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.

Welsh socialists

discussion moved to User talk:Welshsocialist#Welsh_socialists, to keep it all together

James Duckworth

I have had a look in the Times newspaper archive and Who was Who but there is not anything new there which is not covered in your article. I did make a couple of minor grammar changes.

The odd thing is that in your article you have a source which indicates Duckworth had a wife and son in 1862. However according to Who was Who, Duckworth did not marry until 1882. His wife's name is given as Emma Matilda Jully. Who was Who also has an entry for Duckworth's son also called James but his dob is given as 1869. He contested Bury as a Liberal in 1923 and 1924. I suppose the relationship could have been common law and James junior born out of wedlock with the parents legitimising things by marrying in 1882 but it's speculation and I do not want to add information to the article which appears to contradict the existing content. Does your source say anything about the marriage?

Graham

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

BrownHairedGirl,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case. Congraluations on being granted the Admin mop, and we are confident the group made the right decision in your case!

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New header--political party nominee

Back in February, I engaged in a discussion with some of the editors who are involved with succession boxes and headers. I started the conversation because I came across what I regard as a pretty significant error in the usage of one of the headers, namely, the {{s-ppo}} header. The guideline for its usage is actually pretty close to what it should be:

These are offices that are part of the mechanisms of political parties. They include:

• Party leaders/chairmen
• Whips
• Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc.
• Chairpersons of the Democratic and Republican National Committees (United States)

Only important positions in major parties should be given succession boxes.

Unfortunately, this is not how it is being used. Probably because of the fact that the American presidential nominees are getting this header (which is in of itself, of debatable accuracy), other party nominees are being given this header as well. Failed candidates for state governorships, and in at least one case that I've seen, a failed candidate for one of the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives. These people, simply put, do not hold any political office, in the sense that anyone familiar with American politics would support. If you would like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to, but it appears to me that the matter is more or less settled, and the other editors are okay with doing what I would like to do, namely, create a new header, namely, {{s-ppn}} , for political party nominees.

I recognize that creating a new template, and even more, creating a new header, is not something to be done lightly. But this is necessary. The alternative (with which I would also be okay) would simply be to remove the header altogether.

Anyway, I am coming to you because, a) you seem to be something of an expert in this area, and b) I am a technophobe, or, more accurately (and less elegantly) a technomoron. I finally today got around to trying to create this header that I said over two months ago that I would make, and I spent nearly two hours trying to figure out how to do it, and could not. I have looked everywhere I can think of, and even wikipages that seemed to promise to show me what to do apparently also presume a level of knowledge I don't have. I'm hoping that you can either show me how to do it, or perhaps do it yourself. My preference is the former, simply because I am biased towards increasing my own knowledge. But I can also understand that you may have neither the time nor the inclination to lead me through the experience.

Oh, one more thing. I am only thinking now about political nominees in the United States. I am well aware that, for example, in Britain, there exist shadow offices for the entire life of a Parliament. It's an entirely different thing, and I have no intention of trying to change things over there.

So, can you help me? Unschool 02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unschool, and thanks for your message. I'm not spending much time on wikipedia at the moment, but I'll try to help if I can.

However, I'm not entirely clear about what the technical problem is. Can you explain to me what exactly you're trying to do, and where you are getting stuck?

What I think you mean is that you want a new template {{s-ppn}}, but I'm not sure exactly what you want it to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming Poll

Hiya BHG. IMHO, Arbcom should've chosen the articles-in-question names. But had they, it might've set a precedent that might've been troublesome for Wikipedia. Guess we'll never know. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

re MickMacNee

You made a mistake. Note that my notice in the block log did not refer to vandalism, but other violations of site policies. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Further, your note in the block log also appears to be incorrect - [1] - nowhere in the block log rationale did it refer to vandalism. Also - you made a comment at my talk page that you had "proposed shortening the block to 48 hours" - not that you would unblock altogether instead. This seems to be a wholly different course of action. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry Cirt -- slightly crossed wires here. :(

Your block didn't allege vandalism, and I'm sorry if what I wrote implied that. The vandalism label was applied by the complainant Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), not by you, but your generalised ref to "policies" allowed Mick to think that vandalism was part of the block rationale. I know that wasn't what you intended, but I hope you can see in hindsight how it was readable that way and that this opened up the potential for confusion.

On the timing, sorry -- I screwed up. Had it in my head when I lifted the block that it had already run for 48 hours, rather than the ~28 hours it had actually run for. My fault, I should have checked. However, the autoblock was still in place (I have just lifted it), so the total time blocked was about 40 hours. I hope that's close enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could note somewhere, perhaps in the block log for MickMacNee, that my prior block of him was appropriate, and was not a block for "vandalism". Your block log note makes it seem like my admin action was inappropriate, when in actuality it was certainly necessitated. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to clarify things that way, but I'm sure how to do it. The best I can think of is to apply a 1-minute block on Mick, but do you know of any better way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of another way. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop moving motorway articles without establishing clear consensus first. Your moves are fast becoming as disruptive as those of User:Sarah777 and I will have no issues with taking this issue further if it continues. Wikipedia has a requested move process for a reason. Jeni ^(talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific move, please tell me which one.

Rather than complaining and issuing threats, you'd do better to help me disambiguate all the ambiguous links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty clear in my original message "Please stop moving motorway articles without establishing clear consensus first" it tells you which articles. Jeni ^(talk) 19:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD, and quit mass-reverting my edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now discuss it. Simple! Read the policies you cite. Stop disambiguating links without good reason, introducing an unnecessary redirect into the line. Jeni ^(talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob with reverting the move. My complaint is about your mass-reversion of the rest of my edits without checking them first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

You have been warned about moving motorway pages previously. This is your last warning if you continue to move pages without discussion first you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn and struck by author, see below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down and explain what you are on about. AFAICR, I haven't moved any for 36 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thryduulf, I think you should take a closer look before blocking anyone, particularly BrownHairedGirl who in my experience has no problem following a kindly worded suggestion. I really don't think a threat is needed, perhaps simply explaining your concerns better would be more productive. Chillum 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chillum.

Unfortunately, there is now a group of editors along with associated admins who are blind-reverting even uncontroversial disambiguations of UK roads, and making a series of increasingly wild threats. Per my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Vigilantism, I am very concerned about the way that one wikiproject appears to have taken WP:OWNership of these articles. --23:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is unfortunate indeed. I am sure it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Chillum 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several editors moving pages without discussion to a seemingly random mixture of (England), (Great Britain) and (United Kingdom). Some of them turn out to be appropriate suggestions when looked at in detail (e.g. the M2) others like the M1 have since shown a clear consensus against any move. Still others like the A34 are not in need of disambiguation beyond a hatnote (there is a minor road in the Isle of Man with the title, tagged for notability concerns). This combined shows that at the very least there should be an informal discussion on the talk page before the move takes place. The simplest thing to say is that for now at least you should assume that no move of an article about a British road will be uncontroversial, however well intentioned. As there are several editors apparently doing the same or similar things, then it is possible that I have misattributed a move to you (BrownHairedGirl) that was done by a different user and if so I apologise. I will check in the morning and more formally withdraw my statement if it turns out I am incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thanks for your reply.

There are several issues here. First and foremost is that you acknowledge that you issued an aggressive block threat without adequately checking your facts first. Bad idea.

Secondly, you are blind-reverting without assessment, as you did with my move of M18 motorway to M18 motorway (Great Britain) -- you have not demonstrated that the move was controversial, nor did you offer a substantive content-based reason for the revert. That's unacceptable: reverting a well-formed move just because you haven't thought about it is simply bullying.

Thirdly, you seem to be viewing this as some great crisis, but there is no crisis. Pages are moved; some moves turn out to be controversial and are overturned, but others stay. This happens all the time, so it's situation normal. Wikipedia would grind to a halt if every page move was discussed in advance.

You say that I "should assume that no move of an article about a British road will be uncontroversial, however well intentioned". Sorry, but again I have to remind you declaring a whole class of thousands of articles off-limuts from normal move procedures is not how wikipedia works, and the falsity of that statement is demonstrated by the lack of controversy over the M18 move until you decided to make a drama out of it by reverting my move and then move-warring with Sarah777. It looks like you are trying to make up a rule, and that's not an approach likely to bring about calm. As you can see, it has inflamed Sarah777, and it's worrying to see that you as admin have started a conflict at M18 motorway where there was none. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is later than I said it would be, but real life got in the way this morning unfortunately. Anyway, I have now reviewed the history of the moves of the M18 motorway and I owe you an apology. My warning should have been directed at Sarah777, who made the second move to the page, not you (who made the first move). I presume that after reverting the move I read and/or clicked on the wrong line of the page history. I have struck my warning above and retract it with my apologies. I have already apologised for my improper use of the admin tools.

Regarding the "declaring off-limits thousands of articles", I am not declaring anything but suggesting that given because the recent history of moves to these articles and that every one that has been discussed so far has both support and opposition, it would be prudent to discuss them first. The pages are doing no harm where they are, and many editors (including myself) feel that it is less disruptive to discuss first and then move if there is consensus rather than move and then re-move if the new title does not subsequently gain consensus (and so far not one of them has). When people have, in good faith, asked you (and other editors doing similiar actions at the same time) to discuss moves first, it is less likely to result in hostile responses to you if you do discuss first. There is a strong consensus that all British railway station articles should be named in a certain way even if plainer titles would be unambiguous. The discussions regarding the M1, M2, M3 and M4 show that there is not a similar consensus for a standard naming scheme for British roads - feel free though to propose one if you think it would be of benefit (the UK Geography wikiproject would seem the most logical place to me).

I should also point out that I do not oppose moving without discussion where it is not likely to be controversial - for example I moved Avon Fire and Rescue Service to Avon Fire & Rescue Service [2] recently. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association

Can you please edit this: "Eamonnca1, that's an quite unnecessary personal attack on Mooretwin. It's quite possible to disagree without labelling your opponent as hate-mongering racist." I think you have me mixed up with another user. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry, Eamonn. You're quite right, I meant Dunlavin Green. I'll correct it now. --08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IMOS

I forgot about that. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Brian Lenihans

Hi BHG, I am puzzled why you moved both Brian Lenihan articled without having a discussion on it. The last time they were moved there was a discussion on Brian Lenihan's (Father) talk page. While Brian Lenihan (Father) may be sometimes referred to as Brian Lenihan, Snr. There is no evidence for the current Irish Minister for Finance being referred to as Brian Lenihan, Jnr. The media refers to him as simply Brian Lenihan. His oireachtas entry says Brian Joseph Lenihan [3]. Brian Lenihan, Jnr is a wikipedia invention. They have to be disambiguated but this is not the correct way. Snappy (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, I'm sorry -- I missed the discussion. Will stop dabbing and discuss it, but suggest we do so at Talk:Brian Lenihan, Snr. I'll copy your post there and post my substantive reply there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

UK motorways

Hi BrownHairedGirl. First I should declare an interest as I live within earshot of the English M3 (don't believe anyone who says it's minor!) and occasionally edit linked items such as St. Catherine's Hill, Hampshire etc, hence it has crept onto my watchlist by default. I'm not a member of WP UK roads and generally don't like motorways for environmental reasons. I have no very strong feeling one way or the other about motorway disambiguation. That said, it seems to me that (ignoring size, hit-count etc) there is a case for many UK motorways being primary topics, for the following reason. The word 'motorway' was (presumably) coined in Britain in the 1950s (it does not appear in the 1949 Special roads Act). So far as I can see it was first applied in the UK, from the late 1950s onwards. Other countries used different names for similar roads - autostrada, autobahn, autoroute, etc. Subsequently some (but by no means all) other countries where English is widely spoken have also applied the term - for example Ireland from the 1980s, Pakistan from the 1990s. Does it not therefore seem reasonable for UK motorways that existed prior to these dates to be primary topics? In the case of the M3 for example, this was largely built in the 1970s, with hard-fought planning battles delaying getting it past Winchester to join up the two ends in the 1990s. Pterre (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pterre, and thanks for your msg.

I'm afraid that you appear to rather misunderstand the purpose of disambiguation in Wikipedia. It's not a way of ranking articles or topics, or an assessment of their inherent worthiness; it's a technical process to help readers get to the articles they are looking for, and secondarily to help editors maintain internal links so that they point to the right place. (The latter process is much much easier if the primary topic is the disambiguation page).

The question of when a term was invented and by who doesn't really have much bearing on that. Even if we did delve into the history, it seems to me that the first such roads were the German autobahns in the 1930s, and that when the concept was copied in other countries they often used a similar word to describe them in their own language: motorway, autoroute, autostrada etc ... so the best calim fir the UK is that it was a translator, not an originator.

But as above, the origins aren't what matters. If we used a who-had-the-name-first logic, the primary topic for Baltimore would be an insignificant townland in County Leitrim rather than the city in Maryland. And that would be thoroughly unhelpful to readers, who are far more likely to be looking for the city.

From the perspective of someone planning a journey or looking to k now the history of a road they have used, it doesn't matter whether it was built last week or 30 years ago: either way, it's still a motorway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the autostrada of Italy were first (in the 1920s) but that's beside the point: the article and the road is called 'M3 motorway', not 'M3 highway', 'M3 freeway', autobahn, autostrada etc. I was not suggesting that such roads were invented in Britain, only the term motorway. If you want to propose an M3 motorway for prime candidate based on who is likely to be looking for it, I'd go for road usage statistics. Do you have access to any? Pterre (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You still misunderstand me. I'm not looking for any candidate for prime position, because arguments over how to assess such things end up being sterile and POV, with all sorts of arbitrary and selective criteria used to bolster particular positions. I just want these articles of the same name to be properly disambiguated, i.e with a disambiguation page at M3 motorway.

We're using the English language here, in which "motorway" is a generic term to refer to this type of road. It's therefore quite reasonable for an English-speaking reader to look for an "M3 motorway" in France or Hungary or wherever, even if "motorway" is not the term used in the language of the country concerned. Disambiguation ensures that such readers have a clear path to the information they were seeking, and this is all about helping readers ... or rather it should be about readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. However I would expect roads not actually named 'M3 motorway' to be disambiguated at 'M3', which I think is all except Pakistan and NI. Rgds Pterre (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is readers. Whether or not they are right to expect the article to be called Mx motorway, the issue is to help them when they do. And there is an M3 motorway in Ireland, called the M3 motorway. The fact that wikipedia covers it in an article of a different name doesn't make it any less real. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to give readers the article they are expecting to get to when they look at a particular title. To use your Baltimore example from earlier, in the vast majority of the cases the those who type that into the search box are wanting to read about the city in Maryland, USA so that is the article at that title, even though it would be just as reasonable for them to expect any of the other places and several of the other uses to be there. The evidence from google, internal links and page views all points to the majority of people looking for an M3 motorway wanting the one in Great Britain, so we should present them with what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thryduulf, we've been over this before, but it seems you haven't been listening :(

1. the evidence from Google is that more stuff has been published on the web about the English M3, not that more ppl are looking for it. Hardly surprising that more has been written it, 'cos it's older, but age doesn't make it more relevant to a reader.
2. The internal link count is misleading, because A) it includes links from navigation templates and B) the Irish M3 is covered in the article called N3 road (Ireland), so unless someone has created a link to the redirect and it has remained unbypassed, it won't show up in the link count
3. Despite the problems above, the English M3 gets less than half the hits of all uses of M3 motorway, so the majority of readers looking for the M3 motorway do not end up at the English M3.

Why do you keep on repeating a partial, partisan and simplistic view of the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles & Irish Sea

Howdy BHG. Can ya imagine the headaches if the British viewed Irish Sea as controversal? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the British people living on the Irish sea are furious! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain causing headaches????? Whatever next! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

British fisherman perhaps? he he he. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know who named it the Irish sea? Perhaps it goes too far back for anyone to ever know and I don't see it in the article Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no clue, but it would be hilarious if it was the same person who came up with 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If he knew he was going to cause such headaches on wikipedia I'm sure he would have named them something else. Maybe something along the lines of Britain and Ireland? Jack forbes (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I sorta like the mischieviousness of it all. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It'll be such fun when Scotland gets its independence and I argue for a mention in the lede about the controversy of the name Great Britain. :) Have we taken over BHG'S talk page? She's probably ran off screaming. Jack forbes (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

'Tis possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Denis Healey

I think we may be going across each other here.

I thought you undid it to take it out of the lead. I have made a minor correction after yours to and links etc but not to add or remove the contentious list of titles, which stand without now. If you want to add them back I am fine with that. I think perhaps I was a little confused at your aim.

With best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake I was looking at the wrong history, so it showed you restoring the other user's removal, and I got the wrong side of it. I've restored the titles, but left the minor edits for the nationality (which was outside the infobox template ) and put British = English. He is/was not a British politician but an English one, i.e. elected in an English constituency and born in England any sense and particularly on political articles we need to say English not British, I think.

With my best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob Simon, it's easy to get confused, and I think that my edit summary could have been a bit clearer ... but I see you've fixed it all now. S we're sorted :)

It seems that both English and British are appropriate labels for him, and I don't think there's any stable consensus on which one to use other than to accept whichever label he chooses, if he states a preference. I'm fine either way, but I am aware that there seem to be some strong views in favour of both usages, so your change might provoke a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah I was not sure about British or English, after all he was elected and now is a lord in the British parliament, it is the odd thing with the English not having its own parliament whereas the Scots do and the Welsh kinda do (the Welsh assembly) and t he Norther Irish do. So it is a tough one to call, there, I agree. Nevertheless, it was not linked or anything at all, so if it provokes a discussion that is quite fine with me.

glad you are happy I put it back. Stupid mistake of mine. SimonTrew (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot request

Now that you seem to be back, at least for a while, welcome back. I asked User:Anomie and User:AnomieBOT if he could tag all the Motorcycling WikiProject articles as stub-class which have the motorcycling stub {{Motorcycle-stub}} in the articles for our recently formed assessment department. I estimate about 2,750+ articles use the stub. The talk pages that are already (mainly incompletely) tagged use the {{Motorcycling}} project banner. There is also a redirect from {{WikiProject Motorcycling}} which is been used in about 100 talk pages and should possibly be replaced or at least checked for during the process. However, despite posting replies to others my request have been ignored for more than a month by Anomie! Your bot did such work of the Ireland project, so I know you can do it, but do you have the time? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi WW2C, nice to hear from you.

My bot can do most of what you're looking for, but maybe not all of it. (ISTR that I didn't replace existing project banners if they already had any parameters set).

BHGbot is not a full-polished work, just a collection of rather crude perl scripts which I hack to do what's needed. And I'm afraid I won't have the time to do anything with it for the next few weeks -- I'll be offline in 48 hours, for about 3 weeks.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but if you haven't got any other solution by then, pls remind me and I'll be happy to help. If I haven't reappeared on wikipedia, just send me an email to nudge me!

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

KildareStreet.com

Hi BHG, have you read (or heard of) the website http://www.kildarestreet.com/. It's a new Irish based website about members of the Oireachtas, similar to the British one called http://www.theyworkforyou.com/. It contains lists of speeches and voting records. (Btw, I have no connection with this website). A new user tried to added an external link for all TDs to this site but went about it the wrong way and raised hackles of some editors who reverted his changes as spam. He then tried again under a different but similar user name but was then blocked. I think it could be a useful addition similar to ElectionsIreland.org and Oireachtas Members database. Many MPs have a link to TheyWorkForYou. Obviously it would to be discussed with other interested editors on Irish wikipedians notice board first. What are your thoughts? Snappy (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

First thought is that I should declare a slight interest, in that one of kildarestreet.com's originators is someone I used to know, but have lost contact with over a decade ago (tho I still occasionally follow his blog). I have been watching the site since it started.

But FWIW, I think you're right. KildareStrret is a non-commercial, non-partisan site, very much in the same free-the-information spirit as wikipedia, and it actually uses the same software as http://theyworkforyou.com, which as you know has already been widely used on wikipedia as an external link. The only problem with theyworkforyou is that it's so feature-packed user-friendly that a lot of editors used its auto-generated position summaries as a reliable source, when they are too crude for that.

So while I'd be very happy to see external links from all articles on TDs and senators to their page on kildarestreet.com. I won't be around for most of this month, but if you do start a discussion, please feel free to point to this msg as an indication of my support (and my minor CoI!). It's a pity that someone has gone about this the wrong way, but that should not detract from the site's merits, and it'd be a loss to wikipedia if kildarestreet ended up on the spamlink blacklist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI - BI reverting

Just to flag up to you the notice that I've placed on a number of editor's talk pages about reverting on BI nomenclature (i.e. [4]). The idea is to cut down on the pointless RV warring that's occurring at the moment. Your thoughts welcome (as well as suggestions for any other editors I've left out) - there's also a discussion going on at my talkpage as well. Black Kite 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think your concerns are unfounded. We have BRD for a reason, so it stands to reason that tag-teaming is generally disruptive - but not in all circumstances. As I've said on my talkpage, if someone makes a well-sourced change to terminology, and it is blindly reverted, then the second edit is disruptive even if it isn't a revert of a revert. So articles aren't fixed. To answer your questions.
  • Editors are guided to use the Specific Examples page rather than edit-warring
  • I wouldn't block anyone for 1RR vio if they hadn't received the boilerplate message on their page that I placed last night.
  • One instance of reverting a revert is unlikely to attract a block unless it's particularly disruptive.
  • This is mainly meant to stop mass reverting sprees, such as we have seen from Tharkun, HighKing and MBM (amongst others) recently.

Black Kite 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Kite, what you are saying is "if I like the edit it's cool if I don't like it I'll block". Or am I missing something? Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

N3, google it

I am proposing to move the N3 road article back to the primary location. Google indicates it occupies 80% of the top 20 returns. Assuming nobody objects (with valid reasoning) I will make the move at 21:00 GMT on 30 September 2009. Sarah777 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, the way to do that is to open a proper move request and present your reasons, not by individually notifying other editors.

To allow a proper discussion where a consensus can be sought for the proposed move, I have opened a procedural move request at Talk:N3 road (Ireland)#Requested_move. Please make your case there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice you have also made the move more difficult by changing dozens of links from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland) - while this is clearly under discussion. Perhaps you'd like to share your reasoning on this? The existence of all those N3 links relates to the fact that this was the primary location for the article untill it was moved, without discussion, without consultation by someone. I am restoring the status quo at 21:00 and I assume you'll fix all the links you are now breaking? Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, the disambiguation has not in any way made the move more difficult, nor has it broken any links. If the article is moved from "N3 road (Ireland)" to "N3 road", the redirect will ensure that all links work as intended. If it is not moved, then a failure to disambiguate leaves the links pointing to the wrong place.

The article in question has been at N3 road (Ireland) since it was moved there from "n3 road" in July 2008, and remained there until you moved it to "N3 road" on 18 September. That move was reverted on 20 September, after which you moved it on 26 September to N3 national road, and I reverted it three hours later.

So the article was stable at N3 road (Ireland) for 14 months until your recent moves, both of which were contested. I opened a cetralised discussion on your moves to Nx national road at Talk:National primary road#Nx_road_or_Nx_national_road.3F and notified you of that discussion, but so far you have not contributed to it. Please seek consensus for your moves, rather than unilaterally announcing that you will move at a particular time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Could you please refrain from "fixing" any other such links for Irish N-roads until we have decided on the issue of primacy; it is abundantly clear to me that maybe half of all the Nx terms have their clear primary location at Irish primary or secondary roads. Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Please do not do anything like that again. If I was the Admin in this situation you'd be looking at serious consequences for such a burst of disruptive editing. And note: I have no intention of consulting anyone where primacy is clear. There will not be one rule for primacy on British roads and a "no-primacy" rule for Irish roads. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I will reinstate them. Disambiguating links does not in any way prejudice the outcome of a discussion, and your announcement of a unilateral threat to move an article does not constitute consensus for a change. I will now seek move protection of N3 road (Ireland), and if you revert my disambiguation I will take the matter to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we all take a step back here? BHG, you have already stated that you understand why Sarah can get a little peeved off concerning so called consensus on these articles. Sarah, I think you should listen to her as I believe you both agree on a lot of things concerning this, You just have different ways of going about it. Couldn't you both talk reasonably and come to a solution? Jack forbes (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, thanks for your msg. As above I tried talking to Sarah about her moves to Nx national road, but even though I put a lot of work into the research she simply hasn't engaged in the discussion, and at User_talk:Sarah777#N11_and_other_Irish_N-roads she has explicitly refused to try to build consensus on these issues.

Her latest exercise of reverting disambiguation of links is bizarre. I would have thought that Sarah would want to have links to Irish roads pointing to those roads rather than to a disambiguation page, because that helps readers find the articles to which she has made such a massive contribution. (I reverted only two of her reverts; another editor reverted the rest).

I'm also puzzled by Sarah's apparent inconsistency. Last week she was busy moving Irish roads to Nx national road, but now she wants to move themNx road. Whether Sarah is right or wrong on either of those goals, we need to discuss those things rather than just engage in a move-to-something-else exercise where "something-else" is inconsistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You reverted all my edits there and said it wouldn't solve the N3 problem. I agreed. So it is "inconsistent" to change my mind after you made what I thought was a good point? It is inconstant also that I accept the majority pov that "primacy" trumps dabbing? Sarah777 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm sorry -- had missed your change of view on the Nx national road option, because you only posted that on your talk page rather than at the discussion I had opened (I was monitoring the latter).

As to primacy, it's unfortunate that you appear to be making the same mistake as the British editors, by regarding a primary topic as an issue of national pride rather than as a technical measure to be used in some cases. That's a mistaken approach, because it impedes both readers and editors, and applying it to Irish articles does nothing to reverse the damage by the primary-topic nationalism of some British editors; all it does is create more problems in another area.

The fact that you mass-reverted my disambiguation, including N2 and N52 links, does make me wonder what your aim is here. This should be all about helping readers get to the page they want, wherever it's located, but reverting disambiguation suggests that helping readers isn't on your radar. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how it looks for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this at Arbcom? Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom please

As both yourself and Dpmuk have engaged in what I regard as massive edit warring and tag-team behaviour I wish to take this to Arbcom. If you are not prepared to restore the original links that have remained in place for years - until seconds after I proposed restoring the article to the original location. Can you arrange that please, as you know your way around the corridors of power better than I do? I'd prefer you revert your disruptive dabs but failing that please open a case at Arbcom. asap. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Time up. Will one of you please refer this case to Arbcom? Sarah777 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but if you want to open an arbcom case, I presume that you know the procedures. As noted above here and here, I won't be around for most of October, starting some time tomorrow, and I don't know how that will affect any arbcom process. But I'm sure they will know what to do.

I have to say that an "I demand the right to re-ambiguate links which have been disambiguated" seems like a mighty curious case to bring to arbcom, but it's your right to start the process if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked you not to change all the other links - this is obviously your notion of collaboration? Again I ask: why did you start changing links that were undisturbed for up to 5 years within seconds of my move proposal? Answer please? Sarah777 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I enjoy disambiguation, and when I started looking at this area I found that there were many hundreds of links to Irish n-roads which needed disambiguation. Please can explain what policy or guideline requires that ambiguous links remain ambiguous, and how leaving them ambiguous does anything at all to assist readers or impedes any decision on a move which you may propose in the future?

You seem to have missed an irony in all this, which is that this disambiguation actually actually assists your quest to make these roads primary topics. As you know, I don't support that objective, but disambiguating the links means that we will have an accurate count of the incoming links to the Irish N-roads, which is one of the criteria sometimes discussed in assessing whether there is a primary topic among ambiguous topics. Without disambiguation, the incoming links for all Irish roads will be massively under-counted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems BrownHairedGirl that you are disrupting a user's attempt to make a point by building an encyclopedia. Chillum 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Should I shoot myself, or will you do it for me? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI by Sarah777

User:Sarah777 has started an ANI thread against you here, it seems she failed to tell you! Anyway, I'll let you know on her behalf since I'm sure this was just an oversight on her side. Jeni ^(talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to get to Arbcom because I don't have much faith in ANI; and judging by the speed with which BHG and many others jump on any roads edits I make I think there is very little risk of this not been spotted. You turned up there in a jiffy - but then you turn up everywhere I go in a jiffy. Even to revert layout improvements of the M10 motorway (Great Britain). And I thought you had retired? Sarah777 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, do you have anything else in your vocabulary other than "I thought you had retired"? You are beginning to sound like one of those annoying little kids in a supermarket who just won't shut up! Jeni ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, thanks for the pointer to the ANI discussion, but please don't use my talk page to spar with Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo requests

Is Dublin Airport convenient to where you are? If so, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Aer Lingus and Ryanair? Both are on the Dublin Airport site. Both articles need images of the respective headquarters. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I currently live in England, and when I'm back in Ireland I get out of Dublin as quickly as possible. It's my native city, but these days I reckon the best thing about it in the N4. :)

And I haven't been in a plane for decades, so I don't go near the airport as I pass through the Pale.

However, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is a prolific and very skilled photographer, who has contributed squillions of fine images of Ireland to wikipedia – in fact, she has taken so many photos that I suspect she has cloned herself, because that much photography would be to much for one person. ;-) So may I suggest that you ask her whether she (or one of her clone photographers! [grin]) could help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I already made that suggestion about a month ago. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ww - it's on my list! I was there once since you asked but conditions were semi-darkness; I'll try to get a good one. Or maybe I'll ask one of the clones :) Sarah777 (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination

You appear to have an interest in my performance at WP. So I wonder what advice and actions you will take regarding the effective reversion of all my work (by consensus) by one user? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• The user in question is this one: User:Toddy1. You have been judging me as a WP Editor (let's say I did not give you an "A" in my mind). Now I'm going to judge you as an effective WP Administrator. I do believe you have the potential to get an "A" from me - but only if you pay careful attention (unlike what you've done with me previously). I would love nothing better than to rate you as a great WP Administrator, even though I'm displeased with your performance regarding my most recent Restriction - which I believe you did not bother to sufficiently research. Now I believe that I'm the victim of this one editors arbitrary reversion against my slow work in conformity with consensus. So I expect you to take some very strong action in my favor - only because I'm right regarding WP. I hope you do the right thing by me this time around. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to get involved. If you can't resolve the problem with the editor concerned, take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

N11 road, clear primary location

BHG; I tried to move this from it's location at "N11 road (Ireland)", but like all the other Irish N-roads because that was it's long-standing and original location I can't move it back. As there is no possibly valid objection to primacy in this case would you please move it for me? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)