Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
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

Disagree with above

I respectfully disagree. User:Vintagekits' history on Wikipedia has been one of abuse and contempt towards fellow editors, pro-PIRA slants and heavy reliance on dubious sources for pages re members of the IRA, Most recently he was involved in a mass spamming of bad faith PRODs of pages related to the Peerage and Queen's Honours recipients.

It is not that he does not deserve this block -- he deserves a far lengthier one. I respectfully suggest User:Newyorkbrad research Vintagekits' edit and talk page histories for evidence of this outrageous behavior.

Respectfully submitted, O'Donoghue 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting specifically on the block for a 3RR violation where it appeared there wasn't one, and I noted the situation might have more background to it. I see that at the link above, a more complete explanation of the block has been given, which will be helpful to both the blocked user and the reviewing administrator. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6 to one and half a dozen to the other. MrDarcy and I have been giving warnings (and minimal blocks on occasion) to various protagonists. Vintagekits is at least trying to apply process and guidelines and I think may have excessive zeal at times, but does have genuine concerns. He has also had considerable provocation. The latest can be seen here. Comments like O'Donoghue's above are completely biased. There are a number of editors who act in solidarity and whom MrDarcy has criticised for this and for POV attitudes, which at one stage moved to delete IRA articles in the face of evidence of notability, as well as moving to keep at least one article which had no evidence of notability. Such situations are bound to create frustration. I hope all the editors will understand that prudence is required and an objectivity in putting wikipedia's interest and policies above personal affiliations. Certainly more admin eyes watching would be very helpful. Tyrenius 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Haim Herzog

Hello there. I see you added Herzog to the People from Dublin category. Isn't this reserved for people born in the city? Number 57 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the text of the category, which just says "For people from the City of Dublin". This seems to accord with the general move away from "natives of" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries then. Keep up the good work! Number 57 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of NPA and CIVIL

One of the Baronet Project has batantly attacked me on my talk page, after what has happened over the past few days I consider this taunt and a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Can you deal with this - this is not the first such attack.--Vintagekits 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:David Lauder for this. He's been warned previously. Tyrenius 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius, thanks for dealing with this. The block appears to be well-justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reproach apprecieated

Don't worry about it - actually, thanks! My mind wanders way off the mark at times, and that was one of them. Just frustration at not been able to do more manisfesting itself. Fergananim 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of British flags

See here for the wider debate and attempts to discuss on the talk page of List of British flags. flags.net is a shop and the details of the discription of the Ulster banner has changed on that website since this debate began, this has been witnessed by a number of editors. Astrotrain is creating a edit war despite arguing against consensus. --Vintagekits 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through this several times, and I have reached a firm conclusion: that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with that discussion. Sorry folks, but most of it just seems to me to consist of a load of people determined to find something to disagree about.
The one point in the whole thing that seemed to make sense to me was the proposal to have no flag in the infobox if people couldn't agree which one ... but there seems to be a number of people who see adverse political implications in even that option. While that option has a majority support, it seems well short of a consensus, so I have no idea what a solution could be. Maybe it needs formal mediation?
However, an edit war is not acceptable, regardless of other circumstances. Several editors of List of British flags are in danger of crossing the line there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: C. S. Lewis categories

Hi, sorry about my re-addition of the categories you removed; I actually went looking for the guidelines you subsequently linked to, but I couldn't find anything. I guess I should have looked harder...or at least put my glasses on first! :)

All the best, Martin 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, there are lots of guidelines on Wikipedia and it's hard to keep track of them all :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saints

This is not canvassing. I have no idea whether you will be interested but I think you might. Nor do I know or suspect which way you might bounce. Either way, I would be interested in your arguments if you decide to opine, whether placed on the page or emailed to me. [3] - Kittybrewster 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks to me like it has been a useful discussion for that project to have: I certainly learnt a lot from reading the discussion. I think, though, that my preference would be to support the renaming, on the grounds that it's better to be tautological than ambiguous. But maybe I'm just pedant :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious tagging on talk pages

User:Vintagekits is now tagging the talk pages of individual baronets, wanting them all renamed. See his recent contributions. Phoe has told him about MOS more than once. Please can you stop him and block him. - Kittybrewster 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened discussions on a small number of articles talk pages about the naming of the articles according to MOS - I am under the impression that if an individuals given names is unique then that should be used - that is why I open that discussions - remember they are discussions not tags! if you wish to add to the discussion please feel free.--Vintagekits 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply at User talk:Vintagekits#Disruptive_tendentious_tagging. I have asked VK to centralise the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not appriciate this turn of phase "Please can you stop him and block him" - its a breach of WP:CIVIL, inflames the situation and is not helpful. regards--Vintagekits 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people make admin requests of different sorts; the job of an admin is to decide whether the requested action is justified. There is a case for regarding your actions in raising the same issue on multiple talk pages as not helpful, and inflammatory; but what I have tried to do is not attribute blame, but to help those involved find a route to a solution.
I'm glad to see that my suggestion appears to be acceptable, but frankly I really wish that you and Kittybrewster would get off each others cases. It's hard to avoid the impression some where between the two of you, there is a determination to rile each other :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well its just a pity that you did not realise the nature of the relationship three days ago before you made your block. I will go to that Baronet page now and discuss.--Vintagekits 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the previous dispute, I still think I would have made the same decision. Sadly this appears to be an example of the same sort of behaviour: raising the same issue in multiple places. The reason there was no need for an immediate block this time was that to-and-fro was not taking place on article pages.

However, the big question for me is this: your main area of editing work appears to be Northern Ireland. Is this recent bout of multiple-article-editing on baronets anything more than an attempt to provoke Kittybrewster?

I hope its not, and that my suspicion is unfounded, but ... I do suspect that this practice of pushing the same point of principle simultaneously over a batch of articles which Kittybrewster has edited is some sort of form of stalking designed to create arguments with KB without going onto her talk page. I hope it is not, but I also hope that you can see that this is what it looks like, so I'd be grateful if you could explain more about what's going on here. I don't want to be unfair, but I am struggling to find a benign explanation. Can you help me out? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt you would have made the same decision again. There was absolutely no reason to treat me worse than Kitty especially as I at least attempted to discuss the issue and as I did not breach 3RR and Kitty did twice. You will never change your opinion of that and that is fine but for this I will always hold any decision you make with a degree of suspicion. Additionally I am going to prepare a separate report on the 3RR page with regards Kittys edits that night and I will see what has to be said over there about it.
I have been editing on pages regarding Baronets for months and Kitty or his cronies dont not own these pages, I have right to edit on these pages as much anyone else. My attention of KB et al's work was really drawn by their abuse of the AfD process to suit their POV by canvassing and vote stalking - this type of behaviour is bound to drawn editors attention to scrutinise their own work more closely.--Vintagekits 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that's rather the answer I feared :( If you feel that there is disruptive activity going on, such as canvassing or vote-stalking, then the appropriate response is to raise the problem through the proper channels, such as at WP:ANI.
You do indeed have the right to edit pages, but not to engage in disruptive editing. And you have now twice set about a disruptive approach of raising the same substantive issue across multiple articles, in what was a disruptive approach; that may not have been your intention, but it was the effect. I'm glad that the latest one appears to have made its way to a centralised discussion, and I hope you'll follow that approach in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you call opening a small number of discussions in the manner that I have been advised by another admin "disruptive editing" then it just goes further to confirming my suspicions of your bias towards me, I am really trying to keep assuming good faith but your approach to me seems heavily slanted for some reason - I am not sure why. Would you call the removal of a number of notability tags without improving any articles or attempting to discuss the issue "disruptive editing"? If Kitty had attempted to discuss the tag noone of this would have happened. His reason for not wanting to discuss them and his blanket removal was that he "feared he might forget about the issue" - a pretty weak excuse. Also I trust that you have seen Kitty's latest spate of canvassing last night, another editor reported in a he has been warned again for this round of canvassing.--Vintagekits 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, I am not biased against you: having read a lot of your contributions to date, I find myself in sympathy with quite a few of your arguments, and I think you have an important case to make about the notability of baronets. However, the way you have gone about making those arguments has been disruptive, and the problem with all those notability tags was that
  • the same issue was involved in each case, and there as no benefit in spreading the discussion over numerous articles; the dispute was about not really about whether those individual articles met notability criteria, but whether that class of article met notability criteria. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good_practice, "Centralized discussion: avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums". You could have achieved that in various ways, e.g. by tagging one sample article and explaining your reasoning on that article's talk page; by raising the issue at an appropriate category talk page; or by raising it on a user talk page.
  • Having splatted the tags across multiple articles, you then engaged in an edit war, and as you know that's unacceptable.
Thank you for drawing my attention to Kittybrewster's blatant attempt at vote-stacking. I have added my support to Tyrenius's final warning on KB's talk page. However, I ought to warn both of you that two wrongs do not make a right; you would both be well-advised to get off each others cases. --10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. Tyrenius 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk

How do I amend my signature so it looks like yours? (talk) - Kittybrewster 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite easy to use it yourself: start by going to the "my preferences" page: if you are using the standard monobooks skin, there is a link at the top of each page between "my talk" and "my watchlist".
Once you are there, look for the box called "Signature", and into that paste all the text in the box below:
[[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] <small>[[User_talk:Kittybrewster|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/Kittybrewster|contribs]])</small>
Then make sure that the "Raw signature" box below it is checked, and go down to the bottom of he page and click "Save".
Voilà! Your signature will now appear in the same format as mine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatsuperguy11

Please block for vandalising by blanking Stronge Baronets. Probable sock. - Kittybrewster 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A block had already been applied, thoughI have shortened it (see User_talk:Naconkantari#User:Thatsuperguy11; but who do you think that Thatsuperguy11 was a sock of? I can request a checkuser if you can give me some evidence or grounds for suspicion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it would be wrong for me to speculate (which is all it would be) without more evidence than I have. - Kittybrewster 10:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it was not I, petty vandalism such as that is not my style and I wont be offended if a checkuser was running against me to prove it.--Vintagekits 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Callaghan

While I agree with the removal of Category:Irish people from this article your reasoning was slightly incorrect and I thought I'd better point it out for future reference. Being a Provisional Irish Republican Army member does not automatically make someone Irish, see for example Seán Mac Stíofáin and Diarmuid O'Neill. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info! I should have guessed that there were some exceptions like that, just as there had been the likes of Erskine Childers in the war of independence. It would be interesting to know whether O'Neill was actually an Irish an citizen as the child of two Irish people, he would have been entitled to claim it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know he travelled on an Irish passport but havent got a source for that.--Vintagekits 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info. It would seem rather perverse for someone in that situation to travel with a UK passport, except perhaps to make travel to the UK easier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by that but it would be no more or less "perverse" than a member of the British Army travelling on an Irish passport.--Vintagekits 10:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it seems to be that it would strange to be engaged in armed struggle to free Ireland what Republicans view as British occupation, and carry a passport which defines the holder as a subject of Her Britannic Majesty. I mean if you want "Brits out", why label yourself as one of them ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I responsed to your question at Category talk:Irish Republican Army anyway, let me know what you think please. One Night In Hackney303 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Parliamentary Barnstar
I, Sam Blacketer, award you this barnstar for your exceptional contributions to articles on the thousands of Parliamentary constituencies which return Members to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer 12:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Goodbye

Firstly, let me say how well deserved the above you. I always enjoy reading the articles you create and edit regarding the UK Parliament, and you do an excellant job. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for always being a polite and friendly user. I am leaving my Wikipedia account (reasons on my user page). A recent argument made me realise the hassle is not worth it. Also I am starting a new 9-5 job later this month so I wouldnt have the hours I have at the moment anyway. Anyway thanks again for your wonderful work and attitude. Bye. --Berks105 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cunningham

Thanks for the note - it comes from copying part of the text from the similar article on Mulvey and failing to fully correct it. I hope it makes more sense now! Warofdreams talk 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- that looks v clear to me now. I use the copy-and-edit technique a lot, and sometimes screw up much more spectacularly than that minor glitch of yours! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Required notice on CfD

I saw your comment that you would suggest requiring notice. I made such a proposal on the CfD talk page recently (as a result of this case), though in a narrower form, suggesting that notice should be required before the deletion of a well-populated category only, and got responses that generally ranged from negative to hostile. In lieu of that, I'd just like to see a real culture of notification, the way there is on FAR/FARC. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.A Musing (formerly Sam) 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the arguments in your detailed response, and for your open-mindedness in reconsidering the question since i) you had formerly voted otherwise, and ii) you saw faults in the way the review has been conducted. Re. that latter: you may be right: the circumstances under which canvassing-type activities are permissible are limited and somewhat grey, and I can certainly see that I stepped up to, if not over, the line. And "well they were doing it too!" is not, of course, a justification. I am relatively new here and this is the first time I have been involved in this sort of process -- most of my time has been spent quietly in my own little backwater -- and I have learnt much these last few days. The discussion has been at times disheartening, but an intervention like yours gives me strong hope that this really is a community within which I can work. Thanks. scribblingwoman 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very nice reply: I hadn't expected something so friendly after I had been so blunt about the procedural problems! I'm delighted that you see those procedural issues as a learning curve; we all have to start learning somewhere, and my own first encounters with the procedures were not a comfortable process (to put it mildly!). Like you, my own substantive work is mostly in a fairly quiet backwater, but I had to learn how the procedures operate in order to be able to explain that area work hen it comes up for wider scrutiny. AfD and CfD can be difficult arenas; some discussions are easy and non-controversial, some are controversial but full of coherent arguments with people clearly listening and learning, and some have become outright bearpits :( The greatest difficulty arises in cases where people either have their own strongly-held views (which they find difficulty in setting aside), or where the issues get complicated, and the open nature of the discussions makes it hard to stop the discussion rambling across related points which would be best considered separately. In a meeting, the chair or facilitator would do that job, but these discussions lack that focus.
I hope for the future, though, that you can bear in mind the procedural lessons from this issue ... and one of the really important ones is not to canvass selectively. I'm afraid that you did cross clearly that line, and that has had the unfortunate effect of prejudicing some editors against the substance of what you had to say. I hope that the closing admin discounts that : good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so too! I would hate to see the issue derailed by other considerations. Can I ask you a procedural question? Is there a set period of time for such discussions? I couldn't see anything about that in the policies. And how is the closing admin. determined? scribblingwoman 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews: "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days", so this one could be closed on or after the 23rd.
As per other such fora (e.g. CfD), I don't think that there is any selection of closing admins other than self-selection: it usually takes someone quite dedicated and thick-skinned to do these housekeeping tasks, because they attract so many complaints, so there is rarely a surfeit of admins volunteering. If you look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007_March, you'll see the group of admins currently active in closing the discussions. --16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!scribblingwoman 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also here because I appreciated your thorough and open-minded comments in the debate. You were firm and fair; and you were able to thoughtfully reconsider your earlier assertions. Very rare in my experiences with admin at Wikipedia so far. So, thanks for being here. --Susiebowers 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thoughtful, and useful contribution to this deletion review. Any chance I can persuade you to visit deletion review more often and opine more often? It could use more thoughtful regulars. Please don't expect any barnstars for doing this, participation there is pretty much a thankless task, but I believe it is an important backup safety valve on our deletion procesees. GRBerry 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments in the new CFD: I don't know if I'm going to be able to come to a decision about this cat, but thank you for your very reasoned replies. — coelacan — 05:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categories

hi BrownHairedGirl, Sorry for doubling the "women writers" with other "women writers" subcategories on some pages, giving you extra work. I'll just use the appropriate subcategory from now on.

--Susiebowers 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women diarists

Hi, this showed up on my watchlist. Good idea. I've added Frances Burney and Lucy Maud Montgomery. ElinorD (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom

BHG Do you really think this cat has sufficient "specific relation to the topic" as per WP:CATGRS#Other considerations. Surely "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered" takes precedence here. Its not clear what the category should contain? Is it current cabinet members? Or any female members of any UK cabinet? I really don't want to CFD it. Can you please reconsider and specify it in a clearer fashion. Ta. Frelke 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was clear that it contained women who are or have been members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom; sorry if it wasn't, so I have added that text to the category page. I have also specifically included "are or have been" for clarity; I thought that since it is normal practice on wikipedia not to separate current from former, that was implicit, but if it wasn't clear, I hope it now is.
I do strongly believe that it has sufficient relation to the topic. In the last hundred years, several hundred people have served in the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, but only )so far as I can see) 28 women. (I got the info from http://www.qub.ac.uk/cawp/UKhtmls/UKministers2005.htm and by checking each list of ministries since the 1920s).
WP:CATGRS says:
"A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default.
It's clear that the vast majority of British cabinet ministers have been male (and indeed continue to be male), so this category seems to me to fit that policy very neatly. Personally, I was quite surprised when I had populated the category to find just how few women there had been in the British cabinet: only 28, ever. I guess that, as they say, "not many people know that" ... and I didn't know it until today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Women

You're right, that was an overly broad nomination on my part. I've split it into smaller sections. Since I wasn't sure which section to put your response in (if any), I've commented it out for now; could you please take a look and put your remarks where you think they're most appropriate? Thanks. >Radiant< 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry ... in the course of proceedings, I changed my mind about what name format was best. I do think that you were right to try to standardise, and I hope you aren't too frustrated that I haven't accepted any of your proposals without tweaking them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but perhaps you should then nominate the other cats that don't match with your preferred standard, otherwise there still won't be any standardization. Oh by the way, why are you suggesting we should have both Category:Women in war in Asia and Category:Asian women in war? >Radiant< 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, that was clumsy of me: you're right, my suggestion at [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_26#Category:Central_Asian_women_in_war]] was dumb. Will sort that out, and nominate the other cats too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fooian fooers" template broken?

I saw you added {{Scientist type by nationality|Field=Physics|Profession=Physicists| }} to Category:Irish physicists. This appears to be broken: "Irish physicists" is now turning up anomalously in Category:Types of scientist by nationality, Category:People by occupation and nationality and Category:Physicists, which are all supercats of the category Category:Physicists by nationality that it should be in.

Can I leave you to fix this? I see it was an AWB-assisted edit, so there may be other similar problems elsewhere. Jheald 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my fault: I used the wrong template. That one is for use in the parent category, such as Category:Physicists by nationality ... and luckily my mistake was a one off, now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category parenting

Regarding your re-parenting of Category:University of Southern California athletes, I won't revert, but only suggest that you look at "Usage" on the alumnus article; non-graduates, including current students, also qualify as alumni. MisfitToys 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that! Will revert now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close

You speedy closed the wrong nomination with regard to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Category:Gay porn stars. That discussion is meant to replace the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Gay porn stars, which I withdrew, crossed out, and documented at that discussion and on the category page. Please speedy close the other nomination and re-open the newer one. Thanks.—Chidom talk  19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see reply at User talk:Chidom#CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are doing well. I have read the discussion here, on Chidom's talk page, and at CfD. I believe you closed the first AfD in error. Chidom does not have a right to unilaterally withdraw the nomination unless it has garnered no other support besides that of the nominator. The nomination had received two other voices in support of renaming. The trend of the discussion was not yet clear. An early close to the nomination silended the voices of the other people who had already spoken on behalf of renaming, and who did not get a chance to consent to the early closure. Therefore, the CfD should be re-openned and allowed to run its course. Will you kindly re-open the discussion, please? I am happy to do it if you would prefer me to. Johntex\talk 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johntex, sorry for not replying sooner, and thanks for the reminder.
As you will probably have seen, the renaming of that category became a real mess, and we ended up with no less than three CFDs in as many days, the final one with an unsatisfactorily low level of participation. I'm sure that Chidom acted with the best of intentions, but it would have better to have either chucked a revised proposal into the first nomination or taken the issue back to Category:Gay porn stars for further consideration. But we are where we are, and I hope we have all learnt a bit from it.
I made two admin decisions along the way, one of which I still feel was right, and the other of which I'm not so sure on.
The first decision, to speedy close the second CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Category:Gay porn stars) as a duplicate, still seems to me to have been the right one. If the nominator requests that a CFD be closed, it remains open until closed and the second CFD should not have been created unless and until the first CFD was closed.
Once I was clear about Chidom's intentions, I closed the first CFD, for two reasons. The first is that there had already been a further CFD created, and some editors may have already assumed "whether correctly or not) that the first one was "officially over", so I felt that letting it run would have caused confusion. The other reason was that I thought that usual practice at CFD was to allow an editor to withdraw a nomination. I couldn't find any guidance on that point, and probably should have stopped and sought guidance, but I thought that an editor could withdraw. In real-life meetings contexts I have encountered two different approaches to this problem: one is that a motion remains the property of the proposer, and the other is that once tabled it becomes the property of the meeting. I thought that XfD followed the first approach, but I accept that I may have been wrong, and will seek advice before I act on such a request again. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry.
However, once a CFD discussion is closed, whether rightly or wrongly, I do think that it would always be inappropriate to reopen it. Too many editors will have passed over it and note it as "done", and I really do think that any outcome of a reopened CFD would be misleading, even if done very promptly, which I refused to reopen the second CFD even though it had only been closed for a few hours when Chidom requested that. The same considerations apply with much greater force when a CFD has been closed for 5 days, as this one had been when you made your request.
In conclusion, I certainly don't claim that I got all this right, but what's done is done, and at this point I don't think that undoing it is an option ... but re-doing it may be an option. I'm going to be offline for the next fortnight, so won't be available for any further discussion on this in that time, but if you want to have my actions reviewed elsewhere with a view to having them reassessed, that's something which you are quite entitled to do and which I would fully support. I think think this was a messy situation, and if someone else can think of a better way o resolving it, that'd be great! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish molehills & mountains

I closed the CFD for the Irish mountain categories, and for the county-level cats, I have listed it as Category:Mountains of Sligo to Category:Mountains and hills of County Sligo, et cetera. No point in doing it twice. The Longford and Westmeath categories are included on CFD/W, even though they weren't on the nomination. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angus. That seems a very sensible thing to have done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please...

Thank you very much for speaking out in my defense when Hanzo Hattori attacked my character and motives.

I am afraid he or she is unrepetent.

I have a number of concerns arising from his nomination.

Is there any chance you will help me with some explanations. I see from your recent comments, you are someone who is willing to consider they might be wrong, and to publicly say so. This is a quality I admire, and which I wish was more common IRL, and here on the wikipedia.

I tried to address your concern about "verifiability". Perhaps Hanzo's insults and accusations have drowned out my attempt to address the concerns of the rest of you. Could you please look at the verifiability part of my defense of these categories?

Maybe you meant something other by verifiability than I thought you meant?

There are 400 plus articles about the Guantanamo captives. Are forty categories really an excessive number to classify 400 plus articles?

I have had one other category nominated for deletion, Category:Guantanamo witnesses. In that discussion User:GRBerry offered some advice to me. He said that one measure of whether a category held merit was whether the articles it contained could support an article that could stand on its own about their intersection. if the intersection of articles in a category could support an article about their nexus

Do you agree with GRBerry, that this is a reasonable test?

Thanks!

P.S. I'll look for your reply here, so the Q&A remains in one spot. Cheers! Geo Swan 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but I will have little time over the next two weeks (I'll be offline for most of it), and I won't have a chance to give you the lengthy reply I would like. So I hope you'll forgive me for being brief:
  1. GRBerry's test is a reasonable one, but it's not the only one. I mean no offence, and hope you'll take this in the good faith I intend, but your huge list of Guantanamo categories is probably the worst use of the category system I have seen: it just doesn't work at that level of detail.
  2. The category system exists primarily to facilitate navigation between related articles, and it works best when an article is categorised only by a few primary attributes: if too many categories are added to an article, they become ahuge block of confusing links, and start to hinder navigation
  3. Similarly, categories work best when they are not excessively subdivided. Splitting a categoryby ever possible attribute just creates lots of very similar and very small categories, which is the eect of your Guantanamo categories.
You obviously know a lot about Guantanamo, and I would encourage you to take this information and write a few articles on the topics you have addressed in the categories. It's a very controversial area, so you will need to reference the articles very caefully to reliable sources, and avoid original research. As articles, you work does stand a chance of surviving, but the category system is not the right tool for the job you are trying to do.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted Reversion

BrownHairedGirl, please urgently read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Assume good faith - Keep on topic- Be positive-Stay objective-Deal with facts-Bolded text,-No insults- ie why did you refer to the beating up of a Policemen in the second person as opposed to Wiki's beloved third person - hey one could even have used the first person -Don't misrepresent other people - even by association. There have been continued POV assumptions and more than one personal attack; AND the above has edited by comments AND continued biting of a newbie. Thankfully there is some sanity in the other Monarchy CfDs - I did not comment as I have no complaints. Aatomic1 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC

Aatomic1, I chose the example as a something clearly absurd: no offence was intended, and, there is no significance to the use of second person, and I'm sorry if it in any way came across as a personal attack (the only reason that I didn't follow my normal practice of using the first person is that for reasons irrelevant to this discussion, the current monarch is definitely aware of my existence).
Far from WP:BITEing a newbie, I am (AFAIK) the only participant in this CFD to have left a message on your talk page, and I have also taken the trouble to listify this category for you so that the info will not be lost on deletion1.
You are new to these discussions, and I have tried to assume that you have acted in good faith, but unfortunately your contributions have failed to address the evidence repeatedly made by others that the monarch has no power to influence executions. Instead you have repeatedly posted the same long block of text, and instead of responding to the explanations provided by others editors, you have pasted more extracts without explaining their significance ... and both on your talk page and on Category talk:People executed under the Windsors, you have written "I have made no attempt to understand". I think that's the core of the problem: the unwritten British constitution is very complicated, and words frequently do not mean what they appear to mean. (For example, for most purposes "The Crown" means in practice "The Government").
Nick Cooper was indeed a little uncivil in his reply to you, but you had been highly provocative in your response to him. As he wrote, "the monarch has no say in whether a person is executed or not".
That's the crux of the whole thing, and it has been repeatedly explained to you why "the monarch has no say in whether a person is executed or not". The fact that you continually refuse to address that point, and say "I have made no attempt to understand" means that most of your comments are irrelevant to the discussion, and exasperating to other editors. If you are not trying to understand, then there is no point in participating in the discussion ... and if you persist in refusing to address the point, don't be surprised if some editors are less than perfecly polite in their replies. If you are not trying to understand, then please stay out of the discussion.
Last night, I removed what was then your latest contribution to the CFD because it added nothing substantive to the discussion, and appeared intentionally disruptive. Others have had to refactor your comments because you did not follow talk page guidelines, and overall you have been shown remarkable patience. WP:AGF does not require editors to continue to assume good faith iin the face of evidence to the contrary, and you are in danger of crossing the line. Please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close (2)

Hello, I have not seen a reply to the message I left above. Since it is so far up the page, I fear you may have overlooked it. Therfore, I am pasting a copy here. Please let me know what you want to do about this. Thanks!

Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are doing well. I have read the discussion here, on Chidom's talk page, and at CfD. I believe you closed the first AfD in error. Chidom does not have a right to unilaterally withdraw the nomination unless it has garnered no other support besides that of the nominator. The nomination had received two other voices in support of renaming. The trend of the discussion was not yet clear. An early close to the nomination silended the voices of the other people who had already spoken on behalf of renaming, and who did not get a chance to consent to the early closure. Therefore, the CfD should be re-openned and allowed to run its course. Will you kindly re-open the discussion, please? I am happy to do it if you would prefer me to. Johntex\talk 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See reply above at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Speedy_close. Sorry it took so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:)

"My evil twin suggests "delete as oxymoron"" :) >Radiant< 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Proposed category deletion

Hi, just to let you know that I have started this [4] discussion today, if you want to contribute. Thanks, Mallanox 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, enjoy your contributions and to the CFD's, may I also suggest a visit to: this one (it's actually on the same day, so...) Later.--Keefer | Talk 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query re. protecting categories

Hello! From the above I see you already know about this (at least they notified you); there is also this. Is there any way to get a category protected? Category:Women writers has been through the wringer several times as you know, and now people are trying to nibble away at the very subcategories we were told were necessary if the parent category was not to be too cumbersome. Protection, or a grace period, or something ... ? — scribblingwoman 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

James Fall

Please improve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd on Category:People executed by Italy

Hi, I noticed your comment on the discussion about renaming that category, and I don't know if you noticed, but Category:People executed in the United States remains under its current name, despite having a speedy tag for several days. I'm not sure if it should be renamed since there is a different between a federal execution and an execution by a state, but I don't think that tag should be sitting around forever. Mister.Manticore 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[5] Michael G. Davis 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Return of the return of Pastorwayne

For your information, a couple of new categories created by Pastorwayne have landed at WP:CFD (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17). It may be worth discussing category creation with Pastorwayne again. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted. Let's see how the discussion turns out. I'd like to see what the community consensus is about these categories, before we decide that he's far afield of the category creation rules. - jc37 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well!

That went well. — scribblingwoman 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots-Irish?

Are you Scots-Irish? (I ask because of your comment at WP:CFD.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually describe myself a common-or-garden Western European mongrel; my ancestors have been evicted from enough countries to make a rather good travelogue. But there's a fairly high dose of Scots-Irish in there, which I suppose is why I do have a bit of a fascination with how Scots-Irish culture developed in the USA. There are some bizarre twists to it all, such as the way that country+western music developed out of the musical traditions of the protestant Ulster Scots, and then in the 1960s and 1970s came back across the Atlantic to become of the dominant musical genres in the predominantly Catholic Republic of Ireland. There are a lot of interesting twists to it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closure of women television writers

I'm afraid that I can't quite follow everything that has happened with women television writers. What happened with the closure exactly? Awadewit 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thought you'd want to know

User:Radiant! filed a complaint on you yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing; I don't know why people can't deal with some of these things in a direct and civil way, and at least let you know. By the way, I appreciate you letting me know you were approaching him on the issue, and wish we could have convinced the fellow to look at and discuss the issue before bringing it to Deletion Review.A Musing 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! He made some cryptic comment on his User page about canvassing. Looks like a pre-emptive strike. And yes, I also appreciate the heads up. I am surprised he wants to get into an examination of the whole thing, because his behaviour has been pretty iffy at various points.— scribblingwoman 08:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

Could you please consider reviewing your vote on category:Settlements in Israel as the reason you put forward for opposing it is an exact reflection of the reason it was nominated in the first place. It is not the category for the settlements in the specific Israeli sense. The category I think you thought you were voting to keep is Category:Israeli settlements. Oliver Han 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oliver, and also to Dugwiki. I had indeed misread things, and have changed my !vote accordingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

changed my recommendation on Category:Settlements in Israel

Hey there. Just a heads up that I changed my recommendation on Category:Settlements in Israel based on my apparent misunderstanding of what was going on. Apparently there are TWO categories with very similar names - Category:Settlements in Israel (which is the villages and towns of Israel) and Category:Israeli settlements (which is specifically the settlements in the disputed territories). I rescinded my opposition and recommended renaming one of those categories to help disambiguate them. I'm mentioning it to you since you specifically cited my opposition as your reasoning for opposing the rename at [6]. Later! Dugwiki 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Thank you for adding {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} to the following articles:

  • Elijah Embree Hoss
  • Arthur James Moore

It is a neat feature, and I plan to start using it. --Kevinkor2 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! BTW, I found a neat script which helps in converting existing category entries to use DEFAULTSORT: User:DStoykov/defaultsort.js. It creates a new "defaultsort" tab at the top of the page you are editing; when you click that tab, if all the categories are indentically indexed, it creates the DEFAULTSORT entry.
To use it, to just edit your monobook.js page and insert the following line:
importScript('User:DStoykov/defaultsort.js');
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just been using DEFAULTSORT for some of the children's author pages I've been working on - it's brilliant - thanks for doing Eleanor Farjeon, who is on my watchlist, so that I discovered the script when I looked through your talk page. I've also, thanks to your reply to Kittybrewster changed my signature to look a bit like yours. I'd also like to have the script to let people leave a message for me on my talk page that I've just used to get to this editing screen - seem to have seen something like it on other user talk pages - is it somewhere easily accesible, or can I copy it from your talk page??? Anyway, a BIG thankyou from me for making my Wiki-ing a little easier ... Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS have moved my comment to here as realised I'd duplicated the heading, so the request for the edit screenspace code may seem odd here - I'd still like to know how to get it, though! --Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought

If you don't want to escalate this into some personal dispute, stop making personal remarks about the subject. If you had begun with discussing the subject at hand rather than personalizing the issue, we wouldn't be having this dispute. >Radiant< 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, please can you tell me where exactly I made a "personal remark"? The closest I can see to that is where I questioned the appropriateness of you closing a CFD on a hotly-contested issue where it appeared to me that you had taken a stance on the issue. You may think that my concern was unfounded, but I was not making a "personal remark", just asking you to consider whether your actions were clearly impartial. I know that you think that my concern is misplaced, but that's not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't think that it was appropriate for you to close the discussion, since you had already taken a stand" appears to be personalizing the issue. I do agree that it is not a personal attack, and believe I haven't called it that. I do not actually have a "stand" on gender issues and I would appreciate it if people did not assume such. That may not have been your intent, but it is easily interpreted that way (e.g. note responses by Dweller and Iamunknown on the admin board, and response by Scribble on my talk). Asking four or five users that you know to agree with you to weigh in on the debate has the impression of making it a pile-on. I know I'm as fallible as the next dolphin and I'm quite willing to entertain and discuss the suggestion that I am wrong on any particular issue, but I would appreciate such suggestions not starting with allusions to bias. >Radiant< 13:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, I think we'll have to disagree on the substance here: it seems to me that there are plenty of discussions here where you have taken a clear view on the merits of gendered categories. At the time I initially raised this, I did so as a question, but subsequent research has tended to confirm the answer I feared. See, for example, User talk:Scribblingwoman#Writers, where you wrote "In general we tend to treat both sexes as equal, and as such we don't subdivide profession categories into their male and female counterparts (nor into black-and-white, or straight-and-gay). That is not to say we don't cover women's history in writing (because we do, of course) and a category of writers active in women's rights would be interesting."
I read that as amounting to a view that gender itself is not a relevant factor in writing, but gender activism is relevant (I hope that's a fair summary). That a perfectly legitimate perspective, and you're quite entitled to hold that view, but it is not the same as saying that you don't have a stand on categorisation-by-gender.
But let's step back a bit from the substance, back to the point of principle you raise. Are you really saying that it is never appropriate to raise with an editor the question of whether they acted impartially, and that any such suggestion should be taken as an unacceptable "personal remark"? I have had my impartiality questioned on several occasions, and I know that's it's a very uncomfortable process. But I also know that impartiality is a very important pillar of wikipedia, so I regard it as being a good thing that other editors watch out for any bias on my part. I'd far rather be challenged to re-examine my own actions (even if the challenges turn out to be wrong) than to find that I have made a poor decision because of my biases. My response to that sort of challenge is to accept it if it has merit, or say that I disagree, but that the other person is free to take the matter to review. What I don't think I have the right to do, though, is simply to delete any such criticism and deprive others of the opportunity to review my actions unless they burrow through revision histories.
Unfortunately, however, what you have done by deleting that discussion is to obstruct others from forming their own judgments. Why? If you are reasonably confident that you are right, why not simply leave to comments to stand and ask others to draw their own conclusions from your record?
In the process, you have also removed most of the record of that discussion, including the parts which show why it was important to discuss the closure with some others -- you had read some the keep !votes as being happy with a merge, and having the other editors involved showed that was mistaken. I'm sure that it was a good faith mistake, but it was only cleared up because I had invited the other keep voters to join in -- not because they were people I knew to agree with me, but because I felt that their votes had not been properly weighed.
This was not a vote-counting exercise, it was a clarification exercise. Even if I had spammed 100 editors with an invitation to "pile in" (rather than simply asking those whose votes I felt may have been misinterpreted), there was no vote-counting to be done: you could simply have closed the discussion, and stated what conclusion you had reached ... which might quite reasonably have been "sorry, I disagree with all of you, so please take the issue to DRV if you want to".
Anyway, I'm off now to DRV. Since you have reverted every attempt I have made to restore the deleted discussion, I will repost it here on my talk page as part of the record of how we got to DRV.
What a pity -- I'm sure that this could all have been much more amicable if only you didn't keep on deleting any comments you dislike :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one point. When I said "In general we..." what I stated was not my personal opinion, but noting that in my experience usually things turn out that way on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 07:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of CFD on Category:Women television writers

Following the closure of the April 11 CFD on Category:Women television writers, I was concerned that the CFD had been improperly closed as a "merge" when it sou have been "no consensus". As recommended at WP:DRV#Purpose, I therefore raised the issue on the talk page of the closing admin (Radiant!), at User talk:Radiant!#Closure of CFD on Category:Women television writers.

A useful discussion then started, which was unfortunately deleted by Radiant on this edit, because he objected to some of the issues raised. My attempts to reinstate the discussion were reverted, and all that now remains on Radiant!'s talk page is a subsequent discussion (see "How I would have closed it" which includes a review by BenAveling, whose conclusion was that "I would suggest taking it to DRV after all". Radiant did not rely to that suggestion, nor to BenAveling's later suggestion "that you IAR and reopen this one for further comment. Otherwise, as an act of good faith, you might consider taking this to DRV yourself and asking them to reweigh the arguments.".

I think it is regrettable that a closing admin has simply deleted a discussion on a closure because he didn't like some of the things said, and regrettable that he didn't take up BenAveling's suggestions. To add my disappointment, Radiant! also lodged a complaint about me at WP:ANI (see WP:ANI#Canvassing), without notifying me that such a complaint had been made, so my response was rather belated.

Anyway, since I have tried and failed to raise the matter with the closing admin, I will now bring it to deletion review. I have reproduced below the discussion which was deleted by Radiant! from his talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Radiant, I was concerned about the way that the CFD was closed, so rather than going straight to deletion review, I followed the guidance there and raised my concerns with the closing admin. I tried to do so as politely as possible, and reviewing what I wrote, I don't think that I did badly, but I'm sorry for any offence caused. I was not trying to be be snide, I don't think that I wrote was snide, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
I do understand that having one's actions criticised is an uncomfortable experience, but it's an integral part of being an admin that one does tasks which are subject to scrutiny. Sometimes that scrutiny may feel unfair or unjustified, but I do think that is important to assume good faith and not just dismiss criticism.
Since we appear to be unable to find agreement, the discussion here is part of the background which should be cited if/when the issue is taken to deletion review. Removing it because some of it is unwelcome will impede the deletion review, so I have reinstated it below. I'd be grateful if you let it stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted discussion of the closure

Hi Radiant, before going to deletion review, I wanted to raise with you your closure of the April 11 CFD on Category:Women television writers.

I have two problems with this decision:

  1. I don't think that it was appropriate for you to close the discussion, since you had already taken a stand against Category:Women writers in the relisted CFD after DRV. You voted to "delete" on 08:42, 26 March 2007, citing your concern that it was not technically feasible to categorise every woman writer. It seems to me that it is indeed workable, if sub-categorised, and I am concerned that the campaign by some edotors to delete the sub-categories may have the effect of justifying the original objection by removing the solution. Given the position that you had taken, would it not have been better for you to refrain from closing this related CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think that in counting the votes, you were wrong to conclude that there was a consensus. I count:
    • 6 "keep" !votes (from A Musing, Scribblingwoman, Keefer4, BrownHairedGirl, Awadewit and Susiebowers);
    • 4 "delete" !votes (Brandon97, Oliver Han, Abberley2, Haddiscoe)
    • 4 "merge" !votes (Dugwiki, Doczilla, Dr. Submillimeter, Vegaswikian)
    That amounts to 8 out 14 votes to merge or delete, which is 57%; it's not even a supermajority, let alone a consensus
  3. As I understand things, the instructions for closing admins are not simply to count votes, but to weigh the arguments, and on that basis some of the merge or delete !votes should have been discounted:
    • The nominator, Brandon97, voted to delete on the sole grounds that the categ contained only 2 articles; but by the time the CFD was closed, it contained at least 56.
    • Oliver Han voted to delete because "I don't know or care whether the programmes I watched tonight were written by men or women", which is fine for him personally, but Oliver's personal preferences are not part of the guidelines on categorisation.
    • I could go in through the rest of them, but none of the merge or delete votes addresses the tests set in the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS, and the keep !votes did address those tests.
    So if we discount the irrelevant !votes, there is not even a bare majority to merge/delete, and probably a consensus to keep.

May I therefore ask you to promptly reconsider your decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified the other keep !voters of this discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misstating the situation. First, most of whom you call "keep !votes" did in fact say "keep or merge", and several of whom you call "delete !votes" said "delete or merge". Second, it is false to say that Brandon's sole argument was category size, as he also called the category unnecessary. And third, I am far from involved in gender issues on Wikipedia, and a single comment on a lengthy and heavily-participated CFD is not "taking a stand". >Radiant< 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, it is two "closures" (#1; #2) and two "delete" (#1; #2) votes, by my count. I'm not saying that they all aren't defensible; I'm saying they are there. — scribblingwoman 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is in fact only one. The other issue you cite is "women television writers", which is what we're discussing here. I'm sure you don't mean that closing a debate means you can't close that debate you've just closed. >Radiant< 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scribblingwoman, if you really believe that Radiant made a mistake in assessing consensus, you know where DRV is. Insults made here are unlikely to strengthen your case. If it's worth anything, I think Radiant made the right choice in weighing the competing claims and arguments. Remember, XFD is not a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a reasonably close reader would see that the arguments posted by those who said to "keep or merge" are to keep, and, if it must be merged, to merge into women screenwriters rather than into television writers; such statements as scribblingwriter's "keep, or, if it absolutely must be merged..." I do not view those as votes for merge. My own was (regrettably) likely the least clear on this, and I set out my reasoning solely for the keep and argued accordingly. I'd suggest a closer reading of this.A Musing 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, thanks for your reply. First, I'm not concerned for now about the difference between the "delete" and "merge" votes, since both would have led to the removal of the category (that's why in my comment above, I counted them together). However, I have just reviewed the "keep !votes", and I think that you have misread them:
  • Three are straightforward "keeps", with no mention of "merge": that's 50% of the keep votes, so it's manifestly incorrect to say that "most" said "keep or merge"
  • The only one which could be reasonably read as "Keep or merge" is that by A Musing (and see A Musing's comment above on how that was a misreading)
  • the remaining two are of the form "Keep, or ifi t must be merged" ... in other words, "I want this kept, but merger would be better than deletion". It seems to me to be a serious misreading to consider those votes as advocating anything other than a keep as a first preference.
You are right that Brandon also described the category as "unnecessary", but "Unnecessary" on its own tells us nothing; it's a meaningful reason only if stated as "unnecessary because". The only explanation of why he considered it unnecessary was its underpopulation, a problem which was resolved before the CFD was closed (and which is in any case not grounds for deletion unless there is no reasonable prospect of expansion).
It's also not true to say that you have made a "single comment" on the subject: at 15:15, 16 April 2007 you !voted to delete Category:Women screenwriters (see this edit). Do you want me to check previous CFDs too?
And BenAveling, you are quite right that XFD is not a vote. On those grounds, I would argue that all of the merge/delete votes carry little weight because the failed to address the tests set out in WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

If anyone wants to add anything further on this subject, please add it here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I posted a response on Scribble's talk page. My point is not that you're wrong, because this is an issue of opinion rather than fact. My point is that the situation has quite a lot of complexities. And yes, we need cat intersect. >Radiant< 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu

Hello. Have you ever come across Andrea1952 (talk · contribs) in your editing? She seems to have an interest in matter genealogical and a liking for a book called Ancestral Root of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700 by Frederick Lewis Weis. Some of the material she's adding, to Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster for example, is rather Burkemesque. Not really my field (except that I'm always suspicious of genealogical tat), so could you have a peek at Angela's edits if you get a moment? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It does look rather like Burkem's approach, although slightly more focused and at least there is a cited source, albeit one which doesn't sound very persuasive. Like you, this is not my territory, there do seem to be quite a lot of changes which appear to be rather odd, so I think that some requests for restraint would be useful .... but I haven't the energy to them myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it's not entirely my hyperactive - and even paranoid - imaginings. I'll see if I can solicit some more opinions. Thanks for checking! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

Thanks for the note. If the category is reinstated then let me know and I'll add the other 30+ articles to the 65 or so which were already in there. Random Passer-by (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_23#Category:History_of_Kurdistan

Hi, I replied to you there. -- Cat chi? 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am violating WP:POINT or disruptively editing, please bring it an WP:ANB/I or else please WP:AGF. Namecalling and accusations deter users and should be avoided. Thank you. -- Cat chi? 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this probably will end up on WP:ANI, but I stand by what I wrote. Please do not delete the content of CFD discussions as you did in this edit. As to WP:AGF, please read it: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a query

Hi, I know you've got lots else to do and think about, but I was hoping for a reply to my query posted a couple of days ago. I've copied it below, together with the thanks - which are still very much relevant. It may have slipped your notice as I posted under DEFAULTSORT, so am reposting here under a new heading

Hi, I've just been using DEFAULTSORT for some of the children's author pages I've been working on - it's brilliant - thanks for doing Eleanor Farjeon, who is on my watchlist, so that I discovered the script when I looked through your talk page. I've also, thanks to your reply to Kittybrewster changed my signature to look a bit like yours.
I'd also like to have the script to let people leave a message for me on my talk page that I've just used to get to this editing screen - seem to have seen something like it on other user talk pages - is it somewhere easily accessible, or can I copy it from your talk page??? Anyway, a BIG thankyou from me for making my Wiki-ing a little easier ... Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in anticipation, Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, but thanks for your message -- I'm afraid that I had indeed missed the original. Glad you found the DEFAULTSORT script; it's a very useful thing.
The link to leave a comment is not a script, just a link which I copied from someone else
My own link is:
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&action=edit&section=new <span style="color:yellow">Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl)</span>]'''
... but if you want to use it on your page, it would be:
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Abbeybufo&action=edit&section=new <span style="color:yellow">Please click here to leave a new message for me (Abbeybufo)</span>]'''
... or, if you prefer not have the colouring:
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Abbeybufo&action=edit&section=new Please click here to leave a new message for me (Abbeybufo)]'''
Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I'll copy this and use it soon --Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonesmen

By your request I've split the nom. I wasn't sure which section to apply your response to, so I have commented it out so that I could ask you where to put it (or so that you can make two different comments instead, if you prefer). >Radiant< 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_005&oldid=1184814244"