tripwire to stop people creating new articles, it's a quality threshold, and a logical consequence of WP:RS and WP:NOR: unless there is sufficiently substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then any attempt to write an article on the person becomes a mishmash of unreliable sources, original research, synthesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording reverted to to format before Sandstein's change. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:POLITICIAN_unintended_consequences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Wiki Banner Shell

Thank you for pointing out my typo. Whilst I did not intend to "break" anything, it is good to know that some people like yourself like to point it out to the person, rather than just fix it and move on. Thanks again ! Neonblak ^talk - 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I usually do just fix and move on, but thanks for being so nice about my slightly growly msg to you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work notifying everybody. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of pre- and post-treaty UK link

Hello. I remain concerned with regard to linking the post-treaty United Kingdom page to pre-treaty nationalist articles. This happens when using the single link United Kingdom House of Commons. That page states “The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”. The latter link opens: “The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc . is ..“ which is the post-treaty UK and misleading in pre-treaty pages. The use of two separate links (either short or long form) is however clear and reflects the historical situation at the time, i.e. the United Kingdom House of Commons. The first pre-treaty "United Kingdom of GB and Ireland" link, qualifies the second link. That a double link is untidy when a single link can do the job is something I can’t follow in this case. The "United Kingdom House of Commons" remains optically the same. I’m assuming that for the sake of historical clarity on relevant nationalist pages, split links will continue to be used and that it’s ok should I occasionally change a single link into a double link. It is similar to where the First, Second or Third Dáils are sometimes linked to the present Dáil Éireann. Greetings, Osioni (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Osioni, there are several points here.

1. First, while the Anglo-Irish Treaty did create a new state (the Irish Free State), it did not abolish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which remains in existence, although it was renamed in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That may sound like a minor point, but it is different to what happened in 1707 and 1801, when in each case a new state was created.
2. House of Commons of the United Kingdom and Parliament of the United Kingdom are both accurate abbreviations, and have been so since 1801. Your concern actually relates to a minor point of the content of one of those articles, and the place to remedy that is in those articles, not by inserting boilerplate text into the lead of every related article.
3. The split links acts as impediment to navigation, and unnecessarily complicates the lead section. In many articles, your edits utterly mangled the syntax of the lead section by spelling out in full every detail and creating hideously long and ungrammatical sentences.
   This level of detail does not need to be repeated in very single article on a Member of Parliament, because every person elected as an MP for an Irish constituency in the 19th century could only be an MP in Westminster -- there was no other parliament for them to be elected to. I have objection to the precise pedantic nature of the situation being spelled out, provided that it is done in such a way as to avoid disrupting the flow of the article. In most longer articles, that means that the fine details should not go in the lead (which exists to summarise the most significant points of the article's contents), but should be incorporated further down the article, when the Parliament is first mentioned.
4. The comparison with Dáil Éireann is simply wrong. The first Dáil was Dáil Éireann, as was the second, third, forth, fifth, and all the way up to the current 30th Dáil (except from a Republican legitimist perspective, which recognises only the first and second Dala). If you look for example at the Oireachtas website, you will find that the debates in and membership of first Dail are handled in just the same way as the later Dala. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PS see WP:OVERLINK: "if possible, try giving an informal explanation in the lead, avoiding using too many technical terms until later in the article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid a further exchange. The informative explanations are welcome (apart from the unjustly harsh comments). On the other hand I have obviously failed to communicate the absurdity of a situation, whereby pre-1923 events are depicted as taking place in a post-1923 period-setting, with the south of Ireland already separated from the UK. The need to sever the union was a driving force prior to 1923 and certainly requires the correct backdrop of the legislature "UK of GB and Ireland", and not that of a conflicting post-"UK of GB and Northern Ireland".

As previously mentioned, this occurs when the text implies that the current "re-named" UK successor state is one and the same as its original 1801 predecessor, which it is not. It happens (as I already said) when either the single United Kingdom or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom link are used without a qualifying link. It is unproblematic as well as imperative to include the historically correct pre-1923 legislature using the link to the United Kingdom House of Commons, the so-called split link.

The view that this creates a "boiler point text", "mangled syntax" or "impediment to navigation" and "text flow" is not possible to follow and is an over-kill on faulting. That naming the proper period-setting by its full name triggers something "horrendous" is in itself "horrendous". (An acceptable term such as "over-inflated" would suffice fully in some few, but not all cases). This is certainly not to deny that brush-ups may always be necessary and of advantage here and there, historical content having precedence.

I was first made aware of the need to adopt the correct period-setting some years back when pages I had worked on were all re-edited, much to my surprise, to include the correct full legislative period in the lead, (now called “horrendous”) which I had initially overlooked, or had inadvertently used the incorrect post- UK link. I immediately got the message, and since then adhered to it. Now all at once this is faulted. I respect different concepts as such, but feel they are being pursued in a rather over-exacerbated manner. To clinically deplete the lead of the title of the formal state existing at the time is difficult to comprehend. Taking the risk of looking at it on an analytical level, to remove or 'bury' the pre-1923 legislature resonates a little like hiding those parts of history people prefer not to be confronted with.

A further example of where the successor-UK link appears to be incorrectly used, taken randomly from a leading main article:
"In 1921 the United Kingdom government established a legislature called the Parliament of Southern Ireland in an effort to appease nationalists by granting Ireland limited home rule".
The "UK of GB and Northern Ireland government" certainly did not establish such a legislature in 1921. (A needed sub-linked edit would likely to be seen as untidy or pedantic?).
Pity those trying to unravel our history.

Regarding for the Dáils,I may have expressed myself unclearly, but am well aware that since 1919 there have been 30 Dáils which has nothing to do with the point raised. Many articles make reference to one or other of the first Dáils concerning an event, statement or somebody elected to them. The Second Dáil for example has its own page with its own specific historic background. It is baffling that it is now found to be perfectly correct when that particular Dáil’s page is de-existed through an obviously deceptive link to: the Second Dáil Éireann, which is sub-linked to the current Dáil Éireann assembly. The only thing they have in common is the word Dáil.

Yes, some of us know Irish MPs only had Westminster to go to, but the encyclopaedia is not just for us now, but for generations to come when this fact and its legislature will no longer be known. The reason they require to be mentioned individually. The MPs are not part of a single article with a single lead.

With that I hope I may have clarified myself to some extent. Osioni (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You have clarified yourself, but I'm disappointed to see that you still don't seem to understand that:

1. not every fact has to be in the lead section
2. The "United Kingdom" has always been the common name of that entity, both before and after 1927
3. a sentence such as "Richard Hazleton (5 December 1880 – 26 January 1943) was an Irish nationalist politician and Member of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and as member of the Irish Parliamentary Party represented North Galway (1906–1918) and North Louth (1910–1911)" is appallingly difficult to read (and it's a long way from being the worst of the grammatical horrors I encountered)
4. That the 1922 Treaty did not abolish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (if you disagree, where's the reference?)
5. That I have repeatedly said that I have no objection to spelling out [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] in full at a place in the article where it does not horribly long sentences. That's all.
6. If you really think that the only thing the 1st and 30th Dala have in common is the word Dáil, then either you are pursuing a particularly narrow version of the minority Republican legitimist view, or you are playing games

Sorry, but I have enough of this. You have been kind enough to write me a long reply, but you appear not have read most of what I wrote above, and I think I am wasting my time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category redirect

I just happened to see what you did at Category:New School for Social Research faculty. Was this discussed at WP:CFD or anywhere else? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It was an uncategorised category for which I tried to find a corresponding article, and found that the institution had been renamed to The New School, which already had an associated Category:The New School faculty. If you have a better solution, please implement it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't, nor do I disagree. I hope you are aware that this should have gone through Cfd. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, why? WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY

The category creator didn't even care enough about the category to provide any category text or parent categories: it was a useless orphan. There are hundreds of similarly orphaned categories here, and while some have been emptied pending deletion, most of them are new categories created with a similar lack of care. If every simple solution is complicated by a CFD, contrary to WP:IAR, it'll take months to clean them. Where I think they actually merit deletion, I'm CFDing them, but I'm not going to waste my time and that of others clogging up CFD when a simple redirect does the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not rely on all editors to always assess objectively whether the rename/redirect is indeed as uncontroversial as you make it sound this one was. I say this in general, and not because I disagree with your assessment of this particular case. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't wanna be rude, but that sounds to me like a near-perfect example of bureaucracy.

The way I look at WP:IAR is simple. There are established procedures for lots of things, which mostly exist for good reason. If someone steps outside those procedures, they'd better be damn sure that what they are doing is uncontroversial and that they are ready to engage reverse gear fast if the action does turn out to be controversial. That's the approach I'm taking here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all editors, including admins, are as conscientious as you are. Not to mention that the rules exist for good reason, and nobody is above POV. So yes, I am being a bit bureaucratic about it, but not unreasonably. After all, I do not insist on reverting you and bringing it to Cfd. I just try to point out the very real dangers of not taking category renames to Cfd. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from; this wasn't a category rename, it was a redirection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Day fix

The Picture of the Day for today is muddled with its tenses: Its curved beak is adapted to taking nectar from flowers, but they will also eat fruit and insects. Could you make them both plural or both singular? From WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays! Shubinator (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think you mean muddled pronouns rather than muddled tenses. <evil grin from one pedant to another>

Anyway, is this fix OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The pronoun's "drying up" by the end...maybe "the bird" instead of "it" for the last one? It's fairly clear either way. Shubinator (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstanding, why not just gimme the wording you want, and I'll paste it in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, ok: Its curved beak is adapted to taking nectar from flowers, but the bird will also eat fruit and insects. Shubinator (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have given it the bird. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category deletions

To keep discussion in one place, replies moved to User talk:Djln#Category_deletions, where the discussion started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Low-emissions locomotive categories

Hello: I noticed that this discussion was closed and that Cydebot has begun moving the articles to Category:United States emission standards Tier 2 compliant locomotives; however, the consensus of the discussion was that the new category should be named Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant locomotives of the United States. Do you happen to know why the bot is moving the articles to the wrong category? I would ask the bot directly, but they're usually not very responsive. ;-) Thanks and Happy Holidays! –BMRR (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BMRR

Thanks very much for telling me about this, and for being so polite about it.

It's just as cwel you didn't ask the bot-owner, because the bot did its job just fine, perfectly implementing the instructions it was given ... but now that I have checked, it's clear that I screwed up and gave the bot the wrong instructions, in this edit. Sorry!

I'll get to work now and sort out the mess I made ... and thanks again for spotting the mistake and altering me to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I have just given fresh instructions to the bot, which should now clean up the mess. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary! It was an honest mistake, and I've certainly made more than my fair share of those. ;-) Thanks again for your help! –BMRR (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

William Ryder

Uhm, why did you move that page of the rugby player to William Ryder (rugby union player)?. The other guy is known as William T. Ryder so no need to disambiguate that and just leave the "other names' tag on the rugby players page and + that person died 17 years ago and when people search, they would be looking for the rugby player, not him... Please next time you decide to make changes to "rugby related articles", ask the people at Wikipedia Project:Rugby union first...--Warpath (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Both men are/were known as "William Ryder", so there is ambiguity. The fact that someone died 17 years ago is irrelevant, because this is a general encyclopedia not a current events publication.

I have never before seen a wikiproject demand prior notification of changes to any articles related to that project, and do not intend to follow that request. Please read WP:OWN. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are only TWO William Ryder on wikipedia so there was no need for a disambiguation page. It was fine the way it was with the template "otherpersons" link added to the rugby players page. If there were more than three William Ryder then yes, but if its only 2 then I don't see any reason why it had to be disambiguated because neither the names were the same...--Warpath (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's hair-splitting, because someone looking for the paratrooper could quite reasonably look for "William Ryder". Additionally, using a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote facilitates the disambiguation of links, because any links to "William Ryder" will now be picked up by Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and they can quickly and easily be fixed using WP:POPUPS.

I don't know why it is that a few editors are so upset by the existence of disambiguation pages. They are a simple and lightweight way of allowing editors to maintain links, readers to find what they want, and wikipedia to remain neutral between the different fields of human endeavour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

FYI Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Brown_Hair_Girl_is_stalking_me Gerardw (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Pepperpot (Monty Python)

If you've a moment, can you take a look at this and tell me how I managed to bugger it up so completely? I have made dozens of AfD nominations, and I haven't any idea what I did wrong this time. All I know is this is not what it should look like. I thank you for your time and efforts, as always. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno what went wrong, but now fixed. Probably best assume that the software was feeling tired and picked on you as the closest person to hand. ;)

Anyway, yer a wicked blasphemer for suggesting that a single word about the Python should be deleted! Heretic!!!! <grin>

Hope you're keeping well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm the last person who'd ever want to see anything Python-related deleted, but this is just silliness. Three-and-a-half years and no improvement, and utterly redundant besides. So, gotta go.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I am still utterly confused by what happened, but I'll try not to lose sleep over it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite agree and was just being silly. Sorry if that didn't come across in the friendly way I intended! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cuckoo class schooner

Hi Brownhairedgirl, Holiday greetings, etc. Thanks for adding the category "Royal Navy schooners" to the category page. I have wondered how one created sub-categories and now I know. I added the Ballahoo class schooner category page too. You may have noticed that I have added five (of 18) schooners to the Ballahoo class. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work on writing the articles! And I'm glad to have been able to help a bit with the categories. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite alright

[4]. I forgot; thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being nice about it! I know that per WP:TPG I was being naughty, but hoped it would be understood as a small bit of housekeeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Romance (genre)

Hi
Is the category Romance (genre) is out of scope being a category ?, I think it could at-least have members as those works listed in the Romance (genre) article page. The novel Marthandavarma is tagged as historical romance - is it not right to (for the novel) come under Romance (genre)- just a humble doubt(harith (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure what you mean by "out of scope being a category". Plesae can you explain this a bit more?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
What I meant is – whether there won’t be a category Romance (genre) in Wikipedia hereafter or from now .. ??, its just that the Category inclusion was removed from the Marthandavarma (novel) article, where the same was added by me. Okay .. if there going be a category Romance (genre), I’d suggest it to be added to the above mentioned article otherwise .. never mind, Thanks
(harith (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Levineps Categories

Please take a look also at this talk page post. The problem isn't just bad categories; there is objective error in what he does as well. The response I got was...less than constructive. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already picked up on this at CFD, where rather a lot of Levineps-created categories seemed to be causing widespread concerns. When I looked at Levineps' category edits, they seemed to consist of creating badly-conceived new categories. I will pop across to the talk page and take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a long comment at User talk:Levineps#Second_opinion, asking for restraint. I hope that may help prompt some genuine dialogue and a moratorium until there is some consensus ... but if it doesn't, then I suggest a prompt WP:RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that right after your comment were two separate complaints by different individuals about other categories he created. I think for a minimum first step, he needs to start writing full edit summaries, explaining every change he's making, and not marking his edits as minor. As so many editors have complained, it is clear that his editing choices are contentious and it's dishonest to continue to treat controversial changes as minor. I'm all in favor of an RFC.

BTW, I don't think I've told you that I greatly appreciate your participation at CFD. It's at its best when it's populated by level-headed, systematic thinkers. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for your nice comments about my presence at CFD. After flooding the place with squillions of uncategorised categories over the last week, I wouldn't have been surprised if some ppl wanted to see the back of me. :) Anyway, I do agree that CFD works best when it has a number of regular who are trying to approach the issues systematically, and I think that at the moment we are lucky enough to have several people who regularly bring that sort of approach to it. I value your contributions too!

Anyway, as to Levineps ... I have just posted again to eir talk page, to make another plea for restraint. I do hope my appeal won't fall on deaf ears, but I'm not putting any money on it, because many have tried before me. If that doesn't work, then it's time to start drafting an RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for making efforts to intervene with Levineps. I was concerned about two months ago about some of his edits, and since that time I've tried to work with him a number of times on my own initiative, and I've also been approached by a number of other editors on my talk page and via email who have been as troubled as I was. He bounces around from topic to topic, so it seems that some editors get very concerned, and then when he moves on to other areas, the concerns of these editors die off, but overall I think his pattern of edits is very concerning. I have not known where to take things since my last comments on his talk page—I was kind of waiting for someone else involved in CFD to notice that we have a pattern developing here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that support! If this does need go to RFC/U, will you help draft something? I'm happy to do the initial spadework, but I think more heads will make a better job of ensuring that it is reasonably thorough, as well as fair and balanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just give me a heads up if it gets that far. I can provide you with a rough chronology of my own concerns combined with those I've been involved in. There's been quite a few incidents, and some are scattered around on wikiproject talk pages, etc. Overall, I have found him non-responsive to requests. Back in Oct, I actually blocked him because he just refused to respond to any inquiries at all. Then he piped up and said, "hey, why didn't you give me a warning before blocking", so we considered that his warning and he's at least responded to inquiries since then, but he's never been terribly helpful. He usually just says, "looks like we disagree" and stuff like that—never really addresses the issues raised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, for only a couple months' work, his "deleted user contributions" list since late October is shockingly long. And there's still quite a bit to clean up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Robinson

I'm afraid you're incorrect: I added nothing. I shall re-edit, but without removing the fact tags, since what I removed was opinion and irrelevant anyway. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I don't "sneakily" edit things. I imagine one would have to live a very sad life indeed to go around editing things merely to suit their purposes rather than suit the truth of the matter, but thanks for the lecture anyway SE7^Talk/_Contribs 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Easier solution: I have just removed the whole unreferenced section. It is all just opinion, and should not be included unless referenced to reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

stop reverting my edits

All you are doing is reverting my edits for the sake of reverting them. All your doing is hitting the undo button. If my edits are wrong thats one thing, but what you are doing is really disgusting.Levineps (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All explained on you talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats clearly an abuse of the system. And looking from your own talk page, you got some issues of your own. So maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Levineps (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are issues you want to take to ANI, then do so.

However, I and others put a lot of time and effort into politely trying to engage you in discussion about your disruptive editing. You ignored repeated requests, and have subsequently tried to remove the warnings from your talk page. I started reverting only because all attempts to ask your discuss your disruptive editing had failed, as had warnings. I will stand over all the reverts I made, and none of them were, as you allege "for the sake of reverting them". Those you have restored have been reverted by others.

Anyway, I am now off for some sleep. I will leave matter this in the hands of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

devil's advocate

It seems to me you would make a good lawyer(if your not already). You always find an argument for everything, which can be a good thing. But I think unless it's a legitimate reason and you have shown a few, what your doing should be done less frequently.--Levineps (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, take it to WP:ANI#User:Levineps_and_categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Double upmerge

You probably know this already, but this won't work. It will only upmerge it to the first one listed. We have to put the double upmerges at WP:CFDWM for manual merges. They get done eventually, but it's slow. I wish there was a faster way. Not to worry about the one in question as I tracked down the four articles and added the second category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that pointer, and for tidying up after my error.

I knew that manual for multiple merges used to be the case, but that I thought that Cydebot was now able to handle double upmergers. Thanks very for correcting that impression -- it could have left quite a mess if I had applied that assumption to the close of a big category or series of categories.

Shouldn't there be a warning about this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Levineps

Is it appropriate for me to implement the community ban per the ANI talk page since I initially proposed it, or do I wait for an outside admin to do that? Am I expected to take the lead on this or would it be inappropriate for me to do so? I think there's a clear consensus for a category-edits ban and the additional points you've made. I've never done something like this before so I don't know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that I may be the wrong person to answer this since I was the person who made the first complaint at ANI, but here's my thoughts for what they are worth.

Ideally that step should be taken by an uninvolved admin, and Rockpocket has agreed to implement the consensus. It seems to me that you are right on consensus: there is near-unanimity on what to do, with the only dissent being those those arguing for a complete ban now, so I doubt that there is any scope for objection to someone going ahead and implementing the consensus. It seems to me that this would be best done by asking Rockpocket to go ahead. If you do it yourself, you run the risk of complaints against you for being the wrong person doing the right thing (a mistake which I have made before), and that can be used to undermine the validity of the agreed remedies. I think it would be a pity for a procedural wrangle to undermine the consensus which has been achieved so far.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It does—sweet. I'll just wait a bit and see if anyone goes ahead. If not, I'll approach Rocketp. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many cooks... Please see the current state of the AN/I post, and this post. We need to undo that and implement them as I have written them, which is actually what was agreed to. User:Coffee's summary is neither an accurate restatement of the AN/I consensus, nor clear in its terms. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of no consequence

I was wondering about joining your userpage category, as I meet some of the qualifications. However I am not "Cariverous" and wondered if this was a typo. If it is a fey, Celtic quality of some kind I apologise for my ignorance. Ben MacDui 14:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a very select group. As well as all the other criteria, you have to be a meat-eater who doesn't always bother typing accurately. <grin>

Of course, if you feel that you meet these criteria, you would be very welcome to join.

Just as I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue is "the antidote to panel games", this category is intended as the antidote to user categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I score pretty well and I'll be sure to get in touch if I improve it, although "troglodyte" is possibly an ambition too far. Have a great 2010. Ben MacDui 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And you too. May your meat be tender and your typos plentiful! <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category moves

BrownHairedGirl, I thank you for and appreciate your message to me concerning my creations of categories for the "House of Esterházy" and "House of Kinsky." As a lowly editor, I get caught up in the weeds when ensuring all persons are granted the proper categories for their articles. In the early days of Wikipedia, new editors created categories for families by naming the category just the family name without "House of..." or ".... family" and in my haste to correct these errors, I neglected to check Wikipedia policy. (And let's face it, Wikipedia policy is Byzantine in nature and not many editors [I've been one since 2005] are aware of all the policies they must strive to work within). This is why I'm thankful that administrators such as yourself are able to remind editors of these rules. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia. --Caponer (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain

That category doesn not correspond, because Oliventian Portuguese is a subdialect of Alentejan Portuguese, delete it. Read that article in Spanish Wikipedia. I believe that I confunded Oliventian with Alejentan, but I shall fix it. --Der Künstler (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain?

I don't read Spanish, so the Spanish Wikipedia is no use to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge Erle-Drax

If you're still on your MP-expanding trawls, can you do the wonderfully-named John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge Erle-Drax at some point? (See his talk page for a summary of the current issues). – iridescent 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What a bizarre self-caricature of a man!

I corrected one small glitch, but unfortunately I don't have sources which would allow me to do much with it. Election results which would confirm his electoral history, but that's all.

Anyway, good to hear from you. Hope you are keeping well, and have a Happy New Year! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories reinstated

Hi BHG, sorry I slipped, well caught. [5] Happy New Year! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I could see it was a mistake, so I thought it best to just fix it and not make any drama!

Happy New Year too you too :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to join in as you've been mentioned

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Offliner -- for what it's worth, I'd say that it appears that there is no good basis for those 3 articles to be in the category and that they should have been removed. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have left a comment there.[6] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry we dragged you into this, that was never my intention. I should have included the articles to my original note - I think I even planned to do this - but simply forgot, probably due being a bit under the weather from a slight fever. --Sander Säde 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks v much for your friendly note, but don't worry, when disputes happen, others inevitably get dragged in, so I don't take it personally!

I'm sure that the omission of a list of the articles was a good faith oversight, and in any case you've done the right thing by listing them when you realised your mistake.[7]

Hope the fever passes quickly :) --13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I share your dislike of these subjective categories. And (unless you are including them), some of the ethnic ones. I've read a comment somewhere, for instance, that we use categories labelling people as Jewish far more than the other Wikipedias do. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the ethnic categories either, but they divide opinions. Some editors ask "is this the Nuremburg laws?", but others say "I'm proud of my ethic heritage & identity. Don't try to airbrush it out". So there have been a lot of heated CFDs which end up as no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Games by designer

Reading this nomination of yours, I wanted to make sure you were aware of Category:Games by designer, where games are already categorized by their designers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Mike. I have replied at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics and dab repair

I do hear your argument about primary topic being a problem with dab repair. I do sometimes forget. But I think 60% is near the line (how much over 50% should it be?). During the last run visit with this "fun" topic (Talk:James Stewart), I started a summary essay on the issues involved (User:Jwy/Primary_Topics: Why and Which). It is an attempt to discuss neutrally the issues involved in choosing a primary target (or indeed, if there should be one). I want someone to be able to read it to be more informed, not necessary to prescribe what they should do. I have just looked at it again and see room for improvement (page loading in addition to clicks, for example). If you have suggestions for the essay, please jump in - either comment on the talk or directly in the article. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rugby union footballers --> Rugby union players. Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for your contribution and doing the gruntwork in suggesting the renaming of all those categories. Was also nice to see that was actually WP:snow-ing! A big thanks from WP:RU. Sahmejil (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm used to category stuff, so it was quite easy for me to do it, but would have been rather daunting from someone not practiced at CFDs.

The bot is still at work, but once the job is done I expect that we will find I missed a few categories. This search should identify any stragglers, but don't be discouraged by the number of hits it is returning this evening. Give it a day or two for the bots to finish their work and the indexes to update! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

oops! bad search link now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

CFDW

I've sent User:Cyde an email about his slow-working bot. He told me awhile ago that he rarely checks his WP talk page now so if it slows down give him a shout on his email. I'll email you his address for future referece. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to do some small categories to clear the list a bit, but the bot should really be doing it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the email did the trick. It seems to be processing smoothly now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done! It'll be a relief to see it done, because as the nominator of all those categories I felt kinda responsible for them clogging up CFD/W. --00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Once we had something like 300 backed-up categories from about 6 days' worth of closes listed on CFDW page before one of us decided we'd better email Cyde. It was embarrassing. Cyde is pretty quick to respond unless he's sleeping so it's worth just sending him an email to ask if anything is malfunctioning on his end. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll bear that in mind for the future. We do rely on Cyde! Without Cydebot, most CFD decisions not be implemented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the antipodes west of GO

Yeah I suppose I am trying to be a bit cheeky at the Tassie and West Oz locomotives cats - really its a nobrainer - I think Vegaswikian saw that when I started polluting (maybe it was explaining) the entries - I await the far more interesting and challenging closed railways and railway stations, and disused railways and railway stations - to defunct railways and railway station CFD discussion (when it gets put up) - I am sure that will be more than my talking to myself - cheers SatuSuro 14:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Suro

I wasn't tying to suggest that anyone as cheeky, just that we did need some resolution to the discussions on those locomotive categories.

I don't know whether to read your comment as a withdrawal of your objections to the renaming, but if that's what you intend, then please could you say so at CFD to help whoever is closing the debates? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No - sorry - I was doing that as a self identification at the CFD comments regarding do I get consensus with myself comment' - I will try to explain simply at the CFD - I dont agree with the nominations for either SatuSuro 14:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really know what you mean by that, but look fwd to your clarification at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Native American Music Award

Hi there, I didn't see the place I should comment about this category, but a list instead is fine with me.I'm Nonpartisan 02:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

When you were writing that comment, did you see the note above the box? It says "Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message". It does make things easier, y';know :)
Anyway, I did post on your talk page a link to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Native_American_Music_Award_Winner. Sorry you didn't make it there, but glad to hear the outcome is OK with you.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Austin Taylor

I think I just pulled the "Kyffin-" from the info in William Kyffin-Taylor, 1st Baron Maenan, but now that I look back, I suspect that's wrong. I can't now find any evidence that Austin (unlike his brothers) ever used the "Kyffin-". Choess (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

message copied to User talk:Choess#Austin_Taylor_MP, where I posted my reply, to keep the discussion in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Category discussions

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I was a bit bothered by a couple of your CFD noms and decided I should post a note here and offer my view, for what it's worth. Not trying to be confrontational or anything but I do have a concrete suggestion. I'm guessing you do a lot of work with categories, and no doubt there are a lot of nonsense/inappropriate categories that need to be cleared out so props for doing that. However I think at least two of your nominations today (including the one I created, but even more so Category:Fish nervous system) were ill-advised. A better course might have been to leave a note for the creators of these categories, or to discuss them on the category discussion page. I was somewhat astonished to see the category I created nominated for deletion and found myself wishing you had simply dropped me a note about your concerns. Even more so with the Fish nervous system category, you admitted that you basically knew nothing about the topic but then nominated it anyway. Wouldn't a note to the person who created it, asking for clarification, have been a better route? When that person explained their reasoning and the fact that they work in neuroscience, you still seemed to question their argument, even though they claim expertise and you admit to not knowing the topic. That just seems quite strange to me, and frankly you waste several editors' time by nomming a cat for deletion that is perfectly legitimate—a fact which you could easily determine by talking to the person who created it.

I'm sure you do good work on this issue and I really don't meant to come at you with this little note, but in situations that are not clear-cut and where you're not sure of the scope/purpose of the category (and/or have little background in the topic at hand), it just seems advisable to communicate with the individual editor before listing a category for discussion. Not a huge deal or anything obviously, and you can take this advice or leave it, but I thought it was worth pointing out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I came here to make a friendly comment, and noticed the above. I'm unfamiliar with the category that the other editor started, but I came here to say thank you for withdrawing your nomination of the fish category, and to say that your nomination of that one, on the face of it, was entirely reasonable. Like Looie, I'm an expert in neuroscience, but when I saw the notice at the neuroscience wikiproject talk page, my first reaction was that this sounded like a ridiculous category name, and I was going to !vote delete. When I actually realized what the situation was, of course, I changed my mind. But the point is that I think what you did was entirely fair, including your willingness to withdraw when you saw the direction that consensus was going. Wikipedia isn't just for experts, and I thank you for your interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Tryptofish that the willingness to withdraw upon learning more was a commendable move on your part. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories in a muddle

Your understanding of category hierarchies is far better than that of most people. So please would you look at the intersections of political sex scandals, sex scandal figures, Profumo affair, scandals in UK, scandals in England, etc. The list is huge. Many thanks and Happy New Year. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 18 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Frank Giles - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Chris Williams (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Donald Trelford - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Jonathan Fenby - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Ian Jack - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Stuart Weir - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Chris McLaughlin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Brian Harrison (Conservative politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Iain Sproat - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Catherine Murphy (athlete) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Ratzeburg

Hello- actually you might be right. I wasn't sure whether Ratzeburg had any other significant companies. Seems it doesn't;). Cheerio. Hoodinski (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but the place to say it is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 9#Category:Companies_based_in_Ratzeburg, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block it

Block it. I don't know what led to that post, I don't care what led to that post, I just don't want posts like it. Get another admin to block it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Discographer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had to put up with that sort of behaviour BHG... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbsdy! I have no idea what prompted it, but it's good to see zero-tolerance of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Sorry to bother you but I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_in_article_text_or_infobox and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Link with no reply. You seem to know quite a lot of about categories. I wonder if you could offer an opinion. Is there a MOS that applies to linking to categories in the article text or infobox such as Template:Nationfilmlist ? Gnevin (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_in_article_text_or_infobox. --16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ThanksGnevin (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Peerage articles

Hi BrownHaired Girl. Several anonymous IP-addresses (125.166.172.253, 222.124.122.32, 125.163.21.201, 110.136.151.69 and 125.163.23.125 - there may be others) and a new user, Towsuw, have been creating havoc among peerage articles for the last few days. It's obviously the same person behind all edits. What he/she has done is wikilinking numerous peers that were previously unlinked. I don't know if this can be viewed as vandalism but it is certainly against WP:RED. It's especially annoying for me as I went through hundreds of peerage articles and de-linked those that I considered non-notable last years. He/She has also changed the format for heirs to peerage, using <br> in an odd way, see for instance this edit to the Baron Moran article. I hope you as an administrator can block the IP-addresses and Towsuw temporarily to stop him/her from creating further damage. The edits remind me of User:Max Mux who was blocked from editing definitely in June 2009 (and who had previously been blocked from the German Wikipedia). Hopefully you can help me out with this. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Returned contributor?

Some SPA action in evidence on Republic of Ireland postal addresses again... I wonder if we have an old banned acquaintance back? If so, where should this be reported? Would WP:RFCU be justified? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our Bolognia push!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I have neither expertise nor interest in the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Email ping

Ping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 January 7 CFDs

Completely unrelated issue to the above—I'm sorry that I've felt it necessary to administratively close four CFDs you started on 2010 JAN 7. From what I could observe, at least two of them were tainted by canvassing beyond recovery. I also closed the other two, which were not as bad, but still had been inappropriately canvassed. I thought it best to treat them all the same, since they were all canvassed. In many ways, this is really the worst possible result for a CFD, since the canvassing can't be taken back and it's impossible to know what might have happened had the canvassing not taken place. The wrongdoer (canvasser) essentially gets what they want (nothing happens to the category), so unfortunately it appears to reward wrongdoing. But as I said in the closes, they can be re-nominated at any time, though you might want to wait a bit for passions to cool. It can also be upsetting for the user who canvassed to be told he did something wrong when he doesn't believe he did so or doesn't understand why it was inappropriate. I've also tried to explain things as best I could to the user. I hope you can understand why I did what I did. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, G O.

It's a bit of a pity, but I don't think there was any other reasonable option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David Adams

I have made considerable contributions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Adams_%28dancer%29, and I found your name in the page history, hopefully correcting my errors. You appear to be a UK historian, rather than a ballet historian ... I am curious about the connection. If you have a moment, I am at holonar@ocii.com.

cheers, Gunnar Blodgett Edmonton, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.42.252 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit to the article, here. It's a trivial addition of a disambiguation hatnote, and has nothing to do with the substance of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Expand - 19th-century national presidents of africa

The South African Republic and the Republic of the Orange Free State were independent national governments in the pre-1900's. I know the current five subjects are all from the South African Republic. I was planning to expand it with the six subjects of the Orange Free State government. We could also add the twelve subjects identified from Liberia.

I have also logged this feedback on the "Category:19th-century national presidents in Africa" discussion page. Regards, JohanSteyn123 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles Gilpin (politician)

Thanks for giving Maurice Petherick a Succession Box. I wonder if you could check out the Charles Gilpin (politician) article and see whether the Box for him is correct. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vernon -- long time no see! Hope you are keeping well.

The succession box was fine as far as it went, but was a little underdeveloped, and was misplaced. I have finished it off and moved it to its proper place at the bottom of the article ... and while I was at it, I did a few other tweaks: here's the diff of them all.

Hope that's okay! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Vernon replies: Thanks for your work on this article. I am puzzled that Hansard's listing of Gilpin's contributions to Parliamentary debate (Contributions of Charles Gilpin) are so few and exclude the speeches indicated in notes 3 and 4:

1. ^ On 3 May 1864, Gilpin supported William Ewart's Commons resolution requesting a Select Committee be appointed to consider PUNISHMENT OF DEATH:Hansard HC Deb 3 May 1864 vol 174 cc2055-115

1. ^ Hansard report of Commons Sitting: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WITHIN PRISONS BILL— [BILL 36.] COMMITTEE stage: HC Deb 21 April 1868 vol 191 cc1033-63

How can this be explained and can it be corrected?

All the best for 2010 Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vernon

Glad that my changes were OK.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com is still under development, and there a lot of glitches in the indexing. The text seems OK, I think that the indexing is still very raw. It's still worth using as a link, because the data is all there, but it shouldn't be relied upon as evidence of the extent of someone's contributions. See my comment on this at User talk:Tryde#Hansard_1803-2005.

Hope you're having a good year so far! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretty good - snowed in last week, fine today! Hoping to do some work on the Quaker response to the 19th C Irish famines. Love and Peace - V —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 January 2010

Template:Infobox datespan

Hi BHG, what do you make of this template - Template:Infobox datespan ? It was created by User:Jtdirl in June 2006. It is supposed to be a infobox style bio timeline but it is only used on 2 articles: Éamon de Valera and Charles Stewart Parnell. Is there some standard template equivalent? If not, I think it should be removed. Any thoughts? Snappy (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure.

It seems to be reasonably effective at the job it sets out to do ... but the question is whether it's actually a good idea to have that sort of timeline-summary-infobox in articles. I can see a case for this sort of summary, but I'm generally a bit war of overloading articles with infoboxes, and Éamon de Valera is a good illustration of that: a long infobox, then the {{PriomhAire}} photogalley, and then this timeline, buried so far down a long article (over half-way) that the reader won't encounter it unless they are already reading the whole text.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be rather good to have a timeline summary like this in History of Ireland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It could serve some use on History of Ireland. I think it should be removed from the 2 biographical articles but not deleted for now, as it could be useful else where. Snappy (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn question

Did Alansohn answer your question on his talk page? I butted in, but I'm not quite understanding what he means when he mentioned what he did as a violation of policy. Maybe I should just leave the question to you and him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be confusing policy and guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought maybe so. I'd like it if he could address the original issues postdlf raised rather than side-tracking on garden variety differences of opinion. Maybe if an admin disagrees with him, he views that as a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hayhoe

Hi BHG, could you take a look at this article when you have some time to spare. For a number of reasons I have a few doubts about the notability of this person but I'd like an outside opinion before I take any action. Cheers - Galloglass 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Galloglass

It looks marginal to me. There are a lot of refs to individual points in the article (overall, it's reasonably well-sourced),but I don't see any evidence of substantial coverage of him in reliable sources

However, he may have be notable under WP:ATH point 2: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." If he participated in the world championships of any of those yacht classes, then I think he meets WP:ATH.

... and a bit of googling found that he skippered his boat in the Class 40 world chamionships.

I'd be happier if there was some substantial coverage (per WP:GNG), but I think he just passes WP:ATH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that BHG, was sure he didn't meet the politics criteria but if he meets that of athletics then I'm quite happy to let it stand. Thanks - Galloglass 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob! It is kinda marginal, and to my mind it illustrates the problem of special-exception guidelines such as WP:ATH, because with substantial coverage the whole article is a from of synthesis. There is usually strong support at AFD for keeping even marginal bll-players, but I'm not sure how a yachtsman would survive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CFD confusion

I tried to close this discussion but got confused. There's consensus for the proposal, but I'm not sure what it is now. Is it a proposal to merge the contents of the nominated category to both of the other categories that aren't struck out? A double upmerge? And the struck out one was already doubly upmerged? This probably seems like a dumb question, but I know zilch about the subject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I get it now. Nothing to do but close the discussion and delete the empty nominated category, methinks? I was confused because it was started before the one above it, and I was reading it as if it had been started after. When read together it all makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just close as merge per nom (since that's the consensus you found), but there's nothing to actually do. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Video games by designer

Did you just accuse me in public of attempting to subvert the CFD process for personal gain? I followed your suggestion to get them out of Category:Games by designer. I did it because I thought you had suggested a good idea. There were already seven subcategories of Category:Games by designer that were all video games, so regardless of your opinion about the five you nominated, there was no reason I shouldn't have created Category:Video games by designer. Do you really think I did something warrants a charge of immorality? If so, you would be the first in four years of my contributing to CFD to do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, Mike, although I did suggest something close to that. I pointed out that you had pre-empted consenus in a situation where you have a declared COI.

The substantive issue is whether or not video games should be categorised by designer. The CFD has not yet closed, so there is as yet no consensus on that question. Creating the category now prejudges that outcome, and suggested such a category if the designer categories were kept, which has not yet happened. Yes, there are other similar categories, but since that CFD is about the principle of categorising games by designer, the others will be a logical followup to delete if the CFD closes that way.

I don't think that immorality is quite the right word, but you did do something inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

'Republic of Ireland' on EU page

Hi there BrownHairedGirl, a debate is currently in progress on the EU talk page concerning the use of either ‘Republic of Ireland’ or ‘Ireland’ to identify the state. As the page is clearly political and involves both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I am arguing for ‘Republic of Ireland’ for reasons of clarity and common sense. However, all my arguments are falling on intransigently deaf ears. Perhaps you would care to take a look? The Spoorne (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spoorne

I took a quick peep, and it's much as I expected: you were edit-warring against a long-standing convention.

The convention, accepted as a compromise between various views, is to use the description "Republic of Ireland" only where the use of "Ireland" (the state's official name) would be ambiguous. There is no ambiguity in the list of members states. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanting to delete late night programming categories

Delete per nom. Mant TV programs are broadcast at varying points in the schedule, and categorising TV programs in this way will lead to massive category clutter. -

So by your logic, a program (and I put great emphasis on this) called The Tonight Show, Late Night with..., The Late Show..., etc. could suitably air in other hours of the day (okay)!? That would be like saying that The Today Show/Early Show/Good Morning America also air in prime time. TMC1982 (talk) 10:10 p.m., 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 17#Categories_for_intersection_of_TV_network_and_broadcast_time. That page is called "categories for discussion" for a reason ... which is that it's the place to discuss the category. Per WP:MULTI, please keep the discussion centralised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir Francis Evans

Thanks for the message. I have expanded the Evans article. Hope it's OK. G --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Graham_Lippiatt#Sir_Francis_Evans.2C_1st_Baronet to keep discussion centralised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Party shading/Federalist‎

Why did you add "-color" to Template:Party shading/Federalist‎? See {{United States political party shading key 2}}.—Markles 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for a null edit to purge the templates, so that they would be removed from renamed categories, and "background-color" is just a more precise way of achieving the same effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's OK. As you may see from {{United States political party shading key 2}}, I'm trying to standardize the colors and their coding. Any help is appreciated. —Markles 15:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good luck with that work. I'm sorry, but I won't be joining in, because I concentrate my efforts on the politics of Ireland and UKania, and don't have time or expertise to get involved in US stuff. I only encountered the templates through processing some CFD closures, and since that problem is fixed I'll leave you to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Arenlor (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to the troll at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Virginia's At-large congressional district#Order & consistency

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Virginia's At-large congressional district#Order & consistency. —Markles 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks for the invite, but it's not really a topic on which I can contribute much. I hope that you have a successful discussion which reaches a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi BrownHairedGirl

I just wanted to thank you for uploading the information on Rossnowlagh. It's great to have it to refer to and send a link to people when I want to explain where I grew up.

I wondered if you'd visited or how you came to be the person to originate the information?

IrishWonderboy 80.2.65.250 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, as far as I can see, I have only made one small edit to the article Rossnowlagh, and did not add any substantive information to it.

It's a beautiful place, though. I hope you have wonderful memories of your childhood there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal?

Did you want a chance of rebuttal here or can I self-close this as withdrawn? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to withdraw the nom, then best to just go ahead and self-close. No need for any further rebuttal, and I rather agree with your final point that in a few decades it might not be quite such an an important factor ... but I think that for now it's worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism

You are incorrect in your comments on the monarchism template. Kevin O'Higgins advocated the creation of a North-South dual monarchy to join both parts of Ireland, in 1926 and proposed the coronation of the king in the Phoenix Park as king of Ireland? The idea died with his death and is well documented in history books. Butt's extreme monarchism is also well documented. He wanted the Royal Family to have a residence in Ireland and for royal princes to be made Lord Lieutenant. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope you see this soon...

You're on a HotCat tear at the moment, which is AWESOME. Unfortunately, you caught WikiProject Essay C/C in the middle of a category migration, and you're moving essays into categories that we're deleting. Basically, any most categories had the word "Wikipedia" added, so that "Essays about Editing" became "Wikipedia Essays about Editing." I haven't had a chance to CSD the old cats yet. Because this is my fault, I'll do HotCat cleanup. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification/Categories, you'll see what categories we're using now. Thanks! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't recategorise any essays.

I was just doing my regular tidyup of the categories in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, so I added parent categories for them: all the essays went into Category:Wikipedia essays. Please do not remove the parent categories; uncategorised categories are a nuisance. If any categories are not needed, nominate them for deletion in the usual way.

BTW, it appears that you have you using AWB to manually move articles, and thereby empty the categories. That's a bad idea: Out-of-process category-emptying is frowned upon, and proposals to rename categories should be made at WP:CFD, where a consensus can be formed on the renames. This one looks uncontroversial and would have been nodded through ... and it's to your advantage to things that way, because then a bot does all the work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said "you're moving essays into categories," I meant "you're putting essays in categories." Regarding the category moves I'm doing...I created all those categories anyway, so when it was brought to my attention that a rename was in order, I thought I'd just move them all over and CSD the original names (as the creator). Why is this frowned upon? I'm new to this kind of activity on Wikipedia, so please don't take my questions as argumentative. I'd just like to understand the process better. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested to Noraft that he change the names to add "Wikipedia". Since he created them a short time ago, I don't think it's a problem for him to simply rename them manually and ask for the old ones to be deleted. Sorry it's causing confusions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, the renaming is a good idea, and if the categs have only been used by the creator then deleting the empties is OK. Howveer, it does seem like a lot of work to do it manually, when the bots could do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Levineps' request to edit categories again

Levineps is requesting to have his sanctions dropped. Thought you may appreciate the opportunity to enlighten those who may not be familiar with this case. Auntie E. (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to edit categories again! I think I have learned from this experience and hope to be granted this privilege again--Levineps (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have given very little indication of what you have learned, and even that came only after editors pointed out that your request to be unbanned contained no indication that you had learned anything at all. Do you still think that reverting your high-speed recategorisation spree was "vandalism"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I need to do to convince you, but I am doing my best and will continue to strive be a productive member of the community. While I disagree with the above statement you made about giving "little indication" of what I learned, I respect it and you have a right to express it. I think no matter what I do and/or say, I won't live up to what you want me to do and that's really a shame. But let's try to be productive, im a positive person. I think if you think optimistically, you be surprised sometimes what you find.--Levineps (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the events which led to your ban. So far you have addressed few of the issues raised, and are just talking in vague generalities.

I would like to believe that you are a positive person, but after a year of wreaking havoc on the category system and refusing dialogue, I'd need some stronger evidence that you managed such a rapid and miraculous transformation. Give it another few months, and don't tell me: show me that you can edit collaboratively for a sustained period. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC

I regret creating as many categories as I did, ignoring dialouges, being a bit of a punk with some of my comments, and going on the reverting war. Even if I was provoked, I shouldn't go down to such petty levels. I hope this is some substance and will satisify, if it doesn't I really dont know what I have to do.--Levineps (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's clear now. I thought we were looking at you slowly and reluctantly acknowledging your disruptiveness only when it became clear that you the ban would not be lifted without that; but your latest reply indicates that you have learnt nothing at all.

You say that you "were provoked". What actually happened was that you were repeatedly asked, politely, by several editors, to discuss your edits, and ignored all those requests ... and when those contested edits were reverted you edit-warred, alleged "vandalism", and tried obscuring the trail of how this had happened by removing warnings from your talk page.

That's not provocation, that's exhausting the great patience and courtesy extended to you by other editors.

Now, please get off my talk page, and go away and show that you can edit collaboratively for a few months, seeking consensus where here is disagreement ... and don't waste more of my time until you have a sustained track record that shows that youreally have learnt something. I will delete any further eply from you on this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions. FYI. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, may I suggest, in the interest of preventing the appearance of a clique of defensive CfD closers, that you do not complain when someone files a DRV, nor state that a DRV might be pointless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I didn't complain about the DRV being filed. I complained about the fact that it was filed without having first discussed the problem with the category closer, as required by the DRV process.
2. If stand by my "pointless" comment, since the category which the DRV creator wanted was quite properly created during the course of the DRV.

The fact that the DRV creator has not responded at at DRV doesn't help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Portals

I have been trying to find some sort of tally or record of them getting deleted - have you ever been involved - and for any particular reason? I would be interested to know what you might say about that - I notice Oldfacttory has been off for a few days (John Carter for over a month now) - and was trying to think who might have had experience in the whatfors and whyfors of such an action - my rant is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Indonesia - which may be wrong in principle as well as grammar - but I was abit gobsmacked when I encountered a 27 edit genius making the proposal SatuSuro 10:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) BTW thanks for the help in getting the libraries project pages together - it is very close to be in working order now ... SatuSuro 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Satsuro

Glad to have fixed the library project categories. I found them in the list of uncategorised categories when I was cleaning that up, and hope it's all OK.

I have had v little involvement with MFD, and so I'm not surprised that I have never seen a portal nominated for deletion before. I can see that if a portal really is no longer maintained and is becoming misleading, there might be a case for deleting it, but only as a last resort if a new maintainer(s) cannot be found. In such a situation I'd have thought that the first step would be try to stir up interest at the relevant wikiproject, and I'd only be looking at MFD if that had clearly failed after being tried persistently for quite some time. (Try using the British Army style of "volunteering" as a transitive verb: "I need 3 volunteers: you, you and you. At the double!"

I'm not going to comment at MFD, because your alert here might then be misinterpreted as canvassing, but hope my comments may be of some help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I understand - cheers SatuSuro 11:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian boarding schools CfD

FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks the headsup. I have replied at CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Walter Johnson

Hi there. I don't know if you've had a chance to take a look, but I left a question for you at Talk:Walter Johnson. Thanks. - Eureka Lott 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing to start the requested move discussion we talked about, but then I checked the talk page again. More contributors shared their opinions, and the emerging consensus appears to support moving the pages back. Do you still want to proceed with the requested move process, or would you prefer to revert the changes? - Eureka Lott 02:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better to have an RM process, so that the discussion is not just restricted to baseball fans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Postmasters General of Ireland

You are involved in "Peerage and Baronetage" so you likely know something about the people who became the Postmasters General of Ireland that I have started at User:Ww2censor/PMGI. Can you check that I am using the proper naming for the people in the listing and if you have any sources I can use I would appreciate knowing them. You might want to read the talk page for some oddities I found in the sources. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi WW2c, nice to hear from you again.

I'm not really that much into peerage stuff, but I do run into it a lot whilst working on British MPs, and slowly got a reasonable working knowledge of the naming conventions .. but I'm no expert.

I'll take a look at comment at the talk page if I see anything awry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, probably better to reply here. I took a look, and I think that the relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#In_text and at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#In_lists.

However, I think that the best way of dispalaying them is by "full form" of the title they held whilst in office. So "James John William Snodgrass, 1st Duke of Coolock" would have his article at "James Snodgrass, 1st Duke of Coolock", and that's the full form.

One glitch to be aware of is that many of these people acquired extra titles at difft points in their lives, and to avoid an anachronism it's best to use the title they held at the time. So if the Duke of Coolock only acquired that title after leaving office, and was known whilst PMGI as the "42nd Baron Kimmage", then write his name as "[[James Snodgrass, 1st Duke of Coolock|James Snodgrass, 42nd Baron Kimmage]]

Does that make sense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some small title revisions based on your suggestions. The names and titles now seem to concur with holding the office. You might check it if you have any time. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just took a peek and it looks perfect. Those dudes who changed their names all the time are a right nuisance, but you done a good job on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

5 minutes! - that was fast. Again thanks. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was online and only doing some bitsy stufs, so no point in leaving you waiting for an answer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Fooians of that Ilk

I see that finally our massive argument has been decided as no consensus. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. Could we find a place, other than CfD, where, in a more open way, we could discuss all possible names for these categories. I am quite open to that. I may not reply this weekend however, as we have a weekend meeting of the Wikimedia Australia Committee. Cheers, --Bduke (Discussion) 10:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just spotted that, and intend to ask the closer to review the decision, and may take it to DRV.

If we don't get a resolution there, then I think an alternative discussion would be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do not think that taking it to DRV will be helpful. The discussion will be all about whether the closing admin followed the rules and not about what is the best solution for all these categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The CfD could have focused on a discussion on what was the best solution, but sadly some editors chose instead to deny the problem of the obscureness of the names and to raise a barrage of distracting allegations of POV. I don't see why that degree of distraction should obscure the consensus that the "old fooian" names do not meet the requirements of the naming guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in the way of being an olive branch. I am sorry you decided to respond in that way. I could respond in kind, but will not do so. This issue needs a wider and more general discussion of all the possibilities for naming these categories outside categories for deletion. CfD does not attract a lot of editors as they do not have categories on their watch list. We need to advertise on various projects to get editors to join a general discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Category:Apocalyptic folk musicians

Allow me to explain, since I seem to have raised people's hackles inadvertently. I did empty the category---removing the two bands listed there---several hours ago, while trying to sort out a number of redirects between the Neofolk, Apocalyptic folk, and Apocalyptic folk music articles. It seemed the appropriate thing to do since there was no subject article, the term has no agreed-upon definition, and some have even denied that it exists. Furthermore, since the two articles in the category were already defined as Neofolk, including them in that category, which covers the rather more vague territory of "Apocalyptic folk," seemed preferable. The reasons I gave in nominating the category for deletion are, I believe, still valid. Emptying the category may have been a mistake, but it is secondary to the substantive issues I raised. No willful deception was involved here. Honestly, this is more a matter of not dealing with categories very much, and of only (if memory serves correctly) having listed categories for deletion once before. Regards, ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RJ

Sorry if my closure notice seemed a bit growly, but I it was purely about giving editors a chance to see what's in the category. You may be right about Apocalyptic folk being too vague, or maybe not — I have no opinion either way at this point — but depopulating a category has much the same effect as deleting it, so that's a case which needs to be made at CFD, so that a consensus can be formed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems to me that the question now is, having admitted I erred, what do I do to set this to rights? I still believe that the discussion needs to occur. Repopulating the category could easily be done, if that is necessary. Or, reopening the discussion, wherein I could say that depopulating the category was an error borne of ignorance, not malice. You tell me what approach you think best. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to repopulate it, and then nominate it again if you want to.

When you open the CFD discussion, best to say what happened and that it has been fully repopulated; that way everybody knows what's happening and nobody can accuse you of being underhand. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the above (both sides). It should (if kept) actually be Category:Apocalyptic folk groups, not musicians. (The point is that it is difficult to debate the legitimacy of an empty category, as one wishes to inspect a supposed 'Apocalyptic folk musician' to see if the description is apt, particularly if one has never heard of the term or indeed of Neofolk.) I did find an individual who had been in the category some months back and was removed by Bearcat. Occuli (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Intra-Palestinian violence

BrownHairedGirl,

You began proceedings in late December to delete a category I created: [8]

Unfortunately, despite the fact that I was the creator of this page and the only one to work on it, I was not consulted during the deletion proceedings. I would consider this bad practice and I request the page be re-created and another discussion take place as I was not able to offer my opinion. If not, I would simply like to re-create it myself. Please respond on my page.

Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi BHG. I bring all my fun problems to you :) Would you consider semi-protecting this page as a persistent user (from both IP and new accounts) keeps changing one of the candidates and ignores all requests for any supporting reference, or even any evidence at all. As far as I can see from the evidence Morton is the correct candidate and have not been able to find anything to the contrary. Cheers - Galloglass 11:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Handshake regarding Category:Musicians who have served in the military

Sincerely, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi BHG. I bring all my fun problems to you :) Would you consider semi-protecting this page as a persistent user (from both IP and new accounts) keeps changing one of the candidates and ignores all requests for any supporting reference, or even any evidence at all. As far as I can see from the evidence Morton is the correct candidate and have not been able to find anything to the contrary. Cheers - Galloglass 11:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

category for discussion

thanks for being helpfull with a witty parody, closing my nomination because i didn't put enough effort into it. i understand that contributing to wikipedia is supposed to be a chore, and that it is MY duty as a wikipedian to understnad the full letter of wikipedia policy, regardless of how utterly unclear and dispersed the information is presented in the wikipedia: articals.

it seems only obvious that wikipedia is a unpayed job, and anyone that gets frustrated over the amount of work wikipedia demands from it's users that create it's contend deserves to be made such a satire of. obviously such efforts need to be made in vain, rather then helping out if one does know the ropes, because what wikipedia needs above all is elitism of the lifeless that did manage to get through and understand all the policies and rules involved in such actions as nominating categories for deletion.

i thank you for being such a helpfull admin, always ready to use her whip on any such strugling wikipedian that's only trying to help out. wikipedia truly needs more people like you.· Lygophile has spoken 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I closed the discussion because there was nothing to discuss, not because it was badly formatted.

Once you have added the {{cfd}} tag to a category, there are very simple instructions on how to proceed. If you had screwed up doing that technical stuff, I would have helped you out by fixing it ... but the reason I speedily closed the CFD nomination was that you gave no indication of what you wanted done to the category or why.

If your only comment is that you couldn't be arsed, don't expect other editors to be arsed either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Summer olympics venues

Hi Sisyph

If you think that a category is incorrectly named, please do not just create a new category and move all the articles to it. There is a process for renaming categories, at WP:CFD, whereby editors can discuss the proposed change and try to reach a consensus.

It appears that you emptied several categories relating to Summer olympics venues, and then blanked the category pages. I have opened a CFD discussion with the proposal that all changes should be reverted as an out-of-process move: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 3#Summer_olympics_venues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi BHG, sorry to not have processed correctly for this replacement. I wanted make uniform Category:Summer Olympic venues category names, as Category:Winter Olympic venues. For last years, I used my bot cause I was fed up to do it manually. If need, I can revert all. Sorry again, I will follow the discussion. --Sisyph (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Brilliant Trees

Hi BHG, came across this article and in al honesty there is nothing in it that is encyclopaedic, I was about to try and trim it but I was left with nothing accept the names of the band members and the list of their songs. Any advice, they are notable as they have charted highly in the Irish charts as far as I remember one of their albums was #1. BigDunc 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, long time no talk, and hope you're keeping well.

You're right on both counts: most of the article is unencyclopedic, but they do meet the notability criterion at WP:BAND #2.

I think theatre are two ways of dealing with this one:

1. AFD it on the grounds that while it might be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on them, this is not it.
2. reduce it to a sub-stub, with a reference to evidence of the face of their having charted, to prove notability.

However, after a lot of searches I can't find any source that either qualifies them under WP:GNG or gives evidence of them having charted. So I'm afraid that AFD looks like the only option. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Sinn Féin

Hi, BHG, you recently helped out at this article, where editors had been attempting to insert a hatnote without seeking consensus. Unfortunately, two editors - User:BigDunc and User:Domer48 have re-inserted the controversial hatnote - 1, 2. In order to avoid an edit war, and in keeping with the Arbcom Troubles ruling, I'm asking for your intervention again. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, because there is no consensus on whether to include any hatnote. There needs to be a discussion on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I'm not trying to take sides: there really does need to be an effort to reach consensus on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

It's difficult, as there is a group of editors determined to impose their view on various related articles, even though the sources don't support them. As a result I've discovered that WP:Consensus trumps WP:RS - get enough people to support a particular view, and the sources don't matter. Mooretwin (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The next time your canvassed, check the history first before you make edits like this. It clearly states on the main Sinn Féin Article here, that this article is the main History of Sinn Féin article. It was agreed that the history section of the main article was too big and should be merged with this article and the editor who is objecting to the tag accepted already that this was the main History of Sinn Féin Article. That they were a party to this discussion, and then this discussion, and then this discussion and then this discussion and they were the editor who merged the backgeound section of the main Sinn Féin Article, into the main History of Sinn Féin Article and now suggest that there was no consensus is just being plain disruptive. This editor has been warned countless times above their personal attacks, allegations and accusations. Should you not reconsider your misguided intervention? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Domer, before you denounce another editor for their conduct, take a look at your own block log. Neither of you is in any position to claim the high ground on conduct, but your block log is a lot longer than Mooretwin.

There was no "main" hatnote on the History of Sinn Féin article until it was added by you in December 2009, and promptly reverted. AFAICS, there had been no such hatnote since the article was created in early 2006. Since then, you have repeatedly re-inserted the hatnote rather than seeking consensus.

As you know perfectly well, there are two views on the history of Sinn Féin. One view is that it is a name used by a succession of parties over the last century, with numerous splits along the way, and that the current party is one of a number of successors to the pre-civil war Sinn Féin; the other view is that the current party is the rightful heir to the early one. The article History of Sinn Féin discusses both those perspectives, as does the article on Irish republican legitimatism, and the question of whether the current SF party is the "main" relating to all that history is hotly disputed on sides. Rather than posting a set of irrelevant diffs, you should be seeking a consensus on what is the best way to achieve an NPOV representation of the conflicting perspectives.

Don't reply here: discuss the issue at Talk:History of Sinn Féin, and try to reach a consensus which accommodates all the various perspectives rather than simply pushing your own. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BHG, would you be willing to facilitate a central discussion on all the disputes surrounding various SF-related articles? There is a dispute between those who want Wikipedia to reflect the POV that the current party known as SF enjoys singular continuity with the original SF, and those who consider this to be in breach of NPOV. As a consequence, for example, we have the dispute over the hatnote, disputes over lists of leaders, disputes over foundation dates, and disputes over the inclusion of early SF history in articles about SF-related parties. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)