User talk:BrownHairedGirl

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

19:20 Saturday 14 September 2024 Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl) Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to: sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG) indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)	click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl BrownHairedGirl's archives + Cumulative index
Wikipedia Admin I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance. I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

Beta mess

Hi BHG, you've been vocal on the BC/BCB issue, can you think of any new way forward to resolve this? Seems like we've devolved long ago into endless shouting and thread-forking, I can't keep track of where it's all happening anymore. Can you think of any ways to segment these issues, get some groups working on them, and get them at least partly resolved? An ArbCom case is going to take a whole lot of our time and likely end up with a finding of "editors should be civil". Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franamax (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 March 2008

Sorry, I didn't have any inspiration ... and the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 turned out to be a damp squib. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Ireland article assessments - VUPP etc

Hello, firstly good job on assessing a lot of these. However looking at some of the assessments that you and others have placed there does unfortunately seem to be a fair bit of inconsistency. The difference between a stub and good article is obvious and even between a good article and a featured article, but the difference between a start article and a B class article isn't and often seems subjective and arbitrary depending on whoever reviewed it. To give one example, you assessed the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party article as B class and then returned to it later and changed that to start class without any intervening edits. A quick glance through B class articles shows Broadstone, Dublin and Buttevant both of which seem very short on references or Caesar Litton Falkiner which is very short on detail - contrast with Republican Sinn Féin which contains most of the necessary info that a reader needs but is only graded as start class. The VUPP article has a fair amount of refs and covers all the essential details. This was after all a party which existed for less than five years and was only a significant player for half that time. While all the details added can be expanded and elaborated on, beyond mention of the parties internal structures and organisation there aren't many other details that can be added. It could very well be a case of many of the B class articles being reassessed for consistency purposes. If you ever have a chance it would be good if you could add a few lines identifying strengths and weaknesses of the VUPP article so that the article can be improved. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Valenciano!

Thanks for looking at the assessments, and for querying them -- it's always good to check.

On the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party, yes I did initially assess it as B-class, but reviewed later and reckoned that I had been slightly too generous, because some of it was unreferenced, so I downgraded it. A borderline case, but when I checked again, it seemed to fall the other side of the line. I'm afraid that with the sheer number of assessments to be done (I have done over 6000 in the last few weeks), there just isn't time to write an explanation in most cases, but I have now tagged one of the unreferenced sections as an indication of the problems (referencing is the only thing I can see that holds it back from B-class).

We have in general started to be a bit stricter on B-class than we were in the eraly days, and are now working off a checklist borrowed from another project (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#B-class_assessment_criteria). Some earlier assessments may need reviewing, and I have just looked at those you listed: Broadstone, Dublin and Buttevant both have lots of detail, but few refs. On earlier criteria, they were probably just B-class, but on the stricter criteria they are start-class. Caesar Litton Falkiner as B-class was probably slightly over-generously rated even on the old criteria, though at that point it was a bit marginal, but it clearly doesn't meet the newer, stricter B-class criteria.

I was possibly a little stringy on Republican Sinn Féin. I saw two deficiencies there: some unreferenced sections, though not much, and a lead section which needs splitting up (it's a big wall of text). The latter isn't really enough to hold it back from B-class (it's more of a good article issue, and with a few more refs it would be a clear B-class.

Thanks again for raising those queries, and please let me know if there are any others you want clarification on or re-assessment, or you can list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All clear now - thanks for the reply. I logged back in after a gap to find half my watchlist filled with your assessments :) so I know you've been busy on those. The VUPP thing can easily be fixed - wish the same could be said for my p.c. so I'll probably ask you for a reassessment when that happens. Valenciano (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Feel free to ask for a reassessment at any time, or alternatively to list an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now got around to expanding the article and adding multiple references so could you reassess please? Also the article is currently at Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party but none of the sources use that, with Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party being the common title, so could you move the article to that? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

I have moved it as requested, and reassessed it. It's now a no-contest B-class, and should sail through a good article assessment; I do hope you'll submit it. If you have the energy for a more rigorous review, I think you'll find that it's not far off making the grade as a featured article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

As an admin I trust could you give me your opinion on this. IMO comments like this should never be accepted or made little of in the way Major bonkers is, thanks.BigDunc (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input BHG.BigDunc (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Editors certainly should take care not to cause offence, but it's also important to try not to take offence, and not to let these things esacalate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it is something that really annoys me, I have lived in England and had to put up with racist quips and when challenged they all give the same response as Major gave ah sure you can call me John Bull. If only people would stop using these words and realise it is offensive. BigDunc (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I still live in England, and I have had it too :( I also live in a predominantly muslim area, so I also know well how offensive that sort of thing can be to my muslim friends.

However, it doesn't help to escalate unless it's persistent. A firm but polite request to desist often does the trick, and is certainly worth trying as a first step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] At the risk of prolonging this discussion, I only came here to say 'Amen' to your wise remarks, BHG. May I suggest that you tag the discussion with a 'Resolved' tag?

As BD is here, I'd like to make it clear that I don't mean to be rude or belittle him, but really sometimes it's better to turn the other cheek and WP:AGF. Sometimes taking offense only serves to inflame the situation and, frankly, most of us are sick to death of the great Anglo-Irish edit war. Gibnews will get the message when he next logs on; let's all move on.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - Do you know where is Alison's thread about Vintagekit's User Page? That's the only reason that I was at WP:AN/I.

I found it last night in the latest ANI archive, whatever the number is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#User:Vintagekits_..._again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes. I did find it myself as well... I couldn't see for looking. Sorry to waste your time. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I was going back to ANI anyway to tag the discussion as {{resolved}}, which I hope it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider it resolved as on seeing someone was unhappy I reworded the last paragraph to reflect that the terrorist threat remains present but now comes from a different, closer, direction. However, the comments from Domer48 are totally out of order. --Gibnews (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't know what caused BigDuncDomer48 to lose his temper later on, but it was right out of order and didn't help at all, even though he was clearly deeply offended. But Gibnews, surely it wouldn't have hurt you to promptly apologise for any offence unintentionally caused? For goodness sake, can both of you please try to defuse this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think you meant Domer, Dunc was quite calm despite the trolling. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right, my bad; Dunc held his cool admirably, and i have coorrected my error above.

I wish that others had also done so :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk

You added an NPOV tag to this article and I would like to clean it up. I'm a bit of a newbie, but I'd like your opinion on what, in general, needs to be changed. Does it sound like an ad? Cheers! Fribbler (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, and sorry I didn't leave a more detailed explanation at the time. Yes, in a few places it does read just a little bit like an ad :) I'll add a few notes at Talk:The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Fribbler (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk#POV_problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you cast a wee eye over the article now and see if it's o.k.? Might be one or two things to correct. Fribbler (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi BHG - very many thanks for the final warning - I knew this excessive civility thing would get me into trouble. No more barnstars please - you can get too much of a good thing. Good to hear from you. Just keeping my head down and getting on. Thanks again. Ardfern (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm just glad that it did come across as tongue-in-cheek, because irony is notoriously difficult to communicate online. Anyway, I'll leave off the barnstars if you insist, and just enjoy seeing a steady accumulation of your chronology-building work popping up on my watchlist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assessing the Sermons page. I still need to add a few more resources. After that, I will try to put up some pages for Swift's "Irish tracts" and then one on the other Irish pamphlets. Also, work on Molyneux. That way, there will be a greater resource on early Irish constitutional independence movements for those interested in Irish history. By the way, The Drapier's Letters is up for FA review. There are some complaints by some grammarians to specific parts, but you might be interested in checking out the page and/or commenting on the Feature Article Review. Ottava Rima (talk)

Thought you might be interested...

How do record holders prove their age? (BBC article) and British marathon man's number: 101, or maybe 94 (LA Times article). Guess who appears in the latter article?! Oh, and see Buster Martin, which had this added. All quite legitimate, as it is sourced, but I saw this and wondered what your opinion would be on all this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Buster Martin has been all over the news here today, and BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme concluded that there was no proof he was 101. Personally, I thought at the time that all the scrutiny was a bit mean, and that whether he was 94 or 101 made little difference: it's still amazing that he's so active at 90+, and that he deserves his place in the sun even if he was golding the lily a bit. He seemed commendably unfazed by all the fuss, but his boss was hilarious, citing on air three or four different dates of birth for Buster. It didn't help that two of them began "two thousand and ..."

I have no problem with quoting Young as the source if he has been reported in a reliable source, though I'm disappointed that the said Reliable Sources use such a flaky informant. I was amused to see Young relying on "his sources" in the NHS. Apart from the fact that the said sources have broken the Data Protection Act (and if identified face prosecution as well as dismissal), it's amusing to see Young relying on a wink from some contact rather than on documentation. It all confirms my general impression that (which was reinforced by my conversation with Stan Primmer) that Young's research methods have more in common with those of a tabloid journalist than of an academic researcher.

The main thing I noticed was that the Buster Martin article is primarily the work of an SPA, Kathlutz (talk · contribs). My guess is Kathlutz is not a new editor, but I'm not going to speculate further on who it might be. Well-written article, though.

I also note the involvement of Max Clifford, which raises a lot of question marks. Clifford is a very clever tabloid publicist who has invented things before, and I'd take anything with his fingerprints on it with a pinchbucketload of salt. To my eye, Buster Martin looks about 65. But then I do like older men :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I should let you know what Robert's response was - you couldn't really expect him to enjoy being compared to a tabloid journalist. In the case of most of his e-mails, I have not passed on the outline of his response to you, but this should be fairly innocuous, I hope. Anyway, the gist of it is that he agrees that the Buster Martin story is tabloid journalism - they built him up and equally they are tearing him down. I think he is also saying that the media misrepresented what he said, which was that without birth or marriage certificates, or other acceptable documentation, the claim of 101 can't be confirmed. He also explained the "unofficial" bit, and it seems he may be in more newspaper articles soon, so watch this space! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What's an SPA? I am a new editor. A friend forwarded me a newspaper article about the "101 year old marathon runner" and I got intrigued and started to search for information. I am fascinated by the way information is produced by the media ... how the media manipulate and how they are manipulated. Most of the original article was written by CloudNine (talk · contribs), btw.--Kathlutz (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, Kathlutz. Maybe BHG will retract her guess that "Kathlutz is not a new editor", but don't worry if she doesn't. Just continue to contribute good content, and that will be all that most people will worry about. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed Kathlutz's earlier reply.

Kath, I'm sorry if my earlier guess was misplaced, and I'm quite happy to withdraw it with apologies. The reason it arose is that this area has seen a lot of sockpuppetry and related misdemeanours, so I tend to check new contributors in this field more thoroughly than I would elsewhere. In this case, I saw a new editor who seemed to be very well clued-up on wikioedia policy and practice, which is unusual, and it is often one of the marks of someone who has previously been an editor under a different ID. Of course it's not necessarily so, and there are other possible explanations ... so it was no more than a questionmark. And as Carcharoth noted, all your edits seem to be very good work, which is very welcome! Keep up the goos work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Could you ask this editor not to be canvassing on my talk page, and if they have to canvass, at least get the right page? Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The message doesn't seem to me to be partisan, and having looked at the contribs list there doesn't appear to be have been any extensive notification, so I see no breach of WP:CANVASS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

İmambayildi

Hi, if you are still online, I will have a move request from you regarding the article İmambayıldı. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here and will be around for another two hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, I was looking for the real spelling of the term İmam bayıldı. I saw that the article's name was based on the original Turkish spelling. According to that spelling, I should have changed the name to İmambayıldı, because it is the correct spelling in Turkish, namely without the space. Here is the link for verification. And I did so. Around ten minutes later, I noticed that the user Dumarest was trying to change the name back to the former one. I made a relevant discussion in his talk page. And he provided me with a link proving that the term is in fact within the English vocabulary, and hence it should have been spelled accordingly, namely Imam bayildi. Here is the link for your records. I gave the right to him and tried to move the article to Imam bayildi, but I saw that it was used before and I wouldn't make the move without the help of an administrator. Now I would much appreciate your helping me move the relevant article from İmambayıldı to Imam bayildi. Thanks in advance. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I hope there is nothing confusing with the subject. If you would like to ask any questions regarding the matter, I will be around here a bit more while. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and sorry for the delay (I got side-tracked). It's now moved, and it's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a petty problem. You have changed it to İmam bayıldı. There shouldn't be any Turkish letters. It should have been Imam bayildi, namely the pure English spelling. Or maybe your keyboard doesn't allow you to see the difference. Could you notice the difference? --Chapultepec (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could manage it myself hopefully. So there is no need for any further action. Thanks a lot for your help. Happy edits. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, and glad to see you got it sorted. I had spotted that there was a Turkish letters issue, but I must have got in the wrong way round. Don't forget the double-redirects! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Political History Series Navigation Templates

Hi BHG, I'd like your thoughts on this issue please. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Irish_Political_History_Series_Navigation_Templates. Tx Snappy56 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Party in Northern Ireland

Hello I am writing to you regarding the page Green Party in Northern Ireland I am trying to update the page with information This is my first time editing on wiki so forgive me if I've crossed the line However I believe you have incorrectly removed pieces I posted yesterday regarding Brian Wilson and John Barry. There people are important people in the Green party and reference to them must be included in the page for it to be acurate Can you please replace them ?

Regards Katrina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Kit Kat (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Green Kit Kat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related query, is it appropriate to cover minor local councillors in articles on their parties in such detail? A seperate article on people like Ciaran Mussen would almost certainly bite the dust in a deletion review but what's the policy on their inclusion in the party articles, where they may be notable in the context of that? Valenciano (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They should have brief mentions in the main article, but should not overwhelm it, and of course the content should be referenced. I have just trimmed the article substantially to remove a lot of the excessive and unreferenced material, and to try to restore some neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Imam bayildi

I am sort of apologizing to you for what I see may have been the mess I made, changing imambayildi to imam bayildi, and screwing up the redirects. I guess I really did not know how to do that correctly. In the page history I see that you had to do quite a number of things to clear it all up. Thank you. --Dumarest (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Derry

Hi. I notice here that you are able to uprate an article on other projects at the same time as you do it for WP:IE. Could I ask you to do that for Free Derry? It's still rated as Start on WP:NIR and I've had no response to my request for re-assessment there. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't like making an importance rating for other projects, but quality-class assessments are fairly consistent across projects, so I should have uprated the {{WPNI}} assessment at the same time as I did the others. Thanks for the reminder, and congrats again on improving the article. Go on, nominate it for WP:GA! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment and for the encouragement. I want to polish it a bit more and then I probably will have a go at GA. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glitch

Hi again BHG, I told you we would run into each other again! This edit removed substantial content from the page; the same thing happened to me once and I believe it to be a weird glitch in the software. Just letting you know; I've repaired the damage. Any substantive help or advice you can offer on the dispute on the talk page would be very welcome. Keep well, --John (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

oops! Thanks v much for the fix. It's a glitch in the script I use (User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js), which doesn't seem to handle cacheing very robustly. I have added my comment at Talk:Mairéad Farrell.

Hope you're keeping well too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your intelligent comment there. I've responded too; I don't think it will be helpful to get too deeply into the legal niceties of the jurisdictions of the various courts on this article about a person. The article on the court would be a better venue for such detail I submit. --John (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In principle, the detail belongs in the article on the court. However, the Mairéad Farrell article shouldn't be misleading, and the NYT report is demonstrably wrong in saying that Farell was "unlawfully killed". If the article is going to mention those reports (and I think it should), then it also needs to clear about what the court actually did. The distinction is subtle, but it is important that reader should not be misled: the does not make a judgement based on domestic law, so it cannot offer a judgement that something was unlawful. The ECtHR rules on convention rights, and that what it did here, ruling that a convention right had been violated.

In short: if the killing had been lawful under a British "Shoot Lots of Irish People on Sight Act", that wouldn't have effected the court's decision. What mattered to the ECtHR was that convention rights had been violated, regardless of what donestic law might say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I share your understanding of the legal situation. The problem is how to present it in a clear, coherent and NPOV way while remaining accurate. It is inherently difficult to summarise, even without all the partisanship that such an issue attracts. Yet to go beyond a summary leads us to even worse problems. I'm still thinking about what compromise I would like to see adopted there. I still think that a draft would be the best next step. --John (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the NYT isn't demonstrably wrong. Direct from the case - "Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law" (emphasis added), and that was found to be violated. Now as I said there, if it was an editor using that to come up with "unlawfully killed" there would be problems, but there's three separate reliable sources (and I've not even looked at offline sources yet) stating just that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was at any point in dispute that those rights were protected by law. The issue in dispute was a much narrower one: whether the necessary safeguards required by the convention had been adequately applied in this situation (the court found that they had not been).

Two of three "reliable sources" are in fact breaking-news stories, the instant report of a judgement not yet fully digested. It would be much more persuasive if you could refer to more substantial reports in the reliable sources, rather than to the first take off the newswires. Additionally, the Irish Times and NYT reports cited do not tie their use of the phrase "unlawful killing" to article 2, and it is a WP:SYNthesis to report their comments as if they did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding!

Been reading over your contributions in the Ireland sections. Fantastic job! Keep up the great work! ChildersFamily (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History of County Wexford

Can you please check this page again (History of County Wexford). Can you please leave a note stating what other changes I need to make. Thanks. Dneale52 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Installation of WP:FRIENDLY

I tried installing this, but I'm not sure I did it right...counld you help, if you have time? :) Thanks!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but there are two things to check:

1. Are you using the default monobook theme? If not, it won't work. To check, go to Special:Preferences, look at the "skin" tab, and check that it is set to "monobook.js" (default)
2. Did you remember to bypass your cache? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics

you put the WikiProject Numismatics box thing on Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) so I'm guessing your part of that project too, if you are there are a few articles me and some other fellow have been working on that u may wanna add to WikiProject Numismatics.

• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Finland)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France)

1. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2002
2. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2003
3. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2004
4. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2005
5. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2006
6. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2007
7. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin hipwell (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 April 2008

I'm not actually a part of that project, I just added their banner to an article I was assessing, as a courtesy to them. You may want to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Emergent Party prod

Heya - how you? I can't find the Emergent Party in the list of articles for deletion...is it somewhere else these days, I've not done a AfD for years, heh. doktorb _words^deeds 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya! That's because there is no AFD; the Emergent Party was WP:PRODded, not AFDed. :): So far as I can see, it has never actually emerged.

If you disagree with the PROD, just remove the tag, giving your reason in the edit summary; if you agree with it, you can add {{prod2}} tag to endorse it: {{prod-2}} will endorse a prod with no further comment; {{prod-2|[comment]}} will add a further comment.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yachts

No worries BHG. I hadn't even noticed that it was you until I got your note. —Moondyne click! 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle AfD noms

I've noticed that Twinkle is failing that one step, putting the template on the article itself. It's creating the discussion, adding to the log, and notifying the creator, but missing that one final step. It seems to be a known bug, but there hasn't been much movement on it lately. DarkAudit (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I must make sure to check my other recent AFDs. The articles I returned to had had all worked OK, but I must check the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment

Unresolved

Rayment has moved from angeltowns to leighrayment.com. That is fine so far as the templates are concerned (they have been changed) but none of the links to the old references work any more. Please would you do your thing with a bot and change them all to the template. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, drat. It's a big job, and may not be easy. It won't suffice to simply change the refs into template calls, because the templates can't replicate links to precise pages. I'll have to look and see it the site structure has changed in the moves, and whether it is possible to update the URLs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the bot will actually do this will it? We have references to Rayment in so many different formats that this is going to be a horrendous job :( - Galloglass 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done some checking, and the first checks look promising. I took as a example Thomas Nicholas Redington MP, having referenced him last week to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/dcommons4.htm ... and find that the same page now http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/dcommons4.htm

Other constituency article appear to have been moved in exactly the same way, so a simple regular expression can do the trick, replacing http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/([a-z]commons[0-9]?\.htm) with http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/$1

I then looked at the Glynne Baronets, which I had referenced to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/baronetsg1.htm ... and fins that the page is now at http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsg1.htm

That's another fairly simple regex job, replacing http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/(baronets[a-z][0-9]?\.htm) with http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/$1

... and all a bot needs to do is make a combined list of all the articles which are in the subcats of Category:British MPs and/or Category:Baronets, and the whole lot is fixed. (BTW, useless piece of trivia: CatScan tells me that are 719 articles on MPs who were also baronets)

However, there are other direct links to Rayment pages; the main ones I can think of are for peers and privy councillors, and since there is a significant overlap between them and the MPs+Baronets set, it would be most efficient to do the lot as one big job (to avoid beating up the server with multiple passes).

I have also checked the privy council lists, which are less encouraging :( Lord Pantsdown has a link to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/02PrivyCouncils--UK.htm ... but when I look at Rayment's new Privy Council lists, I see that they have been restructured, and that that he is now listed in http://www.leighrayment.com/pcouncil/pcouncil4.htm. This is a good idea, because the old privy councillor lists were so long that my browser found them uncomfortable to digest, but it means that a bot can't update the links :(

I hope we will be in more luck with the pereages, Can either of you find any direct links from peerage articles to the peerage lists on Rayment's old angeltowns site, so that I can check the link format? If I can figure out another handy regex, I can throw the peerage categories into the mix: Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Great Britain, Category:Peers of Ireland, Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and Category:Peers of Scotland.

I can then either ask for permission to run BHGbot to do this job, or (if I'm feeling too lazy to code the job) I'll ask another BOTmeister to do it for us. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many such as Earl of Gosford. And a number who should be in rayment-hc as well as rayment-b but are not. And others who should be in rayment-hc or rayment-b but are instead as Earl of Gosford (e.g. Williams Baronets). Michael Biddulph, 1st Baron Biddulph is one of many who are peers and should also be under rayment-hc. Thank you for taking responsibility here; would that everybody were to do so. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi BHG, following on from the Phoenix Park article changes, my user page is being repeatedly vandalised, it a bit annoying. I was wondering if you (being an admin) can help? Tx, Snappy56 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals blocked, comment on your talk page. Pls let me if there is any recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hello how are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev1232 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rayment templates

Unresolved

Did I make a mistake on Glynne Baronets? I thought we'd want to have things as templates to have things centralized in case of another page move. Choess (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes :) I was going to msg you, but you beatr me to it.

Did you see the discussion above at #Leigh_Rayment?

Rayment has moved his site, as you are no doubt aware, and all links to the old site are now dead. The templates have been updated to point to the new suite, but when there is a direct link to a specific page, as there was with the Glynne Baronets, it makes more sense to convert it to a link to the new URL for that page rather than just a template pointing at the site's index page.

I'm going to try bot-updating all the specific page links (by converting hem to the format used on Rayment's the new site), and it'd be helpful not to have them all converted to templates in the meantime :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, bot-driver. Thanks. Choess (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot learner-driver, with L-plates battered from the errors, but I think this should be doable :) Fingers crossed ..... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were a driving school, you would be an instructor. Further to the above, can I draw to your attention 2 very similar templates one of which might prefer to be a redirect, namely rayment-b and rayment-bt. I am not feeling bold today. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet has yet another weird format. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has direct links to a Baronets list, a commons list, and a privy council list, which i think are all within the scope I have already identified. I'll try to get a bot on the case over the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev's father Juan

Now I think you're right about deletion; it seems a pity to remove the most famous non-person in Irish politics...Red Hurley (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything was know an about him, or even if there were substantive accounts of the hunt for him, it could be an article. But "we know nothing" isn't an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Monkstown and other places in Dublin

BHG; I reverted your moves (Monkstown, Dublin to Monkstown, County Dublin etc) as they are going against agreed practice for Dublin suburbs and I realise that if you proceed unchecked you are quite capable of having changed 500 articles by the time I get up in the morning!. Say ten Hail Marys and and three Our Fathers and resolve to leave our suburbs alone. Harrump. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the postal address of the place has always been "Monkstown, County Dublin". How and where was it agreed (by who?) that it should be called "Monkstown, Dublin"? That usage would be unknown to anyone from that area.

"Dublin" is fine for the places within the city boundaries, but it's simply wrong for places outside City boundary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Killings at Coolacrease article

Dear BHG Thanks for your message. I've just taken a look at the article, and the Discussion Page. I'll post a response to the Discussion. Cheers, Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing edit attribution

Hi BHG, I have accidentially made some wiki edits while not logged in to my account. Are you aware of a way to reassign them to my user-name or anyone else I could ask? I only know of the defunct "changing attribution" request list.--Rye1967 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not that I know of. If there is a way, then the person who might know is User:Alison, who has checkuser rights and so may know her way around that technical side of wikipedia. When this happens, I have seen some editors leave a note on their user pages, though personally, I haven't bothered on the few occasions it has happened to me.

BTW, it's been good to see your username popping up again on my watchlist recently, after a bit of break. There aren't many editors working conscientiously on Irish politics articles, and your absence was a loss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

David Treacey

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Treacey -- not many comments were received last week so this debate has been re-listed for further input. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

With regard to this the use of loyalist vitriol on a talk page. This editor is violating WP:BLP in implying racism on this article. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Hope im not offending you by putting in quotes from BLP page i'm sure you are well aware of the policy, Thanks. BigDunc (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that loyalist vitriol is a helpful term to use in describing the comments there, and everyone editing these topics should take not to use terminology which unnecesarily polarises discussions. I have left a warning for Ulster Vanguard (talk · contribs) to avoid the use of political slogans, noting that the same applies across the political spectrum.

I doubt whether a reference to ethnic groups in the context of equal ops monitoring can be counted as racism; in England and Wales, it is a legal requirement that ethnicity is explicitly monitored by employers. The issue here is that wikipedia should put words into peoples mouths, so the description of Anderson's words should follow her use of terminology, by using a direct quote if necessary ... and the same principle should be applied to criticism of her.

To take a fictitious example by way of illustration, if X said that "not enough people born in London are being employed in the city's public services", it would be wrong for wikipedia to say "X championed London ethnicity" (X did not use the tern "ethnicity"), but quite fair to report both X's actual words and a scathing response from someone else which said "X's comments were nakedly racist in their effect in the city's immigrant population", providing that the criticism did not receive undue prominence in the article (relative to its significance in the subsequent debate on X's remarks).

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As you will seef rom the talk page, this user has left WP open to legal action.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TU as a self admitted member of the UUP are you making a legal threat? If not could you clarify.BigDunc (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats quite a leading question isn't it? Clearly I'm not, so why would you ask? Your attitude to wikipedia needs to change.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TU, as an uninvolved editor that wasn't how I read BigDunc's comments - I read them as simply pointing out that calling Hussey a loyalist, while arguably inaccurate, isn't a violation of WP:BLP. Looking at that and other conflicts on Ireland related articles, there seems to be an increasing and depressing trend towards throwing out kneejerk 'vandalism' and 'disruption' related warnings to rival editors without trying first to find common ground. Valenciano (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if I were Ross, I'd consider myself defamed.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano makes a good point. That debate has seen far too much throwing around of labels and also far too much taking of offence, as well as inappropriate accusations of vandalism, libel and disruption.

I have now protected the Martina Anderson article, and posted a warning to all editors of that page to calm down and to remember that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors can be applied to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, that's enough. The latest posts here ([1] and [2]) are continuing this disruptive squabble after a clear warning, so I will now seek probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For defending mysef from an inflamatory question? That's not very reasonable.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of arbcom's ruling in this matter, and you were all warned to stop this disruptive dispute, which has now spiralled away from the substance of the article into a which-editor-offended-who dispute. TU, I'm not singling you out; I will be listing all the participants in this dispute, and leave it up to others at Arbitration enforcement to decide whether and to who to apply remedies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article in question I have edited once in the past three days. So no edit warring, just dicsussion in which I have been subject to accusations of rule breaking, and criticised for not edit warring. And I'm being reported. Doesn't really make much sense does it?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough. I am not the one who will decide whether it makes sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind BHG let the dice roll, I feel I have nothing to answer for on this. I asked you to have a look at the situation to which you did, and thanks for that, and then I posted on the aticle talk page and then get accused of defamation and libel and legal threats are flung around.BigDunc (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're the one doing the reporting - so clearly you feel I have a prima facie case to answer. When I question that all you say is "enough". That'd not good enough to base an accusation on.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You will be able to see what I report, and you can comment there, as can any other of the five participants listed. However, I'm not going to set out the case twice just so that you can add more comments here as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I started writing the report yesterday, but in the end I decided that what with all the diffs required, it would take more time than I could be bothered to commit to this issues. I may file such a report in the future if this sort of spat arises again, but for now I'm going to leave this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrior IP

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I left Sir Fozzie about this last night but I think he might be away. Would you mind reviewing this disruption by User:Edgerunner2005 and the IPs making the same edits--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, but now reviewed.

80.192.60.20 (talk · contribs) had made 6 almost identical reverts over 3 days, the latest after your warning, so I imposed a 24-hour block.

68.2.74.58 (talk · contribs) had made one similar edits, but only one, so no grounds for action.

Edgerunner2005 (talk · contribs) has not broken 3RR, but the edit pattern of this SPA is almost identical to that of the IPs. I suggest that you request a checkuser on all three. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this BrownHairedGirl - much appreciated--Cailil ^talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:80.192.60.20 is back and is pushing again. Here are their recent edits after returning form their block.

• Feminism:[3][4]
• Sexual objectification‎:[5]
• Discrimination:[6]
• And this lovely piece of vandalism to Talk:Feminism/to do:[7]
  

I've opened an RFCU so I'll update you when the results come in--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very clear report. I have blocked the IP for 1 week, since all that IP's edits are vandalism.

Well done opening the checkuser request; it looks like a commendably clear report, and I'll be interested to see the results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this again BrownHairedGirl but it seems the above user is back again as User:80.192.60.134[8][9]. They've also made this very nice post to WP:RS/N about me[10]. I'd appreciate it if you'd have a quick look--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And more[11] and more[12] from 80.192.60.134. Looks like the RFCU came back as "unlikely". 68.2.74.58 might be a proxy - I'll check that out. Other than dealing with 80.192.60.134 I'm going to leave the sock-puppet issue sit unless it continues. If that happens I will then bring it WP:SSP.

As a matter of interest did you get the email I sent a few weeks ago about old (but live) calls for meat-puppets by a leading men's rights activist? If not I'll make a short post about it here--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. While there may be an arguable case for some of the edits, it's not easy to discuss them when the editor concerned jumps between IP addresses and a registered username. There has also been a spate of trivial vandalism to the article Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I have addressed by semi-protecting the page. Let's see how things settle down thereafter.

I did indeed get your email, and I'm sorry for not replying. Every time I read it, I reckoned it needed more thought, so I marked it again as unread, but I should at least have given you an acknowledgement of it. I'll look again now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As regards that email - I'm happy to let the first half (wikistalking etc) lie and see how all that pans out in future. The second half - the meat-puppetry stuff - might be old but I think it could be a factor in cases like the above IP. Especially the targeting of myself and of WP:GS--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think BrownHairedGirl does this look like my friend is back?--Cailil ^talk 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what on earth to make of that. The comment hardly makes sense, but it the only edit by SorsImmanis1 (talk · contribs), so I'd be inclined to just ignore it unless there is more from that quarter.

It does rather remind me of the time last autumn when I had a barrage of meatpuppets of Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) coming here to post abuse in response to his mass emails denouncing me in all sorts of terms; some of the posts were more weird than abusive, like this one you received. Amyway, they eventually stopped.

Sorry I can't offer any more helpful suggestions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pryor

Hi BHG. When you have time could you have a look at this newly created article. For a number of reasons I do not wish to give an opinion on this article. I don't really wish to say any more but trust in your judgement implicitly on this. Thanks - Galloglass 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I want to say is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Pryor ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of closed railway stations in Ireland

Well, i'm not sure which route to take, the alphabetical list i started off with, but i do get a bit lost, so i've drawn up a few maps of the network at its highest extent, and then i'm going county by county, so far i'm starting off with County Wexford and County Wicklow, then Counties Carlow, Louth, Laois, Kilkenny, Waterford, and part of County Cork (the Cork Albert Street to Crosshaven line, the Cork Glanmire Road to Youghal and Cóbh line, Cork Capwell to Macroom, Schull to Skibberreen, Ballinascarthy to Courtmacsherry, and Kanturk to Newmarket. The reason being is if i do it alphabetically, all i get is a list of stations, where as if i go by county, i get more of a story, so.....the East Coast line, Greystones was built when the DSE extended the line from Bray to Wicklow etc, Abbeyfeale was closed when the line from Tralee to Limerick was closed. I do appreciate your comments though, i just don't get much time to actually do anything o here. A "list" with only one article just looks silly, but i thought, why have lists, if they just lead to red links (ie doesnt exist), i'm trying to balance the two at the moment, any suggestions?Halowithhorns89 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Would it be better to start with one list, divided into alpahabetic sections, and then split it if and when it becomes unwieldy? That way there wouldn't be these one-item lists, and it'd be easier for others to add stations to the list, so it might not have to be only your own work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do beleieve i've found a way around the matter, bear with me a few days though. This has been a pet project of mine for years, i just didnt realise i could have it online And the lists of each letter should hoepfully just get longer as i fill them up. If i just concentrate on the lists at the moment, that 'll provide me (and others) with structure to work withHalowithhorns89 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and could you reply on my talkpage? i Just read your red box saying so Halowithhorns89 (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you are stuck into the project and intend to populate the lists more fully, then I have no concerns at all, and can only wish you good luck :) My concern was simply that there might be a collection of one-item or two-item lists, which is a nuisance for readers, but I see that you have already started expanding them, so that clearly isn't going to be the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Category intersects Real Soon Now maybe

David Gerard said so. Wikitech-l thread here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I took a quick peek, but it looks like I shouldn't starting cooking Godot's supper just yet :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You frightful cynic, but if the category ids are there now it shouldn't be far off. And did you see the message about this? We do have category intersects right now. I never knew that, but I won't be so surprised if world and dog knew for years. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been just-round-the-corner for so long that I won't hold my breath ... but if it does start to surface, the interesting issue will be what form it takes.

This link really is interesting. Hideous syntax, inelegant results, but in some circumstances it could be useful. Thanks for the pointer! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Harney - vandalism

Hi BHG, Mary Harney's article has been getting a lot of petty vandalism lately. Maybe a short term protection is in order?, Tx Snappy56 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, yes, lots of tedious vandalism. It all seems to be from anon IPs, so I have semi-protected the article for 1 month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List of closed railway stations in Ireland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of closed railway stations in Ireland, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of closed railway stations in Ireland: D. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a combined list, transcluding the separate lists by letters of the alphabet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gender neutral language?

Don't ever use the word 'woman' because it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon 'wifeman' which not only indicated a married person of the XX genotype(unmarried was 'maegen' - maiden), and thus defined a 'female human' (neatly avoids the use of the word woman again - oh dear! this is difficult) in relation to a man, but was a masculine-gender word as well!

Reductio ad absurdum, but true nonetheless ;)

Urselius (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Words evolve over time :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Asgard Childers

I have nominated Asgard Childers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JulesN Talk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have added my comments at the RfD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yvette Cooper

Good heavens!!! Have you nothing better to do than defend Yvette Cooper and undo people's changes every minute.

I thought I was sad.

Cannonmc (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the commentary was that it was unsourced criticism of a living individual, which is not permitted: see WP:BLP.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that you are the anon IP who reinstated your attacks on Cooper (in this edit and this one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Silent Cry

I know it's probably not your usual area, but you wouldn't mind having a look at the above page would you? It's an upcoming album, but a tracklisting hasn't yet been released. Thus the only songs listed on it are three which have been confirmed by reliable sources. An anon user (so far using 78.148.101.199, 84.13.114.27, and 78.144.25.55) has been continually inserting a fourth, which they claim to have heard at some "secret album listening party" (example diff), the only reference for which is a messageboard. I've tried to explain to the user the rules about WP:NOR both on their talk pages and on the article talk page, but the user continues to revert, and is now resorting to personal attacks (here, here, and here). Any chance of semi-protection of the page for a few days? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Another IP: 78.150.252.205. Whoever it is is obviously on a dynamic connection. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. I have protected the article for two weeks per Wikipedia:Protection policy. See Talk:Silent Cry for more details. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Hanafin revert

Why did you revert my edit to User talk:86.43.184.115? I was removing a warning which I had issued myself, and I don't see that it's appropriate for another editor to restore it.

The reason I reverted it was that I double-checked and noticed the edit by that IP had been self-reverted, so I removed my warning. If you feel it's appropriate to make a warning of your own, you are of course free to do so ... but I don't see why you felt it appropriate to obscure the fact that I had removed my warning.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asher196"

When I saw that you had reverted your warning thinking the vandal reverted their work, I was too lazy to issue my own warning. Your warning was still valid, so I just reinstated it. If you look at the edits to Mary Hanafin, you will see the vandal didn't completely revert their work, they just changed it, and ommitted information, constituting vandalism. I apologize.Asher196 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they evidently know how to use the undo button, so just removed their silliness without reinstating the words deleted in the vandalism. But when I saw that, I was amazed: I have never before seen a vandal try to undo the damage, even if the fix wasn't entirely successful. I know that there have been other repentant vandals, but this is the one I have seen.

Anyway, thanks for the apology. Have you considered installing twinkle to make it easier to issue such warnings yourself? It's really a brilliant timesaver for this sort of thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into Twinkle, but since I use Internet Explorer, it's apparently not an option for me.Asher196 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, every operating system which runs IE will also run Firefox (and popups work better with Firefox, which I find indispensable). Your choice, though :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:BoxCrawler

I appreciate that there was a need to block my bot so I thank you for doing so. However you should understand that this was not a malfunction. You created the Template redirect after the bot entered operation so I could hardly be expected to know about it. I'm glad you pointed it out and have added the necessary functionality. Please, realize that by blocking the bot indefinitely, knowing that it will stop editing immediately after the block goes into effect it is effectively saying that I, as the bot operator, wouldn't fix the issues raised which I have always done and will continue to do (please assume that I run my bot in good faith). The only thing accomplished by an indefinite block is to delay my getting back to work. Anyway, thanks again for blocking the bot and pointing out the enhancement. I have cleaned up all of the erroneous edits and would like to continue the run, so I would appreciate if you would unblock the bot at your earliest convenience. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was a malfunction.

I would expect anyone running a bot like that to check for redirects periodically (particularly before a major run), and not to simply assume that no new redirects exist, because it is critical to the bot's operation (I run a wikiproject banner bot myself, and this was one of the first issues which arose). Template:WPSCHOOLS was created as a redirect 5 weeks ago, so it's not exactly brand new. I wasn't questioning your good faith; I was questioning the care with which the bot was being run, particularly since since it was left to others to tidyup after the bot's previous malfunction.

I will be happy to unblock if your bot now knows about all the current redirects, and if such checks are going to be made routinely in the future. I'm delighted to hear that the first point is done; how about the second? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for such hostility. The only reason it was "left to others last time" is that they got to it before I went online. You should realize though that just because the bot doesn't do something you think it should does not show that it is malfunctioning. This is the first run that it has even been an issue and I already thanked you for pointing it out. I was also not aware of that particular tool and will use it in the future. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I was being hostile. That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if my reply came across that way. I'm surprised that you don't think that adding a duplicate banner is a malfunction, but I'm glad that things are now all sorted, so please can we both count this as resolved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely resolved. I'm saying that the action doesn't denote a malfunction because the function was not part of the specification for what the bot is supposed to do. I spec'd out the exact regex I used when I first requested to use the bot and the regex itself was part of what got approved. Not doing something that is not in the spec cannot really be called a "malfunction." It can easily be called a lack of planning on my part and I'll agree that it was, but it's not the bot's problem, it's the operator's. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are looking at this from difft angles, and probably getting caught up in terminology. My concern is with the outcome, and so far as I am concerned a bot which does a bad edit is malfunctioning. There are of course many ways in which something like that can happen — a coding error, a design error, a change in circumstances or whatever — but I think it's a great mistake to look only at the details of the spec without considering the purpose that the bot was created for. I don't see that it matters much whether the cause was glitch in the bot's code or a glitch in the parameters set by the bot operator; either way such a bot is doing the wrong thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Monkstown, Dublin

BHG, would you please stop edit warring and put Monkstown back to "Monkstown, Dublin". Making such a change to established practice re suburbs in Dublin and using Admin powers to force your pov is an abuse.

• There is no longer any such legal entity as "County Dublin"; if you insist in tagging the Local Authority after the name it should be "Monkstown, County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown".
• All suburbs of the continuous urban area have the same naming convention - "X, Dublin" - if you disagree with that the talkpages are the places to decide the issue.
• I am surprised and disappointed to see you behaving in such a manner.

Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I haven't used any admin powers.

I replied above to your previous comment about this: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Monkstown_and_other_places_in_Dublin. I'm not using local authhority address, but rather the postal address of the place, which has always been "Monkstown, County Dublin". I'm not aware of any widespread use "County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown" as a location identifier; since the Act somehow used that convoluted name it's techincally correct, but it's not common usage.

Monkstown, County Dublin is in Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin, which also includes Lucan, County Dublin, Lusk, County Dublin, Newcastle, County Dublin etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lusk and Newcastle are in rural areas. Blackrock, Dublin is a better example. Or Dundrum, Dublin. It isn't Dundrum, Dublin 16 (the postal address) or Dundrum, County Dublin. I think this is a matter of style and standardisation, not policy - and you have vapourised existing practice without a word of consultation. There is no need for postal addresses - where else are they used? Desist I tell you. Recant. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please chill a bit -- I have not "vapourised existing practice without a word of consultation". I moved one article, and when you unmoved it back with replying to my comment above, I moved it back again.

Blackrock, Dublin shoukd also be moved to Blackrock, County Dublin, since that's what it too is known as. Outside the city boundaries, the only place known as "foo, Dublin" are those within postcodes, and I quite agree we don't need those in the article names (though it wld probaly be a good idea to have them as redirects).

Your point about rural areas doesn't really work: Lucan, County Dublin is hardly a rural area, and hasn't been for a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lucan should be moved to Lucan, Dublin if we are to be consistent. I Christened Newcastle, County Dublin myself and added the county for geographical reasons after extensive field-work established it was not connected to the contiguous urban area. Aplgies for seemng unchilld but I was only usng the 2by4 on de dnky apprch and wsn't rlly srious abt the vapriztn. Btw I'm nt sayn ur a dnky :) Sarah777 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to be consistent, except by common name ... and Lucan is fine where it is :)

BTW, I like donkeys. Very gentle and kind characters with little drama: they are high up my list of creatures-I'd like to be reincarnated as :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re Kathlutz

Thanks for this. Could you maybe drop a note at the editor's talk page? I could drop off a welcome template, maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Molly Childers

Hello! :)

I've seen both your notes on Molly Childers. I agree with you that she's notable, and was going to expand the page when I had some more time. Molly was involved substantially with the IVF (Irish Volunteers) and she was named secretary of that group alongside Alice Stopford Green. I have some references that can back this up as well. The "spy " allegations as refuted by Erskine Hamilton's daughter, are a smoke screen of sorts for a larger revisionist agenda trying to find reason to connect Robert Erskine and Molly to Lloyd George/Churchill/MI5 . There's simply no good argument for this as far as I've researched, other than attempts to hype up people's "new books" on the subject. The British papers are sealed and the one's that've been released have been blue inked, so it's uncertain that we'll ever find the truth on this issue till 2016-2022, when it's said, that the Queen will open up the Irish Files, and with it the proverbial pandoras box of pro and anti treaty hysteria. They will be interesting times ahead. Thanks for all your work once again! Talk soon, ChildersFamily (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, and sorry for my initially flawed assessment of Molly Childers.

I know that there all sorts of agendas at work in Irish history, not least because so many of the issues involved still have direct bearing on contemporary politics. However, that doesn't mean that all Irish historical writing is flawed, just that it needs to be scrutinised carefully, which is of course how all history should be approached anyway.

However, it's not wikipedia's job to take a view on the merits or otherwise of the claims, just to report them as accurately as possible, to report the commentary in a fair and balanced way.

It will be very interesting to see what is revealed in 2016-2022, but I have a gut suspicion that a lot of material will still be withheld as politically sensitive. In any case, intelligence files need to be taken with large pinches of salt, as a lot of British politicians found out the hard way in relation Iraq's WMD. This question may never be satisfactorily resolved either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Professor James Lydon of TCD used to insist that the most dishonest type of historian was the was the one who was not open and honest about his or her own prejudices; he argued that there was no such thing as impartiality in a discipline requiring so much selection and weighting of evidence, and so many different types of interpretation. That has always struck me as good advice: there's two ways to tell every story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would he have made of David Irving? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Jim was quite prepared to say that a particular historian was very skilled but started from a perspective which wouldn't work with that subject. And he was very scathing about misuse of sources; he's still alive, and I doubt he has changed his tune on that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It's sometimes difficult to separate wearing the encyclopedic hat you must wear while writing these pages; versus your own privately researched conclusions on the matter. I'm learning how to do it. :) Thanks again for your comments. ChildersFamily (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Fritzl

This is subject to an afd in which I have voted. In retrospect I wonder if it should be renamed but I am very uncertain what it should be renamed. I remember you cast your analytical ability very effectively in a massacre case a while back and you managed to avoid upsetting anyone. Maybe this is another opportunity for you to apply critical wisdom. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eeeek! Will I hit it lucky twice?

I'll have a go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was WP:SNOWing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just hi!

I've been doing some tag cleanup work, and have come across your handle here and there - British Isles stuff. I have noticed you seem to have your head on straight, and then went to your page and saw you have a great sense of humor, too. Just wanted to say hi and it's nice to see a real person doing good work on WP - not so rare, but you know it's a mixed bag. No need to reply, just a smile.Jjdon (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oi! how dare you! I'm not real!!!!!

I'm a experimental bot being developed by the Peoples Front For The Liberation Of Saddleworth, as part of our struggle against both Manchester imperialism and the splitters and stooges in the Saddleworth Liberation Front and the Democratic Front For The Liberation Of Saddleworth (pah, it hurts even mentioning their names). Once the programmers are satisfied that my code has been perfected, the bot will be used to restore Saddleworth to its historic place in Yorkshire, while our huge armies defend the borders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Department infoboxes

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I've more work to do on the Department infoboxes and I understand at the minute they look like Ministers infoboxes! I plan to have the relevant Departments logo at the top of each one. I'm new to this so if I've done anything wrong help!!! Thanks.--Nanometre (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)