User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 007

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

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

It's time

I've left a statement at User talk:Pastorwayne which involved your previous comments, and which you may be interested in. - jc37 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed interested: well done with your comment at User talk:Pastorwayne#It.27s_time. I hadn't spotted his reply at User talk:Pastorwayne#Ongoing_categorisation_problems. Having read it, I think it's abundantly clear that he intends to continue disruptive editing, so I have placed an immediate 48-hour block on him. Obviously, he can reply to you on his talk page, so I hope that underpins rather than undercutting your attempt at dialogue. If you disagree with the block, feel to lift it or alter the duration: I won't wheel war! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't either : )

While one one hand I wish we could have waited the 24 hours, I also think I understand the potential urgency, considering the speed of his category editing/creations (over 300 category edits in a matter of days is indeed notable). And if we consider this a continuation of the previous block (which I do), then 36 or 48 hours would seem to be the correct next step in "escalating blocks" which was advised by User:Taxman, after my previous block of the user. - jc37 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so nice about it :) ... and for keeping an eye on the case. I will be away for most about a week from saturday, so I won't be able to keep an eye on this until about 4th June ... but hopefully you'll be around to enforce if necessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my PW-watch page at test6. On a typical active day (in 'holding-back' mode) he's making about 60 cat edits with 13 or so new cats. Moreover these seem to be at random - primates, prelates, by nationality etc. (I find deleted articles disappear from one's contributions, so redlinks don't occur unless one saves a page like this.) Categories are a specialist topic - I personally think there should be a comprehension test before editors are allowed to fiddle around with cat creation + their structure. (If we look at Category:English bishops, a subcat of a by-nationality cat, we find, surprisingly, "Bishops who served or were born in England", and then this diff. Hopeless.) -- roundhouse 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fagniani

Hi, I'm sure you'll know what category she should go in. Thkx Johnbod 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - found it now. Johnbod 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and it could do ith more sources, so I have tagged it with {{moresources}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Pastorwayne indefinitely banned from category creation

See User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time for more information, and to comment if you wish. (Posting this here, because it seems all who are interested in this also watch this talk page, essentially sparing myself spamming everyone interested.)- jc37 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I have commented there, but I am wondering about procedure. Do we need to take this to WP:ANI and/or WP:CN to formalise this ban per WP:BAN? I had earlier proposed going to WP:RFC/U, but since there seems to be no-one supporting PW's actions, I wonder if that is necessary? I think, though, that we need a list of the CFDs of his categories, to iillustrate the extent of the problem. I won't be able to do that this week, but maybe next week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note at WP:AN. Also note that this is a "partial ban" when reading WP:BAN (which, unfortunately, doesn't say much on the subject). - jc37 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest the following:

Pastorwayne should not be allowed to make edits in category space.
Pastorwayne should not be allowed to add red-linked categories to articles.

My best guess at this point is that Pastorwayne is grossly incompetent in terms of being able to use Wikipedia's category system. He seems to be capable of providing referenced biographical information on articles about religion; I would prefer to see him focus his efforts on that instead. Dr. Submillimeter 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr S about the two other areas from which which should be banned (on Pastorwayne's talk page I had already suggested the ban on edits in category space). After one previous round of CfDs, PW went through a phase of creating red-linked category entries on articles, which was also disruptive, and should be banned.

After all this time, I'm still not sure whether PW is incompetent or intentionally disruptive in using categories. Having watched his work closely or a year, there are times when he does seem to understand, and uses the category system very well; other times when he seems to misunderstand some very basic points, such as not adding an an article to a both category and its parents (for example, I had long arguments with him about not splatting every Methodist bishop with Category:Christian pastors); and at other times, such as in the current dispute over the primates categories, when the problems seem to be start from a misunderstanding (or unwillingness to understand) how to handle the permutations of terminology in the subject area.

With all of these issue, whatever the underlying cause, the effect remains the same: an unwillingness to try to achieve any consensus. Even after the last six months of repeatedly asking, his replies over the last few days make it clear that still sees any attempt to discuss his work as being a form of persecution, and he doesn't understand about verifiability. All the problems in the previous paragraph could be resolved if he understood and tried to work within those basic policies. The point at which he said that "I state truth/fact in articles and cats I write/edit. But it doesn't seem to matter." was the point at which I thought that even him dragging him through more dialogue would not change anything quickly.

I do agree, though, about his articles. He has created a lot of useful start-class articles, which should be commended and encouraged (though I really do wish that he would learn how to use edit summaries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have various pages linked from here and the spreading red wounds tell their tale (particularly User:Roundhouse0/test1). I agree with all the above ... I don't know how easy it would be to monitor creation of red-linked cats and would happily settle for a cat space ban (I doubt whether anyone other than PW and respective Czech/Slovak nationalists wishes for instance to venture into Czech/Slovak issues). -- roundhouse 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have an edit in category space today by PW - this is exactly what I mean, a claim via category inclusion that all Archbishops in Ireland are Irish by nationality. Alan Harper (archbishop) for instance might be surprised to find he is Irish by nationality. (I would also query 'the outside the UK' category - Armagh is in the UK. Better an 'outside Great Britain' category.) -- roundhouse 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that note. I have blocked him again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW again

He's not happy. See User talk:Pastorwayne#Are_You_Guys_DONE.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. I hopefully addressed his concerns, and I took some time to explain a bit more fully of what others' general concerns are. I'm hoping he'll begin to understand. - jc37 11:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, tho I have my doubts, because he seem so bruised ;( But I really hope that at least he'll begin to understand that we don't want to drive him away from wikipedia. I think that there may be an experiential issue here; many of us are used to spending our working lives in environments where whatever we write may be shredded, and where we do the same for others; several times a week, I circulate some document with a request to colleagues and outside experts to try to find holes in it. If PW isn't used to that sort of critical process, the discuss-everything approach must be very hard.

I'm sure that he isn't the first editor to find this sort of collaborative editing rather difficult to get used to. I wonder if any broader solutions have been developed? --11:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD/W vandalism

Wow, that's positively nasty. Sorry I wasn't around this weekend for such issues. I fully concur with your block on Mais Oui ^*; other than that, we may want to consider protecting the CFD/W page. I should note that MO has also been canvassing on a dozen or so editor talk pages.

* actually I had been meaning to nom you for adminship one of these days, but I should have known that someone would have beaten me to that already

With respect to secularism, that is indeed a misunderstanding; since the section header for that CFD was "category:secularism", I interpreted that as the scope of the CFD as well. I see it has already been restored.

Happy editing! Let's go egrem some stuff :) >Radiant< 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Time_to_protect_this_page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland parliament constituencies - help with moves

Could you help me to move the following pages, as I'm unable to do it myself due to the redirects

I don't believe that any of those changes would be controversial. The current names are inaccurate, counties are only added as prefixes or suffixes when the constituency is identified by a compass point e.g. South Antrim, West Down. Furthermore, Bannside is a compound noun i.e. it is not two words. Additionally google [1] [2] shows up the references as I have described, not the inaccurate ones [3] [4] Thanks, Valenciano 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Please check that all the redirects are OK, I think I caught all the double redirects, but it'd be good to have another check, and I gotta run. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La versus Lc

Hi there. I was reading through some recent DRVs, and I noticed Category:Flags of Nepal had the deletion discussion pages listed. I tracked the problem down to use of the 'la' template instead of the 'lc' template. I think you used the 'la' template with this edit. I changed it with this edit. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the transcluding pages still show up in the category, but they should clear as the job queue is dealt with at the Wikipedia servers. Carcharoth 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was clumsy of me :( Thanks for spotting it, and for fixing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hume of Berwick (again)

Hi BHG. I'm sorry that you're needed again at this dispute. David Lauder has just reverted everything on the expiry of the cooling off period, without agreeing this with all of us on the talk page. I'm sorry to waste your time with this, but I hope that you might be able to get DL to work towards a compromise, where I can't. Kittybrewster had a helpful suggestion for a quick resolution to the issue, namely that a third party writes a new version of the article. I think this could work, provided DL & I both undertake to limit ourselves to, say, two rounds of comments before accepting the final version. Would you be prepared to accept this role, if David agrees? Alci12 & Choess have been suggested as possible intermediaries. Tyrenius might be another possibility. Christina Kaye 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christina

I would be happy to help if both of you agree that I am the right person to do so, but I will be away from my PC until wednesday next week, so you may wish to ask someone else if you want more prompt attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to wait for a week. Any chance you could page protect until you're back? Thanks.Christina Kaye 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to protect it at your request immediately after you have created a major revision. That request looks a bit like too much like gaming the system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with BHG's last comments. I reverted to the previous carefull summary which was as close to a neutral edit as I could manage. I am merely restating established facts (not opinions). Christina Kaye is clearly pushing what appears to be a personal issue here. I would be happy for another admin to look at the article but would ask that until then my shorter concise summary remain in situ. David Lauder 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is another edit war underway, I have protected the page again, for another 14 days. Whilst I would be ready to act as an arbitrator next week if that was acceptable to both of you, I would prefer if you could engage the help of someone with greater expertise in this area, such as Choess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single change in the 'major revision' was in David's direction in an attempt at compromise, so I'm sorry you have misinterpreted this as WP:GAME. Nevermind, you probably didn't have time to examine it in detail. I look foward to your return when I think this whole problem could be moved along more quickly if you could encourage DL to engage with the various efforts at compromise on the table. I don't think this issue needs any particular knowledge or expertise - just an understanding of how Wikipedia should deal with conflicting sources. Christina Kaye 12:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina, the purpose of protecting the page is simply to stop edit warring, not to freeze any particular revision. Anyway, I'll take another look next week. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popes

Oops. Well, changes from singular to plural and back are speedies, anyway. >Radiant< 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should have spotted that, and have now speedied Category:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd help

I just closed your nomination from May 26 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_26#By-year_subcats_of_Category:Transportation_disasters_by_year as a keep (I personally thought the nomination was a great idea, but apparently we're in the minority). I was wondering if, due to the sheer number of categories, you'd be able to go back through and de-tag them. I could just use rollback, but that's only supposed to be for vandalism. Thanks. --Kbdank71 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a perverse decision, but that happens sometimes, and I can't fault your closure :( I'll use AWB to de-tag them, though I may not complete the job until next week. BTW, nice to see you back :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. Not too bad a job with AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I started them manually, and after about 20, realized I'd be up all night doing them. As for the decision, it pained me to type "keep". So many times I close discussions thinking, "What the hell?" Like you said, though, that happens sometimes. Thanks again. --Kbdank71 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were nearly 500 subcats, and I didn't enjoy untagging them, but it didn't take long. The funny thing is that the few (if any) of "keep" voters in that discussion bothered to follow the link to a similar CfD running at the same time for Category:Natural disasters by year, which closed with a clear consensus to rename. CfD can be mighty perverse, but rogue decisions such as this are usually fixed at some later stage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne created Category:Wikipedians who listen to Glad

Pastorwayne created Category:Wikipedians who listen to Glad. This is clearly in defiance of the request that he stop creating categories. Please block him. (I also informed User:Jc37.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I saw that and hadn't decided what to do; it is a user category, so he may reckon that it doesn't count. If so, I'm inclined to regard that as a form of gaming the system, but since I'm going to be away for a few days it's best that I don't take any action, since I won't be around to explain it afterwards. I'm sure that jc37 will make a wise decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can get PW categorised as an Anglo-Saxon bishop via a chain of subtle category inclusions. Or perhaps a terrorist. I think I will at least supply to link to Glad (band). (I think it would be going much too far to do anything about this. I tend towards the 'bumbling innocent' view rather then the 'determined anarchist' one.) -- roundhouse 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with roundhouse. We can no longer assume good faith. He was told to not create categories, and he created one. He's simply testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. If no one responds now, he will find a new way to create hundreds of categories until he becomes disruptive again. A hard stand needs to be taken against this activity. Dr. Submillimeter 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded, by editing it. I suppose we could try a cfd. I did wonder if one could create a category by making a user-box. Certainly one should keep an eye on him. (Which I had stopped ... I took him off my watch list and did other things.) Obsessive category creation disorder; I suppose we need Wikipediatricians. (Google shows I am not the first to think of this.) -- roundhouse 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he has made quite a few category edits today - I looked at a few and they are exemplary. I would much prefer him not to do this though. -- roundhouse 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I left a note on his talk page. He essentially has a choice, either enter a discussion about the policies in question, and show his knowledge, or be blocked the next time he makes an edit to category space. There's no longer any middle ground. By ignoring the latest posts, in which I directly explained that ignoring posts may lead to actions based on lack of information, and may be seen as "bad faith", and further by editing categories, (though I think we can ignore the userbox one as "something different", and nearly "off-topic", I think it is notable just as Dr. Submillimeter noted above), he could very easily be seen as "gaming the system", as BHG notes above. My latest post confronts that directly. Either he's gaming the system or not. The results of his next contributions will either be: he'll answer and a postive productive discussion will hopefully start (eventually); he'll edit something else (and eventually have to enter that discussion if he ever wants to edit in category space); or, if he edits category space in any way, he'll be blocked.

I have a request, though. While I have no problem presuming good discernment from BrownHairedGirl concerning this, please don't block him today/tomorrow. For several reasons (which I'm sure you understand). As you know, I prefer to WP:AGF, but I think we're nearly down to the last paragraph of that page in regards to pastorwayne. What he does today/tomorrow may very likely frame his future editing with Wikipedia. - jc37 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He responded, and then proceeded to edit an article (ignoring my follow-up question), which led to him adding the article to a category. My response is on his talk page. He is now blocked for one week. To say that this is all rather sad is an understatement. I have to say (again), you have to agree that I've tried rather sincerely to provide him with every opportunity to learn and thus to get out of this situation. It just saddens me. My next step (probably tomorrow) is a post to WP:CN (probably cross-posted to WP:AN). You're welcome to make the post(s) if you would like. Perhaps he'll listen to arbitration, and won't need to be indef blocked... At this point, I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath. - jc37 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on all this is that PW knows he is right and does not understand how the community can hobble him from imparting his knowledge. He thinks it is very few individuals who are individually getting at him personally which does not make them right. What he does not understand is that this is not so much a question of right vs wrong (as I said, he knows he is right) but of WikiUsefulness of categories. What he has been doing is disruptive because it is excessive sub-categorising and sometimes failure to understand the consequences of the sub-trees that he has created (the best example is the anglo-saxon Archbishop Sentamu). He doesn't understand that a category with only two fellows in it is not helpful because he believes more will be added. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is thus. His edits in Namespace:category are prolific, wide-ranging and fundamentally flawed, affecting whole forests of category trees and introducing errors (via incorrect category inclusions) to tens of thousands of articles. As KB says PW is convinced that he is right, that he understands and 'we' don't. So I would like him to be banned from all edits in Namespace:category (as this is easy to monitor).

I personally have no wish to restrain him in any way from edits other than in Namespace:category; in particular I see no problem with him placing an article in a pre-existing category as this is just an article edit and has no ramifications beyond the article (and would be difficult to monitor).

I don't think he has ever been asked not to populate existing categories. He hasn't explicitly been asked not to make edits to category pages. So I am uncomfortable with the severity of the present 7-day block and any talk of permanent bans. -- roundhouse 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat (and possibly clarify), the length of one week (7 days) was due to several related 24 hour blocks, and a 48 hour block.

As for the rest, rather than answer, let me ask you - If you know, and have known for months, that others are concerned about your edits to category space, and further in the matter of a week you have been blocked several times in relation to category-editing actions (possibly exacerbated by lack of communication)...

Now, look at my attempt to concretely convey what the issues are (communication, and apparent lack of knowledge for policies/guidelines). After reading that, would you have made the June 7 category edits, without even commenting, or responding?

And, knowing all of that, and now you have just been warned that any additional edits in catgeory space may lead to a block... Would you have added that article to a category?.

So yes, at this point, I believe he was/is "gaming the system". He was at the very least "testing the boundaries". (I believe he has shown a predeliction towards this when he used the sockpuppet and IP to avoid the first block in February, Testing the limits of what was "allowed", which of course restarted his previous block.)

If we were to define this is the mildest possible terms, this is a "content dispute". And editing while in a content dispute may be considered contentious, disruptive, and if ongoing, tendentious. Which, depending on the situation, may result in a block.

Everyone, including yourself, has asked him to stop, and he's ignored nearly everything. (Note his comment about whether he agreed or not. That shows clearly that he read the post, and disagreed, and so was choosing to not respond.) I'm strongly hoping that the attempt by the reviewing admin succeeds. If not, I'll likely be requesting either an indefinite block, arbitration, or both. This has just gone on too long, and I think it's time that more of the community be involved. - jc37 10:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't have done any of the above. I would have seen months ago that I was wasting hours of my precious time on intricate work which was being ridiculed and swiftly undone and I would have stopped. It is difficult post-hocto piece together the sequence of events and comments on 7/8 June (and non-replies). I do think you were very patient for about 5 months and see that your supply thereof is now exhausted. (BHG was very patient for about 5 months too. One wonders whether Job would have reached 5 months.) -- roundhouse 14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everybody has been civil and patient. I have long expected an indefinite ban on category creation. I still do. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

all contribs made by User:Derbyborn all of which are spam. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwater Farm

(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")

I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent alert on Categories: MPs by Parliament

After the CfD closing for Category:Current British MPs, Mais oui! has tagged every single category of MPs by Parliament for speedy deletion. The CfD did not cover these categories and I am reverting this addition. If you're available, can you help? Sam Blacketer 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, thanks very much for the quick notice: you're a star! I think we have now caught them all, tho a few category navigation templates got zapped along the way, so I will check again to make sure that they are all reinstated. As you will see from User talk:Mais oui!#Your_speedy_deletion_tags_on_Categories:British_MPs, the pattern of edits and MO's history makes it clear that this was no mistake, but rather a clever act of big-scale vandalism, so I have blocked MO for a week and will take the issue to WP:ANI. I have never seen anything like this before: if MO had succeeded in this, 55 categories containing several thousand articles would have been emptied and deleted; probably about 20,000 category tags removed. I'm still astounded by the destructiveness of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for fraternity/student group pages

BrownHairedGirl: I'm afraid I've become addicted to categories recently, especially in conjunction with Fraternities and sororities; see my edit history for some proof. You created the category of Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies, which I think is a great idea. I have some questions which I would like your advice on...

I am thinking of creating further sub-cats, perhaps "fraternity chapter lists" and "fraternity member lists" (with better names, of course). What do you think? Also, I am trying to think if a page such as List of Chi Phi chapters needs both of the categories that it has: is the NIC category really necessary, or does it only really apply to the main Chi Phi page?

Thank you for paying attention to my incessant ramblings and all your hard work in the CfD pages. —Scouter Sig 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd for Pseudo-scientific fraud

Hi again, hope to change your mind on this one; my view it's got to go. Have a look at my resp to yours. Cheers again. Carlossuarez46 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Kitty Kanvassing!

This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS not just because it is delivered to a non neutral audience but mainly because the messege is not neutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!? --Vintagekits 12:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do anything about this?--Vintagekits 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I dont know why you hand out final warnings for 3RR and NPA and even for canvassing but when I continues you turn a blind eye - despite the fact that he has already had a final warning from Tyrenius for canvassing which you endorse and the fact he had he had warnings for canvassing before this!--Vintagekits 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a long weekend, and have been trying to catch up with a bundle of issues raised on my talk page. I am not ignoring this one, just trying to clear a few other things first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as admin shopping? See Tyrenius talk page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another disturbing Pastorwayne trend

In cleaning up Pastorwayne's category mess, I have encountered another technique for gaming the system by Pastorwayne. He has been creating short, unreferenced stubs on bishops that appear to be copied from external website but with the text altered to identify the person as a "primate". He then creates a category (or several categories) to contain the one individual. The article appears to be created to justify creating a category with the word "primate", not to really inform anyone.

This is very bad. The new articles are never referenced, and they misinform readers. Pastorwayne was doing this back in early May. Since he is heavily discouraged from creating categories, maybe he will not do this anymore. Still, it's something to be watched for in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some examples? I would agree that this is indeed 'very bad'. (I haven't understood his enthusiasm for 'primates'. I understood his enthusiasm for UM and pastors as he is himself both.) It is difficult to watch all his edits as he is so prolific. -- roundhouse 13:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Patriarch Torkom Manoogian of Jerusalem as an example. Dr. Submillimeter 20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that stuff may be copyvio from [5]. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Francis P. Facione. Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example: Metropolitan Constantine. Dr. Submillimeter 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't understood his enthusiasm for 'primates'." - It's a preference of title per epicopalian/anglican religion, I believe. See Primate. For use of the term (though not much of a link for this purpose), see: this TIME magazine article.

One problem is that he's presuming that anyone called a bishop or patriarch must be called a primate, which isn't necessarily true. And in several of the cases in which it may be true, at least as a synonym, it's nowhere near the most common name. (Which is also a problem with many of the extensive titles used as category names. Consider if we were to list the full titles of the Queen of England or even the Prince of Wales... - jc37 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've collected together some of PW's mostly unreferenced stubs (since March or so) at test7. There are quite a lot of them, nearly all created to provide a sparse population for a primates category. There may be more without edit comments. -- roundhouse0 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Pope, in the spirit of fairness, and in the same spirit should note that the article states that the title Primate of Italy was introduced in 1929. So perhaps PW is using the term in the sense Primate (title) rather than the generic primate (I had been assuming the latter - he never has given a clear explanation for the system). (It would be surprising if the Pope was not Primate of Something pre-1929.) It would still be 'delete' but not 'delete with mirth'. -- roundhouse0 11:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand if Category:Primates (religion) doesn't include all Popes then the whole thing is surely risible. (There is Category:Religious leaders, which does include Popes, under Holy See.) -- roundhouse0 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes of your time

Please. I am not sure what the problem is with Vintagekits but just look at what he is saying here Talk:Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray. Frankly its beyond belief, and I can only think that he is targetting this because the fellow has Arbuthnot as a third Christian name!! If this fellow is not notable then probably most others on WP arn't either! David Lauder 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "distrubing trend" - the disturbing trend of rationally discussing an issue. Get a grip of yourself. If you and your cabal acting in a more rational manner maybe they wouldnt attract this type of attention. Your cabals actions here again show that you use wiki to simply cause trouble and score points rather than ever try and be neutral and balanced.--Vintagekits 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, his is the second personal attack VK has made against me today. My contributions to WP speak for themselves. I spend a lot of time researching and sourcing and trying to make helpful contributions. Why do constructive people have to tolerate these accusations and personal attacks? David Lauder 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save us the mock outrage, its becoming tired.--Vintagekits 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote that garbage about BA/MA should really get their facts straight - I'd say that speaks for itself wouldn't you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that remark. I know several graduates who, like me, took MAs in subjects different to their first degrees. The interesting thing is that you are here making yet another personal attack on me when I have not been saying anything to you. Moreover, I am accused of being in a cabal, but as soon as VK posts something you are there supporting him against me. Can you please permit the admin to look at this without muddying the waters? David Lauder 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have this page watchlisted for other reasons, and saw you attempt to take the moral high ground when you are equally as guilty as VK in my opinion. Are you being paid to progress this pseudo-claim on Wikipedia? I mean, there must be a reason for your dogmatism and So basically what you are saying here is that governments and the host society may regard you as notable, but if a few Wikipedia editors decide otherwise thats OK. Good to know that I'm dealing with such superior people. I should think even Curzon couldn't rise to such dizzy heights and Your personal opinions on the merits of the British titles system are irrelevant and just that, personal. Your comment above is the most grossly personal sneering disgraceful comment I think I have read and shows the clearest bias possible. Let he who is without sin... John 8:7 One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances where those comments were made I would say they were fair comment. But I think we don;t need your input here. No-one mentioned you at all. I have asked an admin to look at a particular issue today not last week, last month, or whenever. Thanks. David Lauder 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me what the issue is? Questioning an articles notability!?--Vintagekits 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Instead of whinging here why dont you go to the articl and actually discuss the notability issue?--Vintagekits 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

Hi, I don't know if you've followed this, but the only guy who (apparently) cares about this page finally woke up after a couple of weeks and declared he was hurt that it should have been deleted etc. etc. I'm not sure if I can be bothered putting it up for AfD, but do you have any thoughts? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Burkem sockpuppet?

Remember User:Burkem? I think he has a new sockpuppet. See Special:Contributions/Lineage. Lineage is editing the same articles and adding some succession boxes like Burkem. Making unreferenced changes. What do you think? — ERcheck (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip-off. Looks very like Burkem/Burkem22, so I have blocked Lineage indefinitely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Lutherans

This has been recreated (cfd on Jan 1st - it's mentioned in Dr S's piece on PW). Is there some procedure? -- roundhouse0 01:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{db-repost}}. Have tagged the categ; if it's contested, it'll end up on CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'former anything' is bound to confuse - Category:Former Lutherans was again made a subcat of Category:Former Protestants (I changed it) although the 2nd person in the cat moved from Lutheran to methodist. -- roundhouse0 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNB copyvio

Please see my reply here. Greetz, Frendraught 09:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User indefinitely blocked

Just one question: Was this a result of an action he took, or his single response on his talk page, or something else? - jc37 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was due to his response to the discussion, in which he insisted that that these duplicate categories did no harm to wikipedia, and made it clear that he still had no understanding of why so many of his new categs had been deleted, or any acceptance that there was any issue at stake other than his perception of being picked on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Here's the issue: He agreed to not edit category space. So whether he understands, or not, is immaterial atm. If he had edited category-space in some way, then yes, of course, he should be blocked, as violating the terms of his last unblock. But he hasn't. And if anything, had started (somewhat stiltedly) to discuss/respond. If anything, his comments may be just more material supporting a community ban on editing in category space. Which is nearly what he has already agreed to. Even after the two weeks are up, he has to rely on consensus before making any category edits. If he violates that, then, again, blocking may be appropriate.

Based on the above, I think I would like to unblock him. But before I do, I'd like any further thoughts you may have about this. - jc37 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think it would be best for everybody if he was indefinitely blocked. He is clearly not going to be happy here, and no one is going to be happy with him. He also has too much potential to be disruptive in the future. I myself no longer trust any of the edits that he makes to any articles. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like him to swear a solemn oath (on the Bible) not to make any edits whatsoever for the indefinite future in category-space or in category-talk-space (in which he has been editing in the last few days - he's like a moth to a flame). Given the complete removal of temptation to create new categories, he might concentrate on writing fully-developed articles rather than rushing from stub to stub in the pursuit of yet more categories. Failing this I agree with Dr S and BHG. (The continuing tour of churches of the world via cfds is most educational, if somewhat exhausting and wholly confusing.) -- roundhouse0 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to jc37, the first thing is that if you do feel it best to unblock him, I won't wheel-war ... but I am serious about seeking a community ban. Yes, he did eventually agree to a self-imposed two-week hiatus from category creation (though not from categ editing), and to seek consensus thereafter; but his reply makes it clear that he actually does not accept that there is a consensus here, just a vendetta against him by a few editors. After what must by now be a hundred or more CfDs where his categs have been merged or deleted or renamed, that's a nonsensense. He replied to the questions I asked him about Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East only on the third time of asking, citing as his source an infobox on the wikipedia article Maronite Church, where it turned out that he himself had created that title when he created the infobox. All he is doing now is to try create the space where he can claim that there is no consensus, and that when the two weeks is up and the heat is off he can get back to doing what he was doing before. Given what has happened both before and after he made that promise, I can't see any reason to believe that the two week hiatus will make any difference; he is just wasting our time trying to gain breathing space. I'm all in favour of giving people chances, but PW has had dozens of chances, and he isn't taking this one seriously. I still don't really know whether he doesn't understand categories and consensus or does understand but doesn't care; but either way, the outcome of this is clear. Why spend more time trying to discuss really simple issues with someone who has for nearly a year refused every opportunity to learn how categories work?, and who still asserts that the whole problem is that he has been picked on? What do we all gain by that, especially when (as Dr S has pointed out) he has also been engaged in creating a series of dodgy and unreferenced stubs? Disruptive editing doesn't get much clearer than this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive editing doesn't get much clearer than this." - I'll agree and even call it tendentious editing. Which was the rationale I listed when blocking him for a week.

I see (and share) your concern about the following:

"Would you agree to take a self-imposed break from category editing (say for two weeks) and further agree to discuss and achieve consensus before making category edits after the break?" - User:Vassyana
"I will take a self-imposed break from category editing (for at least two weeks). I will try to discuss and achieve consensus before creating new categories after this break." - User:Pastorwayne

"try to discuss" and "creating new categories, shows that he apparently didn't understand the question, or is "gaming the system". I'll only unblock if this is clarified. - jc37 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr S has just drawn my attention to Category:Primates of Italy (with just 5 occupants, out of 220-odd in Category:Popes). -- roundhouse0 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found Category:Prime Bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, a PW creation which seems at first glance admirably named but whose only occupants are 2 unreferenced PW 1-line stubs: Robert M. Nemkovich, Franciszek Hodur. I am beginning to share Dr S's concerns with all his edits. -- roundhouse0 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, PW removed an older block notice from his talk page. My understanding is that he has no right to delete warnings from his talk page. At this point, I am tired of him acting like a jerk and then making up lies and excuses for his disruptive behavior. Just leave him blocked indefinitely or get a community ban on him. Dr. Submillimeter 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_warnings, he is allowed to remove content from his talk page, but it is frowned upon. However, in the current situation it doesn't help, so you were quite right to reinstate it: at this point, the full history of this case needs to be preserved for scrutiny by other admins.

I have no intention of unblocking him, and if anyone else unblocks him I will immediately seek a community ban; but I am concerned that another admin might not immediately understand quite how bad the situation is and how many chances he has already been given, so I have been challenging him on his evasive replies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that the indefinite block seems to me over the top. But he should be indefinitely banned from category creation. I am slightly more interested in whether his infinite stream of clergy satisfy notability criteria - which I personally am confused by. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - there was an afd on one of his predecessor-UM bishops, mainly because the notability was not initially mentioned in the article. I think most of the recent ones are actually very notable, the above 2 Robert M. Nemkovich, Franciszek Hodur being amongst the weakest ... I am supposing a case could be made for these 2 although their church (which has an article) is not a large or long-established one. -- roundhouse0 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFD

Hi there! There's some debate on WT:CFD regarding the format of the {{cfd2}} and related templates. As a regular CFD closer you might be interested as well. Happy editing, >Radiant< 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd2, cfr2, etc

It's getting worse: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Aaaargh.21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up : ) - Responded there. - jc37 09:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Help?

Hi I just clicked on your name at random from the admin list. first of all I want to thank you for your contribution to WP, I think the difference you guys make to humanity is up there with the best scientists.

anyhow I'm wondering if you can (or should) do something about a certain prolific user (User:Ultramarine). first let me declare that i'm totally biased cause i don't like his politics and through my encounters with him have grown to deslike him, also I can't throw the firt stone cause i have sometimes put my own views before whats best for wikipedia, but I do try to control myself and give up pretty quick if my contribution is rejected by others.

BUT

I'm coming to you because I think you or someone with... (cartmen voice) "authoritei" should really keep an eye on this guy and make sure he's not doing mischief. As i see it (please take a look at his extensive record yourself), he has a pattern. he selects an article starts changing it bit by bit until it pretty much reflects his own disturbed ideology "US/capitalist domination of the world is god's will for mankind" then if no one notices he'll sit back and attack newbies who stumble on to the article and try to edit out the bias. he'll revert, threaten, throw fictitous and nonfictitious wikiLaws at them till they get frustrated or scared and leave him to guard his property... (this is how i crossed paths with him as a few years ago when i tried to make my very first edit), If an article he targets is already being watched by someone who isn't a newbie, he'll just slow down his edits (he spends a significant portion of his waking life on WP, check his edits) he'll argue adnausium with the more experienced contriobutors all the while always slowly changing what is there, until they (having a life) realise they can't fight someone who is so dedicated to his crusade and eventually give up and leave him to take full control of the article.

The fact that one person could control the content of fundamentally important political articles online (that are pretty much the first exposure ALOT of kids will have to such concepts) is bad enough... that, that person is an ideological anti-social wierdo is so bad that it forces me (believe me i tried to ignore it and not to let it bother me) to take an hour to write to you so that maybe you can atleast have a look at what he does, and I don't have to feel guilty for not reporting his behavior.

thanks Bye Esmehwp 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. Dr. Submillimeter 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Dunbar

I regret that your attempts at some sort of mediation have been futile as User:Christina Kaye is back again pushing a falsehood (see again George Home, 1st Earl of Dunbar) ignoring the endless sources I have produced on the subject, sweeping aside all logical conclusions, and now cites the remarks (only) in G.E.C's Complete Peerage as "the Crown recognises/accepts" which is just untrue. The Crown has done nothing of the sort. We either have a real encyclopaedia here or we do not. POV is supposed to be outlawed on Wiki. A claim has never been successful in this matter and it is an accepted fact by every expert that the destination of the titles was not set down and because of that the titles are extinct. Many writers say 'dormant' when they mean 'extinct' and in this case it cannot be 'dormant' because there is no destination. I do not propose to enter into an edit war on this but I believe that she is pushing a POV here that does not concur with reality. I have produced pages of explanation and umpteen sources to no avail. David Lauder 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, oh dear. Lauder is so far from right here, I dispair. He simply does not read people's posts properly. He is obsessed with point scoring, careless with the truth, and completely unwilling to enter into rational argument. Furthermore he's entered into futile, disruptive arguments with a host of other editors, as I'm sure you're aware. He's constantly rude and agressive, habitually ignores WP:TALK, he rants and bludgeons his way through dicussions, when they he should seek to discuss things carefully and respectfully. He's been banned for incivility, but that doesn't seem to have taught him to behave properly. When he thinks it might help him 'win' an argument he runs to administrators - thus wasting their time as well. I think its a shame that bullies like hime are allowed to spoil the wikipedia experience for so many. Christina Kaye 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to reply to that monstrous pack of lies and smears which equates to a gigantic personal attack. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to everyone equally. My record on Wikipedia for constructiveness speaks for itself. David Lauder 07:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous and gigantic - now that is serious then!--Vintagekits 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sorry that I have been slow to respond on this one: I have to confess that I rather dread seeing this issue pop up again. Having looked at it all, it does appear to me that David Lauder is right not to give undue weight to the minority view of the fate of these titles; but but but this is not really my field. I am not familiar enough with the sources to make as thprough an assessment of their relative merits as I feel is needed, nor do I have the text of the relevant entries.

You are both very enthusiastic editors, and I really would like to find some way of helping you to settle this argument ... but I don't think that I am the best person to do help. I would strongly encourage you both to file a request for mediation: I think that a more experienced mediator than me would be helpful. Good luck! --23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-aristocracy

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.

Please see the posts on the Talk Pages for Vintagekits and One Night in hackney (see below). They are disturbing and worrying. Here is the current one on VK's page: "Hi Vintagekits. Per the administrators closing judgement on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Arbuthnot,_6th_Viscount_of_Arbuthnott you don't need to be bother with afds for the clearly non notable peers/Baronets, just redirect them to the relevant Baronetage/Peerage page. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel". David Lauder 07:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What post on my talk page? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct, it was not on your page, but here User talk:Giano II. My apologies. David Lauder 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than fair comment, especially with the Baronet articles that have no assertion of notability. According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals, so baronets are not automatically notable. For example what is Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet notable for? As stated above, people are not notable for being baronets. Also according to the link in the article he's not on the Official Roll of the Baronetage, and therefore should not be received as a Baronet, or addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document. So it seems like he's not even a proper Baronet anyway doesn't it? So why waste community time sending the article to AfD? Redirects are an editorial decision, and should sufficient source material be shown to be available at some point the redirect can always be reversed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming more and more angry by these ridiculous posts. This latest attack on editors under the heading anti-aristocracy is ridiculous and equivalent to a headline banner in a rubbish down-market British tabloid. The post was made on my page and I certainly did not regard it as Anti-aristocracy - anyone who ever made such comments would get quickly sent packing from my page. This old womanish fawning and sycophantic worship of anyone who holds a pretty low-scale British title has to stop - for the simple reason that it is stupid, antiquated and embarrassing to read. Most British baronets (and I know quite a few) would be totally mortified that anyone would think them notable - for most of them their whole ethos is appear in the papers twice once at birth and once at death. These same Baronets would regard this hero worship of them to be a middle class, social climbing habit by those with whom they would not by choice associate. The aristocracy (incidentally most baronets are not members of the aristocracy) would not regard the son or grandson of a newly titled MP, civil servant or high ranking military officer to be notable or of particular interest so why the hell should we? I suggest these editors who do think so, run along and dig up some notable personal facts and achievements on their esteemed subjects and stop insulting all other editors who disagree with them. Giano 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all the accusations on this page alone of editors going over the top I think Giano's rant probably exceeds them. There has been a small group of people running around flagging up and deliberately taking a negative part in AfDs on aristocrats, using whatever reasons they can dream up. Even when often clearly notable they claim they are not. It would be pointless denying this. I don't know anyone who "hero-worships" aristocrats (baronets, by the way, are regarded as part of the titled aristocacy, like it or not) any more than I know those who hero-worship footballers, cricketers or pop stars. I am reporting here on an admin's page notices I came across which clearly stated that because one single AfD was successful that somehow that can be taken as carte blanche to avoid using the AfD system to eliminate articles. I believe this to be wrong. Thats all. David Lauder 09:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, baronets are not notable. You should be grateful they are being given the benefit of AfD rather than being tagged with {{db-bio}}. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, Please stop insulting those with whom you do not agree. My post above was not a "rant". Now this is going to come as a horrible shock to you so sit down. Politicians and civil servants who are honoured by HM The Queen are given knighthoods, life peerages, and more rarely baronetcies and hereditary peerages. However, while HM is recognising their services The Queen is not elevating them to the ranks of the aristocracy. The aristocracy are literally born and bred. Only the holder of a peerage is a peer, even his wife (even if she is the daughter of a duke) is a commoner albeit by association (if she is highly born herself) she and her children are members of the aristocracy. Now while, sadly for them, the British aristocracy are a little more liberal and in their choice of partners than the aristocracy where I come from and elsewhere in Europe - they do not automatically admit to their ranks an ennobled politician, local councillor, or even brain surgeon - the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire, (the daughter of a peer, the widow and mother of dukes, member of the aristocracy and commoner) may invite David Blunket to dinner, but when as so often and very lamentably happens Mr Blunket is elevated to the British peerage the Duchess will not regard him as an aristocrat and neither will any of her fellow Duchesses - believe me that is a fact - whether you like it or not. Membership of the Aristocracy has no rules of membership or admittance, it is a very abstract club and its members are very selective indeed and at least a hundred years of marrying into their minor cadet branches are needed before recognition occurs. Denis Thatcher on his elevation did not become an aristocrat and his widow would be appalled at the very suggestion. Henrietta, Duchess of Bedford said in a speech a couple of years ago "I am not a member of the aristocracy though my husband and son are" - the Duchess a former deb of the year and daughter of a wealthy banker understood the rules perfectly - I suggest you too go and learn them, and stop lecturing us here until you have. Giano 10:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "insulted" anyone by making fair comment. Please stop lecturing those with whom you disagree with your opinion. We are all entitled to fair comment, not just you. And Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to everyone equally. I came to this page to speak to the administrator on her Talk Page. David Lauder 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately what you believe to be "making fair comment" is nothing but your own mistaken understanding of a fact that is obvious to almost every body else except a small clique of like minded individuals. Your beliefs and advocacy does the aristocracy and pages concerning them no good what so ever, or even those concerning the gentry. You need to be more aware of the changing and accepted social positions in your own country. Giano 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Listen folks, there seems to be a group of editors here who find it easy to take offence and also seem to cause a fair bit of offence. I don't see anything here sufficiently outrageous to require admin intervention, but i do see several people who could benefit from re-reading WP:CIVIL and WP:CHILL. If you feel that I have missed something serious here, please take the problem to WP:ANI ... but please could y'all consider the merits of a thick skin and a restrained tongue? Thanks! --22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Guidance on duplicate categories

See Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Duplicate_categories. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain I understand. I'll comment there after re-reading it a few more times : ) - jc37 12:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians

Just curious—why did you mark the category for deletion/discussion when there wasn't a section on the project page? I'm really not in the caring mood right now to defend any sort of user category, so don't take this as a plea to stop; I'd just like to know that if it is really intended for the trash bin, where the discussion is taking place, and if there is no discussion why the template was put on the category's page. (: Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 16.06.07 2327 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation. (: Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 16.06.07 2349 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page, and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians_by_political_ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit to user categories for discussion

Someone suggested that I may haver mistaken the categories involved there. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you had been right about the categories involved, it was entirely wrong to simply delete the discussions :( The appropriate step would be ask for speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless bureaucracy. Much better to close a mistaken nomination by deletion. On examination moreover I don't believe I now agree that it was a correct nomination at all, but for reasons other than those I acted upon. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bureaucracy, pointless or otherwise. It is a matter of maintaining a record of the community's discussions on the categories and allowing others to review your actions. Please do not delete any further XfDs, or I will treat it as vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of RMS

I seem to be have trouble with a sock puppet of this banned editor called Accuracy in Reporting. Can you do a checkuser on this.--Vintagekits 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am far too lowly a monkey to have checkuser powers (they are reserved for senior organ-grinders). If this case meets the criteria, please list it at WP:CHECKUSER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Would you like to Participate?

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I'm an Australian Research Student who is researching Wikipedia for my thesis. As part of this I'm interviewing many Wikipedians about their experiences and views-and I'd love to interview you (via email) if you're interested.

I notice that you've been an active member for quite a while, so I'm sure you'd have a lot of insights and experiences that would be very interesting! In addition, it's been hard to find many active women (I'm trying to get a balanced sample of interviewees) so if you're interested it'd be great :-)

All the research has been approved by the uni's ethics committee, and of course you can remain anonymous. As the interviews are by email you can take your own time to answer, so it shouldn't interfere with your day to day life too much.

If you're interested please let me know on either my talk page or by email, and I can give you the full details of the project and what it would involve.

Hope to hear from you, tamsin 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD templates

Yep, the old version does look better. On an semi-related note, I'm tempted to protect all of these as high-risk templates; I believe most deletion-related templates are protected for the same reason. What is your opinion on that? >Radiant< 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I think that they are high-risk templates and that would be helpful to have them much better protected. AzaToth's recent changes were clearly very well-intentioned, but would have benefitted from being discussed first, so protection would also help avoid the unfortunate weirdness on the CfD pages which resulted from those changes as well as the obvious and necessary protection against vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. >Radiant< 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Expand_this_guideline_to_lists. Bulldog123 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK politician category renamings

Hi - I agree in principle with your proposed renamings, and it would be good to tidy the category up. However, I've been working on placing the (UK) disambiguator immediately after the party name, to mirror the article title and to make it clear that we are disambiguating the party name, not categorising UK members of a party which is active internationally. Do you think that is a useful distinction?

I also wondered if you'd seen Category:UK Liberal Unionist politicians, Category:UK Socialist Workers Party members, Category:UK Workers Revolutionary Party members and Category:UK Whig politicians, the remaining categories to use this format? Category:UK independent politicians might also need some thinking about, while Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians suffers from the same issue as the SDP politicians category. Warofdreams talk 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

BHG this category and all similar cats were deleted a few days ago. Now removal of this and similar cats was discussed three months ago and the result was a very definate KEEP. There has been no further discussion as far as I can tell yet all these cats apart from Category:Communist Wikipedians have been removed. Could you check if this removal has followed the right procedure and more importantly is it a legitimate removal? Thanks Galloglass 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galloglass, can you give me a list of all the categories involved (even if it's incomplete), and pointers to any relevant CfDs? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New_C4:_Advocacy_categories but no apparent change in policy, and some discussion at User talk:Dmcdevit#Category:Libertarian_socialist_Wikipedians.

From what I can see so far, this appears to me to be a set of out-of-process deletions, but I don't have the full picture, so it's too soon to form a clear judgment. Could you please either give me more info so that I can investigate further or list them all at WP:DRV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2007 Wikipedians by Politics I - is the original discussion. Aside from the page saying the deletion was by Dmcdevit is all I know I'm afraid. Category space is not really my thing. Galloglass 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Some categories deleted by this user (You may have to scroll down the deletion log a little, to find them),
and restored by me for WP:UCFD listing here,
and removed by another user (apparently presuming bad faith) here,
and this deletion log for the political issue ones, the political ideology ones, and for the redeletion of the others.

There was also a DRV discussion (scroll down) about the political issue subcats (but not AFAIK the political ideology sub-cats, or the misc "other" cats - Though at least the "furry" category was overturned). And for the general discussion: User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19#Your_recent_speedy_deletions. There have also been a few policy proposals intended to support the action after-the-fact, but AFAIK none are even close to consensus. - jc37 15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I have posted at User talk:Dmcdevit#Category:Libertarian_socialist_Wikipedians asking for an explanation of what speedy deletion criteria apply. Unless there is a satisfactory answer, I think that I will restore them. I really don't like the idea of an admin making their own decisions about what should be deleted outside of the agreed criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this BHG. From my point of view, its not so much the removal of these cats which are peripheral, to say the least to Wiki but the way it was done. Galloglass 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a very poor idea indeed to restore categories that you yourself think should be deleted out of some misguided sense of process. You asked for my reasoning: the reason I gave was "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose." To expand on that a bit, these categories do not help the encyclopedia. In fact, they are vehicles for POV advocacy that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and, indeed, as categories, are used to group users according to their points of view into factions. We are not here for soapboxing. Now, I deleted several dozen of these categories, and there was a DRV brought, with no prior discussion, to boot, which was strongly endorsed: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 June 4. I deleted a few more identical ones a few days later, for the same reason. I recognize I deleted more than a normal amount of pages in one go. :-) I am more than willing to personally discuss any of the particular deletions anyone disagrees with, and I have been trying to do that. Please feel free to mention any you think have a valid basis. Dmcdevit·t 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but those are reasons for use at WP:CFD or WP:UCFD, not WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion.

WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that "Reasons derived from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] ... are not part of the speedy deletion criteria". That covers WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; and WP:ENC is not even flagged as an essay, let alone a guideline.

You may regard this as "some misguided sense of process"; but I take the view that if the community wanted administrators to have broader powers to delete-on-sight, it would have given us those powers. Since you have not set out any grounds for speedy deletion rather than using WP:UCFD, I will restore them all and list them at WP:UCFD, where you can make your case for their deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please note that this is not a matter for WP:DRV, which says "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". There was no discussion of these categories, so DRV is the wrong place. --08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 different "sets" of deletions, and as such, I think the nomination should at least be broken into those three sections. I'll be happy to help. - jc37 10:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to split the nomination as you see fit! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Some were a part of this set of deletions, I think, with User:Dmcdevit merely removing some as recreations. However, since the political issue deletions were endoresed, I think that we could probably well consider these (US/canadian political issue) as "endorsable", as it were. - jc37 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I think that the same issues were raised by Picaroon9288's deletions, which was why I included them in this nomination even though Dmc had deleted them again after a subsequent restoration. However, I'll leave it ti other to decide hether hey want to reinstate them at WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself, and removed the Category:Furry Wikipedians nomination, since the listing that I restored (relisted) was prior to the WP:DRV discussion which was also dealing with the same deletion. I think relisting it again, this soon, is probably not a good idea. - jc37 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Deletions

As you noted here, User:Dmcdevit deleted several categories out of process. One you've missed is Category: Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, which he deleted. Not only did this survive a previous AfD, but this deletion was completely without due process and an improper speedy delete. I was going to list it on deletion review but I figured since you already apparently undid several of his other deletes you could undo this one as well and save me the trouble. Please respond on my talk page with whatever you decide to do. Thanks, Oren0 10:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think BHG has wheeled quite enough, for one day. Casual reverting back and forth of admin actions is actually quite damaging to the credibility of the site -- please think this over carefully. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletions are routinely listed at XfD: that is not wheel-warring. Let's run these issues through the processes set up for these purposes, and respect the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Reverting another admin's actions, en masse and without prior consultation, should never be taken lightly. You'll probably reply that you did consult Dmcdevit -- the conversation, however, appeared to consist of only one post, and looked to me to be more of a formality. Again, casual mass reversion back and forth of admin actions is very damaging to the credibility of this project. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that reversion back-and-forth is a bad idea. That's why I have run these categories through the established process; let's follow the process and abide by the outcome, rather than having these endless fractured discussions on user talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to the crux of the issue: if you agree that reverting back and forth is a bad idea, why are you doing it? As with edit wars, it takes two admins rushing to use their tools, before we have a quibble like this. You say Dmcdevit has rushed to use his admin tools, and to fix the problem, you've... rushed to use your admin tools. This is hardly the worst example I've seen -- not even close -- but I would be quite concerned if this sort of behavior became the norm for admins. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to get "technical", by redeleting my restorations of his initial speedy deletions, it would seem that Dmcdevit was actually wheel warring, per WP:WHEEL (Reading that whole page, rather than merely reading a sentence out of context was rather illuminating for me.) The discussion of it, has since been archived. - jc37 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the relevant deletion logs (and discussions, if applicable), I can't readily comment on that. If your version of events is indeed correct, then we would seem to have mass delete-mass restore-mass delete-mass restore -- far more serious and disappointing than the mass delete-mass restore I'm currently aware of. It is the responsibility of all administrators to prevent wheel wars. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let's end any dispute about this by using the process set out for controversial deletions: we can sort it all out by discussing it at WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting attention. I notice you haven't answered my question: if you agree that reverting back and forth is a bad idea, why are you doing it? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh :( Look, I haven't reverted back-and-forth, it's Dmc who has been doing that. What I have done has been to put the whole thing onto the forum where the question can be decided one way or another. Please continue the discussion there if you have a view either way on the fate of these categories; if you really think that opening an XfD on a series of contested speedies is a hanging offence, then feel free to open a complaint at WP:ANI. But please, stop sniping here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I wasn't planning to pursue this very far unless some really nasty skeletons dropped out of the closet. I've given you enough (too much?) of a hard time, already. If Dmc really has been wheeling, I'd still be interested to see the logs on that. Beyond that, I'm sure you've heard all of our points and will weigh them appropriately when/if this sort of thing comes up again. I admit I'm curious to see how the massive UCFD goes; I've commented on a few. Hope I haven't rained on your day, and thanks for the discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For evidence of Dmc's wheel-warring, see for example the deletion log for Category:Geek Wikipedians. There are many more categories with a similar history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "procedural" undeletions

I am taken aback right now. I just replied to your query politely explaining my deletions and offering to discuss any that you disagreed with individually. Your response was to refuse such discussion and unilaterally restore them all without any consensus or discussion. I consider this 1) extremely disrespectful to myself as an administrator, that you feel I can simply be reverted without even an attempt at talking it out with me first, 2) an irresponsible act of wheel warring ("Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Original emphasis.), and 3) a stunning display of wikilawyering to the harm of the project. If you don't truly disagree with a deletion, and even lean towards deleting them, restoring them for the sake of a process is simply disruption. Please revert yourself and lets talk about this, instead of just warring. Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that. Dmc is one of the easier admins to talk to and get along with. Just no reason to do what was done. You probably could've persuaded him to revert himself on at least some of those. Wheel warring was the wrong way to go. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Dmcdevit about why they had been speedy deleted, and he did not offer any evidence that any speedy deletion criteria had been applied. As per other contested speedy deletions, I have restored the categories and listed hem at WP:UCFD, which is the appropriate place for discussion on the merits of the individual categories.

I strongly disagree that I have been in any way disruptive. There is a process for speedy deletion, which has the consensus of the community: it was used in this case without any evidence that any of the relevant criteria were met. Your own views or mine on the merits of the categories are not relevant to the procedural issues here: that contested speedy deletions are listed at WP:UCFD. Let's discuss them there, in the proper forum, where other editors can have their input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you disagree with the deletions. That is why I wanted to talk. You think it is proper to reverse administrative actions en masse before discussion takes place? Please tell me which process demands that you wheel war with me? Since when is process the only concern at play here, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, anyway? You, as an administrator, ought to judge the merits of following process when the decision arises, and not blindly react like you have done, and cling to legalistic interpretations of the policies to defend such disrespectful behavior. Dmcdevit·t 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmc its a bit rich to accuse BHG of taking 'unilateral' action on this when all she has done is UNDO your 'unilateral' action..... In deleting most of these categories you went against all previous discussions on them and just removed them without any further discussion. Being a Wiki administrator you are in a position of great trust and I would suggest that you have rather breached that trust by the unilateral removal of these cats. All BHG has done is give us ALL a chance now to discuss the merits of these categories and which should go and which should stay. I rather think you should be supporting what BHG has done as now you have a chance to put your case and point out which 'specific' rules these categories break, rather than just the general reference to policy that seems to elude the rest of us so far. Galloglass 10:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing rich about contesting an act of wheel warring. And if you disagree with any of my deletions, I invite you to discuss them with me, something BrownHairedGirl apparently thinks is unnecessary before acting. Dmcdevit·t 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that we have to avoid wheel warring. If you disagree with another admin's action, fine. Talk to them. Even you think the admin violated policy, reversing them is not something we want to do. WP:WHEEL is very very clear about that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmc I posted on your page yesterday and so far you have not had the good grace to reply. Galloglass 11:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, what exactly is the problem with taking a contested speedy to WP:UCFD? We can continue the discussion there. I am at a loss to see why it is somehow preferable to have that discussion in user talk space.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic at hand is not whether these categories should be deleted or not, but whether your use of admin tools was appropriate. In that sense, your user talk page is exactly the place this should be discussed. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The main point here is about the wheel warring, not the deletions themselves. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic at hand was whether these categories were valid speedy deletions, given that they were contested. No evidence was or has been offered that they were appropriate, so there was nothing further to discuss on that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to be straightforward. Do you still think that summarily reversing all the deletions without discussion was acceptable? You never answered my question about what process you are claiming justifies such an action (as opposed to the ones that justify you listing deletions that you disagree with, and even then the first instruction at WP:DRV#Purpose is "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question.")? Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmc, I'm not going to argue this all weekend, but let me repeat a few points:

you offered no guidelines of policy whatsoever to justify speedy deletion. You made good arguments for [[WP:UCFD|UCfD], but no case for speedy.
The opening of WP:DRV says "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions." There was no discussion before these deletions, nor (so far as I have seen) even any tagging of the categories.
I did not "summarily reverse" all the deletions: I made procedural restorations to allow the categories to be listed at WP:UCFD. There is a difference.
There is a proposal for an applicable speedy deletion criterion, but it has not (yet) been adopted. Maybe it will achieve consensus (tho that looks unlikely for now), but at this point it has not been approved.
You had been wheel-warring over these categories, see for example the deletion log for Category:Geek Wikipedians. There are many more categories with a similar history.
The categories are all now listed at WP:UCFD. Please join in those discussions rather than arguing against the the use of wikipedia's deletion process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take that sentence on DRV out of context; speedy deletions are routinely discussed there, and in fact, I linked you to the previous DRV discussion just before you restored all the pages. If you go on reading, you'll see "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion." You keep claiming it was "procedural" but no procedure justifies the undeletions. You didn't answer that question. You can't make up a procedure and call your summary reversals "procedural." There is absolutely no reason you have to reverse a deletion to list something you dispute, it is not needed to "allow the categories to be listed at WP:UCFD". Your accusing me of wheel warring at this point is both contrived and self-contradictory. If that is your new definition of wheel warring, then your actions certainly apply. Again, what purported "procedure" is it that tells you to reverse all deletions that you disagree with instead of discussing it first, and then listing it at DRV if that doesn't resolve it? Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. You've said your say, I've said mine, so unless you want to take it to WP:ANI, please drop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but three administrators have here asked for your reconsideration. I am not impressed by your lack of willingness to respond to the actual questions I've asked, and at this point it appears to me that you don't understand what wheel warring is, and don't understand the principle that it is best to discuss with an administrator before reversing their actions. And you are reinforcing that impression by just blowing off discussion here. Dmcdevit·t 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I only got into this when asked by other editors. I am not "blowing off discussion here"; I have already responded at great length, and you have consistently refused to discuss the cause of the problem: that you speedy deleted categories for which you can identify no applicable criteria for speedy deletion, and that you have been wheel-warring with your repeated deletions. see for example the deletion log for Category:Geek Wikipedians. There's a really simple solution to all this: don't speedy delete categories which don't meet WP:CSD, and don't wheel-war when those deletions are contested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To Dmcdevit) In looking over your talk page, one wonders how many editors it requires for your "reconsideration". And honestly, throwing accusations of WP:WHEEL back-n-forth isn't helpful. However, I only have one question for you:

Do you feel that in your responses - both to me in our previous set of discussions, and now on this talk page, and on the now concurrent WP:UCFD discussions - do you feel that in all of them, you have been assuming good faith of your fellow editors? I'm not saying you haven't, I'm asking you to clarify how you have.

This is (of course) a "good faith" request on my part. - jc37 09:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something in specific, and it sounds like you might, that would be more helpful than this question. I admit imperfection, but without knowing what you are asking about, I can't really tell you a comment that has not been made assuming good faith, and I don't know what you mean by my telling you how all of my comments have been assuming good faith. Dmcdevit·t 07:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about your beliefs and intentions past and present. What did you believe, and, what did you do and how did you act, in relation to that, both in the past, and present. - jc37 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please be nice

Guys, let's please be nice. Dmcdevit is just as much a valued editor as anyone. He simply feels that he is and has been (I presume) been acting properly as an admin in these actions. What we have is a difference of opinion about whether process (speedy or otherwise) should have been followed in this case, or if admins have free subjective authority to speedy delete as they subjectively determine. (And it seems to be digressing into an argument of "who kicked who first".) Since there is a disagreement, of course, feel free to discuss this topic, but please let's stay civil. Since he sincerely wishes to discuss the content of the categories deleted, I might suggest that he, and everyone commenting here is, obviously, welcome to comment there about the content, and for the broader forum. - jc37 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely dispute that. What "process" justifies the summary undeletion of all my recent deletions en masse without a discussion? Is that on a policy page you can quote? Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the fact that Dmcdevit's earlier category deletions of a similar type were overwhelmingly endorsed in review, I regard it as unfortunate that these were undeleted and sent to CfD. The nature of the deleted categories is material here: they were all apparently of the type Category:Wikipedians who support Canadian National Unity and the like, something we really shouldn't have in Wikipedia in the first place. Also material is the reason given for deletion: "Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion" and the ridiculous wikilawyering that followed: "note that WP:DRV is not applicable, since it is for "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions", but there was no discussion of these categories." Any administrator performing deletions would know that deletion review routinely reconsiders such deletions.

Where do we go from here? Well not being unreasonable would help. A resolution from Brown Haired Girl to refrain from this kind of action in future should be enough. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR? --Kbdank71 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to refrain from restoring deleted categories if Dmcdevit will also refrain from speedy deleting catgories which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. That seems reasonable all round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, that sounds like a threat to continue wheel warring if I make any more deletions you don't like. Dmcdevit·t 07:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no threat (and do fine the tone of your comments rather aggressive). But if I encounter speedy deletions where the admin concerned can make no claim that any of the criteria for speedy deletions, then I may restore them and list them at WP:CFD/WP:UCFD. I think it's regrettable that an admin should be so keen to delete categories without using proper procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is regrettable that an admin would be so keen to reverse other admins unilaterally and without discussion. I also find your concern with procedure oddly hypocritical with such an attitude: no process dictates summary undeletion. Rather, the deletion policy says that "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review," and Deletion Review states "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." I am mystified by your clinging to process when it is clear that it is in opposition to your own actions. Dmcdevit·t 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all keen on reversing another admin's decisions. However, I find your approach bizarre: you are determined to delete categories in clear breach of the established processes, and now you are complaining at great length about the actions of another admin dealing with your misuse of admin powers. If you are unhappy about my actions in reversing those deletions, you know how to avoid such reversals in future: don't speedy delete categories except where there are applicable speedy deletion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All unacceptable user categories should of course be summarily deleted. No need to waste time on pointless discussion. Damaging crap should be destroyed without ceremony, unmourned. I'm rather upset that you did what you did. Again I ask you not to do this. --Tony Sidaway 12:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure I'm on the right page here. Dmcdevit deletes categories without discussion, and when BrownHairGirl restores the same, also without discussion, she's the one who is wrong? Quite the double standard, no? And what's with Tony's suggestion that she stop, but everyone else be allowed to continue? Pot, meet kettle. --Kbdank71 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD comment deleted

Just a general query really BHG. In the discussion at WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process Picaroon deleted another users comments completely as offensive and a personal insult. However having read the deleted contribution carefully several times I can find no personal insult in any of it and while the language was rather strong it was within the bounds of normal debate. Could you tell me if Picaroon was entitled to remove completely this persons contribution from the discussion? Thanks. Galloglass 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a general point, see WP:TPG. On the specific case, I can take a look if you give me some links (particuarly to the deletion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the deletion: [6]. Galloglass 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The language used was indeed strong, and was directed against those who had deleted the categories, i.e. one or two identifiable users. It seems to me to be well within the bounds of WP:TPG to delete a comment such as that. I'm a strong believer in the right to criticise admins, but if someone can't do that politely (by which I mean some fairly minimal standards such as not resorting to words such as "fascist" and "evil"), then they need to take a break, and pronably a cold shower. Personally, I rarely delete that sort of comment, because I think that leaving the rudeness on view is the best sanction against the offender ... but any admin who gets rid of it has the rules on their side. Some admins concerned are indeed deleting furiously, and loudly, and (as you know) I think they are quite wrong to do so ... but calling them names is no way to resolve anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP link. Having read that I can see now why it was removed. That said I am a bit concerned over the trend of this whole debate in that a few editors seem to be imposing their views on a great many others. I think that was what has moved me from a rather agnostic view of these cats and other areas into supporting them. To be frank, if these people get their way, we'll be a laughing stock. Galloglass 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns about these out-of-process deletions, which is why I put so much energy into it (see the endless discussions above, with dmcdevit and Tony Sidaway). I am not greatly concerned about these particular categories, but I am alarmed at the precedent set by admins deleting categories on sight for subjective reasons, in the face of clear opposition. (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pages_stuck_in_bureaucratic.2C_wheel-warring_purgatory). --03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI complaint

User:Dmcdevit has lodged a (very misleading) complaint about both of us at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pages_stuck_in_bureaucratic.2C_wheel-warring_purgatory (no, I wasn't notified either). It's quite staggering: someone busy making out-of-process deletions despite repeated objections, lodges a complaint against the people who to try to use the procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the friendly notice. I wasn't aware of the discussion at all, until you let me know. I've commented there a few times now. - jc37 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-gov

(reply moved to User_talk:KuatofKDY#s-gov_broken, to keep discussion in one place). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOTREQ

BOTREQ is not a vote please do not use the support/oppose style there. its a discussion please treat it as such. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It did occur to me afterwards, but at the time of posting my concern was to write a series of quick replies to a set of requests which surprised me, given that the lack of consensus for these changes and the breaking of the templates was already under discussion elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those request are normally handled fairly simply by either ignoring them or doing what MBAA did. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Edits by User:Lineage

I am curious as to whether there are any plans to review edits made by this user (Lineage), who has recently been blocked as a "sockpuppet" (good name, I must admit) of Burkem/Burkem22. I am asking because I have noted, in the past few minutes, questionable edits with regards to Charles the Younger and certain other major figures of the early Frankish kingdoms. For example:

Gerard, Count of Auvergne is now listed as Charles' son -- but if that's the case, he married his own first cousin
Liudolf, Duke of Saxony is now listed as Charles' son -- but he was a Saxon, not a Frank
Odo I, Count of Troyes is now listed as Charles' son -- but current evidence points to him being his brother
Robert the Strong is now listed as Charles' son -- which disagrees with all other sites I have found

(All this is on just that page!) Also, I noticed that a lot of his changes appear to coincide with the erroneous changes previously made by Burkem/Burkem 22. --Narchibald84 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I feared that was the case, which was one of the reasons for the block after I was alerted to the problem: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Another_Burkem_sockpuppet.3F.
I'm afraid that I don't personally have the energy to get involved what is obviously a necessary cleanup, but you may may want to contact User:Phoe, User:Choess and User:Kittybrewster who were involved in the previous cleanup: see User:Burkem/review list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Phoe has now given up on wikipedia, but I have left messages for Choess and Kittybrewster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will help. Great name. Would somebody please create User:Lineage/review list using [7]. Please would you also put Gerard, Liudolf, Odo and Robert on a watchlist so we can be alerted when Burkem recreates himself. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think things should be cleaned up; I've prod'd one article, on an individual who does appear to have existed but is not particularly notable. Feel free to look things over. Mostly it's just been reversion. Choess 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD for Category:Armigers

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 21#Category:Armigers

I'm a bit disappointed at this deletion. In particular since it happened without anyone letting me know (since I created the category) that it was up for deletion I had no opportunity to comment, or to invite the WikiProject on Heraldry to comment. And the deletion occurred in the space of two days! In fact the category was populated only by people whose arms were actually shown on their page, so there is no question of unverifiability. Populating the category took some time and effort, too. And being armigerous is not the same as being noble. It does not seem to me that this deletion was the right thing to do, or that it was done according to a fair procedure. -- Evertype·✆ 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last deleted revision shows that a CfD notice was placed on the category on May 21, when the CfD debate was opened; the debate closed May 28 and the category was deleted on May 30. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As the closer of the debate, I think that the closure was fairly clear-cut: all four !votes supported the nominator's recommendation to delete, and the arguments seemed fairly conclusive. I take your point about people not being notified, but that's not a requirement at CfD; it's good practice, and I wish it was done more often, but I have to confess that I'm bad at it myself. If you like, you could take this to deletion review, but the only grounds that I could see being relevant to DRV would be that there is info now available which was not presented at the CfD in may. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-par parameters

Funny how I should stumble on you again. Anyway, this is irrelevant from the s-gov controversy (if I may term it so).

I see that you have protected Template:S-par, something that I agree with. However, I must now ask you to edit it, as I cannot do that myself anymore.

The thing is, four of the parameters for U.S. state and territory legislatures do not match with the formal postal abbreviations, something which I believe (and Whaleyland agrees) will confuse a lot of people. I thus request that you change Connecticut parameters to "ct" (from "cn"), Kansas parameters to "ks" (from "ka"), Kentucky parameters to "ky" (from "kt"), and Northern Marianna Islands parameters to "mp" (from "cnmi"), so that they will all match with the official abbreviations. Also, please move the insular parameter lines to their correct places so that the list can be alphabetical (by name, not by abbreviation).

Also, I would like to hear your opinion about our proposed guideline on bicameral parliaments' templates (as demonstrated in our /Guidelines draft). That is, {{s-par|country abbreviation(-subnational entity abbreviation)(-upr/lwr)}}, where upr stands for "Upper house" and lwr for "Lower house" (you add nothing if the parliament is unicameral). Waltham, The Duke of 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formal postal abbreviations changes sound sensible, but I'm not sure what you mean by "insular parameter lines". However, please can you make this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. I am very concerned that so many of these changes appear to be discussed in obscure adjuncts of user talk pages, where there will be missed by many interested users, rather than in the wikiproject which was presumably created to allow centralised discussion. Some of the changes which Whaleyland has been making have involved breaking a series of existing templates, and making some strange mergers which don't seem to have consensus and which seem to me be creating some rather complex and obscure nests of abbreviations. I applaud the long-overdue effort which you are both making in this area, but it really does need to have more people involved to explore any possible problems, which is partly why I spent some time this afternoon reversing redirects and protecting templates (see my templates contribs list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand why you would like to have a centralised discussion, but I would prefer this specific matter to end here and without unnecessary complications; as you can see, there are already plenty of issues to discuss in WT:SBS and I would not like to further burden a page where confusion may easily arise, even if there are only three people there right now (which is another reason why I do not see the need to take this there).

Just listen to my points:

The templates about U.S. state and territorial legislatures have only been created a few days ago by Whaleyland on my own suggestion, and thus they cannot have been used much, more so the no more than eight out of the hundred-and-eight parameters that have been added for said category of legislatures. And since there are so few people in the project and the templates are so new, I find it unlikely that there will be any interest in this.
It was Whaleyland's intention to put the official postal abbreviations and he has only made a few mistakes, which he has asked me to rectify; his actual quote was "I actually tried to use only official state postal abbreviations for those lists so if one of them is wrong, it should be changed. Either change the incorrect ones or point them out to me and I will fix them." and you can find it near the end of this section of my talk page (third point from the end, to be exact).
I find it unreasonable to leave the abbreviations as they are, since not only will people be confused (thinking that we are using all the official postal abbreviations and then trying to use e.g. ks for Kansas while we still have the erroneous ka as a template parameter.

By the way, what I meant by "insular parameter lines" was that some parameters for U.S. insular territories like American Samoa and the Northern Mariana islands were out of order in an otherwise alphabetical list (alphabetical by name and not by abbreviation, I repeat).

I could not agree more that discussions pertaining to SBS ought to be held in SBS's talk page, but can we just make an exception here? You are an administrator, I suppose you can act on your discretion on this simple matter. Waltham, The Duke of 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was being a pricess-fetishist :( Have just done it as requested: does it look OK to you? (here's the diff if that helps) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love nothing more than be able to say "It is perfect." However, you need to change the Northern Mariana Islands abbreviation too in order to achieve the desired effect. Sorry.

And if you could also move the American Samoa and the District of Columbia abbreviations in order to seal the correct alphabetic order of the list, it would be perfect. In any case, thank you very, very much. Waltham, The Duke of 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is much new reading material in WT:SBS, if you are interested. I am sure the extra work will make you extremely happy... *Evil grin* Waltham, The Duke of

Sorry, I missed the Marina entries, now fixed; have also move the DC entries. Do you want American Samoa under "S"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably under "American" (and District of Columbia under "Columbia"). You know, alphabetical order by name of region. It should be just fine after that. Thank you for all the trouble. Waltham, The Duke of 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just reviewed the list, and it looks like it's already there: American Samoa after Arkansas, and "Council of the District of Columbia" between "Colorado House of Representatives" and "Connecticut Senate". Is that OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to count colons now, with all these answers. "American" comes after "Arkansas"? I will only excuse you because I know what it means to be constantly absent-minded myself.

Unless you are just trying to find an excuse to keep talking to me. You don't have to, I am a friendly person, really. :D Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(wiping egg of face, desperately seeking excuses) .... umm yes, you're right. I have no idea why I looked at this twenty times and saw no problem. Senility, I fear :( Maybe we could sell some of these colons to raise funds for more brains? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what upsets you so much? (I am on the verge of counting the ":("s in your posts.) "Don't worry, be happy" is not an adage entirely devoid of wisdom. And, in any case, what I suffer from might be the same syndrome that has afflicted you: a deadly combination of selective attention and selective memory. Combine that with a permanent lack of time and... Voila! There you have it.

By the way, urm... American Samoa is still out of order. (wry smile) Waltham, The Duke of 23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template

{{Rayment-hc}} - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! good idea :) ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Religious leader categories

Now that Pastorwayne's category creation has stopped and most of the redundant primate categories have been deleted or merged into other categories, it may be worth attempting to clean up all of the categories on religious leaders, including Category:Primates (religion), Category:Bishops, Category:Church patriarchs, and Category:Christian religious leaders. Should we start a discussion at Category Talk:Christian religious leaders? Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea! I have been monitoring PW's contribs list to see if he reappears after his announced one-week absence, but no sign of him so far (after 12 days). I'm rather sad, because I continued to hope that he would return and try to work constructively, but (as so often happens in these situations) he may feel too bruised to do so. I don't like seeing people leaving any endeavour under a cloud, and much as this departure has seemed inevitable, I hoped that it could have been avoided.

Anyway, even if he does reappear, he has a lot more talking to do before being unblocked, and either way the tidyup is much needed. I'm not looking forward to being involved, because I suspect that there will be a lot of work involved, but I do agree that it should be done and I'll play my part. It won't be this week, though: I won't have time for this until next week, but plaese don't let that delay anyone else getting stuck in.

I' like to throw in now a few thoughts on what needs to be done:

I think it's worth considering a radical pruning of the pimate categories: I'm not persuaded such that we need Category:Primates (religion) at all, and it might be worth considering either removing it entirely or restricting it to a few article on the concept of primacy, especially as applied to particular religions. That's not a fixed idea, just a thought I've been tossing around in my head, but I will expand on it next week.
Category:Religious leaders seems to me to have spread its tentacles too widely. I can see its purpose in grouping people who are identified as national or trans-national religious leaders, but it seems to currently include too many local officials, which seems to me to be akin to categorising NCOs or junior army offices (such as Lieutenants) as "military leaders". I know that different religions take different views of hierarchies and of the concept of leadership, but I think that we shoukd be drawing the bar higher than it is currently drawn, probably at the level of bishops or ayatolahs rather than priests or imams.
Finally, it might be a good idea to see if people from WikiProject Religion want to join in this tidyup.

Hope that helps for now, more next week :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

MPs lists

Just in relation to your revert on the list of Tory MPs elected in 2005 - is there a form? Reading the intro, I wasn't going to remove him, but then I noticed Clare Short and Piara Khabra have been removed from the corresponding list of Labour MPs elected in 2005, so followed that precedent. Could you have a look at that? -- Gregg 00:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy keep of Category:Bonesmen

Is there a reason you decided to do a speedy keep of this category? First of all, it was not under discussion for several months. Second of all, you're a non-administrator, and not entitled to do a speedy keep. Third of all, you removed someone else's comment. Please don't do it again. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am an administrator, and thus am entitled to do a speedy closure (please check the List of administrators before telling someone they are not an admin). Secondly, the comment removed was added to a closed CfD, which shoukd mot have been done, which is why I did the proper thing and removed it. Thirdly, the category was discussed less than two months before this nomination, which is much too soon after a previous CfD closed with a clear "keep".

Finally, I note that you improperly removed my closure of the discussion. Please don't do that again; if you disagree with a closure, ask the closing admin and if the matter isn't reslved, take it to WP:DRV ... but don't just undo a closure. --19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on assuming you were not an administrator. A quick look at your logs only showed page moves in recent memory, which is unusual. A quicker look showed you are an admin. However, I am now listing the page at DRV, just so you know. The Evil Spartan 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not brought it to DRV. Closer inspection reveals this is a very prestigious and notable organization. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That indeed was the conclusion of the previous CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist ministers question

Hey, as I'm sorta new around here and don't know who to ask. I had begun doing some work on notable Methodist ministers and was trucking right along when Pastor Wayne added a header to the talk pages and basically laid claim to the pages. Is it OK if I work on those pages? Does he now "own" them? If he's been banned, can those headers be removed? Thanks, I don't know the protocol for all this. Reverend Mommy 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]

Hi Rev, yes of course it's OK for you to work on those articles! Per WP:OWN, none of us "owns" the articles. Headers like that are possibly useful for pages which don't attrcat many edotors, but if they are putting off other contributors, then they ought to be removed, even if the edior concerned was still active. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG - {{England-peer-stub}} has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The category Category:Peerage of England stubs was deliberately created as a "parent-only" type, since all the stubs within it are likely to be covered by one of its subcategories. As such, there isn't really any need for a separate template. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#.7B.7BEngland-peer-stub.7D.7D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedgefield

Thanks for the compliment; I'm now hoping to get the results complete. Also, thanks for moving the 1982 by-election article to a better title. Warofdreams talk 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Bonesmen

Hey...you might want to look here [8], as I found something a tad troubling and reverted it. Let me know if I did this in error. Thanks, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did right! Thanks :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks...all in a day's work! Nice to meet you, by the way. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-par headers

Hello again. I have noticed your unfortunate absence from the SBS's talk page. I am sure you must have a lot of things to do, but we still need your opinion on several matters, not only because you are an administrator (and can thus advise on proper procedure, do a few changes to protected templates, and help in a multitude of ways), but also because we need a third opinion (I believe I have impressed upon you countless times that there is nobody else there but me and Whaleyland right now).

I would also ask you about the headers of British parliaments you have changed. It is an interesting addition to add the years, sure, but it generates issues of consistency (no other headers have years in them), redundancy (I believe the names are clear enough, and there is always the link to the respective parliament), and appearance (it ruins the impression of a simple title). In addition, we might end up with situations like one where it would look to someone unacquainted with British history or the British political system as if there was a United Kingdom parliament from 1801 to this day and another before that. The years really do create the impression of categorisation of some sort. Are they really necessary? Waltham, The Duke of 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not trying to ignore me... Waltham, The Duke of 11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been pretty much ignoring everyone while I finished a big category sorting job. Thats now done, and I wont be around much for a few days, but I'll be back on the SBS next week. --17:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even this short notice would help—I understand that you are busy, but you must also understand that everyone and everything here are slowly upsetting my mental stability. Anyway, good luck with your other pursuits. Waltham, The Duke of 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with these people

I recently raised, on the Talk Page of Flag of Ireland, the issue that I believed the title of the page to be a falshood because Ireland is an island and the flag is not legally representative of all of it. I felt the title of the page should be titled Flag of the Irish Republic or Flag of Eire. As a result of this obvious unacceptable comment (and I cannot see it in any other light - it is the sort of thing Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney.303 always did) two articles I have worked on have been flagged up as sourceless by User:Domer48, another Irish Nationalist it seems, when I have cited exemplary sources in the references at the bottom of Patrick Maitland, 17th Earl of Lauderdale and Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford. This sort of vieled bullying really is unacceptable. Can you help? David Lauder 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by this personal attack. Please retract and adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I resent the accusation and implication in your comment. A bit of honesty would not go amiss here. While I consider our conversation here, [9], to be very amicable, I have grave differences with you one the Flag page. Two separate issues, two separate approaches. Do not misrepresent me in such a way. A bit of courtesy, respect for difference, and above all, a bit of honesty! You have indeed started to reference material, after I pointed it out to you. I even offered to help! BrownHairedGirl I apologise profusely for using your talk page as a forum, but was infuriated by the comments made. Regards --Domer48 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, I don't feel in the mood to get involved. You may want to seek mediation or to raise the issues at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its OK to just stand by and let editor abuse me in this way because you are not in the mood? If you are not in the mood maybe you should step down from your position as an admin if you are just not going to be bothered with protecting editors from these insults! I am not impressed what so ever.--Vintagekits 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith out of process speedy closure

In my opinion your speedy closure was a breach of process committed in bad faith because you did not expect to be able to prevail by argument. And this is not the first time you have cynically abused due process. Haddiscoe 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF and stop making personal attacks. I presume that you are referring to the CfD for Category:Bonesmen, which I closed for the reasons stated at the CfD: that it had been discussed less than two months peviously, and closed with a clear "keep" result. I am happy to discuss the issue, but you have now posted more than four points of personal abuse to me in a matter of minutes (see [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14] ), which is not acceptable. If you feel that this was an abuse of process, please feel free to raise a formal complaint (e.g. at WP:ANI), but do not post abuse on my talk or anywhere else. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have deleted further personal abuse from Haddiscoe which predates the reply above). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a clear keep result! There is no point complaining to other administrators about you as they are not impartial. They all have the same interest as yourself in enforcing unfettered administrator power. Haddiscoe 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there

Hello, BrownHairedGirl:

Thank you for your having reverted the deletion of the 'Feminist Wikipedian' category, and for your excellent work in stopping categories being deleted by officious schmucks out of process. I really hate this spurious stealth action; it is enough to drive one away! The official categories for deletion process is little better, considering that it is the same few hell-bent people who, following the rules of Wikipedia pages rather than Wikipedia user pages, nearly exclusively nominate and vote on everything, without the input of those who use the categories that they propose to delete, but at least it gives some sort of show of consensus, I suppose.

Best wishes,

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please do not close any more discussions in which you participated in any way

Your latest comments on my talk page confirm that it is quite right to have no confidence in your impartiality. You say that you did not participate in the debate which you closed, but what you did was to speedy close a debate on the grounds of a previous discussion on the same topic in which you did participate! Haddiscoe 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haddiscoe as BHG has already pointed out to you, she in no way participated in the discussion. Closing a discussion with a review of what has been said is in no way participating in it. BHG has given you two options to take if you wish to contest the decision she took. That is the correct way to proceed, rather than the course you are following at the moment. I rather think you should re-read what was written that apologise to Brownhairedgirl for the attacks you have made on her, which have been rather un-warranted to say the least. Galloglass 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haddiscoe, I would have been happy to discuss the decision, but you have rejected every offer I have made to you to discuss it politely, and your latest reply is abusive again. I have left a note on your talk page about action taken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit to user categories for discussion

Someone suggested that I may haver mistaken the categories involved there. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you had been right about the categories involved, it was entirely wrong to simply delete the discussions :( The appropriate step would be ask for speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless bureaucracy. Much better to close a mistaken nomination by deletion. On examination moreover I don't believe I now agree that it was a correct nomination at all, but for reasons other than those I acted upon. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bureaucracy, pointless or otherwise. It is a matter of maintaining a record of the community's discussions on the categories and allowing others to review your actions. Please do not delete any further XfDs, or I will treat it as vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]