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.

... and the award for best argument at CfD from a female editor goes to ....

A wonderful New Year's gift at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30#Actresses. I never would have chimed in as vigorously if you hadn't made your own excellent argument. It's so refreshing to see real-world logic prevailing every now and then. Maybe it's time to update WP:CATGRS? Congratulations and best wishes for the new year! Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Due to the decision to keep these categories I recreated Category:American actresses. It was then put up for speedy deletion which I have contested. I am not sure that it is neccesary to have multiple people contest such speedy deletions, but I thought you would be interested to know people are still trying to ignore the results of the CfD especially while Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses_categorization is still open. Also considering the irregular way that category was deleted, from a discussion on renaming it no less, makes the whole matter fishy at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn, I'm sorry for being so slow in thanking you for your kind words above. I know e have had some disagreements, and it's great to have found a contentious issue where we have ended up on the same side. Your encouragement has cheered me up after a rather prolonged and messy process. Thanks! And a (belated) happy new year to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally forgot about this note, and I guess that New Year's wishes are still appropriate during the entire month of January. In looking back over the past few years, I realize that I have learned a tremendous amount about Wikipedia (and about myself) during my past 200 to 300 thousand edits, and through that learned how to better focus discussions at CfD and elsewhere into arguments about the underlying concepts rather than the people involved, as well as deciding when to choose to fight and when to walk away to fight another day. The whole experience with male / female actors is a wonderful example of how some editors have dug their heels in on the issue of categorization, where the overwhelming evidence that the real world and the acting profession differentiate between the sexes can be rationalized away and disregarded based on such arguments as not giving a crap about what the Screen Actors Guild does. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi BrownHairedGirl! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Minerals named after people

Hello BrownHairedGirl

You may want to read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 28#Category:Minerals named after people again. You may want to comment it too.

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Read and Commented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx, still don't know if I should leave it or create Category:People honoured with a mineral name instead. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My compromise got a CfD too: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 30#Category:People honoured with a mineral name :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better to await the outcome of the first CFD, and considered all the points made there, before creating a new similar category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned your name

Just a polite note to let you know I mentioned your name at this discussion here --Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

CFD question

Hi, i nominate two categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 31#Governors of Mauritius for renamed, however the discussion was closed because i already created the new category and make the necessary changes. You mention that i should follow the right process by establishing a consensus at 'CFD'. However i can't understand where the 'CFD' is, can you provide me a link to it please. Thanks. Kingroyos (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

CFD = Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Sorry if the abbreviation was unfamiliar.

If you want to make a change such as this, the way to proceed is to nominate a category for merger or renaming. If there is a consensus to make the change, then the closing admin will instruct bots to implement it. You made the nomination using WP:TWINKLE, which offers an option "Choose type of action wanted". From the drop-down there, you can select "deletion", "merge", "renaming" etc as appropriate.

The reason for requiring prior consensus is simply that category changes can be complex and difficult to reverse, and may also be hard to tarck. The WP:BOLD renaming of an article can usually be reverted in a single edit, but many edits are usually required to revert he renaming of a category, and the scope of the changes is hard to track. That's why CFD is used to seek consensus before category changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Athlete category discussion

Hi. You recently commented on the discussion about athlete categorisation but I believe my nomination was not fully understood. Could you please revisit your comments based upon my explanation? Thanks. SFB 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)