User talk:BrownHairedGirl

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

BrownHairedGirl is a 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.

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

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Naming convention and peerages

with User:Lucy-marie. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been notified about this before (see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_022#User:Somewhatdazed), but didn't get round to acting on it.

I have just chcked her move log again, and it seems that she is back doing a lot of moves underway. Some of it may be okay, but a lot of it looks doubtful under WP:NCPEER, and the multiple moves of Michael Dobbs, Baron Dobbs have left him at a disambiguated title, but not dabbed per WP:NCPEER, and with an unfixed double redirect.

This editor needs to start proposing page moves at WP:RM, rather than unilaterally moving them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

She is also removing the title from the first line in the lede. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:RFC as I've also seen this kind of unilateral behaviour many times. (Oh, and BrownHairedGirl, that FLC.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that before moving to a page with the addition of a title WP:RM should be initiated due to the conflict between the naming convention and common names policy. In some cases there is no need to add the title as it is not the common name and no disambiguation is required for the individual subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Michael Dobbs? And why do you remove his title from the lede? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean like you did with Lord Strathclyde's article? I don't seem to remember that being listed as a WP:RM, even though you moved it from the stable location it had been at quite happily for a long time. What's more, you wouldn't even discuss the page move when other users questioned it.

Based of past behaviour, it seems this user has some sort of grudge against peerage titles, and it is this, rather than any desire to keep to guidelines, that is driving his/her to move these pages. JRawle (Talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've seen this kind of thing far too many times for it to be accidental, or an oversight to not include the community in these decisions. As I said earlier, I would suggest a WP:RFC to gauge the feelings of the wider community with regard to this behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't an RFC/U be more appropriate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was being generalist. RFC/U is the best way forward here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it someone else to start the work; I got an FLC to get back to, after shameful neglect on my part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you, if possible, to consider heading up an RFC/U. It's clear this behaviour is commonplace and isn't going to stop, ever. I'm not close enough to the detail to initiate my own, but you guys between you should really look into monitoring this sort of behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

She has approached Susan Kramer correctly. I wonder if this has something to do with the sex of the peer. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that she's been block warned by two different admins... a_man_alone (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, the peerage convention is not in conflict with COMMONNAME. You are ignoring WP:Article titles#Explicit conventions. When a specific convention is adopted, it operates as an exception to the general rule; in fact, that is the whole purpose of having an explicit convention. If you don't think there should be a convention, you should propose deleting it, but I don't think you will get anywhere. -Rrius (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

Okay, clearly I've crossed a line here. After that ANI thread I should've known better than to lash out in edit summaries again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned, the edit summaries are the least of the problems. They were silly and disruptive, but did not damage any content.

It's edits themselves which concerns me. Blind removal of links is coming close to vandalism, and I'll post to ANI about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think an indef block was overkill, but it doesn't matter now since I'm unblocked. Either way, it's obvious I need to watch my step. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite block is not an infinite block.

You need to do more than watch your step: you need a better explanation of what you were doing here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation given. When I unlinked John Reid, almost all of the ones I removed were in reference to a songwriter by that name who doesn't have an article. When the first two David Porter links I found were in reference to David Porters who don't have articles, I falsely assumed the same about that page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do so little checking before unleashing a mass-unlinking tool, why you should you be trusted to edit again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I usually do check and David Foster was a momentary lapse? Also, most of the pages that were in reference to the naval officer had a link to his article and the disambiguation page anyway. At the most, it seems I accidentally removed only five or six links that should've pointed to the musician — hardly disruptive IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted at ANI, I am not persuaded. After you announced that you had fixed the damage to the David Porter links, the first article I checked was unfixed. This looks more like habitual carelessness than a one-off, because if you leave the damage in place when you are under scrutiny, what's it like when you are not being scrutinised?

The consequences are usually trivial when done to a single-article, but when applied to a mass-unlinking tool they are destructive. From what I have seen, you should not be using such a tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Then wouldn't the better solution have been just to disable unlink on my account, to prevent me from making this kind of mistake again? I can live with a solution like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was possible to do so, and my immediate concern was to put a rapid stop to any further damage. More refined restrictions can always follow later if needed.

If indeed it is possible to disable use of automate tools on your account, I would now support doing so. --02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot unlink was part of Twinkle. I wouldn't want to lose all of Twinkle because it would make xFDs and other edits very laborious. Maybe an edit restriction against the use of the unlink thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is possible to unbundle such a technical restriction, nor whether it is desirable. If you misuse one such tool, why leave you with access to the others?

If it's a soft restriction (i.e. not disabled), I'm not sure that that the unlink tool leaves clear enough traces to allow use of it to be detected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments and AGF

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.

---

Could you please refrain from making comments on discussion pages which question the motives I am undertaking in the talk. Please assume good faith and not ulterior motives. The comments you have made are a personal attack as to why I am making my comments. The edit summary is also assuming bad faith in the discussion. I do not believe you are genuine in wanting to have a genuine issue based discussion only. All that you seem to want is to win and have your version as the only version. Please stop attacking the motives for me posting on the discussion page. I would like no personal attacks by any user in the discussions. If you have problems with your perception of my motives please speak to me directly on my talk, page and don't make a scene on discussion pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to my comment at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark#Requested_move.

I stand by that comment. When it suits you, you talk of COMMONNAME taking precedence, but your mass-renamings of articles on peers tell a different story.

For example, Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde inherited his peerage at age 25, and has been known throughout his political career by his title ... yet you still moved him in two steps [1] [2] to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960).

I don't know why you want to remove titles even from someone whose entire political career has been conducted as Lord Strathclyde, and I have not speculated on motive. But what I do know is that your long history of page moves shows that your claim to uphold COMMONNAME is simply bogus, and I make no apology for drawing that to the attention of other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying your right to make those comments what i am taking issue with is making them in an inappropriate place. If you have personal issue with me direct the comments on my talk page and not in a discussion regarding a page move. If you have issue with me talk to me and do not make a scene on an unrelated talk page. I also view you as not assuming good faith. I also doubt your motives are anything other an attempt to force what you perceive as the consensus over the other policies of Wikipedia. I do not believe you are interested in the arguments being put forward by multiple users on both sides of the arguments. The numbers of people opposing you also demonstrates I am not some lone fringe user all on my own pushing something no one else supports.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I made those observations at the requested move discussion, because they are directly relevant to that discussion.

As before, I do not know why you apply your rationale selectively, but the fact that you do so makes your arguments bogus. If you are acting in good faith, as you claim, please try to explain this blatant inconsistency rather than complaining that the evidence is laid out.

I'm very amused that you talk of "the numbers of people opposing you". If you took a moment to read the discussion at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark#Requested_move, you would see that I have not yet made up my mind on which option I prefer, because I am still weighing the evidence and the arguments. I have no idea why you want to claim that someone still weighing up the options is being opposed, let alone who are these "numbers of people" opposing a position I have not taken.

In any case, please remember that WP:CONSENSUS is weighed by strength of argument, not by counting heads. You may want to reflect on how your argument is strengthened or weakened by your inconsistencies, but there's no point in blaming me for the fact that your actions contradict your arguments. Shooting the messenger doesn't alter the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not relevant to that discussion they are simply an attack on me. If you want a genuine discussion comment on the content of the discussion and not the edit histories and persona character of other users, namely myself. Also you arguments are not carrying much weight as all they are saying is this policy says it and we must ignore the other policy. If you want have a genuine discussion then make points which back up your POV as opposed to resorting to attempting to smear me personally. The reason I am those observations is because you seem more obsessed with trying to say my arguments are wrong and commenting on me than actually staying silent until you have made up your mind and feel able to comment on the page move as opposed to commenting on myself. I am not denying are walking away from what I have done. I am simply taking issue to you attempting to smear my points of view and arguments i am making which are based in policies of Wikipedia. You seem obsessed on ignoring the other side of the arguments and only having your point of view as the accepted version because you claim it has more weight which it does not. If you have issue with me talk to me on my talk page and do not attempt to smear me on an unrelated move discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not an attack on you: they are an attack on your bogus arguments.

I have asked at Talk:James Chichester-Clark#Requested_move for an explanation of your inconsistent approach, and I suggest that you make that explanation there rather than coming here to complain.

In making up my mind, I discuss the evidence available and the strength of the arguments. I'm sorry that you find this uncomfortable, but this process of discussion and scrutiny is how WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and since I do not yet have a POV on the naming of that article I am in position to state one. I am still keeping an open mind, and examining the evidence.

If you genuinely believe that this is a personal attack, then feel free to seek guidance at WP:WQA or to make a complaint at WP:ANI .... but your posts on this talk page are just repetitive, so I am now going to close this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 31 December 2010 (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.

Just in case...

...nobody notifies you, you may be interested in this. Take it easy, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Moyola

While I took part to a degree with the discussion on Lord Moyola and watched your attempts to get a rationale of Lucy-marie's edits on Strathclyde -v- her statement on commonname I'm not sure how to regard her acts as good faith and therefore how to proceed. Garlicplanting (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Always assume good faith until there is clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A "gut instinct" or a "feeling” or being "not sure" is not enough to assume bad faith. I also fail to see how the edits I have made on that page are in any way "bad faith" edits. I have given a clear and rational reasoning for the edits and have answered the questions by BHG. If there is confusion or misunderstanding with relation to what I have said in response to BHGs comments, I am willing to give clarification, if the points of confusion or misunderstanding are raised to me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, you have been asked half-a-dozen times to provide an explanation, and have chosen not to do so. Right now you have given no remotely plausible explanation for this cherry-picking, and you have clearly persisted in your refusal to explain it. That looks like bad faith to me.

If you do decide to offer an explanation for why you completely ignore a policy in one case but claim it as a trump card on another, that might help to restore the presumption that you are acting in good faith. But please do so at the RM discussion where it is relevant, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what your opinion is and in my opinion I have done none of what you have claimed i think this all too much overanalyses of a few simple edits and a simple position which I have taken that i believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia. I have not said has that convention come after the policy. I have said that I believe the Common name policy should take precedence and then if the common name is the ennobled title then WP:NCPEER should be used. As I stated I firmly believe WP:NCPEER is how to name if it is the common name and not a superseding of and usurping of common name. I have now given the same explanation again and have provided answers to all questions you have provided. If you view them as evasive they are not. If you view them as cherry-picking (which is think is what you are doing by only using WP:NCPEER and ignoring common name) it is not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, you are entirely evasive, to the point of dishonesty.

Yes, you have indeed said before that you "believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia". That's quite correct: it is indeed being applied that way, in accordance with the same policy document: see Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions. I don't know why you continue to ignore policy in this way, because it has bee repeatedly pointed out to you.

With Lord Strathyclyde, you completely ignored COMMONNAME, but with Chichester-Clark you claim that COMMONNAME trumps everything ... and the only explanation you provided is that you think it's "sensible". Why, Laurel, why? Naming policies and guidelines exist to be applied on a consistency basis: their whole purpose is provide stability and consistency for article names. As far as I can see, there is no way that you can oppose the use of the title for Lord Strathyclyde while claiming that COMMONNAME takes precedence, and the only plausible answer can see is that you couldn't give a fig about either policy or guideline -- you are just using both in bad faith in pursuit of a desire to remove titles fro articles.

If you have another explanation for why you removed the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, then let's hear it. So far, you have just responded with vague dismissals which don't answer the question ... and until you do provide a plausible explanation, then I will continue to assume that you are acting in blatant bad faith.

Please don't post here again to complain about my conclusion that you are acting in bad faith. Either explain why you reached that conclusion with Strathyclyde, or leave my talk page alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

[[:File:Fireworks in Japan.ogv|thumb|150px|Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]]

Thank for the good wishes, but I hate fireworks :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

HNY

Have a great 2011. But just a thought, there seems to be a consistently confusing battle between WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME. Instead of instigating a user based RFC why not look at a general RFC to see which guideline has a consensual precedent? Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!

I'm not so sure that's a good way to approach this, because it seems to me that your suggestion would pose a general question in relation to a specific application. Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions is clear that there there can be subject-specific guidelines, and where they exist they take precedence.

It seems to me that there are two possible ways to approach this in a RFC. On is to examine whether Wikipedia:Article titles should always precedence over subject-specific guidelines. That's a very broad question, with implications for many many topic areas, but if we are not going to open the nature of subject-guidelines as a whole, then it seems to me to be a recipe for chaos to propose that some of them take precedence and some don't; that way nobody would know how much weight to attach to subject-specific guidelines, and the resulting uncertainty would lead to a lot of unstable article titles.

The other option is to examine the narrower question of whether WP:NCPEER has consensus support, and whether its specific exceptions to COMMONNAME have consensus, or whether it should be revised. That seems to me to be a much better way of focusing the discussion on one problematic area, without destabilising other topic areas.

However ... have you looked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and its extensive archives? Eeek!!!

Two hardline camps repeatedly challenged the guideline, both over baronets and peers: one wants titles-in-every-case, while the other wants titles-hardly-ever. Some (stress that "some") editors do so either out of a POV that titles are "correct form", while some (stress that "some") other editors approach it from a similarly POV position that titles are inegalitarian/snobbish/etc. This has repeatedly led to assumptions from various quarters that those sharing one of those particular ideologies must necessarily hold the other one ... so editors who bring other perspectives to the table find ABF assumptions poured all over them. It's quite possible to take a view on this based on a variety of pragmatic and non-ideological positions, e.g.

1. "titles gives us ready-made-disambiguators, and using them consistently saves a lot of grief in dabbing later"
2. "Too much instruction creep. Use titles if dabbing is needed, but not otherwise"
3. "Too much instruction creep. COMMONNAME should apply to all topics on WP"
4. "WP is written for a global audience. For readers outside the UK, titles carry much less relevance than for the small proportion of readers who live in the UK"
5. "WP is written for a global audience, and aims to inform them about topics from all over the world. Whatever ones view of their merits, titles are part of the political and cultural structures of the UK, so shoukd be used in documenting it"
6. "in previous eras, titles were used rigorously. That's less so now (see e.g. Roy Hattersley, a peer for 13 years who doesn't use his title outside the Lords chamber). Do we adopt a consistent approach to their use, or do we open them all up to examination" (choose which side you take depending on your preference for stability or taking-each-on-its-merits)

There are plenty more permutations, but those will serve as an illustration of how many difft NPOV perspectives can be applied here, in addition to the POV-pushers.

Do take a look at the situation wrt baronets, where guidance has been stable for ages to use the title where a dab is needed, but not otherwise. Sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it's a nightmare. The titles-always-brigade moves articles to their titled form even when no dabbing is possibly needed, while the no-titles-crowd move them to the untitled form even when dabbing may be needed ... which sparks long debates about when dabbing is appropriate: e.g. "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 7th Baronet" is so far the only "Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit" with an articles. However, "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 2nd Baronet" and "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 5th Baronet" were both MPs, so per WP:POLITICIAN are presumed notable and will hopefully have an article at some point. Should the article on the 7th Baronet be named with the title or without, when the others are still redlinks? Cue another fight, which has been to ARBCOM several times. :(

I opened an RFC in 2009 suggesting that we end the instability by coming down on one side or the other, wrt baronet titles: see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive_19#Page_names_for_biographical_articles_on_individual_baronets. Nothing remotely approaching consensus.

See also other similar RFCs, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 21#RfC:_British_peers

So my view is that while the current guideline is nobody's ideal, no attempt to revise it has come anywhere near a consensus: it just generates a lot of drama and ill-will, as illustrated by the discussions in the last few months at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I see no reason at all to believe that a fresh RFC would do any better.

So at this point I reckon that the least-worst option is to stick with the status quo, and try to implement it with some consistency. Naturally, someone else may open an RFC if they want, but it won't be me :) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

How would one go about initiaing this with the aim of finishing this once and for all with the widest possible input and the widest possible implication so that Wikipeida can move one and put this behind.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start by dropping your dishonest use of existing policy and guidelines to justify your personal preferences, by insisting on COMMONNAME it when it suits you and ignoring COMMONNAME when it doesn't. Until you drop this game-plating and explain what your rationale is rather than evading the question, stay off my talk page and quit wasting my time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as BrownHairedGirl has intimated, she was optimistic that things were moving to a more positive conclusion so RFC's were considered unnecessary for the time being. However, given the recent exchange a couple of sections up from here, it seems that a wider view is needed, and one way of doing that is via WP:RFC/U, chiefly to discuss your (Lucy-marie) editing. This can be initiated by anyone, but generally it's best done in the cold light of day so rational and objective arguments can be proposed. Then we involve the wider community, and hopefully reach a consensus to end this ongoing dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wholly reject that I am being dishonest and would like withdrawn that unfounded and defamatory claim. I also reject the claim that I am "game-playing" and request that comment be withdrawn as well, as it is without foundation. How many more times do you want me to explain my position? I have already done so on your talk page in an earlier discussion. If that explanation is not "satisfactory" please can you explain how it evasive and not answering the question? I am trying to work with you here but you now appear insistent on unfounded name calling.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Rambling Man you will not like what I am about to say but I genuinely do not believe i have done anything other than participate in the same behaviour as the other side of the discussion on this issue. Participated in move discussion when they have been initiated and even initiated a discussion on the naming convention dated 6 October. I also believe I have done nothing wrong with relation to answering the questions put in an honest and non-evasive way. I firmly believe being called dishonest is uncalled for as i have only edited in good faith weather you believe me or not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, for whatever it's worth, I have no real interest in tit-for-tat behaviour. I just want the situation to be resolved swiftly so those involved can get with improving the encyclopaedia, not wasting hundreds of KB debating policy A vs policy B. That's why I'm now talking about RFC/U so we can get a wider perspective which would hopefully include uninvolved editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out the original dispute has been resolved. The complaint was that I was moving pages unilaterally. Now I am moving no pages at all and am participating in move discussions and will be doing so on all pages in the future. That means the original dispute has been succesfully resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Lucy-marie, if you are not being dishonest, then give a direct answer to the simple question: "what policy or guideline led you to remove the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, and why?" (For example, if you were using COMMONNAME, explain what evidence you have that the title is not part of his COMMONNAME. If you were using some some other policy or guideline, explain which one and why you believe it applies)

Until you provide a direct answer, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting my time. I will delete any further complaints about how you don't like your dishonesty being noted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On her behalf, it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with WP:YOU CANT MAKE ME ANSWER YOU. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That may well be the case. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for one wrong revert

Sorry for deleting a post on Lucy-marie's on her own talk page. Lucy-marie had repeatedly restored material which I had deleted from her talk page, despite being told to "stay off my talk page".

I was watching her contribs and mistook which page her latest comment had been applied to. I am glad to see that she has reverted my edit to her talk, as is her right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. BHG, I've mailed you, but if we could neutralise edit summaries too, then that'd be perfect, especially considering it's 1/1/11 and all that jazz (no fireworks)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my edit summaries while reverting were not restrained. Playing whack-a-mole gets tedious, and when faced with an editor who repeatedly reverted my edits to my own talk page, I used direct terms is the hope that they might be understood. Glad that's over now ... and I'll go check my mail. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully not too patronising. If so, ignore, and indef block me for being an ass (and to save me a lot of time this year!)... Anyways, take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not patronising at all! And if anyone was going to black you for being an ass, they'd be working off such a bizarre definition of an ass that they might as well block all editors. So the only indef for you an indef thankyou for being since a consistent voice of calm thoughtfuless :)

Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope my mails made sense. Take it easy, all the very best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Course they made sense! I have replied in email. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing yet, but life's slow this time of year. I'm off to bed. Sleep well, more tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing, perhaps it's got lost in the ether...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I sent them again yesterday. Dunno if either copy reached you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA

The question is bugging me; meta-question just about covers it! (Sorta like a "prove you didn't murder that woman" question - rather difficult). I'm going to answer the one below it immediately, since that's more obvious, and let yours softly percolate in my head until I can come up with something - just thought I'd let you know so nobody thought I had ignored it or was displaying a big flashing warning sign saying "THIS USER HAS NOT CHANGED AND REFUSES TO ADMIT IT" :P Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, it's a difficult one. I pondered for a while over how to word it and whether to ask it at all, because I felt there was a real risk of it being like a witchcraft trial: we'll either burn you for denying your sorcery, or burn you for having confirmed that you are indeed evil.

Hope I have avoided that, but I'll look fwd to your answer whatever it is, and may in any case just decided that I am being an unforgiving cow. Do take your time, cos I understand it's a difficult one ... and rest assured that there is no bonfire (nor even peine fort et dur) :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Something that might amuse you (while I'm here) in relation to peine fort et dur is the Hale Commission, a legal reform commission which proposed removing that torture, introducing a not guilty plea, providing for legal aid, limiting the use of the death penalty, small claims courts, refusing to allow lawyers to practise until they were suitably qualified and not throwing debtors in prison. It was founded in 1652 and made up mostly of Puritans. Always gives me a good giggle :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now replied; my apologies again for the bleurgh-inducing soppiness of my answer. I appreciate it isn't a very good one, but I couldn't think of a good one that wasn't insincere. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you feel I haven't actually answered the question, feel free to pose a follow-up; it's a rather multi-legged creature, and I just grabbed the most likely looking ankle and pulled :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep on it, but my initial take is that you only answered part of the question, or at least part of what I meant as the question but probably didn't express clearly. It seems to me that there were two strands of concerns raised at the previous RFA: interaction (perceived snippiness, etc), and judgement (e.g. excessively rapid assessment). I didn't spell that out, so can't expect you to have inferred what I meant, but it seems to me that your answer addresses the interaction issues thought not the flawed judgement ones.

That's only a quick-thoughts answer, and I'll look again the morning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha; thankee. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PS love the Hale Commission article. Am shocked to see that they had liberal do-gooders in those days too!

Allowing defendants access to lawyers? Not imprisoning debtors? Hold the Daily Mail front page while we expose such loony leftism!! Next thing they'll allow all men to vote and some of the more deranged nutters will probably even try to extend that to votes for women (cue ROTFL).

Thank goodness for Lord Braxfield, who was on hand to remind clever-clogs that they'd be "Nane the waur o' a good hingin".

I'll try to get my tongue out of my cheek by tomorrow. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Privy Council again

The draft you suggested is here. In this discussion, forces of inertia seem to be at work. While working on the Kingdom of England period, I have a visceral objection to linking to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I didn't feel the same way about Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, which you moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I'd like to pursue the split which you supported, but failing that in my view we do need another name, so that a narrow modern identity isn't imposed inappropriately. Hope you can help. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

You may wish to take note of the observations on my Talk page with regard to Rayment refs. I would very much appreciate it if you could be a little bit more careful in future. Motmit (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. It's been suggested to me too by several admins that I should run for office. I gave them the same answer. Nevertheless, I'm going to have to throw my hat in the ring soon because it's just too clumsy and time consuming having to ask admins twenty times a day to do my dirty work for me. It will be both an experience and a test case ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RFA? May the gods have mercy on your mortal soul. Have you considered any more relaxing alternatives, such as gouging your eyes out with a rusty beaked bean can whilst enoying a holiday at Bagram? ;)

Seriously, tho, the "dirty work" you mention is one of the important aspects of an admin's toolkit, and it's not all a matter of the much-feared nasty stuff blocks or deleting articles. The things I find most useful are much more mundane, like the ability to move an article over a redirect. Like any power, that tool needs to be used judiciously, and there are some moves which I could do myself but think it better to open an RM ... but it would waste a lot of time having to do that for even non-contentious moves.

Plenty of those who have the toolkit make regular use of only the more minor tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got the picture, it's mainly uncontentious routine stuff, but because I work in a completely different time zone from the UK/US admins there's not always someone around. And then there a re the occasional southeast Asians that go on a rampage and need stopping. We'll see how it goes. --Kudpung (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds RfA

Hiya, BHG. Thanks for your vocal support for Ironholds. I think his enthusiasm will be great for the project, but I'm keeping my trout handy (just in case). Be seeing you around the wiki. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he satisfied my outstanding concerns, and since he otherwise rates so well it would have been folly not to support him.

Some of the rest of what's happened in that RFA is a troubling symptom of RFA's general malaise. Several of the critics seemed unable to distinguish between an error of judgement (i.e. one outside the bounds of policy), and a legitimate judgement-call with which they happen to disagree. (I apply a distinction like the test in judicial review: you can get a hearing to review a decision which appears to have been ultra vires or illegal, or where you can make a prima facie case that it was perverse and irrational; but you cannot get judicial review just cos you'd have called things differently). That sort of thing is part of what makes RFA such a generally unpleasant experience, and Ironholds has had a lot of mud slung at him which says "zomg you was wrong!!" when the substance of the complaint clearly means "you do not share my radical inclusionist views". The process would work better for everyone if RFA participants made that distinction, and openly stated that an oppose was due to a disagreement rather than to spurious claims of wickedness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments regarding the current nasty state of RfA nominations are spot on. I was pleased that so many editors came out of the woodwork early to support Ironholds' nomination; the early support changed the tenor of a lot of the later comments. That's why your early support was so important to what is clearly going to be a successful nomination (assuming there are no incriminating photos).

As for the state of the RfA nomination, comment and voting process, it's not the process itself that's broken. IMHO, some of the regular participants are broken, or more articulately, too willing to cross certain boundaries in their advocacy of their personal RfA standards. The real problem, as I see it, is that no one has the authority to draw boundaries on what is and is not an appropriate comment regarding a candidate, and that permits some of our more, ahem, vocal community members to exercise their free speech rights a little too freely. I would support the creation of a committee of three or so administrators to serve as neutral referees for each nomination, who could step in to remind everyone of WP policy, civility and good manners as necessary. But, then again, what do I know about about procedural fairness? I'm just a lawyer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point about lawyers and procedural fairness. A few years ago I was party to a court case where there was repeated and systematic perjury by the other side which could not have been conducted without the active participation of the solicitors involved. My lawyers refused to touch the perjury aspect, and just insisted that the other lawyers were highly respected, despite the evidence in front of them. That close encounter with the ugly side of collegiality, and close involvement with another case which went in about seven steps to the Lords and destroyed the life of my friend the successful plaintiff, has made me re-examine many of my previous good-faith assumptions about how your profession works.

Please don't take that as any sort of personal criticism, direct or implied; my criticism is of the culture within which you guys work, not of the individuals who have to work within it.

You're right that RFA has a problem with some broken participants, but that's not just a problem with the individuals; it's a cultural problem with a community that tolerates mud-slinging at RFA as if it were a form of scrutiny. Moderators for RFA might be a good idea, but those doing it would need a hide thicker than any yet invented. (omg!!!! you islamofascist stalinist feminazi uber-liberal neocon drittsekk, you are sensering mi free speech!!!!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Calne MPs

Talking early seventeenth century here; and there seem to be problems. The famous one is John Pym; but it could be that many sources are wrong in saying he was Calne's MP in 1614. That is because Conrad Russell in the ODNB is definite that he was first an MP for Calne on 1621; and then for Chippenham in 1624. That would mean that Calne (UK Parliament constituency) must have something wrong also. It seems an odd business. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles

I'm afraid that I tend to stay clear of pre-restoration MPs, because I don't have good sources. From 1832 to 1950, I have F. W. S. Craig's election results, which are great; from 1660 onwards I use Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs , which is astoundingly accurate, better even than Craig's fine scholarship; and I also use Stooks Smith for 1715 to 1822, but it's much less reliable, with an average of 2 or 3 errors per constituency. I also make a lot of use the London Gazette, but the poor quality OCRing on pre 1850s material means that it can be very hard to find material.

With all due respect to the DNB, I have found that it is not a good source for parliamentary returns, and even with 19th century material I have found and corrected quite a few errors (I persuaded them to amend their entry on one person they claimed had been an MP, but wasn't, but haven't bothered pursuing the others). If there is a clash of sources, I would not assume that that the DNB is correct, particularly when using the old out-of-copyright versions: a lot of revision work has been done since then, and the standards of scholarship are much higher in newer versions.

As to Calne, I note that the pre-1640s entries are unsourced, so I would take them with a big pinch of salt. Another possibility to consider is that someone may have stood for multiple constituencies. As above, I'm not good on the 17th century material, but in the 18th and early 19th centuries, there was a lot of swapping around: resign one seat to contest another, or stand for several and choose which one to sit for, and flurries of petitions meant that a lot of elections were overturned. So no easy answers, I'm afraid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the old DNB (not infallible by any means); but the ODNB to me means the current version, and that tends to represent current scholarship. I'm aware of the 1660 watershed too; but of course the composition of parliaments under James I and Charles I does matter! Charles Matthews (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken on versions, but the current version still has some glitches on parl returns, even on the relatively-easily-verified 19th-century MPs. That's not entirely surprising, because the minutiae of eln returns are often a v minor point in a biography; and for pre-restoration stuff, the sources are too fragmented to make verification of the minutiae worth the huge effort involved. I quite agree that the pre-1660 period matters; it's just while I enjoy the politics of that 17th century, its elections are not really my area of editing interest, and the sources I am have accessed so far seem too fragmentary for my liking.

The History of Parliament Trust has done some magnificient work on a lot of periods, tho sadly the years 1600-1660 have not been done yet, and at £490 per volume or £150 for a CD-ROM which misses out the later printed volumes I doubt I'll be buying any of their works.

<rant>I think it is disgraceful that a body such as this which is principally publicly-funded should price its works at such an exorbitant level. The taxpapyer has paid for that data, and it should be placed on the web under the usual crown copyright terms rather than trying to gouge university libraries for sums which add up to only small proportion of the Trust's budget, and in doing so lock out the general public.</rant> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Assertions

Sorry if my RFC comments were irritating, I've seen you around and apart from matters relating to CW have a high regard for your contributions. Should have known not to write that about 'moderately talented analysts', was just trying to gently imply you might be arguing outside your area of expertise. I may well be wrong but for sure we seem to have such a different understanding of stats that we might need a very long discussion before we found any common ground. Not all my points were bald assertions, but youre right its purely personal opinion about CW being one of our best editors. Hope you have a Goodnight! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that friendly message.

I'm no statistician, so on that narrow point I am indeed right outside my area of expertise. Still, non-experts can spot flaws in expert analysis :) But whatever the statistical analysis, the statistics can only be as good as the underlying assessments of whether a ref justifies the conclusions drawn from it, and it seems that you and I would make very different assessments in that area.

Apart from the refs where we can check against the sources, CW also uses offline refs, and we already have an example while the RFCU was underway of where CW used an offline sources which does not appear to stand up to scrutiny, and simply refuses to discuss the problem, despite having cited it at AFD. A good faith editor would make haste to discuss it and either defend the source or apologise for the error, and I cannot see how CW's refusal to respond to being caught making a bogus ref leaves any grounds to believe that he is a good editor. In academia, that sort of behaviour destroys careers; on WP, verifiability is a core policy, but CW simply sneered at it. I find it immensely sad that anyone defends this sort of thing, because it so deeply corrosive of the good faith without which Wikipedia is dead.

Anyway, that's just rehashing old ground. Thanks again for your friendly msg, and I hope that we meet in again in more agreeable circumstances before all this gets to arbcom :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be able to agree with almost all of that and defenders like myself did agree with some of your points on the RFC itself. Thanks very much for the friendly reply. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with deletion of an image

BHG, I need some advice on the proper place and procedures for filing a complaint against an administrator for violation of WP procedures and bad-faith deletion of files. Please see the discussion at User:Zscout370's talk page and File talk:Florida Gators logo.svg. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am looking into it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG. I think the current discussion at Zscout's talk page lays it out pretty nicely. In order to speedy delete this file, Zscout violated multiple WP guidelines as well as the required procedures of the particular rule he cited as his justification for a speedy delete. So, much for everyone being equal. It's the failure to play be the same rules that gives some admins a bad name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so far as I can see your complaint is justified. The image File:Florida_Gators_logo.svg was deleted without being tagged for the required 7 days, and in any case the rationale WP:CSD#F5 applies only to files "that are not used in any article" was inapplicable, since Zscout370 removed the image from 20 articles immediately prior to deletion. So it was doubly out-of-order even if the fair-use concern was valid, which I understand you dispute; I have not researched that aspect myself, so have formed no view on it yet.

I am glad to see that you have first tried to discuss your concerns at User talk:Zscout370#Please_restore_Gators_head_logo. That's the right first step. If that fails, the next step is WP:DRV, and I see that you have already notified Zscout370 of your intention to go there if you are unable to reach agreement.

Zscout370 appears not have edited since your first post on their talk page, and I would suggest that you give Zscout370 24 hours to respond to your concerns, before opening a DRV. If this can be resolved without wider involvement, it's best to avoid drama. On that note, I see that you have already notified another admin, at User_talk:Cuchullain#I_have_a_problem. In the interests of minimising drama, may I suggest that you don't notify further admins at this stage?

I will try to keep an eye on the response, because while I assume that the deletion was a good faith mistake, I think think that Zscout370 has some explaining to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG, you're my objective British ear. The other notified admins have various degrees of involvement in either WikiProject University of Florida or WikiProject College football. Accordingly, your opinion carries a lot of weight right now. I am done with notifications, unless and until this proceeds to DRV. Given the obvious violations of CSD procedure and abuse of the admin's article delete button, do I have any alternative avenues to bring a rogue admin to account? ANI?

BTW, was you edit summary intentional---"you're on the right rack?" Nice. Sure feels that way sometimes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The edit summary was a typo for "on the right track". Not intentional :(

PS I echo Cuchullain's concern that you are coming on far too strong here.

So far as I can see at this stage, your concerns are justified, but as a first step it's quite enough to set them out politely and await a response. Alleging "abusive nonsense" (which still stands when after you toned down your response) and talking here about "rogue admins" is not AGF and not a good way to proceed, and involving two other admins within 12 hours when you have not yet had a response from the deleting admin is also too much drama. I suggest that you take a break from your keyboard for a while, because while I can understand your annoyance, this is not the right way to deal with the situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, mother. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right, son <grin>

And ... Oi!!!!! Just noticed ... "objective British ear".

I am not British. Very definitely and decidedly absolutely not British; am not not, have not been and will not be. I am Irish.

I am also not entirely comfortable with the idea of an "objective" British ear; ears labelled in that way have an unfortunate habit of seeing appalling vistas and other such delusions.

So go wash your mouth out, before we subject you to some British law or British neighbourliness or give you a British holiday <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. FYI, the adult discussion has now begun at Zscout's talk page. If I get too rowdy, please feel free to kick me in the shins under the negotiating table. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I know the difference: my mother's maiden was McConaughy. But on this side of the Pond, "Republican bomb-thrower" has an entirely different meaning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We may yet reach a relatively happy outcome over at Zscout's talk page. The file and its uses have been restored for the ime being. We shall see. After waking up at noon local time, to the rocket's red glare, he seems to have returned to his "rack" for the time being. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm please to hear that a mutually agreeable resolution may be in sight.

However, I'm disappointed to see your remark about "the rocket's red glare". That sort of comment just inflames any situation, and impedes a resolution. Please step back and try to reduce the drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, mother, that was intended to be a humorous reference to the "Star Spangled Banner" and Zscout rolling out of bed "at dawn's early light." Probably helps the humor if you know the lyrics. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the habit of learning national anthems, apart of course from the La Marseillaise which is the only one I've encountered that's not me-me-me. (And of course it's great for buoying up the spirit on those dreary saturdays when one decides to skip the grocery shopping and organise a revolutionary riot instead). YMMV :)

Anyway, good luck in the quest for an amicable resolution :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Garvald

I think these villages are all the same place. Don't know how to propose they be merged. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about that area to have a view myself on whether they should be merged, but what I'd suggest you do is:

1. Use {{mergeto}} on the ones you want to merge
2. Use {{mergefrom}} on the one you want to keep (e.g. if you want to merge from "village" and "village2", use {{mergefrom|village1|village2}}
3. On he talk page of the one you want to keep, explain your reason(s) for the proposed merge
4. Drop a note to WT:SCO inviting comment.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Soubry

Hi BHG. Don't seem to have seen much activity on the talk pages apart from one helpful -but unsigned ip contributor! Both User talk:Kateshaw44 and User talk:Norman6677 are spa's and both made the same edits. Kate Shaw is Anna's office manager and if it's the same person was probably simply unaware of the rules. Changes I've suggested on the talk page happen to be much more positive. Could I ask you to lift the protection but watch the article? JRPG (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had intended to protect the article for two weeks, but it seems that I inadvertently applied indef protection, which I have now lifted. Sorry, but me watching the article probably won't help. I have about 30,000 entries on my watchlist, of which Soubry is one, and given my current editing priorities I'm not likely to spot any trouble there.

Good luck in developing the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ..and I fear I'll need it! JRPG (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please...

I request that you be more careful with what you say about others in inappropriate settings than you were when you wrote about me on Will's talk page, claiming that "B2C has a goal which clearly opposes existing policy"[3]. I know at the time you sincerely believed it was true, but I assure you it's based on a misunderstanding on your part, albeit possibly related to sloppy writing on my part, but never-the-less illustrates why we have policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It' precautionary, in case we're wrong (which happens to the best of us). Thanks... --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) B2C, My own many exchanges with you on various issues of policy and other debates where you generally appear to argue against consensus and existing policies, and your 63% participation in talk, AfD, RfC, and WP:DRV, against only 19.34% content building, appear to clearly support BHG's statement as a fact. It was not, IMHO, in breach of any AGF or NPA policies. That's why we have essays such as WP:BOOMERANG and others that guard against being overly sensitive to interpereting incivility and personal attacks too literally. Best wishes for 2011.--Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C, I stand by what I wrote. And thanks to Kupdung for kindly setting out some of the context.

All the evidence still points to you being a single-purpose account on a mission to disrupt wikipedia policy, not by challenging the policy directly, but by devoting your energies to disruptively and tendentiously opposing its implementation in multiple forums.

I fully support your right to disagree with policy, and to seek a centralised discussion on how to change it; but unless and until it is changed, it is disruptive to repeatedly set out to undermine it. I deplore your repeated refusal to work within the policies and guidelines which currently exist, and your repeated unilateral declarations that they no longer apply even though a consensus has not been reached on changing them.

If you don't like your disruptiveness being noted, don't shoot the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As promised...

I've clarified the apparent source of confusion on my user page[4]. Please let me know if that helps. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no confusion.

If you feel that a minor qualification to your blanket rejection of policy helps you in some way, then you are quite entitled to edit your userpage as you see fit.

However, I am satisfied that:

1. Your track record of consistently opposing policy in practice reinforces your original statement. Changing it when challenged is not persasive
2. If you think that expressly adding support one of the 67 naming conventions somehow dilutes the previous statement of opposition for the principle of the policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions ... well you are of course free to think whatever you want.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Location navboxes

Hi, as I said earlier I would like to raise a RFC on the subject of location navboxes. It seems that there are four main areas of contention between ourselves over these.

1. When to create a navbox - although you stated that 5 blue-linked stand-alone articles was not intended to confer suitability for existence, I think we do need to establish some sort of threshold, and 5 seems a reasonable number to use. I accept that some of the navboxes with only a link or two were probably not a good idea in hindsight, which is why I did not oppose their deletion at TfD.
2. Links to sections of articles - these should not count towards the 5 stand-alone articles mentioned above, but their inclusion or otherwise should at least be discussed by the wider community.
3. People - this is probably the biggest point on which we disagree. Again, the issue should be discussed by the wider community.
4. Flags - I notice you've been removing flags from the navboxes I created. There are a vast many navboxes that do have flags. I've not reverted you because I believe this issue should also be discussed at the RFC.

In raising the RFC, I do not intend to dwell too much on our arguments. I apologise for my interaction with you in certain respects, such as ABF. I want to put this behind me and to work on getting some consensus with the wider community over location navboxes. I agree that WT:NAV would be a good venue, with the RFC publicised at WP:CENT. Let me know your thoughts on the above (I'll check back here) and whether there are any other issues you think should be raised. I'll then make a start on the RFC in my user space, where you will be free to suggest any amendments and once we are agreed it can be made live at WT:NAV. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, and the friendly tone :)

I'm glad you accept that some of the navboxes with only a link or two were not a good idea, but if you reached that conclusion you could have saved them being relisted at TFD by supporting their deletion. I'm sure we have all done it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time things and realised afterwards that they were not-such-a-good-idea, but having reached that conclusion it's a pity to stand aside from the deletion process rather than helping to assert a consenus in favour of deletion.

On the points you suggest for an RFC:

1. I am concerned that you still fix appear to focus on a crude count, rather than on assessing whether the items are sufficiently closely connected to make such prominent links appropriate. This issue is covered in WP:NAVBOX, and while I accept that it's one of the points of difference we need to resolve, I think that both angles should be presented. I know that this was only a few notes, and hope that in the RFC draft you will address this point.
2. Links to sections. Again, I think there's a relevance issue and an undue weight issue, but there is also a question of whether the reader is being misled into think that there are different articles involved.
3. People. I accept that you disagree with me, but please also note that at least 4 other editors have agreed with me on that one. If you want to pursue this in an RFC, I think it would be appropriate to note that.
4. Flags. I removed the flags per two sections of MOS:FLAG: WP:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance. If you object to that guideline, I suggest that you should raise that point as a proposed change to the guideline, at WT:MOSFLAG, because it seems to me that it relates most closely to MOSFLAG.

A further concern of mine relates to point #1: that you seemed on several occasions to be relating the decision on creation of a navbox to the status of a place. I hope we can address this in the RFC, because I think it's a very significant difference of view in determining whether a navbox is appropriate; on my view it comes before the numerical issue. You proposed before that a town was more suitable for a navbox than a village, but as before I think that's asking the wrong question: to my mind, the first questions should be "Why would readers want a navbox here? What does it actually do for them? Are there other ways of doing this?" I'd like to see that approach addressed in the RFC.

Sorry that this reply may come across as a bit grumpy. :( If so, that's because it seems to me that an RFC should try to involve the wider community on points where editors have been tried unsuccessfully to reach agreement, and on some of my central points it doesn't feel to me that you have engaged enough for us to clarify the issues for wider discussion. I like the idea of another venue where we can bring distilled points of disagreement, but I'm not yet confident we have quite got to the point of distilling them, so I'm a bit worried that we may just end up talking past each other again. Hopefully I am wrong on that :)

Anyway, I look fwd to seeing your draft, and hope that I may feel more positive when I have read it ... and thanks again for discussing it with me first. I think that's a very important step in getting a good problem-solving RFC rather than Fight Part 2, and I hope we'll make this a successful one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that

Hope it is your size, I lost the receipt

You gave me a start there. I thought for sure when I saw that section title that it was going to be someone yelling at me for real. I'm happy to give you your own crappy t-shirt. Since it's so late you get the special blue one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bless you. Honest, I'll stop crying now :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

James Stuart-Wortley

HNY to you. Could you please have a look at this, and comment there? If you comment here, would you mind placing a talkback? Schwede66 06:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the query. I have replied at Talk:James Stuart-Wortley (New Zealand politician), 'cos I think it's best to discuss articles on their own talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - that's much appreciated. Schwede66 17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. And well-spotted that there was something awry :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox UK constituency (former)"

I noted your update to Altrincham and Sale (UK Parliament constituency) switching from the former constituency infobox template. I agree in principle with what you've done here, but we have (I think) 1207 constituency pages using the old template. What are your thoughts on where you want to go with this? I haven't put this out for wider consultation because I don't want conversations on what current constituencies do (yet - I will come back to it in time - as I am trying to avoid scope creep). Cheers. Crooked cottage (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK constituency main}} was developed in April last year, to replace the jumble of difft styles of infoboxes for constituencies. It's a good one: it does everything done by all the other templates, and a little more besides, and use the new std format for such things. So far it's used on 1708 constituencies, but that includes 705 pages which use {{UK former constituency infobox}} -- it now just passes its parameters through to {{Infobox UK constituency main}}, but has only a subset of the functionality.

So we've made good progress, and although there is still a long way to go, there is no deadline :)

So, if you feel like adding this to your to-do-list, great ... and if your mission creep alarms tell you to park that one for now, that's fine too. It'll get done eventually, and the main thing is that you can feel comfortable with the great work you are doing! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clear. In the course of my 1992 work I have to work with a list of 196 (I think) constituencies abolished in either 1997 or 2010. This is the sort of scope I can deal with (and btw the figure I gave above is double the real figure). I'll work these as a mindless task - they are useful :) Crooked cottage (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The figures I have for usage of {{UK former constituency infobox}} may be misleading, because it has a few redirects and I only counted the main usage, but I canna be bothered tallying it properly. It'll be done when it's done :)

KUTGW! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say...

...Good Lord! -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

But sometimes a complete change of topic lightens the day ... so now for something completely different. Have you ever encountered Randy in Boise? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd hate to meet anyone like that. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will it ever end?

Hi. Long time no hear. Happy New Year, belatedly. When do you think that it (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22) will end? I know we're basically right but it seems like a stalemate. We need some fresh blood (I hate that I am writing that when we are in the middle of this film and television vampire obsessed season, but ...), so to speak. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, it should be closed now. The closing admin should discard any arguments not based on policy, and weigh whether there is a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best if it were closed now. Things are going around in circles—peptide circles, at that. I do find it telling that some users are arguing that this category should exist and so too should ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Terrorists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. To be fair, the concept of NPOV is a hard one for a lot of people to grasp, because they are not used to neutrality being applied even to things that appal them. When so few news organisations follow the Reuters principles on neutral terminology, it's unsurprising that people find the approach alien. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe that removing useful categories for political (or political correctness) reasons contradicts WP:NPOV, and most important, to the goal of creating good encyclopedia [5]. Biophys (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe that enough to violate your editing ban? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Biophys. You make my point well.

"Useful" and NPOV are not the same thing. We could categorise Sarah Palin in Category:Rightwing nut-jobs and Barry O'Bama in Category:Liberal extremists, and huge numbers of editors would find such categories "useful". But we don't do it because it's not NPOV, and both assessments are subjective.

NPOV is nothing to do with alleged "political correctness"; it's about not taking sides. Subjective terminology is unacceptable in categories because it requires editors to take sides, by either placing an article in the category or not, with no objective way of determining that either position is false. Please read WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I honestly do not see why classifying someone like Aung San Suu Kyi as a victim of political persecution would constitute any kind of bias (she was described as such in a vast majority of sources).Biophys (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For every Aung San Suu Kyi, there are dozens of Nelson Mandelas or Bobby Sands people whose imprisonment was justified by the state on the grounds of what was categorised as criminal behaviour, and many more Tommy Sheridans. It's all very well saying "let's have these categories for cases nobody would object to", but apart from the fact that supporters of the Junta would object strongly to Aung San Suu Kyi, there will be countless other cases where either inclusion or exclusion will be highly controversial ... and because there is no consistent NPOV definition of "political repression", the result is an unsolveable content dispute.

Rather than using subjective or POV categories, use factual categories: people imprisoned by, people killed by, etc.

Anyway, my talk page is not the place to be discussing this. Biophys, please do not post here again on this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)