User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 009

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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

User:Pastorwayne

New User (sock puppetry)

Does this list of contributions + edit summaries remind you of anyone? -- roundhouse0 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. :(

I'll check it out further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:OfficePuter has created 30+ categories since 19 Aug or so and is editing prolifically (expats, bishops, burials, considerable intersection with my test pages such as test 6, ditto test 5 etc). I suppose we could try a cfd and see if the phrase 'useful and appropriate' arises. (Did we not delete Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome or something very similar? Indeed we did: at this cfd.) -- roundhouse0 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested a checkuser: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. Would it be okay with you to await the results of that before deciding on any further steps?

I agree, though, that this does look very much like block evasion by Pastorwayne (talk · contribs). Either that, or he has been cloned :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Check-user is fine by me - I wasn't sure that the evidence was sufficient to the untrained eye. -- roundhouse0 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit more browsing of the contribs list of OfficePuter (talk · contribs), and this looks very much like Pastorwayne: same sort of articles edited, same sty;e of writing, same style of edit summaries, same style of prolific creation of categories, etc. Given the rate at which the creation of dubious categories was proceeded, I have blocked OfficePuter as a suspected sockpuppet, without waiting for the results of the checkuser request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if checkuser is negative. The naming of, say, Category:Dutch Reformed Christians and Category:Reformed Christian Americans demonstrates a mastery of ambiguity possessed by few of us; and there were/are the usual redundancies in category trees. -- roundhouse0 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Could you block user:70.104.101.220 (as an s-p of PW)? This was PW when he was blocked earlier. -- roundhouse0 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address appears to be a dynamically-allocated one from a block owned by Verizon, so I'm wary of blocking it unless it is used again. It shows no sign of having been used anonymusly since February, so I'll hold off unless it is used, because long block on IPs are frowned upon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is somebody going to examine and unravel OfficePuter's work? - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that the article edits appear to be fine, and the category ones relatively harmless (so far - but heading who knows where?). The main thing is that OfficePuter should stop creating categories. -- roundhouse0 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to just put the cats up for CfD as I can't see any that are of much value. Galloglass 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have collected together the Complete Category Edits of OfficePuter at test8, some 164 of them in 10 days with 30+ new creations. (PW was specifically requested ages ago to subcategorise Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction and OP has created Category:United Methodist bishops of the Northeastern Jurisdiction.) I leave it to others to consider cfds as my head spins with any one of these fissiparous religious groupings, never mind a raft of them. -- roundhouse0 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My head spins a bit too :( The problem is not just the fissiparious nature of these religions, but the way that Pastorwayne creates categories which bear such a bizarre relationship to others (he sems to have no idea of how to parent them, and no idea on how to avoid duplication or excessive subdivision).

Anyway, thanks for once again taking the trouble to list PW's edits, which has been very useful. I ahve already listed Cat:Presbyterian clergy and Cat:Dutch Reformed clergy; I may find a few more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would probably vote for the complete removal of all religious categories.
Checkuser seems to be a gradual process. (OP seems now to be affecting a pidgin style of English, but not here.) -- roundhouse0 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this editor - seems to have stopped roughly when OfficePuter started and resumed when OP was blocked. Burials, Ohio, Expats, church people. -- roundhouse0 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ValleyForge1979 (talk · contribs) looks like another sockpuppet of Pastorwayne (talk · contribs). Now indefinitely blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please would you create a list of sockpuppets of PastorWayne, including IP addresses? I have an idea that this problem is not going to softly and silently vanish away (yes I know that is a split infinitive). - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there's no need to politely apologise for a decision to deliberately split an infinitive :)
Anyway, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76 is a rather bizarre sockpuppet.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag appears to have been added (probably inappropriately to this discussion about PW's first sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76#User:70.104.101.220. However, I don't propose to remove it, because it serves a purpose and I don't like editing archives.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne confirmed User:OfficePuter as a likely sockpuppet of PW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bikerider3 - PW rides again? (Cooperating to a remarkable degree with user:198.30.217.220 for the period 9 Sept to date. One creates a category and the other populates it.) -- roundhouse0 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BikeRider3 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly PW. I have indef-blocked BikeRider3, and will rollback the edits. I'll now check 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs) ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

After checking the history, I have also blocked 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs). Well done for keeping an eye on all this; those test pages of yours are proving to be an v useful resource! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More PW-like edits. (A flurry of 20-odd category related edits in random religious areas in a few minutes including the 'creation' of a red-linked cat Category:Anglican priests by nationality.) -- roundhouse0 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You're quite right about the PW-style of editing; its very a close fit in all sorts of ways. I have blocked User:72.69.220.166. Indef-blocked for now, but I think I should shorten it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See also explanation to PW at User talk:Pastorwayne#More_sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check-user says 'no' to the ips, although WHOIS for one of them says it's in Ohio. I personally am pretty sure it's PW, perhaps visiting a library or a friend. I don't believe these edits are by 3 different people. (I suppose PW-clones could be springing up.) BTW, I don't know if you noticed User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying, a gripping account of 1 user logging in under different names from different places, and holding conversations with himself (allegedly). -- roundhouse0 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too think that the editing patterns and style look so uncannily like PW that I'm inclined to suspect that the answer must be something like your suggestion of PW using another connection. I don't want to discuss all the traits publicly, but PW's editing doesn't just have a particular pattern, it also has a quite distinctive style, and it would be very surprising for someone else from the same geographical area to suddenly start editing the same sort of articles in the same quirky style. Not sure, though about the Anglican priests edits, because they are trivial enough that they coukd reasonably be done by three unrelated editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be someone trying to discredit PW, of course. Internecine church rivalries in Ohio. You could try unblocking the ips and seeing what happens. (My guess would be - nothing will happen.) -- roundhouse0 09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

If he was unblocked at this point, would you still seek a community ban? (See: User talk:Pastorwayne#Re-Indefinitely blocked) I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to notify you, but it seems Vassyanna beat me to it : )

I'm tentative about it, but I'm willing to WP:AGF on the short term. However, I'm holding him tightly to his statement. So we'll see. You are, of course, free to start whatever discussion/request as you choose. - jc37 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(reposted after edit conflict) Sorry for not replying sooner, but I didn't spot from Vassanya's notice that there was an unblock request. As per my comment on PW's talk page, I'm not going to wheel-war, but I do not think that it was appropriate to unblock an editor who had been heavily engaged in sockpuppetry to evade a block.

I won't at this stage seek a community ban, but that's only because I am suffering a bit of admin burnout due to being caught up in an arbcom case between two groups of POV -warriors, and I don't have the energy for another bureaucratic process. But if someone else did the spadework, I'd still support a commnity ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been reblocked with User:Navou's assent.

That said, the user has had at least 5 hours with that IP unblocked. We may need to look for socks created in that time. - jc37 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reblock. Roundhouse0 (talk · contribs) has some monitoring pages with which zie has been mounting a regular sockpatrol, so I'll see if that can be stepped up again. Hopefully, more socks have not been created, but we;ll see! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another ip

70.106.130.112 categories, UM, Ohio, burials. -- roundhouse0 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, 70.106.130.112 (talk · contribs) shows all the ususal PW traits, but no edits for 12 days. So I have tagged the IP as a suspected sock, but not blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any recent PW-like edits unless the focus has moved to one of the myriad of earlier random forays. Prelates perhaps. This latest came from considering ValleyForge1979's edits (eg this). I haven't yet considered bikeRider's edits. Perhaps there is PW-software, wielded by teams of fast-moving acolytes. -- roundhouse0 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BikeRider turns up links to OfficePuter, User:72.69.74.23, User:70.106.130.112, User:198.30.217.220, User:72.69.74.150. None of these is a new user, so must be socks of someone. -- roundhouse0 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of that list, it seems to me that only 70.106.130.112 (talk · contribs) and the previously-identified 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs) look like PW socks. Whois and Traceroute are interesting; both those IPs belong to the same ISP as the IPs which you previously identified as socks, and all are in the same area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tracking

I am thinking of retreating somewhat from Wikipedia as it seems difficult to avoid getting bogged down in matters such as this (or in your case 'The troubles' - goodness). The PW stuff is best seen via test6. I would have thought it might be worth listing all the suspect PW-clones and ips (I have 11, 2 of which are perhaps historical) at checkuser and asking for links between any of them (and asking which are Ohio-based). The various check links on test6 such as Check 6 are to recent changes to various pages which ought to pick up suspected SPs (none recently). -- roundhouse0 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that feeling :( It's depressingly easy to find one's energies being sucked into the dramas created by the activities of a small number of disruptive editors. But there's no requirement to stay involved in the aspects of wikipedia that frustrate you, so you could just decide to stay clear of things like the PW-monitoring. You have made a great contribution there, but it'd be an awful pity if the negativity drive you away from doing all the positive stuff!

Your check pages are really valuable, but it doesn't have to be you who monitors them. Would you be happy to leave them up and have others monitors them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find a lot of energy also goes into defending pages on notability grounds. (Eg this one and Notre Dame High School (Sheffield) both keep attracting quibbles; I started the first and have done quite a bit in the other.) It just seems impossible to avoid disputes about one thing or another. By all means monitor the pages - test6 has everything. -- roundhouse0 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I would be sorry to see you go, I understand your concerns. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be that you wish to take a Wikibreak? One never knows what the future may bring : ) - jc37 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Typo: "but the existence of non-trivial coverage".[1] Tyrenius 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'd caught it as you posted, but thanks for the very prompt heads-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:72.69.220.166

Hi, I see you used an indefinite block here, would it be possible to shorten it for, say, 6 months to 1 year? I don't like the idea of having indef blocked IPs hanging around, since people move and they eventually get rotated :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have just shortened the block to one month. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Category:Afghan politicians

Actually I have provided an expanded explanation now. So if you could please place it back that would be great. Thanks. -- Behnam 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Behnam, I don't think you understood what I wrote on your talk page. If you had more reasons to offer, you could have offered them this week in the CfD you opened on Sept 17. But that CfD was closed with a consensus, so regardless of whether you have new reasons, that issue is now done. As I wrote on your talk page, you may make a new nomination in a few months if you feel that something has changed, but not now. We can't keep on endlessly discussing the same thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistani singers & Afghanistani musicians

Hi. About a month ago we had a discussion on a move from Afghanistani singers ---> Afghan singers and Afghanistani musicians ---> Afghan musicians. Please see herefor Afghanistan singers and here for Afghanistani musicians. As you can so the consensus was to opppose and keep the categories as Afghanistani singers and Afghanistan musicians. Yet the admin mistakenly moved it to "Afghan musicisn/singers". Can you please correct this? Thanks. -- Behnam 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, so far as I can see there is nothing to correct. The renaming accurately reflected the way that the two CfDs were closed as "rename"; as per the debates, this tallies with the naming used in the current Constitution of Afghanistan, in the Constitution of Afghanistan (1990), Constitution of Afghanistan (1987), Constitution of Afghanistan (1976), Constitution of Afghanistan (1964), Constitution of Afghanistan (1923). If you want to challenge the renaming, you can ask for a deletion review, but I don't see any grounds for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am from Afghanistan and so are the people that voted and we understand the terms Afghan and Afghanistani better and we understand the politics involved. The constitution was only written in 2004. Prior to this everyone had their ethnic group on their passport. It will most likely change again because everyone knows we are not Afghans, we are Afghanistani. Due to the conflicts, people chose Afghan in the constitution for unity purposes but that isn't working out so this constitution which has only been here for 3 years will soon be changed anyway. The correct term is Afghanistani and the votes were to oppose the merge, just add up the numbers. -- 22:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, it doesn't matter who is from where: the decision has been made. It's done.

Also, CfD is not a vote-count: the arguments are weighed, not the number of people who show up. As I wrote above, if you want to challenge the renaming, you can ask for a deletion review, but I don't see any grounds for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair. You are taking sides and ignoring everything we are trying to tell you! The government in Afghanistan for the past 200 years has been run by Afghans and is a fascist one that wants to steal other's identity and impose their name (Afghan) on the non-Afghans and you are siding with them by ignoring all of our arguments! We are not Afghans! Stop calling us that! We are Afghanistani! Most of these singers are not Afghan! We are trying to tell you that and we are being ignored! -- 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beh-nam (talk • contribs)

Behnam, there is no point in complaining to me, or to any other admin. Even if I agreed with you, I cannot simply undo the results of a CfD debate. As above, if you want to challenge the decision, you can do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry its very frustrating that people don't understand the facts. I'll try that instead. Thanks. -- Behnam 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Block please

Vandalism account User:212.85.1.38. Baronetcy edits reverted by Counter-Rev; Other reversions need to be done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted a few more bits of vandalism, and blocked the IP for 72 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be an optimist. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If this was a registered user, I would definitely have imposed an indef-block as a vandal-only account. However, per the notice at User talk:212.85.1.38, this is a shared IP address, and a block on it may impede many legitimate unregistered users; Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block_lengths says that "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". If the problem persists, I guess that it may be appropriate to implement a longer anon-only block on the IP, but that appears to be reserved for particularly extreme problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Coram Deo

Did you ever or do you still attend Coram Deo Academy? --In His service Hodie Dodie 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in this incarnation, and (so far as I am aware) not in any previous incarnation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder whether that school admits people who have been touched by his noodly appendage? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

free copyright images

I seen your discussion on Kittybrewers talkpage, in connection with that I e-mailed Sinn Féin in feb 2006 in regards to use images or content from their Website for use on another wiki, and posted the reply here in which they state that any content of their site is public domain and can be reproduced.--Padraig 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I just looked at some of the Irish and British parties:

• Fianna Fáil says "the content of this website is copyright of Fianna Fáil"
• Fine Gael appears to say nothing about copyright
• The Irish Labour Party has a copyright notice at the bottom of every page
• The British Labour Party appears to say nothing about copyright
• the Conservatives retain copyright on what they own, but point out that they don't own the copyright on all of their site's content
• The LibDems have something to say about privacy, but nowt that I can see about copyright
• The SNP claims copyright where it can

... so I don't think that we can assume that other parties follow Sinn Fein's public domain approach. more individual approaches will be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sinn Fein site also carries the same notice, but I think that applies the site design itself, as most sites would carry such a notice.--Padraig 09:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably true, but we can't assume that others intend their copyright to be limited in that way. Without a clear disclaimer of copyright such as the one you received, I think we have to assume that copyright is claimed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you fancy the task of e-mailing them all to see what response if any you get.--Padraig 09:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's something I have intended to do for ages! But now it looks like I have volunteered myself, so I'll see if I can find time over the next few days. Well done for pushing me (just as I took the opportunity to push Kittybrewster in a similar direction), though sadly it seems that he's not well enough. Hoist by my own petard! I can see a few technical issues, which I'd like to talk through with you later if you have time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure just drop me a message or e-mail anytime, I would be glad to help if I can.--Padraig 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Scottish Government has an images section which states that they can be used "use by the media or other organisations as illustrations to accompany information on the process and function of government. Crown Copyright applies. Any pictures downloaded from this section should be used appropriately and within context" [2] Astrotrain 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With Crown Copyright don't you still need to obtain permission before you can use them, although they should be ok under fair usage.--Padraig 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CELTICROVER

You may want to check out the contributions [3] of User:CELTICROVER. He's becoming a bit of a nuisance on (mostly Irish) articles adding in fictional stuff about himself. Scolaire 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor nuisance, but that of low-level silliness in new users sometimes leads to responsible editing and sometimes it's a prelude to more systematic disruption. I have a bad feeling about any editor who uses an uppercase username, but I hope that's misplaced. There is no sign of any edits from CELTICROVER today, but please let me know if there is any more trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Scolaire 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Page That Wouldn't Die...

Has been resurrected yet again at List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. My feeling is that the reorganisation isn't enough to save it from a G4, but it's different enough that I don't really want to delete it without a second opinion. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I had already deleted it by the time I rec'd your message (as a re-creation, citing the AfD in June. I think that despite some differences in content, the problems of maintaining a huge list of living people still apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for the clarification - its appreciated.Traditional unionist 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I haven't yet made any assessment either way on that point, and I'm sorry that my first clumsily-worded comment wasn't clear enough, but glad to hear that the the clarification helped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness

please block User:User44130. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Now blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How about User:162.82.215.199 ?? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

162.82.215.199 (talk · contribs) doesn't look like a PW-sock, at least not to my eyes. Can you explain why you think it might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

Hello, BrowhHairedGirl. A week or so ago I posted a cfr proposing that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed pretty quickly. I've noticed that my cfr displays as a cfd on the category's talk page. I was wondering why it was closed so quickly and what caused it to be displayed as a cfd. Thanks. Citadel18080 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Citadel18080. Sorry, I made an error in the notice at Category talk:Homophobia, labelling it as a deletion nomination rather than a renaming, and I have now fixed it. As you will see, there is a link in the notice box to the CfR discussion, where I explain the reason for the speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Citadel18080 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs

Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs

The proposal with these was to include both predecessor parties (though granted I didn't originally make that explicit on the category page). If anything, I'd have thought that the Unionists would be the questionable inclusion, if either was problematic: why wouldn't one want to include the ur-Tories? Or do we just have a miscommunication here? On a related note, the Category:Conservative MP (UK) stubs are oversized again, if you have any further thoughts on what's the best (or least worst) axis on which to re-split... Alai 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, put me in the "please don't reply here" camp. I must get a template or something for that... Alai 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear which other group of people you think should be included in Category:Scottish Conservative MP (UK) stubs? Can you set out who else you think fits the title?

As to the Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs, I'm wary of complex splits which need a lot of explanation and feel artificial. The only split I can see as "logical" is for the Welsh Conservative MPs, but we don't currently even have an all-party Welsh MP stub category (though I suppose it could be created at the same time). To be honest, I'm inclined to accept that these stub categories are likely to get big, and not to worry too much about it, particularly because the further intersections needed for more complex stub categories would not be reflected in the permacats.

(BTW, I have relied here because I hate conversations being split into two difft places, but I'll put a note on your talk page so that you don't have to rely on your watchlist). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally add other user's talk pages to my watchlist, so the notification is appreciated, thank you. (I've no strong preference as to where the body of a discussion happens, just so long as I don't end up "busy-polling" to find out if there's been a reply "to me".) There is no Category:Scottish Conservative MP (UK) stubs; I'm talking about including the pre-merger Tories in the Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs, which you appeared to object to (and de-sort several back out of). I'm very much opposed to the idea of just accepting that stub categories get big, and it's something of a 'mission statement' of stub-sorting than they don't, since it seems to be a close cousin to accepting that there's little prospect of them being expanded, either (though it may be false comfort to suppose the reverse, admittedly). I'm going to propose that they be split either by English region, or by DoB (or conceivably, by parliament). I won't argue that any of those are entirely without their 'issues', but any of them seem better than not sorting them at all. So if you have a least-worst alternative... Alai 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A few points here:

1. The reason that I moved the pre-merger Scottish Conservative MPs out of that stub category was that the stub template was labelling them as members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, which was simply not true. Re-reading the article Unionist Party (Scotland), I don't think that it makes much sense to include the pre-merger Conservatives in Scotland in the same category, because the Liberal Unionists were the dominant partner in the merger. I think that there is a risk here of viewing Conservatism and Unionism in Scotland through an English lens, which would be a mistake, because the history in Scotland is notably different.
2. A split by English region would be very clumsy, because it's only in the mid-20th century that it became the norm for MPs to try to see out their careers in the same seat. Until then, they jumped around all over place (see e.g. Winston Churchill or Andrew Bonar Law or Arthur Balfour), and categorising them by all the locations of their various seats would cause massive category clutter.
3. Stub categorisation by parliament would be even worse. The current MPs-by-Parliament categories have survived CfD only because the category names are so short (an earlier attempt with longer categ names was promptly deleted). Can you imagine what Winston Churchill or T. P. O'Connor's categories would look like if every category parliament was joined by a stub category?
4. Splitting by date of birth sounds more workable, because it would not increase the number of stub categories for each MP. However, I'm not sure that it really helps, because it imposes some artificial splits in groups of MPs: those politically active at a particular time include a wide range of ages.
5. A further thought: the more variants there are on these stub categories, the less likely that they will be correctly applied. That not only makes it harder for editors to find articles to expand, it means that articles with incorrect tags will be displaying inaccurate information, as happened with the Scottish MPs. I'm afraid that it does seem to me that there is danger here of a split becoming a solution in search of a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Geraintrdavies

I think you have been ott here. Going from a welcome message to an indefinite block in 3 hours? It looks like newbie biting to me. Remember that new users don't necessarily understand how wikipedia works. Catchpole 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive303#User:Geraintrdavies_-_apparent_COI.2C_advice_needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a round of applause for BrownHairedGirl for going the extra mile in making Wikipedia look even more like a cult of insanity with such a ridiculous block without so much as a discussion. Rules? What rules?

• BRAVO* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

There must be a barnstar somewhere for "Worst Admin Act of the Week" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.97.209 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the advice given BrownHairedGirl on the Admin notice board I rather think she had no option BUT to close the account. The user of the account may challenge this block in the usual way (clearly stated on the blocking notice) but this is a serious matter indeed. We either have someone posing as the person concerned (which is what I suspect) or the account is being used by a public figure to edit an article about themselves (much less likely) in clear breach of WP:COI. The actions taken by the administrator were the very least that could be expected in view of these facts. Galloglass 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when has that ever mattered? Ask Lulu from the Lotus Eaters about COI, or William Connelley, or Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland or better still Jimbo Wales about Conflict of Interest. Then stand well back for the hoarse ironic laughter.

If Geraint Davies is not allowed to edit his own biography then why not simply say so? Why is he blocked indefinitely without any conversation on the point, still less any due process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.97.209 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Geraintrdavies was warned about a conflict of interest 11 days before being blocked. If he thinks it is unfair, he can ask on his talk page to be unblocked, but has not done so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers

Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow in relying there. I had indeed seen your comments, but reckoned I needed to think more before replying ... but without your reminder, I'd probably have forgotten, so thanks for poking me! See my reply at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 26#Category:Muslim_Holocaust_deniers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

Hello again, BHG - If you can spare another couple of minutes of your precious time, would you be good enough to take a look at my response to Izak at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. Regardless of where you come out on this (or anything else), I consider you a very conscientious editor. (I guess I should stop there so you don't feel like I'm trying to influence you!) Anyway, I look forward to seeing your remarks, whatever they may be. Regards, Cgingold 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are trying to influence me, and quite properly too. :)
There is of course nothing in WP:CANVASS which disparages asking someone to reconsider their contribution to a discussion, and I think it's an important part of making good decisions that we ask each other to reconsider if we think that's merited. CfD discussions can sometimes be a bit terse and unreflective, and I wish that more editors took the time to punpick the isues as you have done. Anyway, on this occasion you haven't quite persuaded me (at least not so far!), as you can see in my reply at CFD#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - I also came up with another suggestion re Category:Circumnavigators blah blah blah. What do you think of Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators? (sorry, I've forgotten what date that CFD was, but I know it's still open) -- Just went back & looked: it's the 25th

See my reply at CfD September 25#Circumnavigators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2

You, Alison, Giano and me are all agreeing on something - is this a first? All we need now is Kittybrewster & I think that's the set... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I dunno, I think there's a lot of agreement around :) The Kelly Martin RfA is a sad thing to read and I'm very surprised that Moreschi and others thought that it was a useful nomination to make. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Charles Mayne

This fellow is of some significance here in British Columbia. The article suggests that after retirement, he became an MP. I assume that means your parliament. Could you point me to any kind of index that would verify this claim? I can't find anything to confirm this. --KenWalker | Talk 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was MP for Pembroke and Haverfordwest from 1886 to 1892: (see http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/pcommons1.htm), and I have added this to the article.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --KenWalker | Talk 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

John Peel

No worries, I missed the reference I'm afraid, & was too snappy anyway - rather a bad hair day. I should be the one apologising, and I do. It's good to see you back on the block btw. There was a wierd period 2 weeks or so ago when no-one seemed to be commenting on debates. Johnbod 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad we're all sorted, then :)

I got rather fed up with CfD for a while over the summer, but it now seems quite a relief after getting involved in a horrendous RfAR. I do miss Dr S, but at least CfD does seem at the moment to have some several folks who are keen to consider things carefully, wich makes it more interesting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Orange institution

[4]. I'm afraid I'm bothering you with this as you're the only admin I can see about! The edits being made cannot be allowed to remain, even if what it is removing is unreferenced. In placed the removing is highly, highly selective.Traditional unionist 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue and try to reach an agreement; if that doesn't work, try some of the furher steps set out at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

I have issued WP:3RR warnings to two editors, and further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks and possibly to the protection of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I wont be around much longer today, but the information removed by BigDunc, while unreferenced, was in places very important to the paragraphs they were in. Their removal placed the article in a compromised position.Traditional unionist 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BigDunc evidently takes a different view, and I'm not going to set myself up as a one-woman arbitrator. Both of you have your 3RR warnings, so please take the time to find a solution, face being blocked. Both of you are also under scrutiny in an arbitration case, and this episode doesn't help the prospects of either of you escaping sanction when the case closes. Go and sort it out! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Purely because I don't want you accused of bias there there is none - you haven't actually warned me yet!Traditional unionist 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The material removed was fact tagged nearly 2 weeks, that was plenty of time for you or anyone else to provide sources, I also ask you to self-revert your last revert on your talk page as you had made 4 reverts today on this. If the information is that important as you claim then you have had more then enough time to provide references.--Padraig 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my warning to Traditional unionist was delayed in an edit conflict, but please consider them as simultaneous warnings.

My talk page is not the place to resolve this conflict, so please stop trading accusations here. Take it back to the article talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambulatory

Hey, thanks for your note, BHG. As Johnbod just said, glad you decided to come back. I think my, er, "baptism" at CFD would have been much more bearable -- hell, even enjoyable -- if you had been around. Don't ya know, I jumped in big-time not long after you departed for the summer. (Just my luck.)

So anyway, I mainly came by to mention that we now officially have (drumroll, please) Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. And more importantly, to tell you that when I read your remark about "emergency vehicles for British Conservatives" I burst out laughing so hard that I damn near woke my wife up in the other room -- and then I would have had to explain how I'm carrying on with this brown-haired Irish lass with a wicked sense of humor... LOL - Believe it or not, I've gone back to that discussion several times to see how it closed, and each time I saw your comment I burst out laughing all over again. (Really!) Cgingold 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, as trailed at that CFD, I have now created and populated Category:Single-handed circumnavigating sailors. I don't think it's the best possible name, but this is a clearly notable group of people, so I thought it was worth creating ... but maybe you or someone else can come up with a better name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles ArbCom

Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle, as you know :)). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).

As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I do wish that that ArbCom would bring the proceedings to a close and issue their rulings. I'm sure they are busy folks, but this delay is not helping.

In the meantime, though, I'm wary of pre-empting arbcom's decision. I think that you are likely to be proven right in your assessment of ArbCom's intentions, but are you really sure that it is appropriate to pre-empt it?

BTW, having re-read some of the background to today's kerfuffle, I think that Talk:Orange Institution#Big_Duncs_revert is pertinent. The "Republican editors" do seem to have been trying to press for references, and it's notable that the outcome of today's edit war was that some refs were provided, tho I note that there is a dispute about their relevance. Without taking any view on the merit of either side's perspective, it does seem to me that the republicans were closer to following good practice, and that TU was pushing his luck in making a complaint to me. However, I didn't want to appear to be taking sides ahead of arbcom, and as usual in these instances it takes quite a bit of research to try to follow the lead-up to each outbreak. :(

It seems clear that there is still no sign of good faith in either side's approach to the other, and in those circumstances the whole area is an edit war waiting to happen. I think that 1RR is going to be an important part of a solution, but that it would be useful for arbcom to also give some guidance on wider principles. If that's not forthcoming, admins may need to try to figure out some principles to apply to issue like the referencing dispute, and then to try to devise a common approach. I don't want us to get back to the situation of individual admins steping in to try to sort things out and then finding themselves under fire: a collective approach would give everyone more certainty.

Anyway, hurry up ArbCom! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Agreed. And While everyone knows ONiH and I are friends, and I am thus, possibly biased, I do agree with you. I'm not sure about the sources (at least one source that I saw was a blog of an Orange Order higher up accusing their opponents of being behind a wide-scale attack on them, for example). With this group, perhaps we can press for a principle that.. "Wide-scale changes to an article should be discussed on the talk page before being added to an article."

The problem is WP:BOLD, WP:BRD and WP:IAR have been twisted into a mobius strip. I even joked on Allie's page that we need to remind folks that it's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, 3RR blocks on both sides, Discuss. Both sides are pointing to Wikipedia rules to back up their claim. (some of the rules are rather shoehorned in, but it can be argued they believe what they're saying)

Anyway, I'm just afraid it's going to get worse and not better. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to provide one reminder on everyone's talk page that: "WP:3RR is the absolute limit, not an entitlement. Anyone caught editwarring WILL be blocked." SirFozzie 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Alison agrees with that, and as I suggested on her talk, it's fine by me, so long as we at least alert arbcom to what we are doing.

You're quite right about the twisting of policies and guidelines. There's really only one guideline needed here: "don't edit war". 1RR is a very clear way to enforce that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

done! :) SirFozzie 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

comments regarding Sandra Gidley MP article

I have taken to monitoring and editing this article as it has been repeatedly vandalised and despite my requests for it to be protected from further editing this has not happened. The statement that her majority was reduced in 2005 is true however adds nothing to the article and the statement that she "made clear she no longer relished her role" is untrue and therefore I am sure that it could not be substantiated.

Other malicious edits that have taken place have accused her of endorsing drug taking to 18 year olds and misrepresenting her position in the removal of Charles Kennedy using emotive language to cast this MP in a very poor light.

Whilst I no this does not really matter I would like to point out that she is my MP and has been a great help to me when I have written to her so I feel that protecting her from malicious online attavcks is the least I can do.

If I have inadvertantly caused an incomplete sentance or some other mistake I do appolgise.

yours

Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 (talk) 86.143.198.223

Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying to you.

It's great that you are keeping an eye out for vandalism, because unfortunately some people do try to abuse wikipedia's open-ness.

It's important that articles should be properly sourced, particularly with biographies of living people, and you are quite right that the unsourced comments about about her political position needed to be removed.

However, we do need to remember that wikipedia's aim with every the article is not to present someone in a good light any more than it is to cast them in a bad light: the article should take a neutral point of view.

So, for example, it would be quite proper to include something about Gidley's role in the forced resignation of Charles Kennedy provided that the issue was covered in a balanced fashion and properly referenced. She was one of the MPs who wrote to Kennedy asking him to resign (see for example [5], [6]), and her role in that episode is a notable part of her career. (It's not necessarily a negative part; there was plenty of news coverage commending the MPs who forced the issue).

Similarly, her electoral history is a matter of record, and it's important. Gidley's seat is one the most marginal in the country, and there is obviously a strong possibility that she will be defeated at the election; a politician's record in elections is a fairly crucial issue, and its inclusion is not a tangential point. Please don't delete it.

Final suggestion: have you considered registering as an editor? It's a quick and easy thing to do, and offers many advantages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for you carefully considered comments, I accept all of your points with only one caveat.

Her role in the deposition of Charles Kennedy has been used as a negative regarding her career by her political opponants who I believe originally posted it as part of her biography. Whilst there is nothing factually innacurate about the current inclusion that I see you have references. Your own reference lists 11 initial MP's only one other of whom have this as an entry in their wikipedia biography. Indeed Ed Davey who wrote the letter than Sandra Gidley Later Signed, has no mention on his wikipedia entry about the episode at all. For this reason I would venture that it's inclusion can be seen as negative rather than neutral.

otherwise I am happy that someone else has been paying such close attnetion as previous posts as I mentioned were quite clearly negative an in several cases completely untrue.

yours

Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that episode is missing from the other articles, it probably ought to be added to them! It remains a crucial point in the recent history of the LibDems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thanks for that, [7]. Regards --Domer48 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome! That IPs' contribs list seems to consist entirely of vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish Hunger strike

Can you comment on this content dispute please? [8] Thanks, Valenciano 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish football players

Hi there, BHG: I very nearly passed on it, but then I wound up posting a novel and I think important proposal on Category:Jewish football players which I hope you'll be able to find time to give some serious thought to. Cgingold 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Sorry, but on this occasion you haven't persuaded me ... yet! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect Olmec?

Hi BHG, The Olmec are obviously on the curriculum of US schools and the article is getting a lot of puerile IP address and school vandalism at the moment. Could you semi-protect the page so that only registered users can edit it. Semi-protection has worked well on Alcoholism to reduce inane edits. Nunquam Dormio 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there has been a lot vandalism and silliness to Olmec, so I have indefiniely semi-protected the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nunquam Dormio 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On the nature of categories

So I was playing a little with WatchFlickr the other day, looking for pictures in Category:Pennsylvania railroads and noticed that it was trying to dredge out pictures for some articles that really didn't seem apropos. Upon further inspection, the cause seems to be that WatchFlickr iterates through subcategories, and the categories for major railroads passing through Pennsylvania (e.g., Category:Amtrak, Category:CSX) are all subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads. Now, neither of those two railroads operates exclusively in Pennsylvania, so it seems to me that while the Amtrak and CSX articles belong in the Pennsylvania railroads category, their categories do not. I am tempted to break open a can of WP:BOLD and go in and change them, but I know I've seen similar patterns of categorization elsewhere on Wikipedia (it's why WP:MILHIST's bot-tabulation of article ratings gathers in half the encyclopedia). Since I know you are wise in the ways of CfD, I thought I would ask you if you know of any discussion about this sort of semantics, and whether this (IMO overbroad) categorization has advocates before I start laying into the rail categories. Choess 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't think offhand of anything directly relevant, though there was some discussion in the last few days (I can't remember which) where someone pointed out that as a general principle, the general category should include the specific, rather than vice versa. I'm not sure whether that applies to this situation, and I can see cases both for and against the current setup. You may want to raise the point at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, possibly with a pointer at the appropriate wikiprojects (WikiProject Trains??) and/or other places such as Category talk:Railway companies of the United States.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Maybe WP:POINT wasn't the ideal place to point at, but I still think you would have made your point far more efficiently without such heavy sarcasm. Heck, just not using the ridiculous name as if it was the proposal (but still mentioning it) would have been an improvement. Circeus 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just put this down as a culture gap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghost in the Machine - I'm fwightened!

Please see Claricia - then try to edit it. Or is it just me? Thanks Johnbod 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! It's not just you. The text had been added to {{artist-stub}}, and I have now reverted it and protected the template. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith T. Monda. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I should have guessed it was template trouble! Johnbod 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orange Institution editprotected

Hi BHG, should we start to put edit requests on the discussion page for these changes we would like to see made. I have put two forward, and BigDunc has just made two on the sandbox you provided? Thanks, --Domer48 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest putting the {{editprotected}} requests on the the talk page, but I think that for those requests to be acted on, it would be best to have:

1. Evidence of dialogue between the warring parties on the edits sought, and of consensus.
2. A clear description of exactly what change you are seeking, so that the reviewing admin can see preciseley what the proposed change is, preferably with a clear block of formatted text to paste in. Something like this intentionally fictional example: "In the section Orange Institution#The_Twelfth, replace the sentence beginning "The Orange Institution has organised marches..." with this "The Orange Institution and its sponsor [[Del Monte]]<ref>[http:www.fruitymarchingstories.com/a63bb339b.htm Del Monte and the Orange Order]</ref> organise more than five hundred matches each year, mostly in the month of July.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/story/juice_on_the_streets/ |title=Statistics from the Marching season |publisher=The [[Rockall Times]] |date=2009-13-41}}</ref>"

A reviewing admin may approach things differently, but that's what I'd suggest.

Given that the page was protected after an edit war with User:Traditional unionist, I expect that an admin would want to see some evidence of an attempt at dialogue. TU hasn't been around for 24 hours, and I suggest that before applying an {{editprotected}} tag you should seek TU's comments, by a note on his talk page and possibly by dropping him an email.

As I say, the reviewing admin may take a different view ... but if I was the reviewing admin (which in this case, I won't be), I would not be in a rush to implement the changes until I saw some evidence of a consensus, or at the very least of a reasonable period of time for other parties to offer their views. The ideal situation is that someone makes a proposal, it is discussed and revised if necessary, before being distilled into a precise edit for the closing admin to make.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Constructive Changes

Hey there! You poindexter bitch. Oooh a bit harsh maybe! I have been making accurate changes to some pages on this website and do not appreciate being interrupted. Catch you on the flipside bitch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.47.79 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Accurate changes"????? You were vandalising wikipedia by inserting spammed porn links (see this edit and this edit). And I'm not at all surprised that you do not appreciate being interrupted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish politics by county categories

discussion moved to where it started, at User talk:Ardfern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I don't have access to the Internet at many of the places I find myself during an average week, so I will appear and disappear at random. That is why I haven't been engaging.Traditional unionist 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand ... but if you aren't there to take part in the discussions, I hope you won't blame other editors if they go ahead and edit as they see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't fail to point out POV. As I have done already tonight. But I wont be here for long.Traditional unionist 17:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

War crimes

I was just looking at this category and the related CfD here. Would I be right in thinking that the vague consensus that came out of it is only to include incidents that have been verifiably described/classed as "war crimes"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have just re-read that CfD, and it rambled around a bit, so it's a little hard to interpret. There as certainly no consensus to delete; but otherwise I think that the consensus was to use the definition at War crime#Definition, which is drawn from the International Criminal Court. Trying to tally that with WP:RS gets a bit difficult, but I think that a reliable source describing the episode as a war crime according to that definition would suffice.

This is obviously going to be difficult in some contexts, such as the Irish one, where until the last few decades the events which might fall into this category received little external scrutiny.

There was also a brief (and apparently inconclusive) discussion at Category talk:War_crimes#Defined_standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a bit too much like original research for my liking. I seem to remember the addition of "genocide" to Great Irish Famine based on definitions was problematic at the ArbCom in question. I'll look at the articles in question and see which merit the category in verifiable terms. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is potentially a bit of a WP:OR problem. I don't see an easy solution, but good luck on your quest for one! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Kirkpatrick

Is it possible that you could arbitrate? Aatomic1 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Kirkpatrick#Edit_war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Roy Hattersley

Hi, I was adding the new category to pages, and I was adding all the links from the Daily Mail page Writers sectionhere (see link for list). And the name of the person was there as well, and it also has a description " former Labour Party deputy leader". So I thought this was adequate (although I was suspicious that it was a Labour guy for a right wing paper). If i was wrong to add the category than i'm sorry.Pafcool2 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the link -- I see what you were doing.

However, I don't think that it's appropriate to add every columnist to a general category about the newspaper's holding company. If there was a specific writers-by-newspaper category, that might make sense, but there isn't yet a category for the Daily Mail in Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in the United Kingdom.

So I have just created Category:Daily Mail journalists, and added Roy Hattersley to it. Would you like to move the other articles on Daily Mail writers in there ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot, it may take a while so I won't start today, but it should be done by the end of the week! Pafcool2 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another category question

Is Category:Sinn Fein MPs (UK) really supposed to exist? I know you're more informed on the complicated category structure for all the MP categories... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I had never seen it before, which is strange, because I had have burrowed around the MP categories a lot, but it seems to have been created last year. It's not properly parented, which is probably why it has only one member. But since there have been (I think) only 5 SF MPs since 1922 (i.e. the current 5, though ISTR someone in the 1950s), it seems like too small a category to be viable. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion: what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Butting in on someone else's conversation here, but if the category survives, ought it to include the pre-1921 SF MPs — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no objections to the category as such, it just seemed strange as it only had one person in it, so I wasn't sure if it was supposed to exist. Looking at Category:British MPs by political party it does look like it's supposed to exist. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at Category:British MPs by political party, I think you are probably right that it should exist. I had it in my head that there tended to be higher threshold, and then wondered if hat was being applied only to English parties, and notice I myself had created Category:Common Wealth Party MPs, with only 4 members.

However, Iridescent's question is pertinent: should it include the 1917-1922 Sinn Fein MPs? My instinct is that it shouldn't, because the two periods are so widely separated. I suggest splitting it into two new categories: Category:Sinn Fein MPs (UK) 1971-1922 and Category:Sinn Fein MPs (UK) post-1922. How does that sound?? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes - what happened??

Hey, BHG - I just checked in on the CFD for Category:Jewish football players and got seriously confused, because there was stuff missing that had been there when I looked at it this morning. I felt disoriented, rather like the time I came out of the library and couldn't find my car, which I had left parked right in front. (It had been stolen). Anyway, I checked the history, and lo and behold, it disappeared in the course of your last edit. It's very bizarre, I really can't figure out how you somehow wiped out two separate sections of text at the same time you were adding your new comment. Spooky. Cgingold 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I'm not sure how that could happen. I had started drafting my comments a day or two ago and left them in an open tab on Firefox. When I came back to finish them, I assumed as usual that if something else had been added in the meantime, I'd get an edit conflict and have to sort that out ... but when I went to save, there was no edit conflict, so I assumed all was OK. That's a bit worrying for the future -- I always thought I could rely on the edit conflict checking mechanisms to stop that happening. Thanks gain for pointing that out to me: removing XfD !votes is something I deplore, and I'm glad you spotted it in tine for it to be fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that in restoring the other comments, it looks like I didn't succeed in pasting my own comment back in. Thanks for fixing that! I need to take a break from this screen, if I'm making that sort of mistake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, BGH. Lest anybody reading this get the wrong impression, I never for a moment had the slightest thought that it was anything other than some inexplicable, freakish occurence. Now go get some sleep. :) Cgingold 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Waterford

Is this what you call a Freudian slip? —Angr 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. When I spotted that typo, I considered deleting the article and then recreating all except that edit, to hide it. But then I thought, no, don't be silly ... nobody is going notice it, and even if someone does, it's clearly just a typo. Wrong again! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're secret's safe with me. I doubt that page is on many people's watchlist. —Angr 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This page, on the other hand... *Evil grin*

How much are you willing to pay to keep my mouth shut? Waltham, The Duke of 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just have to pay up. I'll give you all my potato peelings if you keep shtum .... :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw it! I saw it! I'll give it pride of place on my userpage, right next to my favourite vandal edit (stayed up for 27 days before anyone noticed!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, BrownHairedGirl, you might have to prematurely archive this section of your talk page. The news are spreading dangerously rapidly...

And I scorn your potato peelings. I want home-made chips—I love the taste and I definitely need the calories.

Now that I am here, it is a good chance to ask you this: will you please review your addition of the dates in the British Parliament's succession headers? We have had a vote in SBS and so far the results are: 4 in favour of the removal, 0 against the removal. We have not had a chance to gather more comments, but it is a unanimous decision and the arguments are worth looking at, too. Really, we have grown rather tired of them (no offense). Waltham, The Duke of 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

British military personnel etc. CfD

I've written a comment at CfD explaining the backstory behind my nomination. Basically, I started moving articles from the "personnel" to the "officers" category, attracting the attention of Kernel Saunters, who found the latter superfluous and emptied it. While process was lacking here, I did note that only one or two articles in "personnel" did not fall into the "officers" category (before the latter was emptied), so I think the arguments for deletion are still sound. Best, Choess 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Choess, thanks for your reply. I have just been reading the discussion between you two, and it seems to me that at the point when KS suggested the category was a bad idea, it should have been taken to CfD rather than emptied. I guess what made me growl at it was that this CfD came after a series of similar pre-CfD category emptyings, and this is getting very disruptive. However, the arguments for deleting this one do indeed seem sound. I think I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide to what extent Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy applies here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah

Just wanted to let you know that I unprotected the article. There's an attempt to get it to good article status and nobody noticed that it was protected. It's hard to claim a stable article if it's in permanent protection. Feel free to change back if you think it should be kept protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was left semi-protected because User:Klaksonn, who is now blocked, was inclined to use socks, but that was 6 weeks ago ... so you're quite right to try listing the protection at this point and see if it's now free from that sort of attack. However it is highly contentious topic, so I won't be too surprise if it faces more attacks. But let's see how it goes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping the discussion will continue on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Was I Blocked

i know i accidentily vandalised Iron Maiden but it wasnt my fault i was writing positive remarks about Bruce Dikinson with my friend, Scott, then my other friend pressed many keys and clicked save. Please forgive me and my friends.
sincerily, Nolimitownass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolimitownass (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2007

You can use the {{unblock}} template on your own talk page to request unblocking, but you had better come up with a better reason for unblocking. (If you save an edit you didn't intend to save, you can undo it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orange Order

What time frame do you recommend I give on this issue[9]. I have refs regarding triumphalist marches and the OO's anti Catholicisim that could be used here. I left this notice on talk page as per your suggestion during the page protection thanks. BigDunc 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give it a few days, say until the end of weekend. TU doesn't seem to be around much, but if he doesn't do the work by then, you can't wait forever.

I'm glad that you are going about things in this way. TU does seem to me have some potentially valid concerns, but has so far been slow to do the spade work of getting the refs to start discussing an agreed version. I don't want to see the article becoming another edit war, so if you can give TU a reasonable time to respond, there are no grounds for him simply jumping in and reverting if he doesn't contribute and doesn't like the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats great I will wait till Monday. I have no intention of getting into an edit war. BigDunc 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Ireland-road-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What bureaucracy of a five-day delay? It's a speediable type, so once it was double-checked to make sure it wasn't going to cause problems (such as "is this for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic?"), it could have been created immediately. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at WP:WSS/D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Islands project

I thought from your recent edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. --MacRusgail 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but much as I like the Scottish Islands I don't think I'll get involved. I just dived in briefly when I saw that Category:Uninhabited islands could do with sub-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Constantinople

I really hate to ask for this but it appears the Constantinople page is on the school curriculum somewhere and has been vandalised several times a day for the past month. Would it be possible for you to limit the page to registered users only for a few weeks until it abates? Thanks. Galloglass 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I put two months semi-protection in it. With any luck they'll have moved onto something else by the times that expires. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Galloglass 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"County" CFD's

Hi, I just closed all of your CFD nominations from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6, and I had a question. After cutting and pasting to WP:CFD/W, I saw some potential problems, which I removed. Can you take a look at this diff and let me know if my edits are ok? There were a few instances of "Foo in County Bar to Foo in County County Bar" and "Foo in Bar to Foo in County County Bar". You'll see what I did in the diff. Thanks. --Kbdank71 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for closing them all (big job!), and for spotting and kindly fixing those glitches in my nomination. Your correction looks perfect, and sorry that it was necessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all.  :) --Kbdank71 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy God!

BHG, my extensive watch list has been utterly overwhelmed by your bots and semi-bots and gargantuan tools. No wonder you have clocked several zillion edits. When will the storm pass over?! (Sarah777 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, Cydebot isn't my bot, he's the bot who implements CfD decisions.

As for when it'll all be over:

"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."

<grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dublin Shopping Centre Articles

Oh, and I'd be very interested in your views on this: Talk:Shopping in Dublin (Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Ireland-geo-stubs

Hi BHG - just tp let you know I've deleted the misspelt redirect at T:Roscomon-geo-stub. Were you getting some sort of karmic revenge for the ireland-road-stub business, misspelling my ancestral homeland county? :) Grutness...wha? 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enuf, it wasn't worth keeping. Caused by karmic exhaustion, rather than revenge :( I'm not a revenge kinda person, even if I do sometmies growl at bureaucrats ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one

moved from user page

BHG, for your humongous work on Irish Categories I hereby award my first ever barnstar; the The Irish Barnstar of National Merit: (Sarah777 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's you told — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sinebot, you are a hyperactive cretin. You have busily adding my sig to modifications I have been making to a CFD nomination, and I have been busy undoing said sigs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If Sinebot's bugging you, you may want to look at how to avoid its watchful bot eye! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It got you again! Bencherlite^Talk 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind that sort of thing: if I put in the wrong number of twiddles, it's kind of sinebot to add the datestamp, although it is far too quick (is it tracking me specifically?). And it's a dumb bot in its inability to distinguish between an unsigned comment and the work of a CfD nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BHG, the bots ARE out to get you because of all the work you create for them through your painstaking nominations at CfD. (deliberately unsigned to see whether Sinebot is listening in to me too)

Sinebot is evidently not watching you, or at last not watching my talk page. It's a plot! I tell you, its' all a plot, involving the International Marxist Conspiracy, The Forces of Reaction, The Spanish Inquisition, the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, the International Jewish Conspiracy, The Muslim Threat, and Tuvalu Secret Service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

		The XfD Barnstar
		Awarded to BHG for all her careful hard work in nominating and commenting at CfD, most recently displayed with a veritable mountain of Irish county categories. BencherliteTalk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CfRs for Media in the Northern Territory

Thanks for bundling the above. I was planning on doing it myself except:

• Some people don't like bundled XfD's. In this case as one is a parent of the others I still would have bundled except for;
• I didn't know how! I wasn't sure of the correct format so it was better to be safe than sorry.

Thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

category help

thanks for your help with Category:Alliances, and also for giving me that template information. Your page is interesting...you look like a good administrator. I may contact you again for some help on different things. thanks again. --Steve, Sm8900 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed

Hello BrownHairedGirl: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi IZAK, yes I'm doing OK, and hope you are too. Sorry, but this is not an area where I have much expertise. I'll enjoy reading the articles, but I don't think I am in a position to add much to them, and definitely not to start them. I thought of asking my rabbi friend, but he's very English, and not much intersted in Celtic countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi, I am working on the Jewish history of Wales. Northern Ireland is covered by Ireland... I have already written most of the Scottish equivalent. --MacRusgail 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Please would you semi-protect this controversial page 1 month. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! Definite WP:BLP problems here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Many thanks for helping tag those categories! --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! By the time I got there, you had done most of them by hand. Sorry for not spotting your request sooner (it's v quick with WP:AWB). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

help on a survey

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I am extremely sorry to bother you, but I need some assistance on conducting a survery among Wikipedia contributors. I am a student of linguistics at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. In my MA thesis I would like to discuss some issues connected with Wikipedia. To get a wide perspective on the free encyclopedia, I would like to conduct a short survey among the contributors. Unfortunately, I am not yet fully acquainted with the system of Wikipedia and I don't really know how contact them all. I would be very grateful, if you could give me some advice on how to post the survey (it is a one page Word document with 5 questions) to the contributors. Thanks in advance, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberbogger (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 October 2007

I don't know any generic way of doing it, other than asking individual contributors, but you could try asking at the WP:HELPDESK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin help required with vandalism of nomination page

Hi BrownHairedGirl: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus (talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [10]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone else has reverted his changes and warned him, but I have added a further note of warning at User talk:Ludvikus#AfD_changes. I won't be watching the AFD, so please let me know if there is any further trouble at that AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the fine rules of WP. I'm involved now in a complex effort by very experienced Wikipedians to delete a set of articles. I therefore need asistance in seeing to it that there is a balance of fairness representing the other point of view. For example, I know that Wikipedia encvourages Boldness. What you call Moving was in fact a Good Faith effort to Rename an article. Best wishes, --Ludvikus 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Ludvikus#AfD_changes_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Protocols_of_Zion_.28imprints.29, where the discussion started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Upmerged baronets

I cam across Talk:Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet whose article has been upmerged. There was also a Talk:Sir John Miller, 3rd Baronet. How do we find and identify all the similar upmerged pages? - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any generalised way of looking for this sort of merger. The best way of looking out for this sort of thing is by monitoring your watchlist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither was on my watchlist. And corollary question, what do I do with them having found them? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversing a nomination on page

Hi BHG: A user is reverting the legitimate template on the Żydokomuna page [11] that is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism that is already underway, under the pretext that it is "mass filing" when this involves only three articles with duplicated content about Jewish Bolshevism. Your admin expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace and geese

		The Barnstar of Creativity
		For writing one of the funniest song lyrics I've heard or read, and thereby making editing here more enjoyable: In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the (insert chosen enemy) with joy and with mirth//And feeding their corpses to geese". – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read through the lyrics of Bogle's song, it was funny to be sure, but I have to admit that I wasn't entirely sure what made you suggest it as one of the funniest songs ..... until I reached the 11th section. :P Very nice indeed. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne?

Hi BHG, Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne? About three-quarters of the edits are vandalism or reversing vandalism at the moment. Once again, I suspect the battle is on some school syllabus somewhere hence, the heavy levels of vandalism for a battle that few remember any more. Nunquam Dormio 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for 2 months. Hopefully that'll be enough, but I don't like excluding well-intentioned anon IPs, and with any luck the mischief-makers will have moved onto something else in 2 months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the young shavers will soon be studying something else and vandalising elsewhere! I'm hoping that German experiment works and we can all spend our time doing more productive things. Nunquam Dormio 07:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat: Zim women writers

Hi there, I've asked for advice about Category:Zimbabwean women writers over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. You started the cat, so your suggestions would be particularly appreciated. Many thanks, JackyR | Talk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

You're the only Wikipedian whose been of any use regarding advice on how to proceed. Maybe that's because your a Girl - I mean that as a compliment - and I hope you accept that as such.

• There are quite a few articles up for deletion. And so there is much to be said in defending them. It appears to me that my "adversary" (often "men" attitudes) will not co-operate with me. I've tried to come to terms with him on his talk page - but he's not responded. As You know by now I'm sure, he finds my position as bizarre while I hold that his is one out of ignorance. Since there are so many articles involved which have been put up for proposed deletion, I need some guidance and assistance in expressing an opposing position. I do not think its Good for Wikipedia to just have that one paragraph by the Proposer which says why the articles should be deleted. I do not see why I should not be permitted to give an opposing paragraph to the readers and administrators, so they could make up their own minds. That, in fact, is the American way when it comes to our judicial system. I cannot imagine that Wikipedia Rules prohibit me from doing what I propose. I do not intend to delete anything. I merely want to put up the opposing anti-bizarre position. Can you advise?

Thank you, Peace promoting BrownHairedGirl, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for being so nice :)

The basic situation is that wikipedia makes its decisions by building consensus. The guideline Wikipedia:Consensus is well worth reading, but basically it means that we discuss things politely and try to reach agreement.

A with any discussions, there are some rules and guidelines about how we discuss things: see in particular WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:TPG, as well as WP:CHILL. In summary, make your point politely, don't attack anyone else (even if you feel that they have attacked you), and in discussions add your comments below other comments and sign it.

I'm afraid that you have got some of these things wrong, and I'll list sme of your mistakes here not to get at you, but to help explain how to get things right.

• You felt provoked, and got angry on a few occasions. Never do that; if you feel angered, take a break (see WP:CHILL)
• You added your comments in at above other comments, which is a bit like interrupting someone else's speech; don't do it. (see WP:TPG)
• You repeatedly criticised the motivations of other editors. Bad idea (see WP:NPA); you are required to assume good faith (see WP:AGF), which means assuming that the other person genuinely and honestly believes that that what they are suggested is a good idea
• You posted pictures and templates to the talk page, which is not allowed (see WP:TPG). Your comets should be made in plain text, with links as appropriate, but with other formatting (such as bold and italics) used only very very occasionally.

OK, so that's what you got wrong. What you need to do is to write your explanation of why you think that the article(s) should be kept: make sure it's polite, and that it discusses the issues and the arguments made by other people rather than the people themselves (for example, if you think that User:SomeoneWhoSaysNothingYouCanAgreeWith is a nasty person, you must still stay polite and explain why you have a better solution, and not attack that user, even if they have attacked you).

I'll make a further suggestion. You obviously feel strongly about this, which is fine, but that's not always the best situation in which to participate in a discussion (see WP:CHILL). So write what you think needs to be said, but as a draft, on your own computer or on a subpage of your own userpage (e.g. at User:Ludvikus/sandbox). When you have finished writing it, take a break from your computer for an a hour or two; eat a meal, have a bath, watch some TV, go for a walk, dig your garden, wash your car, or anything that takes your mind off the subject for a while (if you are really annoyed, stay away overnight). Then when you've had a break, go back and look at what you have written, and make sure that it really does come across as the friendly and thoughtful comments of someone who believes that there is a good reason for keeping he article, a reason which others have overlooked.

After a break, you may well feel that what you have written needs to be toned down a bit (I have often come back to a draft after a break like that and then decided that I should say nothing at all!) Once you reckon you have it right, then add it at the end of the discussion. If you do all that, and someone removes it, let me know and I'll try to help --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion (imprints)

1. I've tried to re-name that. But it appears I may have inadvertently violated some rule.
2. I wish to do this Protocols of Zion (imprints) → List of the Protocols of Zion (imprints)

• The intent is to have just that - a list - of all the notable imprints warranted. I cannot imagine that that would be deleted. Is there any reason why I cannot do that now? That would be a mere improvement to the article. It makes no sense to make me waite until deletion has been accomplished.
• Also, how am I supposed to make that change proposal on the already over-cramped deletion-proposal page? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words"

Dear BHG,

• It would be helpful if you were to intercede on my behalf regarding baseless charges by User:IZAK against me,
• He has charged, on the Jewish Bolshevism deletion proposal page, that I've used "obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words."
• I deny this as a reckless accusation that is in violation of Wikipedia policy.
• Please ask him either to account for this charge, or have him retract it as baseless. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where this allegation was made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [12] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [13]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, please don't stir things. Your comments about self-righteousness is a personal atyack. There has been some disruptive editing, but please don't provoke, even if you feel provoked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Club Competitions pages

Just noticed your editing of the templates set up for FH/LM/SO, I'm wondering is there any way you could make them viewable in full on the page, i.e. that they aren't collapsed and need to be clicked upon to view the contents. This happened before but I'm not sure how to change it. Owenmoresider 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They should only collapse if they are two or more other collapsible templates on the one page. Wikipedia:Collapsible tables says that there are only two options: making them auto-collapsed (if there are two or more on the page) or making them always collapsed when the page loads. In this case, many of the calls to the template (such as in Fermanagh GAA) have another template piggybacked in, so the collapse is unavoidable. It seems to me that this is probably a good thing, because it applies to so many nav boxes that the issues will have been well-debated before 2 was set as the threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lords of France

Hi, I'd appreciate your comments here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one very big mess. Time for some mass-PRODding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs someone who can use a bot. I know somebody like that. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One of these days :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dublin Shopping Centres

Hi, I replied to your last message on this talk page. Pathless 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Britain

Hi - do you know why was this category debate closed and a solution that had little support imposed? (Sarah777 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Discussion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 12#Category:History_of_Britain] at User talk:Kbdank71#History_of_Britain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

1. I suspect that any mistake in form I make in the above will be used by you as an excuse to Block me.
2. The Talk page reference you've sent me to is not helpful.
3. So I've asked you to explain further certain fine points of Format so that I may avoid any mistake which you might use as an excuse to block me.
4. Furthermore, what are you going to do about getting User:IZAK off my back?
5. During my Block by you he has expanded the charge against me that I even altered his words.
6. That charge is still pending. Having observed what I consider recklessness on your part, I am nnow forced to spend my time on Wikipedia Procedure, instead of defending the very important articles which User:IZAK has put up for deletion.
7. It is clear to me that he is guilty of Troll (Internet) in his behavior towards me.
8. It is your duty now to clear me of his trolling charge that I even altered his words. You already have investigated the matter and you know, and have so concluded, that I have not done any such thing, but merely been disruptive by posting my comments out of sequence.
9. Furthermore, his misleading, conclusory, false and dishonest, charge that I used that most famous Anglo-Saxon four-letter word (regarding the sexual act) is in fact a word he's using against me to discredit me.
10. At the very least, in light of you having blocked me for his provokations, I hope you have the decency to clean up after him.
11. I expect all those unfounded accusations by him to be deleted in accordance with the very same Talk page regulations you have asked me repeatedly to read and which I have done.
12. I also expect you to take at least as harsh disciplinary action against User:IZAK who has persisted in his inflammatory behavior against me while I was being blocked by you and after you had repeatedly worned to disengage himself from such behavior.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I have one piece of advice for you: move on. What's done is done, and unless you let go of the personal disputes, you'll wind yourself into more trouble again.

You were being highly disruptive, and IZAK repeatedly asked you to stop. I don't think that everything he said was appropriate, and I have already warned him about WP:NPA, so I see no need for any further action there.

If you want to make a complaint about IZAK, you may do so at WP:ANI, but I doubt that it will succeed. You are of course free to try.

But above all, Ludvikus, please please please please please please please please please please please please calm down. I would like to see continuing to contribute to wikipedia, but if you keep on getting so worked up about things, you are likely to find yourself being blocked again.

Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You've partially answered some of my questions on my Talk page. Thank you. But either you are not listening to me, or I am not being sufficiently clear. So I'll try to clarify.

There is an outstanding charge by User:IZAK that I've even altered his words. It appears to me that you have found only that I've placed things in improper Form or Order. Knowing how things are (at WP) regarding discipline, I expect new charge - based on what you've already acted up - to be dismissed as having been already disposed of by you. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The charge by User:IZAK that I altered his words - have you not disposed of that already? Why cann't you be clear instead of giving be behaviaral advice as if I were a child? Did you, or did you not decided that what I've done is cause disruption by posting comments all over the place? Or are you, or some other reckless Adminstrator, going to Block me tomorrow for the same conduct yesterday which you have effectively found did constitute changing User:IZAK's words? Why can't you simply answer this question unequivocally, rather than keep reinforcing you firm belief that I'm an nundisciplined child who does not know how vto behave and needs to be punished?

You have asked to read the WP page concerning guidelines as to Talk pages. I have done so. Now I'm asking you to follow that same procedure. The Talk page in the article named above is full of personal attacks against me by User:IZAK. I'm affraid to touch it because I suspect that you might charge me again with the same sort of disruption for which you have unfairly just finished doing. According, I ask that you WP:cleanup that page of all its accusations, involving the alleged use of four-letter words. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I'm asking that that very policy youv asked to abide by be followed as to my person and as to what is currently posted there by User:IZAK. That remains unresolved. The effect of that is to make me appear as some sort of a fanatic, mad-man, lunatic, etc. (I believe which I've seen you still hold - no doubt in my mind that that's the work against me of editor IZAK).

So if you really wish that we MOVE UN I think you need to address this unfinished business first.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, move on means move on. Just let it go.

I do not intend to take any further action against either you or IZAK over what has happened already with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does. You were blocked for the disruption, and that issue is done.

I do not intend to do any further cleanup; there doesn't seem to me to be anything sufficiently outrageous to justify removing it.

I don't see personal attacks against you by IZAK which warrant any further action (sucha s a block or further warnings), but as I said above, if you want to pursue a complaint or to ask for comments to be deleted, you can raise a complaint at WP:ANI. I have said before that I think that will only serve to prolong the dispute, and that I think it would be a bad idea, but you are always free to make a complaint if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hard to see the forest because of the trees.

• You say: I do not intend to take any further action against either [of] you . . . over what has happened already with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does. That's what I needed to know. Thank you.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The crucial point is the bit where I say "over what has happened already with regard to that AfD". Further disruption will be dealt with in the usual way, but I hope that the trouble is all in the past. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 19 October 2007

Dalys Cross

BHG, just wondering about your tag on this stub asking for "reliable references". I cannot see a single thing in it that would require a reference; maybe you'd tell me which piece of information needs a reference?! (Sarah777 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

These pieces of info:

• that it a village
• that it is on the N7 national primary route
• that it 12 km (7 mi) from Limerick city

Apart from the railway info (which is referenced), that's about all there is in the article so far. I hadn't noticed until now that you had written it, and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with creating a stub article ... but everything is supposed to be reliably sourced. As WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

So if you have been to Dalys Cross and checked it out for yourself (which you presumably did to take the photo), that doesn't count (see WP:OR); what matters is that the info has already been published in reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good God!! it's on the main Dublin-Limerick road, has HUGE big signs on all approaches and appears on OSi maps. Is a photograph original research - I have pics of the signs. Maybe a reference to the OSi map would do? If you are serious here (and I don't doubt it!) then I have about 200 similar stubs of well-known (in Ireland) inhabited villages that will need an OSi reference! We'd need to get one of your Bots on the job! (Sarah777 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, it's on the maps, so I don't doubt that it exists! But the references serve two purposes. First, they demonstrate that it's not just something you made up with a few edited pictures; and secondly, the references are the means by which notability can be established. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is the requirement for notability, and I do wonder how many of the hundreds of stub articles on Irish villages and townlands could meet that test. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while I would like to think that an island like Ireland with such a rich history has many many notable places, that notability needs to be demonstrated. An OSI reference would help to verify that the place exists, but it doesn't establish notability. I haven't been tagging the Ireland-geo-stubs with a {{notability}} request, but unless steps are taken to establish notability, someone else may do so. I don't want to see mass-deletion of Irish places, but unless efforts are made to assert notability, and preferably to demonstrate notability, someone else may do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have little doubt that any of the hundreds of towns/villages would pass any notability test. After all, people are forever being born and dying and getting married in them. That mythical reporter fearing the sack knows he must write about the village if he wants to sell any papers there. Townlands are an entirely different matter and they tend to be inserted by locals.(Sarah777 09:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

I suspect that you are right that they could pass the notability test, but the crucial thing to remember is that unless the references are there, they don't pass the notability test. To do so, they'd probably need to have more substantial coverage than simply recoding the births and deaths of non-notable people, and show some wider significance. For example, one of the main parts of The Sligo Champion is reports from all around the county, every week. Those are mostly at the parish level, and they are wonderful records of social history, but I doubt that many of the reports establish notability. Notability involves more than mere existence! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not use vulgarities

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.

---

Luvicus: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not controlling yourself in this regard, see this [14] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, it is not acceptable. Please stop. IZAK 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please be more specific as to your accusations against me. As my accuser you should not leave such charges to my imagination. I should not have to guess what you have in mind. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• In addiotion, you should stick to the topic, and not refer to other articles. Let other issues be discussed elsewhere - not here. Things are already complicated by there being many articles grouped here for deletion. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• You, User:IZAK, are apparently a very experienced Wikipedian. It seems that you believe that I've used "vulgarities". However, you have not kept the principles of Good Faith in that accusation. You are talking about conduct in a totally different space, namely: The Jewish Bolshevism. If that is your opinion, please feel free to bring it up there - but not here. You are apparently merely attempting to portray my conduct, once again, as bizarre. I do not deny you that opportunity. However, you must not do that here. The topic here is already far to complicated - you are already forcing me to defend several articles that you believe should be deleted. It is not good for Wikipedia for you to bring in my alleged use of improper "vulgarities" elsewhere. I therefore ask you to cleanup (from here) all references to what I have done regarding a totally unrelated article. Cheers, --Ludvikus 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [15] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [16]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm moving on as you advised. The above is a Cut & Paste from the Talk page of the Page you've found me disrupting. I strongly disagree with regarding you view that there is nothing wrong, or some cognitive to that effect. I consider the above as not only an attack on may person, but also as inappropriate material that remains posted on that Talk page. Accordingly, I intend to clean it up. If I do so, will you consider it Disruptive and Block me for X amount of time (accordingly to User:Banno, X may mean forever)??? Please advise according, as I do not intend to be disruptive, and I consider my contemplated action to be in keeping with WP regulations.

• I must advise you again, that Administrator Banno has said that the next time I'm Blocked, it will be forever. So it is important that you give me sound advise concerning my next move. You've just created an ambiguity by saying that there is nothing wrong which needs addressing. I strongly disagree. Please advise according, and please, please, please, don't waste my time and yours telling me about complaints which did not express an interest in persuing. I also will not go to France tomorrow (that too is irrelevant). The issue is that you, and Administrator Banno have created a situation in which I have no idea what either of you consider disruptive behavior.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

If you want the text, removed, ask IZAK to remove it or lodge a complaint at WP:ANI. But don't go removing it yourself, or you may be blocked.

I have had enough of this. I am fed up with my talk page being filled with huge cut-and-pastes from a row which is over.

You have had enough of my time, and enough advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 19 October 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.

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

"An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I believe that User:Mikkalai has been vandalizing my substantial work at the above article.

• This is a new issue, by the way.
• I would appeciate it if you could advise, and or, deflame the volatile situation in the above.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War#Repeated.2C_arbitrary.2C_capricious.2C_and_unreasonable_reversions. I see no evidence of vandalism (a good faith edit is never vandalism). Please discuss your differences with User:Mikkalai, to try to reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out it's Edit Waring. You know that. I just learned it now. I now understand the distinction.

So my request is that you help us avoid edit-waring. I've spent some time writing on both pages, and I've tried to come to some understanding with User:Mikkalai. But he merely reverts what I've done. He ignores my discussion on the user page. So what am I to do? Can you talk to him and ask him what the problem is, ""please, please, please" (to use your bown words)?

Thank you, --Ludvikus 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not a one-woman mediation team.

Ludvikus, if you want to talk to him, try messaging Mikkalai in a friendly way at User talk:Mikkalai, and try posting on the article talk page in a friendly way. That means saying "please" rather than calling him a vandal, it means assuming good faith, and it means not approaching the whole situation as if you want a fight. If that doesn't work, try dispute resolution. But I doubt that anyone will bother to get involved until you start to approach other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening to me. I have contacted him on his talk page in a civil manner - but he just wiped out my posting, with no response, nada. You should also look at his Talk page which he has changed recently. He says he will not respond. So there is no way to communicate with him. As to the Talk page, heb has simply ignored what I have to say there. So that kind of action is fruitless.

So why can't you just ask him what he wants? How he would like to end this Edit War - or is it an Edit War?

General advice on politeness are not useful. I've had contact with other editors. It is only an extreme minority that I have a hard time finding a peaceful solution with. That's why I'm asking for your help.

Are you giving him any counsel? Or is it just me?

Please ask him what he wants. Obviously, he does not want to be contacted on his Talk page. At the same time he does not respond on the varticle talk page to what I have to say.

I really think that you could do a lot of good if you tried to speak to him yourself.

Why will you not do that?

Please & Thank you, BrownHairedGirl, --Ludvikus 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, BHG. I've just noticed that you've given the matter some balance. Much appreaciated. And have a nice day!!! --Ludvikus 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Islands project (2)

I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look, if you haven't done so already. --MacRusgail 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for the friendly invite, but we had that conversation before: see above User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Scottish_Islands_project. Of course if you can promise to banish all the midges I might change my mind ;)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must be losing my memory! I've been inviting a number of people who've made good edits to various island articles... --MacRusgail 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. But I'm still hoping that you can evict them midges ... :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed Limerick

BHG; Category:Towns in Limerick still survives; I've checked and it is the only one. Can you zap it? (Sarah777 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Done it as a self-speedy. It doesn't technically fit the criteria, but in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:BURO and a strong sense that the good folks at CfD have Irish county-fatigue after 726 squillion of these categories were pumped through there, I just done it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt there will be any complaints! Thanks (Sarah777 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Cleanup by Administrator of article Talk page allowed?

Was it OK for Mikkalai to delete this comment from the Talk page on the "Chinese at ..." page as he has just done?

“

• • I am repeating for the fourth time: I will contribute professionally to this article only when trolling stops. I don't care about my "credibility". I don't think my credibility means much for a person who passionately wants this article destroyed. Finally, in case you didn't learn this yet, wikipedians' credibility has nothing to do with article content: please spend some time perusing Wikipedia:Attribution and all policies mentioned in it. `'Míkka 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

”

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:170.185.144.19

Could you have a look at this editor User talk:170.185.144.19 vandalim on Spanish-American War have asked him twice to stop but dont think he will thanks BigDunc 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blaa

Could you take a look at this and also [this section] of the Waterford City article - I want to confound expectations by NOT getting sucked into an edit war!(Sarah777 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Mikkalai and Ludvikus Redux

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just so you know, the whole ANI issue may be rearing it's ugly head again. Mikkalai has been deleting non-free images uploaded by Ludvikus (see here). I was trying to help Ludvikus with the copyright issues (scans of book covers as fair use), but the images got deleted pretty quick. I'm not enough of a copyvio person to know if that was a justified deletion, but it seems odd given their history (inherent COI, etc). Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I'm passing the buck to you, but I was hoping there was a way to prevent this from getting out of control again. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A book cover looks to me like it might be fair use (tho I'm no expert), but I'm staying out of this. When I took Mikkalai's conduct to ANI the on sunday, I got shouted down by a group who think that because Luvikus is so disruptive, Mikkalai should be allowed to do what he likes.

After that, I'm afraid that I see no point whatsoever in my remaining involved. You may, of course, raise the issue at WP:ANI, but on recent precedent, you are likely to find yourself in big trouble for doing so.

It's all rather a pity. After sunday's episode, I had a large postbag of supportive emails from admins who disagreed with Mikkalai being allowed to remain outside control, but who felt too intimidated to speak out at ANI. It's not a good situation to be in, that ANI is perceived by some admins to be a place where there is mob rule, but there we are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, as someone who had a full understanding of what was going on, I think you acted correctly. The "mob" does have an unhealthy tendency to protect long term users when perhaps they should be treated more equally. It does not serve the community to allow even established users to act in such a fashion. 1 != 2 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I know that you have been watching the situation carefully, and it's good to hear your take on things. I can see the short-term temptations in following the mob's position, but it doesn't create a healthy climate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire thread at AN/I, but I agree with your actions as well. Too many times around here people turn a blind eye simply because the editor in question has been here forever, or is an admin. --Kbdank71 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll get nowhere with Mikkalai. Don't even try. People who like him call him grumpy, and, despite that, they will quickly unblock him and let him get away with pretty much anything. I know it's frustrating, because you did the right thing, but hang in there and don't let them get you flustered. -- But|seriously|folks  00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty sad. --Kbdank71 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are sometimes a useful bot, but your messages can get very tedious. Yes, in commenting at zillions of CfD discussions, my sig sometimes missses its date, due a typo, and I do appreciate your botship's kind help in adding the date. But these are typos which I try to avoid, and your messages seem like nagging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox family of Falmouth

Fox family of Falmouth: Thanks for your advice about this article. I hope that the new version is some improvement. --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Not that the previous version was bad, but this is much improved, and gets further wa from the note format I commented on before. It is a fascinating account of how family remained influential and prosperous over several generations.

If you want to take the article further, I think the question I would ask is what happened to them in the later nineteenth century, and early twentieth century, when coverage seems to just fade out. Did the next generations enter the professions, did the businesses fold, or what? But maybe that;s just me eager to know more :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

G.C.Fox (shipping Brokers) ceased trading in 2003. The "Poly" in Falmouth flourishes. The family became global and many ceased to be Quakers. There is still one family in the membership of Falmouth Quaker Meeting. None of them became MPs or Baronets, except the Backhouse and Pease spouses. I expect there are many Quaker families who are Foxes through their female line. I don't want to tell the tale as far as grandparents of living people, without consultation and permission. I would hope that some of them might add more accurate data to the WP article.

My aim was:

1. To provide background information for readers of the Journals.
2. To record the influence that this Quaker family had on Science, Technology, Industrial Development and culture in Cornwall.

I now need to check that all the linked WP articles are up to a reasonable standard. Caroline and Barclay's Journals should be fairly readily available through public libraries or possibly your local Quaker Meeting House, or Friends House Library. --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:School districts at the top 7% etc

Category:School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests

I'm retired, but(in response to [17]) I am just dropping by to apologize for creating the above category for Garnet Valley School District. I must not understand how cagtegories work, and thought that other users would expand it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's good of you to pop back, and don't worry too much, we all learn as we go! But looking again at the CfD discussion, I owe you an apology. There was no need for me to so caustic about the category, and I'm sorry for being so rude. I'm sure you created the category in good faith, and I shouldn't have sneered. I hope you'll come back to edit again! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I just wanted to clarify that my retirement had nothing to do with this. Just some real world issues. It was always my pleasure to help out the project in any way I could!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just to let you know that three of the categories nominated at CfD so far today have been the work of Emesee. I've left a comment/suggestion on his talk page about future category creation, but an extra pair of eyes wouldn't go amiss, just in case he starts creating categories about bishops... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 1910s in Ireland

A tag has been placed on 1910s in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Jameson L. Tai 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it myself, it was only a test of a template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

People from Offaly Merge

I agree to the merge as you suggested on my page. No probs!!! Eiri Amach 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB Feature Requests

I've replied on 2 of them..

Have you seen the filter button at the bottom of the list maker...?

It should do most of 2 of your requests! Reedy Boy 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's going to take a while to wipe all the egg of my face after that! I don't know how long that feature has been there, or why I didn't notice its appearance, but you're right — it's exactly what I was I after in my first two requests. Many thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games templates

There are pages listed twice now in this category , should the cat be removed from {{GaelicGamesProjectTemplate}} or should the category beremoved for the template:x such as {{2006 All Stars}}Gnevin 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not possible for an article to be listed twice in a category. Can you point to an example? Oops, I mean --Kbdank71 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{2007 All Stars}}is in Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games templates as Template:2007 All Stars and Template talk:2007 All StarsGnevin 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That just means that the template and the template talk page (which are two separate pages, category-wise) are in the category. And just as an aside, this isn't new. Prior to my completing the CFD, they were both in Category:Gaelic Games Project templates. --Kbdank71 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that that means anything, of course. We probably don't need both in the category, as you first suggested. I'll just go away now. --Kbdank71 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, afore you go, thanks for closing the CfD! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) As Kbdank71 says, no need for them to be there twice. Long-term, it's probably easier to keep them there by the template on the talk page, so I guess it'd be best to remove the categ from the template itself, and check that the talk page template is in place. Do you want me to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sounds goodGnevin 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, done now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lords of France II

You have contributed at the CFD for Category:Lords of France here. The subcats have been deleted, and Category:Lords of France is being held for cleanup until Nov 5. I was wondering if you'd like to help with the cleanup, as I don't have a lot of experience prod'ing articles. Thanks, and sorry for the cut-and-paste. --Kbdank71 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Prodded some, {{unreferenced}}'d some, and other look OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: removed tags

I told User:Irongargoyle to discuss the tags with you before removing any more of them. Uthanc 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am reinsttaing them, and have left a msg on User talk:Irongargoyle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm writing this note to raise my concerns about the mass tagging that you have done. In my view this sort of mass tagging overwhelms people working in the area and can discourage people from making the changes we both want to see happen. This sort of thing has happened before. Please see this archived Administrators' noticeboard discussion on what is acceptable article tagging behaviour. If you disagree with that, maybe another such discussion is needed? That case involved 193 notability tags. I believe you've added about 150. Where do you think we should go from here? As I said, I'll be away this weekend, so hopefully we can carry on this discussion on Sunday evening. Carcharoth 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that you have expressed this view, but with all due respect, you taking the same view twice doesn't make a guideline! I started tagging a few articles the other day when I first stumbled across the bridge of whatsit article, and launched a discussion at the same time, so there is nothing sneaky or underhand about it.

I'm really disappointed to see that we are still talking at cross purposes. The situation is quite simple: the overwhelming bulk of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations either cite no sources, or cite only primary refs. In the whole of those categories, I eventually found about five articles with multiple non-primary refs, though I didn't evaluate them (I just left the articles untagged). Those tags are an invitation to editors to improve articles which don't meet wikipedia's most basic criteria for inclusion, and the only reason I can see for removing them is if someone believes that these guidelines don't apply and the problems don't need fixing. Those tags are an open invitation to fix, not a specific challenge to you or to anyone else!

In the meantime, I'm really disappointed to see that you removed the tags from The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor. After all today's discussions, I feel like a broken record restating that WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION requires multiple non-trivial references in sources independent of the subject. In this case, you added one source, so the criteria are clearly not met (even if the coverage in that source is substantial).

Similarly, Lothlórien, where you added a single ref to an encyclopedia. Compare with the requirements of WP:FICTION: only one source, and is a mention in an encyclopedia non-trivial? I have re-tagged that one too, again with {{nn}} and also with {{refimprove}}.

This what worries me. IronGargoyle previously removed the notability tag from that article when it had no references at all, and clearly did not meet notability criteria (yet it was part of your complaint at ANI). Now you have done the same thing when there is only one reference, and when we have just spent a large part of the day with me repeating WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION. Why?

From WP:NOTE A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I really don't know whether you are finding this this hard to understand or are just resenting the fact the articles in your area of interest don't meet the standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, embarassing though it is to admit, I had missed the "multiple" part of the tag. Thanks for pointing that out. I have other sources to add as well, but I thought that a reference to the entries in that encyclopedia (which is a tertiary source) would be enough. Can I ask you to assume good faith and accept that as a mistake on my part? Carcharoth 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I assume good faith! There are oodles of times that I have missed aspects of a guideline, and we all learn as we go :) It seems to me that we moving closer to agreement on this, and hope that it seems like that to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A start

(Originally at User talk:IronGargoyle)

Please have a look here for a series of 18 edits where I've added a third-party source for location articles that have an entry in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. That is at least a start, I hope, and demonstrates that those subjects are notable enough to get an entry in that Encyclopedia (the other location articles don't have separate entries). Can we agree that this solves the problem for the moment with those articles (though they still have other problems), and concentrate on the other ones you've tagged? Carcharoth 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the tag here, as that is not a fictional place. It is an essay written by Tolkien. The assertion of notability is right there in the article, and the article cites where the essay (or parts of it) have been published. I'm also going to add a cite to back the notability up. Carcharoth 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. How many are multiple sources? Two, three, four? I am trying hard to work with you here. I'm not asking you to thank me for providing some sources (though that would have been nice), but let's try and improve the encyclopedia with references, rather than 'fix' it with tags. I'm nearly done for the night, but I think this has got to the stage where I'm going to try and get some fresh eyes on this. I'm going to ask at WP:AN for guidance on where to go next with this, as I find this behaviour of tag, respond to tag removal with AfD, debate, more tagging (around 150 of them), respond to reverts by edit warring to re-add tags, to be troubling. Lots of people are trying to work with you, and we don't seem to be making any headway. Some recognition or signals from you as to whether things are moving in the right direction would be nice. Carcharoth 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired too, so pls forgive the note-form reply:

• Yes, we are heading in the right direction, in some respects. Adding the refs was good, but removing the notability tag when there was only one ref was not good. "Multiple" means more than one, though as the guidelines say, if they are trivial refs, more may be needed. (I am assuming that the most of the refs you provided are non-trivial, tho I have questioned the encyclopedia refs: most such works have some very short entries).
• I am impressed that you made a start on referencing -- I hadn't expected it this quickly. It doesn't have to be done instantaneously, and many articles remain tagged in this way for many months. So take your time :)
• Per my comments at the project talk page, I am horrified that you were still suggesting that Christopher Tolkien would be an adequate reference. When I saw that, I thought we were taking a huge step backwards: whilst I'm sure he is a very reliable source, he is clearly not an independent source, which is what's needed to establish notability.
• By all means take things to ANI if you want to, but I do think that it would be more helpful all round for you to look again at the notability guidelines, because it still doesn't seem to me that you have really engaged with it. I'd have no objection to people taking lots of time adding refs if you weren't still arguinng against the guidelines and objecting to the tags as "intrusive".

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It does help. Thanks. I am posting something at AN, as I'm still concerned about getting the balance right between pushing people to improve articles, and not pressuring them with implicit threats of deletion debates and dozens of tags. I would be happy to help you develop a better approach to take to educating people about this sort of thing. Carcharoth 02:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! Disappearing images

Three apparently random images were deleted from apparently unrelated articles by a Bot on 26th October. AGot any idea why? (Licence was fine). Bot says "Removing deleted image" but the article record shows no prior deletion and the history of the image disappears completely along with the image.

Greystones

1. (cur) (last) 17:36, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (15,488 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 03:14, October 26, 2007 Ww2censor (Talk | contribs) (15,456 bytes) (revert unsourced edit about Lotto) (undo)

Lough Ree

1. (cur) (last) 05:35, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (2,758 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 22:25, October 19, 2007 Cydebot (Talk | contribs) m (2,779 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Loughs of Westmeath to Loughs of County Westmeath per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14.) (undo)

Glenamaddy Turlough

1. (cur) (last) 05:35, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (1,442 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 22:22, October 19, 2007 Cydebot (Talk | contribs) m (1,410 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Loughs of Galway to Loughs of County Galway per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14.) (undo)

Something sinister going on? (Sarah777 11:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't think it's sinister, though it does look a bit messy. Just checking the last article, I found this entry in the deletion log for IMG GMaddyTlough2758.jpg ... it seems that the reason for the image's deletion was something to do with commons (WP:CSD#I8 was cited). I do v little work with images, so I suggest you raise the issue with the deleting admin Maxim (talk · contribs), who I'm sure will be able to explain it all. If the image was deleted because it was on commons, it seems a pity that the links to it were not updated to point to commons, but as above, I have little idea of the procedure with images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About the notability dispute

I think that part of the conflict here is that you are not listening to, or accepting, what people are telling you. You have continued to repeatedly say that these articles not only do not include references establishing their notability (which is true), but also that their subjects do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which is not). This despite acknowledging that you have little direct knowledge on the subject and having been told just as often by people who are familiar with the subject that the articles are notable and sources for such exist. This apparent unwillingness to accept what you are being told is likely related to your repeated statements intimating that those disputing you are simply ignorant of Wikipedia's notability standards. Consider that several (e.g. myself, Carcharoth, IronGargoyle) of these 'ignorant' users are themselves admins. Speaking only for myself, I am extremely familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, and past precedent on these issues. Iridescent cites the Harry Potter decisions, but those were nothing new. Back in 2005 Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items established standards for articles on Middle-earth topics. That was then re-affirmed for fictional topics in general in this discussion... which was then copied to create a new guideline... known as WP:FICTION. In short, WP:FICTION exists because of past debate about these Middle-earth articles - which concluded that they should be kept. THAT is the consensus which established the guideline you are citing... though you argue the opposite of what the consensus found. Which wasn't a new development then either, Talk:Elros has a similar discussion (with the same results) in 2004 and there were others even older still. This has been accepted and repeatedly re-affirmed practice on Wikipedia since the beginning.

On Christopher Tolkien: You object that he is not independent and thus cannot be cited to establish notability. Actually, nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members, but I think this also overlooks the reality that Christopher Tolkien did not act alone. If CT had put up a website and posted all of his material there or gotten it published by a vanity press then it would indeed be difficult to draw much evidence of notability from that. Instead, top tier publishers in various countries around the world contracted the man... for fifteen books on the subject. Which have since been reprinted, printed in versions with illustrations by noted artists, printed in combined editions, printed as Folio Society collectors items, et cetera. Can you honestly say that is not independent verification of notability? These books have continued being published, and all remained in print, in multiple languages, for more than 30 years... without their contents being notable?

Finally, even if the WP:FICTION guideline had not been created specifically to affirm the notability of these articles, even if the notability inherent in the world's biggest publishers releasing multiple texts on the very minutiae you are challenging were somehow 'invalidated' by the person doing the work having been related to the author, even so these articles would be notable... because, as has been said repeatedly, there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them. Encyclopedias, atlases, compendiums, volumes of annotations, scholarly journals and papers, adoption into popular culture, et cetera ad nauseum. They are notable even in their own right, and not just by the long-standing practice of being part of an extraordinarily notable subject. So, by all means... observe that they, like most of the rest of Wikipedia, are not yet properly referenced. But don't say they aren't notable or that the people who disagree with you on that point need to research the standards. I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable. --CBD 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I find tone of your comments unnecessarily hostile, and I hope that before posting again you will consider being less accusatory and try to assume good faith.

I hope it is clear that when saying that an article is "non-notable", I have meant that those articles have not so far demonstrated notability according to the guidelines. That's a subtle but important point, and it's central to all of this: notability is demonstrated by the tests set out in guidelines, not simply asserted. I'm glad that the Gondor article which I nominated at AFD have been improved sufficiently to meet the guidelines, and welcome the speedy closure of the AfD. It's a real pity, though, that an article which so many people claimed was so important did not have those references beforehand.

Now, if you are just going to come here and hector me with statements like "I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable", I'd prefer you went off and did something else. Don't tell me; show me.

If you read the lengthy have discussions on this, you will see repeatedly that I have asked for evidence of how the guidelines have been met, and that has not been forthcoming.

Now, you come here and point me to the first draft of WP:FICTION], and claim that as a trump card. Sorry, but that version is over 2 years old, and WP:FICTION has changed substantially in that time: I have been working off the current version, and I sincerely hope that you are not claiming that it was wrong to do so.

The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth_items also sheds little light on the issues at stake here. It is mostly about whether to keep or merge articles (with a clear consensus to merge the minor stuff), and has remarkably little to say about notability. The consensus to upmerge minor articles seems to still stand at WikiProject Middle-earth, and I have had no dispute with that.

On Christopher Tolkein, I'm very surprised by your statement that "nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members"; I have dismissed him as evidence of notability not just as a family member but because of his role. WP:FICTIONWP:NOTE(as it is now, not as how it may have been 2 years ago) very clearly says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and explains that as "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". I see nothing in WP:FICTION which exempts fictional material from that test, and quite rightly too, or else everything fictional would become automatically notable if there had been a collaborator or third-party editor or someone to complete the work. Christopher Tolkein was not merely a family biographer; so far as I can see, he was in many respects more like a co-author, albeit a posthumous one.

You are also introducing a further test of notability: that it should be be sufficient to show that a work has been widely published. That's an interesting argument, but I cannot find it anywhere in WP:FICTION. If I have missed it, can you point out to me where to find it?

You suggest that the consensus in 2005 was that everything Tolkien was automatically notable; if so, you should remember that consensus can change, and you have not shown how the current consensus-agreed guideline supports that view.

However, all this is probably irrelevant. If, as you say "there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them", why not just cite those sources rather than angrily denouncing someone who asks for them?

I look forward to your reply, so long as you actually try to engage with the points I am making: I welcome any explanations of things I have missed or misunderstood. But if you post again to just say "I'm telling you", expect to see your post deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't 'angrily denouncing' you or being 'hostile'. I was trying to get you to see that the views opposing yours were not born of the ignorance you have attributed them to. Unfortunately, given your response, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I will be adding references, already cited repeatedly, to the articles, but obviously that can't be done for hundreds of pages all at once. --CBD 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'm quite happy not to receive messages saying "I'm telling you". If you change your mind, and want to engage in a discussion, I still look fwd to hearing from you.

Good luck with adding the refs. I know it takes time, but if we agree that it needs to be done then it seems to me that we have actually resolved our differences :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

peerage-work-group

Please would you change the viscount's coronet to image:Lord_red.svg. It will affect the talk page of every peer with WPBiography. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can you give me some clearer links to explain what you want done. What page or template us to be changed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have just done a bit of digging. I presume that you want Template:WPBiography changed so the peerage work group logo is changed from Image:Meuble héraldique Couronne Comte.svg to Image:Lord_red.svg. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's done: [18]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How come it doesn't show through? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which talk page(s) is it not showing up on? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cancel. It does - it does - and is a great improvement. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When templates are changed, it can take a while for the articles in which they are transcluded to be rebuilt, and with such a widely-used tag, I can imagine it may take a long time for this one to propagate. Anyway, glad it doth look better :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC) trying to keep the customers satisfied

Roman Catholic Bishops

Some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The nominator appears not to have read WP:BIO :(
All those articles clearly pass the test in WP:BIO (albeit one rather narrowly), and a discussion about the general principle of a presumption of notability for RC bishops belongs at WT:BIO, not a AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: Women computer scientists

Thanks, I'm not withdrawing my nomination, but I've replied to your comment on the deletion discussion. SparsityProblem 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland tagging

I see that you have been retagging several articles but notice two things about the way you tag. First, I have not noticed you filling in the image-needed or infobox-needed parameters. Whenever I tag an article I try to add the yes or no parameters, so that it does not need to be revisited until either has been done. Would you possibly do that? You are looking at the article anyway, so deciding if it needs either is an easy task. The second thing is that your summary on my watch-page does not indicate your edits (the ones I noticed such as Talk:Fenit Harbour) are merely a retagging but, to me, imply a completely new tag, which technically they are, where there was none before but when I look at the difference I don't see any significant change except that you are substituting the full preferred tag. Maybe you would rephrase your summaries because then I will know what was done and not bother review your edit which may well be perfectly fine. I often use the word "rate" or "add params" when that is all I actually did to the tag even though I inserted the preferred tag instead of the old one. Hope that makes sense. Cheers and keep up the good work. BTW what do you know about having a bot tag all the untagged Irish stubs? (When you reply, please do so where I started the discussion.) ww2censor 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK first thing is that I have not been looking at the articles; as you may have seen from the edit summaries, I have been using AWB, which only shows the page being edited, and from which it is difficult to launch the article page if viewing the talk. So while viewing the talk page, I have no idea whether the article is a bare and unsourced 1-line sub-stub or a feature-grade 70K article.

So what I have been doing is looking for articles which are not already tagged, and adding a bare {{WikiProject Ireland}} tag, with the following parameters filled in:

• class=Category (for category)
• class=List (for a list)
• class=Template (for a template)
• priority=(whatever) for a very few articles where I felt able to make a clear assessment of importance without seeing the article

... but to the others I would either have to guess (bad idea), or to stop, tab across to my browser and open up the article, which massively slows the exercise.

Initially, my AWB run was including articles tagged with the old template, so on some of those (depending on mood) I substituted the new one, but most of them I skipped; I have now set AWB to skip those articles (sorry for putting a few misleading edit summaries your watchlist when I was replacing them)

The outcome of this run will be a huge increase in the of articles with blank tags, which is not as useless an exercise as it sounds, because they will then show up in Category:Unassessed Ireland articles and Category:Unknown-importance Ireland articles; the additions to those categories can of course be tracked by using Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Unassessed Ireland articles and Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Unknown-importance_Ireland_articles. The same goes for Category:Ireland articles needing attention, Category:Ireland articles needing images, Category:Ireland articles needing infoboxes, etc ... which means that anyone wanting to complete the tags has an accurate list to work from.

As to getting a bot to help, yes, that would be brilliant. I have already asked for a bot to get to work: see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are doing and understand that using AWB does not allow seeing the article itself to make any judgements on its merits. Leaving out already tagged articles from your AWB runs seems a better idea unless you actually see them. I do all my edit through the browser unlike you. I am well aware of the Category:Unassessed Ireland articles pages which I had actively been trying to reduce down to zero but only got it down to 16 recently, but now you have filled it up again, damn!! I am also aware of the Category:Unknown-importance Ireland articles pages but the others special pages you mentioned are new to me. Asking a bot to do the initial tag job seems like a good idea. Thanks for that but do you really think there are a squillion Irish articles? One last thing is that I favour the sequential tag layout because it takes up less visual less space in the page when editing, and especially where there are several tags, rather then the vertical layout that you use and have asked for the bot to use. It's just a small point. What do you think? Thanks for the work. I see that the assessment bot is on one of it longer intervals rather than the usual 3-day schedule. Cheers ww2censor 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for a belated reply. Well, there aren't millions of Ireland-related articles, but there are nearly 3,000 categories and over 25,000 articles.

I find that tag parameters are much more easily read if they are laid out on separate lines, as is one in programming. If there are only one or two parameters, they easily legible if laid out one line, but in a case like this where there are about 7 parameters, the vertical layout makes it much easier to identify which tags are blanks and which aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to see where you got those statistics from - 25,000+ Irish articles - wow. Can you tell me how to get them? You are probably right about the parameter layout from the ease of legibility though I prefer the other way myself. Did you look at the list of cats here yet? Thanks ww2censor 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the count when using AWB's "make list" feature to list all the articles under Category:Ireland and its subcats, using the "Category (recursive)" option. I wanted to do a few checks on the list to see what was would included if a bot did a mass-tagging, and found some things which should not have been there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you dump a list of those articles by category somewhere so we could all see them? That figure is 2.5 times our highest estimate! (Sarah777 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

The list is a bit of a jumble, and not really sorted by category (because most articles are in several categories), but I'll post it later in its raw form. Meanwhile, have you seen Special:CategoryTree? e.g. Special:CategoryTree:Ireland --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy (BH)G! I hadn't seen that...thanks. (Sarah777 20:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

I can assure you that I am a deeply unholy person ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) OMG !!! ww2censor 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So what are we going to do with the project tagging? Work on as we have been or wait until the bot has tagged the rest of the untagged articles by category? Just curious now that we have less than 100 to go to get to 5,000. Cheers ww2censor 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are hard at work! Unfortunately, the bot has either taken a holiday or taken a dislike to Irish articles, so I'm not sure when or if it will start tagging. If it's still silent in another few days, I'll ask for my own bot account and let AWB roll away :)

But the bot won't overwrite any existing tags, so you can safely continue the good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really working that hard, just pausing for a breather, but waiting a bit too. I'll just keep working a bit until we hit 5,000 and then devote some time to other more important things like the Irish FARs and other stuff. Let me know if you end up running a bot yourself and what it can do. Thanks ww2censor 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD Category:Oil fields of ...

This discussion relates to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28#Category:Oil_fields_of_Scotland

Hi, I fear we're getting a little bit polarised over at the CfD, I thought I'd just note that I really do appreciate your thoughts on the CfD above, but I had rather hoped you'd be prepared to WP:AGF on my viewpoints in the discussion.

Technically, I thought that User:Jw2034's proposal had some merit. FYI, I once spent a solid 6 months going through the mapping, licensing & proprties of those b****y North Sea licence blocks in some detail. I therefore assure you I fully recognise what a politically loaded topic this, and I note you are not alone in making your views clear. (You might also observe that I have not stated an opinion on who should own the oil & its revenues, just on the facts of how it is managed now.) That's also why I thought that, for consistency, any claims to "English" oil should be taken out as well as Scottish. Its pointless, its use is already being misunderstood. If you've looked into the history and operation of the oil industry you'd also appreciate there are many different ways that countries can handle and redistribute mineral explotation & distribution rights, which means that ownership & control might not follow the most 'obvious' route.

Suffice to say I feel there should be a way of handling the simple classification of this, while still maintaining accuracy, and without trying to double-guess how a devolved settlement would affect rights. (Personally, I'd think that anyone seeing a North Sea field in a UK Cat could work out the obvious way...)

So WP:NPA, thanks Ephebi 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you have been confusing the related concepts of "Scottish things" or "things of Scotland" with the narower legalistic one of "things currently under the control of the Scottish Government". The latter is a subset of the former, but you seem to be trying to restrict the use to the latter. I know how the oil is managed (at least in the very broad outline, that the licensing and the taxation is a reserved issue), but I don't see why you want to remove the Scottish and English labels unless you are concerned that, as you put it "we really are trying to feed these agendas".

It's not wikipedia's job to either feed or stifle any political agenda, and you'll see from the legal links I provided that the current legal division of geography is clear. If and when there is a divisions of oil assets between England and Scotland, I'm sure that the current boundaries will not be the last word. Just as the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty included exceptional provisions about militarily-desirable sea ports and the Imperial Debt, I'm sure that neither side of a UK oil split would feel restrained from grabbing as much as it can possibly get. My own best guess is that if Scotland gets independence, the English reaction will be along the lines of "if you're going, there's one crucial condition: whether you like it or not, you are going to have to take Northern Ireland with you and we're keeping all the oil". Wars have been (and continue to be) fought over oil, and I just hope that this one never escalates to a shooting match.

But that's all crystal-ball gazing. For now the boundaries are well-enough defined that it's quite possible to objectively determine whether a given oil field is at present legally in Scottish or English waters or both. People can draw from those facts what conclusions they wish about the future, but that doesn't change the facts that the seas are as well-divided as the border at Gretna. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I guess we have been talking past each other here, while vigourously agreeing about the context! - We agree that there is no dispute that the north sea fields are associated with Scotland waters in some way (that ref. to the set of legislation was quite informative, thanks). Your amusing analogy with the 'Military of Scotland' is a good one - the army has always called the regiments from north of the Border their "Scottish Regiments" probably for just that reason, until some imaginative soul recently decided to call the 6 merged units the "Regiment of Scotland"! (And BTW the 'Military of Scotland' is a completely false category as well, IMHO!) And you are probably right - should the devolved Holyrood government be handed the rights to North Sea oil it will probably be hamstrung in such a way that such revenues that remain are channelled through the Westminster Treasury, either through exploitation rights, distribution licences or some other cunning fee structure. Thus was it everso in the land of oil! I do see the use of the "of" word as being inappropriate at a devolved level in so many of these categories, based on one of the meanings of the word. There have been wars fought over this 8-( It just that somehow WO seems to have developed a dogmatic approach to names using "... of Foo" which, in the interests of tidiness, ignores actual circumstance, when "...in ... " would be so much more accurate. Else, in the interests of accuracy, do we have to put up a health warning with each of these categories - "In spite of the name, this is a category of things which are physically in Scottish territory but are governed & controlled by the UK government" to avoid the cries of "but its ours" from the crowd? Hmmm.

Rgds, Ephebi 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and glad that we seemed to have got beyond talking at cross purposes we weren't really that far apart in our views, were we? :)

I feel a bit guilty that I didn't acknowledge your evident expertise from spending 6 months analysing the drilling licenses and mapping; I felt at the time that you were rather not seeing the wood for the trees, but sorry for being rather rude and pushy. (BTW, what did you do deserve that punishment? It sounds like an alternative to a sentence of breaking rocks, imposed as only on the most hardened of desperadoes! <grin>)

I try to look at a category name as being a bit like a headline: a brief and rough outline of the contents, which has to strike a difficult balance between accuracy and brevity. I guess that an unambiguous category name here might be something like "oil fields in Scotland or in the territorial waters of Scotland as defined by SI No. 1126 of 1999", but that's a long way from the approach urged by WP:NC to "prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature".

To add to the difficulty wrt to oil fields, we have three difft sorts of territorial distinction: a) oil fields within the land area of a country, b) offshore oil fields within internationally recognised territorial waters, c) oil fields within waters claimed by a country as part of its economic zone, but not neccessarily recognised as such by other nations. To accommodate all three without turning the category name into an essay, we can't avoid a certain amount of fuzziness; and while some countries might be manageable with an "Oil fields in foo" category name, that would undermine the consistency which is important to make categories easy to link to.

So I don't see any alternative to putting some sort of brief health warning in the UK categories, as you suggest. I think that we have to be careful to make it clearly neutral, and not to give any impression that it takes a view either way on the claim that It's Scotland's oil.

May I suggest that we discuss possible wordings at Category talk:Oil fields of Scotland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Paperwork

Glad I could do so, after a heavy week for you! Johnbod 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I have rather stepped out my usual safety-zones this week ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

Thank you for nominating the Tolkein articles. I've been going through many articles on fiction like it trying to get them cleaned up for example my recent AFDs for the myst games. I had just looked at the various Tolkein articles thinking they needed cleaning up and wondered if anyone would ever have the guts to take them on. I also posted a rant on the talk page of WP:Fiction. I find it kind of funny that if you read through the archives originally it was a guideline to help clean things up, but has since been made so vague that it's now an excuse to keep everything. Is it just me or dose it seem like WP:Fiction is moving in a direction counter to other policies. Ridernyc 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's deja-vu night!

Following on from Category:Rappers currently in prison, which you kindly zapped earlier, I've now noticed another familiar name at the new pages (category section): Category:Fictional drug users, a recreation of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Fictional drug users - although I'm prepared to accept it's a good faith recreation (the user's account was only created at the end of May, post-dating your deletion of the category in mid-May). Care to do the honours again, or shall I list it for CfD to see if consensus has changed? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that one. I have tagged with {{db-repost}}, and unless the creator objects promptly, it'll be on its way soon. I think we can skip the CfD unless there is an objection. --23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, and I saw your closing comment at the rappers about nominators using {{db-repost}} in future. Whether it's because the admins who patrol CAT:CSD tend to overlook the categories or because more knowledgeable admins watch WP:CFD, the rappers category is now gone and salted, whereas one that I used {{db-repost}} on earlier tonight (Category:Colombian men) is, at the time of writing, still waiting for a "speedy" deletion... Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta, once again! Sorry to bother you with this once again. Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, there must have been a bit of backlog. Anyway, I have sent the Colombian men off to the saltmines ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

A backlog at CAT:CSD? Whatever next?! Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor

discussion moved to Talk:The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. I agree that the notability tags at Ósanwe-kenta and The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor are needed, and will make a note to get around to establishing notability for those. I'm still unsure how helpful "This article needs additional citations for verification" is. In both cases the details of the publications are cited in the body of the article (maybe you are making the common mistake of only looking at the bottom of the article for footnoted citations?). For The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor: "parts of it were published in Unfinished Tales, and the remaining parts were published in the periodical Vinyar Tengwar, issue number 42 in 2001", and for Ósanwe-kenta: "published in Vinyar Tengwar (39) in 1998". Do you think you could replace the "unreferenced" tag on Ósanwe-kenta with "refimprove", or even replace refimprove on both articles with "fact" tags for the individual bits you think need citing? I'm actually rather surprised at what you tagged as needing citations in The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor - I added a citation needed tag to the most obvious bit - the third paragraph that is clearly an opinion and needs to be sourced to who said "based on what can be gleaned from this, it seems it is at this point..." etc. In some senses, the citation for the Bibire letter claim is "According to Christopher Tolkien". That is more an incomplete citation that a lack of citation. Hope this helps. I also hope I'm beginning to persuade you that discussing things in details is much better than leaving tags! :-) Carcharoth 09:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The tags help in two ways: they both flag up the issue prominently to any reader, and place the article in categories of articles needing attention. Both those effects increase the chance that someone will come along to fix the problem.

I think you may be right about Ósanwe-kenta needing a refimprove; I would think on balance not, but AGFing etc, I have changed it to refimprove. At the least, it should have an external citation of the key facts asserted: ISSN etc for publication, rather than just a link to a wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, and a citation for the subject matter (clarifying whether or not that description is based on an external source).

As to The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor, the points where I have sought citations are the key facts stated about the provenance of the essay. The key question which citations could answer is whether those points are made in the essay itself or in external sources, and if so in what external sources. I'm afraid that "according to Christopher Tolkien" isn't an incomplete citation, it's assertion: CT published lots, and I'm sure he also talks lots. A citation points the reader towards a source specified precisely enough that it can be verified, but "according to CT" could mean "as he told my grand-dad in the pub", which is not verifiable.

I understand what you say about discussing things in detail, and it's something which I have been thinking a bit about. It seems to me that the issue may be that not everyone is familiar with the principles of referencing and notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About the last point, I think people assume notability can be imnplicit, rather than explicit, and they assume any old references are enough to establish notability (which is not the case, as we have been discussing). Maybe have a look at the guidelines and policies and see if they could be improved. I often think we should get feedback from new editors, as they are the best ones to tell us if the policies and guidelines are understandable, as opposed to being too long and confusing at first glance. I've often talked about simplified versions of the policy documents, and the nutshells sort of do that, but more work is needed in that area. Carcharoth 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's a rather skimpy decision and rather short on nuance, but I hope that it will help. I hope that the probation will not have to be used, but it's good to have it available if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdos number evidence

If you have found evidence which meets the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Reward board#Erdos_number, please post it here. (Note that this reward relates to the CfD debate on Erdős number categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Machine learning

Thanks for finding a parent for my orphan. These beauts come up in uncategorized categories pages - these are just a short alphabetic range. Learn something new every day. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Always nice to find a home for a lost child :) Well done you for bringing so many of them in off the streets :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Antonioli

Can you take a peek at Dan_Antonioli. There is a copyright violation tag on it and I was just told the article is being deleted. Can you take a peek, and see what the fuss is about? I can't see the article anymore. There were some strong words exchanged last week in the deletion process, and I suspect this may be a continuation of the process to eliminate the article. The argument is now about how much text in the quote function of the citations constitutes fair use under the DMCA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A category you might like, or not...

As a / the leading light in categorization of British MPs, what do you think of Category:London Labour Party Member of Parliament? My initial thought (leaving aside the actual wording / use of a singular etc) is that it'd be overcategorization to group MPs by city and party, and I can't immediately find any parallel categories e.g. at Category:Labour MPs (UK) or Category:Conservative MPs (UK) to change my first impression. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think aaaargh! Strong delete pronto pronto pronto pronto (or rather upmerge).

1. It's a triple intersection (MP/party/city)
2. It's historically ambiguous (London's boundaries have been radically expanded twice in the last 130 years)
3. It will in many cases not be
4. There is general agreement at CfD that MPs are already as heavily categorised, more categories are a bad idea, and that categorisation by location of seat is inappropriate in finer detail than by country. For some MPs this category will simply be a more verbose replacement for Category:Labour MPs (UK), but for MPs who have also represented seats outside London, it's an extra category. In the current parliament that includes a bunch of Conservatives — Malcolm Rifkind, Peter Bottomley and Jacqui Lait — but in the next Parliament it will include Labour's Stephen Twigg and in previous parliaments it has included lots of notable Labour figures such as Ian Mikardo, Hugh Dalton, Brian Sedgemore, and Hyacinth Morgan (that's just a few from memory)

So I think that this orphaned category should be CfDed pronto. I'd be happy to nominate it, but do you want to do the honours? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to affect your blood pressure so early in the day! I'll nominate it and unashamedly steal your rationale! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As an academic friend of mine says, it's not stealing and it's not plagiarism, it's recycling :) So please go head, do your bit for the environment ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you know this song by Tom Lehrer, which makes the same point? Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friend in Omsk has friend in Tomsk ... yes, I love that song. That's the awful thing about Lehrer: so many wonderful songs that it's hard to select a clear favourite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability tags

Back at WT:Middle-earth, I've proposed to replace your notability (and secondary sources) tags on Tolkien pages with a single Template:ME-importance or Template:Merge JRRT. Do you agree with the points I set out there? Súrendil 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for the note, and see my reply at WT:Middle-earth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note as well. I've also realised (rather belatedly) that the importance categories at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics are effectively a form of assertion of notability made on the talk page. Obviously the evidence needs to be added to the actual articles, but I am confident all the ones in top are easily notable, and similarly most of the ones in high. The other two (mid and low) probably contain more of the ones that concern you, while the 425 here might really shock you! I periodically pick through that category, trying to pick out ones that have reasonable articles and assessing them and assigning an importance. Misty Mountains for example, and the recently discovered Ringers: Lord of the Fans. I guess actually adding references would be more productive, but it does feel like slowly order is being created. Carcharoth 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An update - am starting to work on some of the articles this weekend. I did notice, though, while reviewing my watchlist, that others disagree with your notability assessments. Maybe there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between the generic tags "may not satisfy" and the explicit "I realise it is notable, but please provide sources to document this" requests? The problem with generic tags is that they are very anonymising. There is a world of difference between "I don't know whether this is notable or not, please tell me" and "this is notable, but we need to say so in the article". The former is OK when phrased politely, but when posed in the form of a generic tag, the subtext is "I haven't taken the time to research the topic, but I'm leaving this tag for others to do the work". Anyway, no offense intended, just wanted to jot down a few more general thoughts on the topic before starting the work. Carcharoth 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated that tag. {{notability}} clearly says "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and it is for this asserting notability to provide the references to demonstrate it.

Of course tags such as this invite others to do the work, that's the whole point of them, to invite more people to see if they can bring the article up to scratch. But you still appear to be taking the view that notability is established other than by the evidence of real-word notability. It seems to me that what your argument amounts to is "I know something about the subject of this article, and think that this article is notable, but I couldn't be bothered to do the work to demonstrate that, so I'm asking you take my word for it".

In short, if it's notable, then demonstrate that notability. Don't blame the reader for not doing the work which the writer hasn't done!

I'm sorry if this sounds like a growly reply, but the point here is quite fundamental: that it is up to anyone who adds material to wikipedia to justify its inclusion. The tags simply say "justification not provided". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The tags don't say "justification not provided". They are generic ones that say "The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline". Note the "may". That clearly sends the message: "Not sure exactly what is wrong with this article, but here are a list of possible reasons. Please try and work out what is wrong with the article and fix it". I would be much happier if the tag simply said "Notability has not been established for the topic of this article. See here for notability guidelines on topic x. Please establish notability by referencing ...". This could be accomplished by having parameters for the eight linked notability guidelines, and then people leaving the tags could take the time to leave more useful tags. I agree that writers need to avoid being lazy and should establish notability and sources early on, but readers (or rather, taggers) also need to put in some work as well. Just reading an article and putting "notability" on it is an imbalance in effort, and I hope you can understand that. But enough of this. Time to establish notability. The articles I will tackle first are:

• Gondor
• Mirkwood
• Angband (Middle-earth)
• Arda
• Lonely Mountain
• Lothlórien
• Misty Mountains
• Mordor
• Rivendell
• Moria (Middle-earth)
• Rohan
• Shire (Middle-earth)
• Tol Eressëa
• Eldamar
• Valinor

Please don't throw your hands up in horror if you see me merging some stubs into those articles first. Give me time to finish the job. Carcharoth 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob, if you merge first, and good work clearing the little stubs :) But similarly, if notability has not been established for the merge targets, best to tag them to invite others to establish notability.

The notability tag may not be perfectly worded for every situation, but that's because it does try to cover a variety of situations. You suggested wording of "Please establish notability by..." presuposes that notability can be established, which may not be the case: we don't know until the evidence is laid out.

And I'm sorry, but I can't disagree about this effort thing. The fundamental issue is whether the article currently establishes the notability of the subject (not whether any of us believes or disbelieves that it could establish it), not who fixes it. If there is a warning sign saying "danger: there's no fence on this clifftop", would you take down the sign because the person who put it up should instead have installed a few miles of safety fence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, I wouldn't take the safety sign down. but I do like that analogy. Comparing Wikipedia article notability tags to a cliff danger sign... :-) Carcharoth 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely and utterly over-the-top as a comparison of hazard; nobody's going to plummet to their death because of a few tags. But the same principle applies: keep a warning notice on it until the problem is fixed. (As a less extreme but possibly more comparison, every daily copy of the Westminster editions of Hansard includes a disclaimer that it is a draft, and that the definitive edition will be the weekly bound volumes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RAF Gailes article

I noticed someone (not me) removed a non cited source tag on the page. I have added an external link, would this suffice or is more information useful? Douglasnicol 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• That looks useful, though multiple sources are usually required for verification and to establish notability. So I have changed the tag on RAF Gailes to {{refimprove}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Geobox categories

I'll do as you suggested and first post my objection at this page though I don't think it's necessary, it's just polite. There are a couple of things around this template (and not only its categorization scheme) which have shaken my respect to the Wikipedia community a great deal. I'm definitely going to raise my objections somewhere, I just I don't not yet what's the best place to get more attention. I've always believed the major aim of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia for the benefit of readers all around the world and that the community around this project believes in fairness, objectiveness and definitely prefers a seeking consesus in all issues. The {{Geobox}} template is a highly versatile template which can be used for virtually any type of geography related data, it's major advantages are consistent, easily parseable, user-friendly data format and a uniform data presentation with a lot of automation (unit conversions, automated locator maps etc.) It doesn't "compete" with other templates, it is not used by its creators to "eat-up" other templates as it is the case of other templates, it is just here and users/editors can decide whether they prefer this template or some other. After some users' request, the auto categorization scheme was started as no-one had come up with a better solution. It's absolutely fair to disagree with it, but these objections should be expressed in a polite and fair way which I'm afraid wasn't the case here at all.

User:Darwinek placed a suggestion (a mere suggestion) on my talk page which I answered. He didn't give any clear reason why he objected to the auto catgorization, just I think these categories shouldn't show up and another user wrote I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. A bit vague, rather just personal point of view. Anyway, the sugestion got answered. Instead of clearly statting the reasons for the suggestion, this user moved to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question where he made some false statements, not based on anything that was written before, to which User:Francis Schonken repeatedly added abolutely absurd and false accusations (which I believe gave me a good ground to raise an official complaint). Yet at least he/she made the objections to the issue clear. I repeatdly asked anyone to continue a normal discussion where it rightly belonged: Template_talk:Geobox#Auto_categories. Though we (the people around the Geobox) were repeatedly accused of being unwilling to cooperate it was the other way round, the people who objected just made accusations, issued instructions and didn't bother to come up with any solutions or at least suggestions (besides suggesting to ditch the template completely).

I strongly object to:

• Unwillingness to open a discussion (I requested it at least five times) and instead complaining behind everyone's back (I mean the creator's and the users' who requested this functionality and were making use of it.)
• Using absolutely false arguments and strong accusations when those making them obviusly did not understand the topic being discussed.

I didn't want to make fuss about this treatment but I was possibly wrong as it seems this behavior becoming more and more common on Wikipedia.

And you were right there would be strong oppositing to the way how the discussion was closed. As there was obviously no consensus at all. I consider the situation when one user closes a discussion based on their own interpreatation of a debate as a breach of wiki etiquette (and it would be a breach of a discussion anyplace). It was stated good reasons weren't given. How come? What wiki policy is that which would say if a feature which is found useful by many users while not breaking any of basic rules (no personal attacks, NPOV, no bias etc.), not breaking or damaging the ideas on which Wiki is built is bad just because some users are able to browse thru thousands of often contradictory policies and guidelines (which I don't think are binding but a subject of debate and opposition). You state that technical categories such "Artciles needing this or that since October 2006" are OK in the main namespace for the benefit of a reader. Is it a general concensus or a consensus of a few self-proclaimed regulators? Besides, the appropriate page says: "They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." I boldified the last section because it seems to explain perfectly what the situation is, these templates are not officially accepted or rejected but just some users think they are useful and so they have the right to be here. I'm definitely not that well acquainted with the thousands of rules and exceptions to these rules but I daresay I know well what the principle of Wikipedia is and that is a peaceful coorperation whose main target is to create a the largest and and free source of information for anyone to use. Those, who add geoboxes to articles, do not place rubbish to their articles but supply them with a lot of neatly organised data. Each Geobox added means a lot of work done. And the categories are highly useful for them. Furthermore, it is not true there was no reason given why the template was useful for a reader, so let me just repeat: it helps the reader find out articles which contain neatly organized geodata about a place (editors don't just add geoboxes with one or two chaotic lines, they fill them with a lot of useful data). Wikipedia is not here for editors but for readers first.

There were couple of views expressed in the debate, some wanted to keep the categories completely, some suggested renaming them so that they didn't contain the word geobox (which I accept was not a good idea at all and should be changed and asked about possible alternative names but as usual got no answers). I suggested I'll make changes to the template that would satisfy both sides but that I need to work out the best solution. No help was given. (Except USer:SEWilco who was the only one who really tried to help and suggested various solutions, thank you very much indeed.) But simply some users' voices mean nothing. I do not think this is the right course for Wikipedia, that so many discussions are flooded by users putting in tens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than discussiing the merit of the thing: does this help improve Wikipedia or not? Adding those categories was not my idea, I did that following a request from other users as it seemed the most elegant solution. I do not personally care much about them but I'm strongly concerned about the free spirit of Wikipedia being damaged by users imposing rules for rules, creating world of their own bound by them, not respecting other views, refusals to discuss things, imposing orders but no viable solutions … – Caroig (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Clandfield

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I'm not too sure if you will receive this message but I was at school with a guy called Stephen who, I think had the title of Viscount Clandfield. I'm not completely sure of the spelling of "Clandfield" but he would've been at Stowe School in Stowe, Buckingham from around 1975 until 1980.

All I can remember of him was that he was quite an introvert, although he had a very sharp wit which often got him into trouble with both tutors and pupils. He had a particular interest in natural history.

The last I heard of him was that he'd relocated to Johannesburg in around 1988/89... I've not heard anything since then.

Hope this may be of some help to you.

Kind regards, David Goldstein ( d.goldstein@hotmail.co.uk ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty1234 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was initially unsure why you are telling me, but I see that there was a discussion here (now in my archives at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_008#Viscount_Clandfield) about this title. However I know nothing about the subject other than what's written there) and the fact that the article Viscount Clandfield was deleted at 20:38 on 12 September 2007 by User:Craigy144for the stated reason: "(nonsense article - no such creation of this title.)"

The fact that my talk page takes the No. 3 position in a google search for "Viscount Clandfield" suggests to me that this title is not prominent in the usual lists of peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The google search does reveal a Stephen Richardson as 4th Viscount Clanfield but that is definitely a spoof title. There was however a Viscount Clanfield and Earl Peel created 10 July 1929, granted to William Robert Wellesley Peel. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London

I'm on the case. Thanks Jed keenan 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Lemme know if I can help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

TTI Telecom

Hi. I noticed you deleted this article as spam. I looked at it very closely as part of a detailed review of spammy articles I did recently at Talk:List of network management systems‎. While a TTI Telecom-related editor did a lot of spammy stuff, I think the company is notable. As I recall, it's listed on the Israeli stock exchange; that alone is usually taken as a sign of notability. A quick search of Google's News Archives turns up 567; probably 80 to 90% are press releases, but that still leaves several dozen articles from Forbes, the Jerusalem Post, etc. I may have tagged it for notability (I don't remember) but if so, it was because:

1. I was spending hours working through a long list of articles quickly looking for deletion candidates that I could immediately process per CSD, PROD or AfD. I did not look closely at possibly iffy articles.
2. I wanted to flag that somebody needed to add some refs citing notability

I suggest if you still want to delete this that you restore the article and list it at AfD.

As for Category:TTI Telecom, all those individual products of TTI's are not notable and I proposed them for deletion several days ago. They'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if you restore TTI Telecom. I suggest that if you see these links go red, you just speedy the category:

• Netrac
• Netrac FaM
• Netrac PMM
• ServiceImpact
• TrafficGuard

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just restored the article and listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom.

Now that the head article is restored, the category probably won't empty before the CfD closes, so a speedy is probably off the menu, but it's a only a few days delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the prompt objection, while it was all fresh in my head! :) (heda beg turned to mush by raking through the hundreds of bizarre orphans in Special:Uncategorizedcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki

I'm wondering if this whole fight about notability fiction is going in the wrong direction, Kind of like trying to put out a forest fire by stomping on burning leaves. I'm wondering if we should make a proposal somewhere that some of these fictional wikiprojects be moved off of wikipeida. Ridernyc 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have wondered about that. There is clearly a lot of hard work going into some of these fiction wikiprojects, and I do understand why the authors are upset to see some of the material facing possible deletion. I'm pleased to say that my discussions with the ME-project have become very friendly and productive, and that they do seem to be starting to get to work on taking on board notability as part of their remit.

However, despite all the goodwill built up since last week, I do wonder how easy it's going to be for them to do that, when there are some really dedicated Tolkien-fans who want maximum coverage of everything, and don't get the notability and referencing issues (see e.g. my discussion with User:Cush).

Any idea how this could be raised in a non-confrontational way? I think it's really important not to give anyone an impression that there is any sort of desire to make wikipedia a fiction-free zone, and that it's actually a way to allow the fans to set out their knowledge at unlimited length without tussles ... and that wikipedia will continue to apply notability tests in an even-handed way to fictional articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of of this travels beyond notability, and I consider 99% of the fiction pages I have ever looked at to be violations of WP:Plot> I'm really not sure how to start maybe just a conversation at village pump. I tried looking at wikiprojects today and figure how that's run and so far all I can find is a nightmare of messy pages and guidelines, and the projects council which is a mess and has no direction. I've also wondered if maybe we should push this to the policy level, maybe start conversations at WP:NOT, WP:V and others stating that the numerous guidelines are overshadowing and contradicting policy. All I know is this is nuts and can't keep going on, I found this page yesterday List_of_one-time_characters_and_guest_stars_on_Desperate_Housewives I then found 3-4 other pages all listing NN characters from the show.Ridernyc 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you notcied?

Your talk page in now in the "Unknown importance Tolkein article" catagory.Ridernyc 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now fixed, although I suspect that there was some existential truth somewhere in that categorisation of me :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewards

I was going to offer $10 a couple of days ago, if there were no more Erdos posts, but thought it somewhat against the spirit of WP. Now I'm rather regretting it! Johnbod 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on, there's still time! And I'd be very surprised if you were parted from your money. :)

I do hope it's not seen as against the spirit to do it this way around, because if there's any suggestion of undue influence, or money leading the debate, it's money being used to encourage the other side to come up with some killer facts, like one side paying another's legal bills.

It is strange, though, to watch mathematicians standing their ground over trivia, just like some fictions fans tend to do over every obscure character or place in the fictional world of their choosing. (Actually, now that I think about it, the similarity may be greater than I thought; it's the same phenomenon of a thoroughly notable subject, but in which not every little detail is notable). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

100

If they didn't want the work they shouldn't have taken the job. No sympathy! Pile 'em on! Bury the barsteds! Otto4711 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:)

I have done most of Special:Uncategorizedcategories, so I hope today will be a one-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the laugh.

this was really funny: [19]. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good :) CfD can get v tedious, but I try to avoid saying in that would offend those who created a category or take a view on the subject under discussion, so it's rare that I feel safe to say anything which might lighten the gloom of life in the category-repair-shop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:User:Mdd

Hi, I wanted to ask if it's not allowed to create your own user category. This is for me very helpfull because I develope different article over a longer period and sometimes lose them. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have a similar category. Is there a policy here? - Mdd 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was disallowed, but couldn't find a reference, so I have just proposed to rename it to incorporate the word "wikipedian", as required for all user categories.

However, I wonder why you need it. Doesn't Special:Prefixindex work for you , like this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help! (again)

Phibsborough and Phibsboro are pretty similar, the result of a failed experiment. Could you help sort it out? (Sarah777 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Vote check

Hi, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:Books_in_discourse_analysis you voted "Rename per nom" here; the nom was (presumably) to delete, but i'd suggested a rename.

I thought I'd let Erdos run for the record in the end - it must be a contender. What will be next weeks hornet's nest? Cheers Johnbod 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

oops! I meant rename the books per Johnbod, but it looks like Kbdank71 read my meaning correctly (Kb is a very astute CfD closer).

On the Erdos numbers, I do hope someone puts it out if its misery it's going nowhere and it will all end up at DRV anyway, so the sooner this phase ends, the better. You're right, though, that it looks set for a record, which actually rather surprised me, because I thought that the Scottish oil fields were going to be sunday's cause celebre, but it fizzled out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Erdos numbers, I have picked up on a post of Lquilter's to suggest a solution: put it on talk pages as a WikiProject Mathematics category, under Category:WikiProject Mathematics articles.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

oops!

There are only c410, not over 600 US country stations, so I changed both our refs to the number, which I hope is ok. Johnbod 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Thanks for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Porter and Anna Maria Porter

Hi BrownHairedGirl, could you confirm what connection these ladies have to Ireland as they seem to have been born in Durham and lived all their life in England? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. As you may have seen, I added them in this edit and this one to Category:Irish women writers because they were already in Category:Irish novelists. At the time I made no evaluation beyond that, because I was just categorising women writers according to existing Irish writer categs, but having just checked Jane's DNB entry I find that their father was a surgeon in the 6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons, an Irish regiment (at least nominally). The DNB article on their brother Sir Robert Ker Porter is slightly more informative: it says of their father that "He was descended from an old Irish family, whose ancestors included Sir William Porter, who fought at Agincourt".

None of three DNB articles mentions Jane, Anna Maria or Robert ever setting foot in Ireland, and it seems unlikely because their father died when they were all infancy, and their mother took them all to Edinburgh. So far as I can see, though, as children of an apparently Irish father they would all have been Irish citizens if born in similar circumstances in the 20th century, but they should probably be categorised as English.

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change them to English. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Sayeed

Perhaps it would be useful if you said on the talk page why you have labelled the article on Jonathan Sayeed (npov, cleanup needed; please discus on talk page).--Toddy1 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just finished writing it, now there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SDP party colours

See reply on my talk page. Cheers Galloglass 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help please

LiberalViews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already warned about his conduct by ArbCom member Mackensen for this edit, and seems to be on a trolling mission right now. Firstly there's the removal of reliably sourced content claiming "propaganda", adding POV/weaselry (source says nothing of the sort). Then related to that there's claiming sources were used falsely, further similar accusations and trolling, trolling including inflammatory edit summary, more trolling, soapboxing, personal attacks and trolling, and repeated trolling on the WikiProject talk page. Just in case you aren't aware, IED refers to improvised explosive device. Advice welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be subjected to a checkuser against certain The Troubles edit-war participants. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From the checks I have done, ONIH's assessment of the edits is spot on, and i note with relief that LiberalViews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked. Any evidence to point to any particular one of The Troubles parties? At the moment, the only action I can see is to ask for a checkuser against all 36 editors listed in the RFA, which seems to be both a huge burden to place on checkuser and a bit of a fishing trip. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be "our friend in New York" Rms125a@hotmail.com trying to provoke people with one of his many socks. There was a gap in his contribs when he was also editing using this IP - 216.194.2.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't really have the energy to rustle up a checkuser as based on his many, many disposable socks it wouldn't serve that much purpose, but without it I'm not too sure as his other edits aren't particularly RMSesque. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Or an edit-warring unionist. There are many people it is not (e.g. vk). - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, I have no evidence to point a finger anyone, and while I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of an agent provocateur, there is no evidence. I don't think that there is much we can do except to hope that the terms of probation continue to be applied, and that others don't let this sort of drive-by trolling wind then them up again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget though, it's an absolute fact that the 17 year old talked about in the Martin Meehan article was "beaten and interrogated" despite the judge saying his evidence was "poor quality". However it's only an allegation that he confessed to being an informer right? And people wonder why we have all these problems? It's pretty obvious that any anti-Irish republican information is absolute fact, but anything supposedly positive must be POV right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever either side's view of the appropriate label for the troubles (war/terrorism/civil unrest etc), all the usual blindness of war applies here, in spades :( It's going to take a loomg time for some people to face up to what was happening on both sides there, and there are too few people like Meehan and Gusty Spence who are ready to to do it.

I think the only solution to this sort of nonsense is a very firm application of the probation on offer from arbcom. One of the reasons that things escalated so badly beforehand is that admins had to escalate slowly even in the face of this sort of trolling, but those days are over. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've still yet to figure out a good way to work it into the articles, but Pat McGeown and Billy Hutchinson became quite close, in fact Hutchinson visited McGeown's home to pay his last respects on the morning of his funeral. If the people who were that involved (and many others) can find ways to work together, I don't see why it can't happen here without editors being hit with metaphorical big sticks first. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's often the old soldiers who can make the biggest leaps: they more than anyone else know what the conflict actually cost. I have seen this often in the veterans I have known of formal wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Israel-Lebanon 1983, and even among cold war generals); they can very often be found sitting down together agreeing that there should be no return to the conflict, and that's why HM University The Maze was so crucial back in the lead-up to good friday.

But while the armchair warriors on wikipedia may well have suffered during the conflict they have not been forced to confront the stark realities as the old soldiers had to. My best guess is long after Gerry Kelly and Peter Robinson are jointly marching on the Twelfth and acting as joint patrons of the Feis Ceol, we'll still have plenty of the uninvolved trying to poke their fingers in each others eyes like kids in a playground. Better, I suppose, to have it happening here than in the torture-cells at Castlereagh or the back-street kneecapping zones.

Back on topic, though, I do hope that you can work some of these personal rapprochements into to the articles. Like Cyril Ramaphosa's fishing trips, those vignettes are to my mind one of the biggest signs of hope to come out of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)