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.

Arnold Lupton

Could you please check that the references are OK for Professor Sir Arnold Lupton? cheers and thanks mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Brown Haired Girl Could you please check the reference fix for page "Arnold Lupton". Thanks for your help so far cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.96.225 (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. Please take a little time to study the working of {{cite web}}. It is not complicated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

hi Brown haired girl Please could you check (last time I promise!) the page - Arnold Lupton -and also James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce. spelling etc Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 January 2014‎

Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there could you please, please, check my hopeless references for 1) Martineau Family 2) Henry Herbert Southey

YOu are so good to me! Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have tired not to bother you - you have been so helpful in the past. could you please check refs for 3 pages 1) Martineau family 2) James Martineau 3) Philip Meadows Martineau Thanks again so much - I am trying but I get confused Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike 101.160.17.244, I'm sorry, but I give up :(

You don't seem to be learning the real basics of how to edit here. Signing your posts and linking to the pages you mention are both really easy to do, and both are specifically requested in the editnotice displayed with a big blue border when you post here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A new day begins

I apologize for bringing my discontent to your talk page. For what it is worth, I am going to take that break you advised; for the best of all. I am glad you reverted my last edit, as you did! Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline: thanks for your message, and sorry for being so slow to respond.

Wikipedia can be stressful. Any work that any of us does here can be challenged by anyone, edited without mercy, and nominated for deletion. That's part of the price editors pay for the benefits of writing in an open, collaborative environment, but it ain't always easy. I find that two things are particularly helpful:

1. assuming good faith at all times. Sometimes that can be very hard, but most disagreements arise because someone has seen something we have missed, or weighs things differently. Much better to ask ppl to explain themselves than to beconme defensive or hostile.
2. Get away from the keyboard the moment I start feeling angry. Posting when angry or upset is never a good idea. Really, never.

We all have days when we aren't at our best. I look fwd to working with you again in better times :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Western (genre) film actresses

added, obvious inadvertence. --Cavarrone 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC) ...and obviously this message was also a suggestion to rearrange your comment there: as the point you made was taken into account and the CfD is now fixed your keep vote now needs a pertinent rationale. My best, Cavarrone 14:14, 8 January Cavarrone]], I have replied at the CFD discussion, and notified you of that response by using {{ping}}. This new device is a quicker and easier way of notification than a talk page message, and it's more useful to the recipient than a message such as the one I am replying to which includes no link. (See my editnotice which was displayed to you when you posted here: Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions... could you close the discussion there as "speedy kept/ withdrawn by nominator"? As you wrote, it was not a thought through nomination. Thanks. Cavarrone 15:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cavarrone: done. Thanks for being so nice about it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Goggins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Clergy and priests

I saw your new discussion section at WT:WikiProject Categories, and am writing here to avoid muddying the water if it would not help.

Can this discussion also help us remove unnecessary levels of religious leaders > clergy > priests/ministers/etc (see CFD 2013 May 19)? In particular, do we need Category:Anglican clergy as well as Category:Anglican priests? If not, perhaps we can deal with that at the same time.

On the other hand, I don't want to make an already intricate discussion intractable. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:, thanks for your message.

Those are good questions, but I would prefer that they were kept for a separate discussion. The priests categorisation question can be resolved without any impact on the points you raise, and I hope it will be. After the unsuccessful CFD, I think that a focused RFC is most likely to answer that question.

Personally, I have never been clear what the "religious leaders" categories are for. Are they for anyone in any leadership role in a religion? Or only for those who are some sort of overall top dog? Their actual usage seems to imply both, which is a mishmash.

Within the Anglican context, I think that priests are not the only type of clergy, but I wouldn't swear to that. I think that a separate RFC will be needed to unravel the clergy/RL mess, which is much broader than Anglicanism. Do you feel like starting one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me jump in here. I was going to close one of the discussions, likely the one you did, with an appeal for some type of guidance discussion. So your starting the RFC should provide some guidance and I support that effort. I too am not sure how this should be broken out. My gut tells me that we are going to see differences by religion, so there may not be a single cut and dried solution what we can just apply. We still have the top level question as to what we call all of this. Is it religious leaders, clergy or something else? I do hope that the RFC produces a strong consensus in some direction so we can move forward, even if it is only on the by religion v by nationality question. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have in mind to finish renaming Methodists, Congregationalists, Salvationists and Pentecostals first. After that might be a better time for an RFC to pre-authorise a grand merger of Christian religious leaders / clergy (/ priests?) esp for Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans, but It might be possible to continue piecemeal without an RFC. Note that the Category:Islamic clergy tree has already been upmerged/renamed to RL. The CfD linked above sets out my game plan for Christian leaders.

I think you both note that this de-layering is a separate agenda from the nationality question, although they do interact. For example, we could categorise Anglican clergy by nationality, just at the clergy level and not e.g. Bishops. I'm still meaning to give this more thought before offering an opinion at the current RFC. – Fayenatic London 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Category:Anglican clergy contains a small sub-category of Category:Deacons, who are not priests, and an even smaller sub-cat of non-ordained ecclesiastical officers, which is probably not needed. We may need to keep clergy as a head cat for deacons as well as priests, but probably all the detailed cats should end up under priests with no detail at the clergy level... Except perhaps nationality and century. – Fayenatic London 00:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Historians without doctoral training

Thanks for your message. I have not started many categories, and thus am not expert about it. Your rationale seems very expert, and I will consider it carefully, thanks. In the mean time, would you please advise whether this might be appropriate as a list instead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant, I know it's not fun having your work nominated for deletion, so thanks for being so nice about it. The CFD process may appear a bit intimidating, but it's just another consensus-forming discussion bound by the usual rules of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc ... so it is good to see you join in the discussion. The main ground rules for categories are at WP:CAT and WP:OCAT, but inevitably there are now quite a few subsiduary guidelines as well.

As to whether it would make a list, my view is that it probably wouldn't.

My undergrad studies were in history (in Ireland), so I know this territory a bit. AFAICS, in Ireland and the UK, until the early 1970s the majority of academic posts in history went to people who didn't have a PHD. In Oxbridge, for much of the 20th-century a PhD was a regarded as a sort of brash and ungentlemanly Americanism, almost as bad as buying a new suit more often than once a decade or (heresy!) wearing brown shoes in town. Instead of a PHD thesis, an upcoming academic would write a scholarly book for publication.

I think that things have been different in the USA, where the PhD has been a near-compulsory part of the pathway to tenure for a lot longer. It may be that a more focused list might work better (e.g. "20th-century American historians without doctoral training"), but it feels to me like a rather trivial list. YMMV :)

If you would like a 3rd-part view, I suggest asking at CFD, or making a WP:30 request for this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasant surprise to see that Wikipedia has an article titled "Piled Higher and Deeper".  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I wasn't too disruptive today.  :) Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I dared risk appearing to patronise someone who has been editing even longer than myself (and in Wikipedia terms, we are both of the era before Noah took up shipbuilding) ... I'd say no, you haven't at all. You created a categ in good faith, and when it was nominated for deletion you argued a case for keeping it, WP:CIVILly and without any WP:OWNership or complaints about the process. You engaged with the arguments of others, and took them on their merits rather than being defensive or combative.

That's how consensus formation is supposed to work.  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cydebot can do it

Hi, thanks for this tidy-up at CFDS, but I found some time ago that Cydebot seems to cope fine when the rationales are left in, e.g. as in the "old" edit here. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, FL, you are right. I didn't notice that until I saved the page that the links which had been blue were all red when the saved version loaded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, BHG! Happy to save you some future work too! – Fayenatic London 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Soling class Olympic sailors

Hi, Thanks for your support on the Soling class Olympic sailors discussion. I still have one question... When will the dicision on this matter been taken? Regards NED33 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NED33, CFD discussions have to remain open for 7 days, except in a few special circumstances which allow early closure. None of those circumstances (e.g. WP:SNOW, WP:CSK) apply here.

However, owing to the massive shortage of admins on Wikipedia, there is a huge backlog in the closure of discussions generally (see e.g. WP:RMB and the requests at WP:AN/RFC) and it is particularly severe at CFD: see WP:CFD/W#Discussions_awaiting_closure.

So maybe we will be in luck and see the Soling discussion closed soon after the expiry of the 7-day period at 08:47 on 14 January ... but I fear it is much more likely to take several weeks :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you advise...wait or reconstruct the other classes as well.NED33 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NED33, Creating a new set of categories similar to a set already under discussion at CFD is not a good idea. If there a consensus at CFD to delete, then the newly-created categs require a fresh nomination to delete them (and they probably will be deleted); whereas if there is a consensus to keep, all that has been lost is time. On Wikipedia there is no deadline, so it is best to await the outcome of the test case.

I know that this is a bit frustrating at the best of times, and even more so when there is a huge backlog. Just as a backlog of court cases pre prevents people and businesses from getting on with their lives, the backlog of discussion closures is stifling the development of Wikipedia. Sad, but there we are.

In the meantime, how about creating more content? Categories are useful, but they are only a means of navigating between content pages. The content is what really matters.

Wikipedia's coverage of sailing is pretty poor. It shouldn't be hard to expand it significantly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, One thing I'm buzy with the last few years is the coverage of the Olympics. So far I structured 1900 - 1992 and a bit of the remaining 5 Olympiads (the rest will follow soon) as well as the Vintage Yachting Games. Last weeks I added/structured the stubs of all dutch Olympic sailors. The categories came up in the intersections of the topics.NED33 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish cheeses

Category:Northern Irish cheeses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

good piece

Thanks for your careful analysis in the C:WRONG RfD case. Of course me liking it is easier because it has my own conclusion, but still the arguing reads being thorough, looking wide, and written from a true closers position. -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DePiep. It was a difficult discussion to close, so I took some time to try to map out the arguments and issues for myself, so it seemed best to spell out how I reached the conclusion. Especially when editors feel as strongly about something as the two sides did in that debate, it's helpful if the closer can put in the time to explain their resaoning; in those circumstances, a black box closure can be very frustrating.

Closers don't always have the time to write at such length, but in a case like this a detailed explanation may actually save time, by avoiding a deletion review based on a misunderstanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Category:User:Terraflorin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.