User talk:BrownHairedGirl

12:20 Wednesday 14 August 2024 Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl) Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to: sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG) indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)	click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl BrownHairedGirl's archives + Cumulative index
Wikipedia Admin I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance. I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

edit to user categories for discussion

Someone suggested that I may haver mistaken the categories involved there. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Even if you had been right about the categories involved, it was entirely wrong to simply delete the discussions :( The appropriate step would be ask for speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless bureaucracy. Much better to close a mistaken nomination by deletion. On examination moreover I don't believe I now agree that it was a correct nomination at all, but for reasons other than those I acted upon. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not bureaucracy, pointless or otherwise. It is a matter of maintaining a record of the community's discussions on the categories and allowing others to review your actions. Please do not delete any further XfDs, or I will treat it as vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

having a wikipedia page written

Hi there! I am from Australia and I'm trying to get a wikpedia page written about myself. I am a TV personality who also appears in all other forms of media including my website www.getmega.com . Ive been Ms Megabyte for over 9 years - helping the people of Australia to be less frustrated with their computers. I have a best selling book too.

I am a friend of Max Walker, which is how I came to find your name - I believe you've edited his page.

I want to know if there's anyone that writes wikipedia pages on a contract basis. I know that the pages still must be accepted and must meet certain criteria, but I want to pay someone to do the copywriting for me.. someone who already knows the ins and outs of wikipedia and getting a page accepted.

can you help?

thankyou... Yvonne. yvonne@getmega.com

How do I find out if someone has answered this question!?

Israeli settlements categories

Hello. I've seen you do a lot of stuff with categories, so I wondered if you could come and give an opinion here?

For background, we are having a discussion on categorisation of Israeli settlements and Israeli local/regional councils in the West Bank. Currently some of them also appear in categories such as "Villages in Israel" or "Regional Councils in Israel" and I have suggested it be changed.

I'd welcome your input as an outsider. Thanks, Number 57

Long-term solutions

The latest eruption has me thinking about a long-term solution to our present problem. Right now, we have the "anti" group, which is fanatically devoted to eradicating as much information about baronets as can possibly be done under the color of policy, and the "pro" group, fanatically devoted to defending every baronet or minor Scottish figure lest the other group make headway in their campaign. Blocking any one editor is, as I'm sure you recognize, only a temporary solution (although it can certainly prevent acute damage). I'm thinking of a program somewhat along these lines, perhaps assembled under the auspices of WP:CEM:

• Form some sort of ad-hoc committee to examine what articles are alleged to be non-compliant with policy (non-notable, incorrectly named, etc.), and see who's been generating them, and whether they're still being generated. You, John Kenney, perhaps myself would be plausible members — people who have some expertise with creating articles on MPs, baronets, and so forth, but who aren't dogmatic about inclusion or naming.
• The people responsible for creating them are enjoined to follow policy, and, depending on scope and the degree to which they're willing to cooperate, are to create such pages in userspace in the future and refer them to the committee for review before moving them to mainspace.
• Proposed revisions by the "anti" group to correct non-compliant articles are to be directed through the committee, rather than made directly, to avoid mistakes. (See both the most recent incident and one earlier this year, where VK was tagging a number of barons in various peerages as non-notable, on the grounds that they might be Scottish feudal barons and those are non-notable.)

Please keep me informed — if any of this comes under review by other authorities, I'd be happy to make a statement as to the situation. Choess 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply for now: Thanks! I agree with your analysis, and in general I think that sounds like a very good idea.

At the moment it is nigh impossible to have any sensible discussion about this, because the pro- and anti- sides are immovable, and the practical issues such as how to ensure accurate disambiguation get lost in the morass: every discussion ends up in a "no consensus" zone. One of the unfortunate results of the include-everything and delete-everything lobbies is that they feed off each other, so the problems are self-reinforcing. So I think that some more structured model is needed, and I'm glad that you came up with the idea.

My only concern is whether such a process would be robust enough. The dogmatism on both sides is enough to try the patience of a saint. CEM at the moment seems to rely on rather more willingness to compromise than has (so far) been shown between the diehard inclusionists and the rampant deletionists here, and it also currently limits itself to disputes involving two people, whereas there are (I think) over a dozen involved here.

But maybe the CEM model provides a starting point? It's probably the only way to avoid all these issues being tied up in an arbcom case, where the focus will inevitably be more on who did what rather than how we can find a way forward to keep improving things. A CEM-derived model has the potential to be more forward-looking which I think will improve the chances of people feeling that they are getting something useful out of it all.

Would you be wiling to do some of the spadework in trying to set up something like this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please excuse my butting in, but you may be interested in some of the discussions that took place here:[1].

I take your points about more positive and future focussed (as opposed to inquest type arbcomms) and "saints and sinners". It is a great pity that Gaimhreadhan never had the time to do some work on Multilateral Community Enforced Mediation. W. Frank talk ✉  19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing that monumental efforts are being made here to be balanced and to tar all editors with the same brush, that of "fanatics" on either side of a coin. That just is not the case, at least with baronets etc. The nobility, whatever their titles, played a massive role in the history of Great Britain and her Empire (I presume you don't disute this). Flagging them up where warranted is therefore justified. However, if you take the time to look at Vintagekit's User Page you will see a blatant anti-establishment agenda, there for all to see. Indeed, a few minutes spent examining his (and others of his ilk) edits shows immediately that their only real interest when it comes to the British establishment is to discredit them, put all sorts of non-notable and source templates up, all for absolute nuisance value, or even flag them up for deletion. Now I cannot speak wholly for the other side of the equasion you speak of here, but I would challenge anyone to show me how I, for instance, have engaged in identical activities. It is a tragedy that administrators cannot properly identify bullies on WP. There is no need to complicate WP procedures even further with ad-hoc committees and more 'guidelines' and red tape. What is needed is a commonsence approach. David Lauder 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I have no problems with articles on nobility where they are actually notable! And whateve views anyone holds on whether someone is notable for 'good' or 'bad' reasons should have no bearing on theor notability. However, it seems that many articles have been written on people who do not meet the current notability guidelines, and a proposal to expand the definition of notability (see WP:NOBLE) did not achieve consensus. This has led some editors hostile to the British establishment to set about targetting baronetcy articles for deletion, and in many cases to find good grounds for doing so. I think that there has to be a better way, so I have drawn heavily on suggestions by Choess to suggest a way forward, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup.

I also want to stress that I am not suggesting that editors such as you or Bonkers have been engaging in the sort of attacks, threats, abuse, and harassment set out at User talk:Vintagekits; that pattern of repeated sort of gross misconduct has not replicated by the British ditors in this dispute, and I'm sotry if what I wrote did not clarify that.

However, there is a lot of ssmmetry when it comes to attitudes to the British establishment. It is not wikipdia's role to take a stance on the meits or otherwise of the British establishment, and your own strong pro-establishment views are neither more or less appropriate than Vintagekits's anti-establishment views; editors from both perspectives should be working to uphold WP:NPOV, and to ensure that articles fairly repesent all perspectives, leaving the reader free to make their own value judgments. Unfortunately, it seems that there is widespread concern that you and some othe British editors have allowed your hostility to Irish Republicanism to cloud your contributions. So far as I can see, there have been far too many instances of British editors opposing the use of neutral language in Irish Republicanism-related articles, and of targetting such articles for deletion. That is just as inappropriate behaviour as Vk's repeated efforts to find any available grounds to delete articles on establishment-aligned figures ... and Vintagekit's stated anti-esablishment agenda is neither more nor less appropriate than your own pro-establishment views; both stances become problematic only if NPOV is squeezed out by a desire to promote one view over the other.

Now, I'm really rather averse to sending a lot of time raking over the coals, looking to see who did what when, with a view to finding people to punish. That's why I have suggested a pro-active cleanup of baronet articles, and I do hope that we can all agree on this or something like it. However, if we are going to bring an end to all the strife here, it's also important that British editors accept that Irish Republicanism is a perspective with as much right to fair presentation on wikipedia as any other perspective. That includes the use of rigorously neutral language, and accepting that many Republican figures who British editors find epulsive and indeed notable — just as the Irish editors need to accept that many estblishment figures who they find repulsive are indeed notable.

I hope this helps. What I really want to achieve is not a raking-over of the coals, but an end to the bitterness and hostility which distracted so many editors from adding to the encyclopedia, and which has threatened its neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

<sigh> I came back from a short (4 day) trip to Polska, and I find it's just like old times! Vintagekits given two blocks, and a whole load of mad squabbling taking place on his Talk page. I can quite understand why you wrote how you loathed being dragged into this mess and the constant posting on your Talk page once you had displayed a brief interest.

Apart from reintroducing myself, though, my reason for coming here is to explain how this stupid edit-war started. You seem to believe that it is simply about describing the deaths of Louis Mountbatten and Sir Norman Stronge as Killing No Murder. Actually, the dispute started in about January of this year when various IRA articles were nominated for deletion. The argument against these articles was that they were of poor quality and an attempt to list and memorialise IRA members. You can see the arguments that were put forward on both sides (including by me) here. In retaliation, it seems to me, Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney started targeting the Baronets project and, in particular, the pages created by Kittybrewster. That led to the witch-hunt of earlier this year with which you will be familiar.

In the interim, there have also been other sources of friction, largely, I would say, caused by Vintagekits' intransigence: including, as mentioned above, the killing/ murder debate, the v/V-olunteer debate, and the PoW template debate. Frankly, however, the original participants - myself, Kittybrewster, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary have given up caring. We recognise the IRA articles as being of poor quality - excessively referenced to partisan sources such as An Phoblacht (discussion here) and Tírghrá - but given the bruising response have simply given up having anything to do with them. Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. Occasionally a visiting American stumbles across these pages and also recognises them as of dubious worth ([2] and [3]).

My point is this (and it's a minor point): that you have drawn a broad equivalence between the actions of 'the Scottish editors' and 'the Irish editors' (for want of better terms). I am afraid that I simply do not agree (with the implicit premise) that the two sides have behaved equally badly. It has been quite clear that one editor, in particular, has no sense of working collegiately and resorts to vandalism, abuse, and threats against those who he sees as opposing his 'truth'. I'd refer you to the discussion here.

Finally: (1) I am sorry to have posted at length; (2) this post does not require a response (I just wanted to get it off my chest); and, (3) I see that you have got a lot of brickbats yourself, which I regret. Although a 3-week block is pretty - phew! - you did a good job of explaining it and it has anyway been overtaken by your revocation of it and subsequent events. I recognise that it's an unfortunate position to be an Admin in such circumstances and, for what it's worth, I think that you're doing a good job and wish you well.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. I have been studying the relevant pages this last few hours, and this new intervention is unhelpful. Wikipedia is fast going down the Swaney, shame. Thepiper 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I (genuinely) don't want to be rude, Thepiper, but the edit immediately above was your 20th., and you have been on Wikipedia for less than a month. The editor in question has been edit-warring and disrupting other people's work, motivated out of little more than malice, since January. In view of Vintagekits' clear threat to continue to disambiguate Baronets pages, which would have caused chaos and was a clear WP:POINT violation, he was blocked, correctly in my opinion (for what it's worth, and although I might have quibbled about the length) on the basis that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. All this was set out at nauseating length by BHG on the Talk page in question and completely ignored by his apologists. It's a moot point whether you find my own posting 'unhelpful' (why?); it wasn't directed to you, which is why it is on her talk page and not on yours. I'd make the point that it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at Admins for bad judgment: it's a job which someone has to do, and, as your post demonstrates, is at best thankless and usually comes with a large amount of abuse. However much you might disagree with BHG's block, which actually lasted less than 24 hours, someone has to make these calls and, it seems to me, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying to do some good.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to correct you on a technical point, Major, but Thepiper is actually a "Clean Skin" who, before he galloped to the rescue of User:Vintagekits this week, had edited Wikipedia on precisely 5 separate individual days since his "first" incarnation on 23 June 2006. I think we must assume the ultimate good faith that Thepiper's sole motivation is to be helpful.

On the more substantive point, I concur that no conscientious and well-meaning admin should have to take the extreme levels of assuming bad faith (without very persuasive evidence) exhibited on Vinny's talk page - and especially not very patient and forgiving admins such as BrownHairedGirl, Alison, John, Rockpocket, SirFozzie, etc. It should be one editor's attitude to our project on trial here and not Wikipedia's policies and procedures. I'm sure that ArbCom will intervene if they feel any admin has been partisan or precipitate or unfair or anything less than very patient with Vinny. W. Frank talk ✉  14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am really very sorry if you disagree with my input, W Frank, and I do assume good faith. Maybe opinions are not welcome. I would suggest that you attack the process, or the content and not the other editors. Hope it's not becoming the style around here. Remember WP:NPA. Thank you. Thepiper 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thepiper you said; BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. Now launching a personal attack on a very well respected and impartial admin as you did above puts you on very dodgy ground to complain about personal attacks yourself. I would suggest you would be better reading WP:NPA rather than simply quoting it at others and ignoring its central tenants yourself. Galloglass 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes certainly I critized process and content, not the person. And she did make it difficult at a time when there is so much psychosis flying around these pages. It's cool objectives that are needed. Thepiper 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No you made a personal attack, which I quoted above. Personal attacks are in no way acceptable on wikipedia. I have no involvement or interest in any of the content that is being discussed here apart from this. Please go and read WP:NPA then come back and re-read what you have written. Phases like stuck her nose in & and screwed it up are not process and content, they are personal insults that are not acceptable here. So please do not continue in this vein. Galloglass 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's process, sorry. Thepiper 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't process: 'process' is by reference to wikipolicies and guidelines, not commentary on individuals. Your references to BHG are, at best, ambiguous as to whether or not they are personally offensive. While I draw no conclusion from the observation, I note that, as of now, you have made 33 edits to Wikipedia, 4 of them under this heading (ie. 12.5% of your total contribution).--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

His contribution record is going to be greatly increased by his upcoming ArbCom participation. I assume that's what he's angling for here. I assume we will begin the ArbCom with a checkuser on all participants? W. Frank talk ✉  22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Dalton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--DarkFalls ^talk 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile

Chris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chris 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Almeric Paget (again)

If you get the chance on your MP-inspection trawl, can you have a look at the expansion I've done on Almeric Paget? I have a niggling feeling that something's wrong; although I've sourced everything I've added, his life seems to be too odd to be true. (From Montana cowboy to Tory MP for Cambridge? Married the author of 'Common Sense in the Kitchen' and 'Occult Theocrasy'? Elected chairman of the Conservative Party in 1940-41 despite writing a fulsome tribute to Hitler in 1939?) Although it's a very unusual name, I'm wondering whether there were two MPs by the name of Almeric Paget at this time and I've somehow conflated them. (If it is all true, he's a FA waiting to happen since pretty much every line is now expandable) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What an astonishing man! I can't find any trace of another Almeric Paget MP (and it's a rather unusual name), so all thse adventures must be the same person, unlikely as it sounds (thoug of course political careers could be a lot more fluid in those days). Well done on a very good expansion of the article; I'm sure you are right that it has the makings of a lot more. It certianly should be possible to get it good article status quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tory MPs must have been more interesting back then. Annoyingly, I can't find a reputable source for the best factoid I came across about him - that Olivia Newton John was born in the "Almeric Paget Memorial Bed". (Likely true, as it's not the kind of thing you make up, and she was born in his constituency — but I can't find a non-blog source for it.) His relatives mostly seem to have had equally odd lives (particularly his grandfather and daughter); this family seem right up there with the Arbuthnots. (How many other early 20th century MPs have a dedicated attack page on their family hosted by the Freemasons?) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Thatcherite revolution in the Tories made Tory MPs much less interesting, just indeed as Blairism reduced the number of colourful characters in Labour. These days, all the major party's preferred politician seems to be someone with a very conventional life. There does still seem to be room for the occasional exception such as George Galloway, Boris Johnson or Bob Marshall-Andrews, or Steve Norris though (he is ten years out of Parliament), but the exceptions seems increasingly rare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help please

[4] ....... Kittybrewster (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've finished reviewing them (up to Sir Thomas Dunlop, 1st Baronet). Ones where I haven't left comments on the talk page are ones I feel can safely be moved; some of those I commented on may also be moved, but check the talk page. (Now I remember just how tiring this is...) Choess 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand, I'd be happy to move whichever of these I *can* move over redirects, but I wanted to check with you first to see if you wanted to examine them independently. Choess 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To my mind these people are generally better known as Sir Thingumy Whatnot rather than Thingumy Whatnot and therefore that is how they would probably be sought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm abivalent as to how they would be best named in general. Many 1st baronets only received their titles very late in life, so in terms of their careers were best known as Thingumy Whatnot rather than as Sir Thingumy Whatnot; but most 2nd and subsequent baronets held the title for quite a big chunk of their lives. I have no aversion to them being called Sir Thingumy Whatnot, but the gudelines permit that only when needed for disambiguation, and in the current climate there's no prospct of those guidelines being changed. I really do think that it's best to work within the current guideline, and resist the wrecking crew's attempts to rename the many ambiguous baronets, rather than to risk that impotabt point being lost in an effort to chnage or stretch the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You claim that you are an Irish admin!!?

Hello BrownHairedGirl, and incentally my hair is brown too. You claim that you are an Irish Admin. Well, why don't you edit Irish articles, instead of editing British articles. I see that you are very heavy into Lordships, and Sirs, and Baronierieees (whatever the spelling) etc. Surely that was the suffering of Ireland this last 300 years, your lords and your ladies. correct? I really am curious about your editing. Why claim that you are Irish? It's a puzzler!! Thepiper 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She did write Families in the Oireachtas and most of the occupants of Category:Members of Seanad Éireann by session and Category:Teachtaí Dála for what that's worth... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh heeps! BHG. Didn't realise that you had done anything on Ireland. Sorry, cheers! Thepiper 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a fair qestion, Thepiper. I'm Irish, but like many Irish people of my generation I took the boat to go and live in England, leaving at a time when a stagnant economy and very high unemployment created a very high level of emigration amongst my generation.

I was politically active in Ireland before I left (regretfully declining a nomination stand for Dáil Éireann when I was 19), and have been involved in a minor way in politics in England since then, mostly with pressure-groups, but have had a lot of dealings with the British Parliament and government at a sort of middle level. I'd have preferred to have been a hanger-on in Kildare Street than in Westminster, but that's not my how life worked out.

I'm a historian, with an obsessive interest in politics and political history on both sides of the Irish sea; I have always thought that you can't make sense of Irish history without understanding British history, and I'm inclined to argue the reverse too (Britain has been much more heavily influenced by Ireland than is often acknowledged). I am particuarly intersted in parliaments and in elections, and that's what nearly all my editing has been focused on.

As Iridescent points out, I have started a lot of articles on Irish politicians and edited a lot of others, including ... and while I would have loved to have done more, I didn't have the sources (though I did enjoy going straight to the horse's mouth to clarify the name of the first of the Blaneys in the Dáil). Wikipedia coverage of Seanad Éireann is lamentably sparse, and I'd have loved to be able to expand that, but without access to Irish libraries, there wasn't much available beyond the Oireachteas Members Database. (Incidentally, I think it's a very shabby omission that there the British parliament has no similar resource).

As a historian, I follow the sources, and I have found much better sources for the Westminster parliaments, so have been busying myself filling in as many as possible of the gaps there. I'm not a fan of the system of titles and nobility (Article 40.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann seems to me to be a fine thing), but the British system of titles exists, and an awful lot of British parliamentarians have had titles one way or another, and the many families with hereditary titles were represented in Parliament for generations. It's simply not possible to accurately record who was who in the British Parliament without taking great care over the titles, because with so many members of the same families holding parliamentary office, and such a tendency to recycle first names, it's often only the titles which allow them to be clearly distinguished.

I'm please to see your response to iridescent, but I think that in general it's a very bad idea to infer too much from an editor choosing to work in a particular area. (For exaomple, I am one of the many editors who has contributed to the article on Oswald Mosley, and I hope that isn't being taken as some sort of evidence of support for his brand of politics). It seems to me that one of the things which has been so problematic in the disputes involving Vintagekits is that too many of the editors on both sides seem to have confused their own political outlook with the editor's job of building an WP:NPOV article. It isn't necessary for an editor to have any support for or empathy with a subject to write a decently NPOV biography of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you took the opportunity, and really I don't infer, that's why I asked the question. It would be nice if WP can hold onto its serious editors, otherwise my empathy is with NPOV. Thanks again. Thepiper 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		A thank you for your kind words last week, one of many such acts we have all seen from you and is much appreciated. Galloglass 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your privelige, and I know that you are not the only editor to want arbcom involvement, but nonetheless I think it's a pity that the energies of the editors concerned will now be focused on the essentially backward-looking activity of assessing who did what when, rather than on a solution-oriented examination of how this sort of tangle can be avoided in future. Anyway, if it's happening then it's happening, and I'll have to try to get my head around arbcom's procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From my personal point of view you are no longer an administrator to be relied upon. Why do I say this? Simply because after acting correctly in the case of User:Vintagekits you were assaulted by his cabal of supporters and floundered. Clearly in an attempt to display your evenhandedness you have taken it upon yourself to begin your own assault on the Wikipedia Baronetcies Project, basically continuing what VK & co were doing. This sort of disgraceful form of compromise is transformed into a attack on the work of decent hardworking editors who make genuine contributions rather than spending their time attacking those of others. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia on totally non-notable individuals, pop stars and absolute nobodies. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of articles with not a single source cited. So why the great assault on Baronets?? I think that instead of citing notability etc., you should instead approach Jimmy Wales and say that you feel the Wikipedia Opening Page should categorically state that by and large Wikipedia is anti-British, anti-aristocracy, anti-nobility, and that all pages raised on such people will be liable to endless attacks and edit wars and that anyone considering making contributions should seriously consider their position. David Lauder 13:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose continuous tirades such as the above is what finally made Vintagekits snap. It can't be easy sealing with such people on a daily basis. Giano 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats rich coming from you, to whom I was not speaking. David Lauder 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

I have tried to take an evenhanded approach throughout. If you look back on, for example, the countless AfDs on Arbuthnots, you will see that I tried in each case to assess the notability of the article's subjects, supporting some deletions and opposing others; you will see that I twice blocked Kittybrewster for CoI editing; you will also see my substantive contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Notability_revisited, opposing a presumption of automatic notability for baronets. If you thought that I was somehow inclined to regard all this episode as solely a matter of Vintagekits's undoubted disruption, you really ought to take another look at my contributions.

I presume that your outburst here relates to my questioning of the notability of some Lauder Baronets, and my proposal for a tidyup of baronets articles. If you disagree on those points, please could you respond to the proposals and questions rather than assuming bad faith? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have upset both sides (if there are two sides) you can't he altogether wicked *smiles* even if you were wrong in assuming a COI where there was none *frowns*. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said!

That and another similar couple of diffs I can't be bothered hunting down are the best summary of the events behind this whole sorry state of affairs. Doubtless others will now have you pegged as a member of the so-called Irish Republican Cabal (or IRC for short!), but such is life. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As you'll see from comments elsewhere, I have indeed attracted that sort of label, just as I have been classed as a lackey of the British establishment (or words to that effect) for opposing POV disruption of artcles on British topics. Frankly, I've been called much worse things in my life than either label, and I think that the labelling process says more about the labellers than the labelled. I'm beginning to think that before anyone is allowed to edit anything on wikipedia, that they should be required to read and learn the Reuters style guides on these matters, and swear allegiance to said guide on a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or whatever other sacred text takes their fancy. (BTW, there is a very good summary of the Reuters position at http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/06/13/when-does-reuters-use-the-word-terrorist-or-terrorism/ ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IRC get everywhere! If the Arbitration Committee don't want to look at the wider problems in terms of the Vintagekits case I'll probably make a seperate request myself, the failure of CEM to even get off the ground will hopefully be enough evidence that dispute resolution has failed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet finished my arbcom submission, but FWIW my thoughts can briefly summarised as:

1. Vk's rapid resorts to threats, harssasment, disruption-when-offended etc are so heavily ingrained that I don't see any reasonable propspect of him reforming. Most editors feel provoked from time to time, especially those working on divisive and sensitive topics, and sometimes that feeling can last for a long time, but nobody forced Vk to respond as he did. That was his choice.
2. We need some process to systematically assess the notability of articles on baronets, to take that issue out of the politicised ping-pong situation it's now in. I have suggested something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup, with a mixed response so far. My idea may be useless, but we need some mechanism to assess the notability of baronets without having to take everything to AfD for want of a better structure.
3. Whatever the origins of the British-Irish editing dispute, we need some way of prising apart the two warring sides, and reinforcing NPOV. I don't know whether arbcom is necessarily best-placed to do that, but I think that arbcom's examination of the situation would be much more useful if it could focus on the substance of that dispte and on the other editors involved, without being distracted into the loooong history of VK's antics. To solve this, the spotlight needs to come off him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

VK is pretty much a lost cause. Any Arbitration Committee case shouldn't really look at his conduct at all, apart from rubber stamping his current block. But ignoring that the other problems are ongoing and need looking at, which is why a seperate case might be better. The problems involve too many editors and different articles for anything like RfC. CEM has been rejected, so something needs to be done to sort it all out. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Vk is a lost cause and that a separate case would probably be better for the others. My reservation is that in addition to any handing out of yellow and/or red cards for past misdemeanours, I think that some changes or reinforcements of policy/guidelines and/or practices are likely to be be the most helpful way of avoiding or reducing such conflicts in the future, and I wonder whether arbcom is able to help with the second part? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the "conflict" has carried on since VK's first indefinite block for example see this, this and this. Certain editors took advantage of his block(s) (and my absence) to re-add POV that the "Irish republican" (I'm English) editors had fought long and hard to remove. I can provide many examples of a certain editor who has done nothing but disrupt articles and breach NPOV for the past two weeks, the problems haven't gone away and aren't likely to any time soon. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; I haven't read the context, but it seems very clear that those are POV edits. I don't know how much else of this has been going on, but arbcom clearly needs to be on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I thik it is not POV to change IRA to PIRA. It just clarifies it. Although I would agree that most people think PIRA when they say IRA. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, though I haven't followed previous discussions on the matter, and so far as I am aware "PIRA" is an abbreviation which is hardly ever used other than by unionists, like the "Sinn Fein-IRA" phrase.

However this edit replacing the neutral word "killed" with "murdered" is clearly POV, as is this edit applying the "terrorist" label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your latter points. I have certainly seen PIRA in a number of documents generated in Britain but, like you, there may be nuances I am unaware of. Thus it is with so many things in this field. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you would have to look hard to find PIRA on many documents generated in Ireland, except by unionists. That's why I suggest that it is probably not a NPOV term; the normal usage is Provisional IRA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, what I considered to be the POV part of the Brighton hotel bombing edits were the unattributed use of "terrorist" in both edits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I agree with you, ONIH. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's easy to slip up and use a natural turn of phrase such as calling a ballpoint pen a "biro", or a vacuum cleaner a "hoover". We must be ever vigilant and increase our precision and decrease ambiguity. BHG, ONIH and I have all resided in the UK for many years and throughout these islands, in conversational speech, we naturally use the shortest, commonest forms - especially when meaning is clear from the context. However, official writing throughout Europe and including Ireland tends to be more precise in their use of abbreviations.

A few examples from Ireland:

• http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR070002
• http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=446&docID=2429
• http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/viewspring2005/8.htm
• http://www.inc.ie/winter0304f.html
• http://homepages.iol.ie/~duacon/l960402.htm
• http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:j1RJyMW6B8wJ:www.newrepublicanforum.ie/forummagazine/forummagazine_pdf/magazines/october%25202005.pdf+pira&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=ie
• http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2006/02/13/17-years-on-family-continues-its-search-for-truth/

Colloquial speech examples are rarer, but here's one interesting one (amongst a few thousand) I found from: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72993

I've also reminded myself of what Reuters' style is; you need to be ever vigilant about encyclopaedic language, though: [5]. I know that article is on all of the "team's" watchlist, so I guess they thought that "killing" was just too bland. Frank 84.13.10.123 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about me. How do you know I have resided in the UK for many years? You don't, so please don't make assumptions. You made an assumption about me before, resulting in you making that edit. Nice work on presenting Sinn Féin activist Danny Morrison's opinions as fact, carry on and you'll be an honourary member of the Irish Republican Cabal! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Like VK and Domer and Padraig and other members of the team, I really admire your speed reading of the seven examples I supplied and your repid=fire response.

You're beginning to sound a bit like a certain admin that keeps dropping hints but neither confirms nor denies. Try not to be so prickly about issues of nationality, ethnicity and residence. The real divisions on Wikipedia are between inclusionists and deletionists; those that wish to increase precision and include all significant cited viewpoints in a balanced manner and those that think hard disk space is so scarce we'd better not waste it on presenting points of view opposed to our own Weltanschauungen

I've no wish to be a member of any cabals or teams.

Now I suggest that if you don't wish to address the points I make, you open up your own user talk page for posting by me.

Here's an example of a more editorial style: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:j1RJyMW6B8wJ:www.newrepublicanforum.ie/forummagazine/forummagazine_pdf/magazines/october%25202005.pdf+pira&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=ieGood afternoon. Frank 84.13.10.123 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not re-factor this talk page. My comment was in direct reply to a message. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And it continues - Special:Contributions/Deus_Ex - despite me linking to the relevant discussion on the Village Pump on the editor's talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the quotes above, I am relaxed about wholesale changes where appropriate from IRA to PIRA. That does not seem POV. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the extent to which this and similar topics tend to inflame passions amongst editors and lead to edit wars, I sincerely hope that anyone interested in pursuing this point would not not just make "wholesale changes", but rather raise the issue in some centralised discussion and try to each a consensus. The links above suggest that I may have been wrong in my assessment of how the term is used, but I don't intend to perform a major search to see what the balance of usages looks like. If editors think that the case for using PIRA is now proven, please discuss it at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, rather than risking yet another edit war over Northern Irish-related articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely changing the subject

but do you realise you have the 13th highest edit count on Wikipedia? — Iridescent (an insulting 2273) 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Eek! An edit count that high seems a bit sad and obsessive (particularly since I have only been an editor for 18 months), and is made worse by being a unlucky 13th rather 12th or 14th! However, as the list rightly points out, edit counts can be very misleading, and I know that mine is grossly inflated by use of WP:AWB for tasks like categorisaton trawls through the entire set of 5,000 or so articles on Category:British MPs. I'm sure that there are plenty of people much lower down the list whose contribution is much more significant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of baronets

The following archived discussion is copied from the revision history of the talk page of Kittybrewster (talk · contribs). I have copied it here to add further comment, because that talk page blanked (but not archived) in the next edit, and some of the comments are important to the current disussions. I have added my responses below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have, as you will know, made considerable additions to the WP Baronets project and carried out significant research/cited sources. I have done the Lauder baronets, all relatively notable, but I have made greater contributions overall to the project. However, the attacks continue on a broad scale against this project and it seems to me that it is pointless arguing against our opponents because there are more of them and they cite any number of so-called 'consensus' opinions/guidelines against us, even thought they are just that, opinions, and vary sometimes totally, with actual facts. I'll be honest, I don't think there is any point in fighting against this small army of editors/administrators who are opposed to the aristocracy, baronets, the British establishment, and indeed in some cases anything British. I am withdrawing from the baronets project. Next time you're on that page please remove my name from it. Regards, David Lauder 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not for me to do. Maybe BHG is doing her best; mostly people do that. The way you put makes me think you are the sole arbiter of facts and everybody else is wrong. It may be so. I think if you take a short wikibreak you will find there are still valuable contributions for you to make on your return. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not the sole arbiter of facts at all. It just appears that so many guidelines have been created (regardless of the fact that it states on each of them that they are guidelines and not set in stone) which all, in some way or other overlap each other, so that those determined to mess with constructive efforts are always covered. A sort of, 'no one can ever be wrong except he who protests' scenario. Wikipedia has a correct provision for stubs to be created by those who have some knowledge of a subject, and so that other editors may research good sources and add to those pages. Yet where baronets are concerned this facility is derided as meaningless. As for BHG, here is a person actively opposed to the notability of baronets, essentially regarding them as meaningless, and yet she is part of the WP Baronets project! Tell me I am wrong when I ask where in real life does this sort of thing occur? It just seems to me that it is a form of anarchy where you have a so-called 'consensus' of people deciding for themselves that notable people are in fact not notable. It is akin to groups of people sitting on a street corner and deciding that a law of the land is unjust and they are therefore not going to obey it, and when anyone asks why they reply because consensus in our little group says so. Tell me what other encylcopaedia in the entire world denies notability in this manner. David Lauder 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember the Community Charge. Kittybrewster (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2007 (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.

Responses to David Lauder on notability

David, your comments above include several points, and I want to discuss them here, becuase I think that they are all important. I have placed them under separate sub-headings to allow easier discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decison-making

Your comments above appear to show a strong objection to consensus decision-making. However, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and it says that "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". It would be helpful if you would clarify whether or not you accept the policy WP:CONSENSUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you can apply so-called consensus to every little tiny thing. What that effectively means is that on political issues (or things perceived as political), providing you can rake up enough supporters your will shall prevail as 'consensus'. I suspect that the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia have a limited amount of time to give to WP. Like me, most will be unaware of the seemingly countless issues which need to reach consensus, don;t have the time to look for them, and so are unaware of them.

As you know, I don't agree with the 'consensus' on nobility, baronets, and those of that ilk. I am neither rank and so I cannot be accused of having some particular interest. But at least in Great Britain we have what is called Correct Form, which sets form how people are listed and addressed. It simply is no more a matter for discussion than arguing about whether you can reach a consensus on driving on the right-hand side of the road. This is where your consensus is flawed and needs reviewing. Otherwise there will be a litany of those with a particular point of view, objection, axe to grind, whatever, constantly disrupting Wikipedia. Where things are already set in stone (so to speak) what on earth is the point of somehow trying to introduce some sort of French or Russian Revolution via 'consensus'? I believe it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. David Lauder 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, WP:CONSENSUS may not be perfect (and I think that most wikipedians will join with you in pointing to some limitations), but it remains the way that decisions are made here. If you think that consensus, then go to the relevant talk page(s) and propose whatever changes you see fit, but unless and until any changes are accepted, it remains policy.

As to correct form, it quite properly describes the naming format used within the British establishment, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is obliged to use it in every context. Correct Form would label Jack Straw as the Rt Hon Jack Straw, but that format is rarely used outside of govt and parliament. The same issues apply to other titles, so we have Pope Benedict XVI rather than His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI or (to use his full title) His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. Justa s ell, eh?

These things are rarely set in stone in every context, and like the news media and other encyclopedias, wikipedia doesn't slavishly follow the formats used by the organisations which create titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are wrong here. Correct Form is set in stone, at least by the British, and I have heard of people coming back from the USA and talking about the mess made at functions by the Americans getting it all wrong. The Rt.Hon. is indeed rarely used out of parliament or formal oaccasions and is a courtesey to such people. Generally their entries in all encyclopaedias, whatever, is Jack Straw or whatever, because such a courtesey is not the same as a title. There is no comparison. For instance, the correct form of address for a peer is the Rt. Hon. The Lord Whatever. But a Listing for such a person would always be Lord Whatever, not just Jack Smith, with Lord whatever in the text of the article, which is rather insulting, and just plain wrong. And essentally we are speaking here of the tops of article pages and that is where a person's correct and proper title should be shown. To demote them to Jack Smith, Whether a Duke or a Baronet is simply wrong. As for the Popes, Pope is a title itself, so His Holiness equates to the Rt.Hon. My answer is naturally that the page heading should be Pope Whatever XX. the fuller titles can go in the opening texts. If Wikipedia is to be accepted as an authoratative work then it has to be correct. It is not a question of being slavish. If you are going to lower yourself to the levels of the news media then you will be disregarded to a very large extent, as they are, as unreliable. Regards, David Lauder 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub creation and notability

WP:STUB defines a stub article as "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information". I cannot find anything in WP:STUB (or in WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY) which suggests that the presence of a stub tag makes a subject notable; it seems to me that a stub tag is neutral on the question of notability, and serves only to define the article as being "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage". However, you appear to assume that the presence a stub tag is not just an assertion of notability, but proof of notability. Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't believe I said that. If I did that is wrong. What I said was that where an article had been commenced (not necessarily by me) as a stub (with which WP is littered) and that the whole concept (as I understood it) of a stub was that the initial editor might not have had that much info to hand but felt the subject important enough for a small entry (most encyclopaedias have small, sometimes tiny entries), which could then be added to by others. I think you are referring to a baronet stub. Obviously we differ. In Britain a Baronet is a minor notable in his own right because he holds that title, either directly or hereditarily, from the monarch. I have known this sinc I was a child and I find it incredulous that a group or groups of people set themselves up as somehow above the monarch and decides that none of these people are notables. It is bizarre. That is not how society works and it should not be how WP works. David Lauder 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what BHG said. What she asserts is that none of these people are automatically notable. And that each may be notable but each depends on its own facts. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, the point of a stub tag is to say "this article is to short, and should be expanded if it is going to provide encyclopedic coverage". In any topic, it's still legitimate for an editor to ask whether that really is an article worth expanding. Plenty of stubs are deleted at AfD on a regular basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets and notability

On the question of notability of baronets, you appear to have conflated several different issues. You say that "here is a person actively opposed to the notability of baronets, essentially regarding them as meaningless".

You are wrong about the first point: I do not regard baronets as a class as non-notable. However, I do not regard them as automatically notable, merely because they are baronets. Many baronets are undoubtedly notable, and I have created or expanded articles on many of them, just as you have; but it is mischievious of you to imply that the choice is between treating all baronets as notable, or none. In common with the vast majority of topics on wikipedia, there is no presumption either way, merely a requirement that editors demonstrate the notability of an article's subject.

I am surprised by your apparent suggestion that there is something underhand or inappropriate about my participation in the baronets project because I do not accept automatic notability of baronets. Please can you clarify what you mean here: in particular, do you mean that the only people who should be eligible to be members of that project are editors who support changing the guidelines to make baronets automatically notable? If so, can you point me to any other wikiprojects where that applies? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To some extent I have covered this, above. This is clearly where we differ. My view is that being a baronet is indeed notable. Otherwise he would be Mr Nobody. On top of that he may have done something notable also, in a minor way or in a major way, or in numerous of both. That makes him even more notable. Our difference here is that I am accepting the British titles system as it is presented by the monarch to the people, and you/others are placing your own interpretations and opinions above that. I am not giving my opinion which might indeed follow yours on several baronets (if not a lot). But being a baronet is in itself notable. I cannot deny something which is set down by the Crown otherwise I would look like some sort of renegade.

I suppose that leads us to two things: (1) Wikipedia so-called 'consensus' (which I feel is inappropriate in issues like this because by casting convention aside and suggesting to the world that they can decide on the importance of those already deemed important means the issue will be on the boil forever), and (2) one of the umpteen 'guidelines' on WP (which, although clearly stating they are only guidelines are thrust down everyone's throats as though they were absolutist diktats carved in stone) that states WP is not a directory/paper encyclopaedia/etc. Sometimes I am confused by all these 'guidelines' as often some overlap or contradict others. (Maybe that is their purpose?) The Encyclopaedia Britannica is now available on CDRom. It demonstrates the amazing capacity of databases and I suspect that Wikipedia's database is immense. Small entries on anyone or anything can be found in any encyclopaedia. Often they can be just a few lines. I believe that the titled nobility are all notable just by virtue of their titles. How they came by them is irrelevant and nobody elses business. (Again, that would be personal opinion). Unlike the 'directories' so often ridiculed on WP, I do not see their countless untitled cadet relations as important unless they have done something notable. I appreciate that the WP 'consensus' (of very personal opinions) does not agree with that and you had previously stated somewhere that you disagree with my premise. I felt therefore that maybe if you felt a baronet was not notable by virtue of his title, then in a way that was permitting a personal opinion (which be viewed by some as anti-baronets) affect your editing of these subjects. I myself now think that in the overall circumstances I should refrain, where possible, from editing baronets or contentious subjects with possible political overtones where opinions (only), which seem to govern WP, are strong.

I am pleased that we are able to discuss this as adult to adult without people jumping up and down on the spot accusing each other of incivility and personal attacks. Many people have been chronically uncivil to me and made exceptionally clear personal attacks. I have attempted to address them as adults rather than as a crybaby hiding behind numerous guidelines. David Lauder 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, one of the fundamental problems here us that you are making a false dichotomy between "notable" and "Mr Nobody". The reality is that there are many degrees of notability, and like any other project, wikipedia has to set a threshold.

There are many ways in which such a threshold can be set, but in the end it is always going to have be settled as some sort of guideline or editorial policy. Deriding anyone who follows the guidelines as a "crybaby" is at best a form of incivility or personal attack, and at worst it's intentionally disruptive. Using that sort of language when you complain of being subject to personal attacks yourself is a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

The bottom line here is that the way wikipedia works is by having policies and guidelines which are determined by consensus, and that if you don't accept that way of working, then I don't know why you are editing wikipedia. There seems to be little purpose in being part of a project whose whole modus operandi seems to be abhorrent to you. As Tyrenius (talk · contribs) has already pointed out to you, we have all been given editing priveliges subject to the requirement that we follow core policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, with their derivative guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY. It's up to you to decide whether those conditions are acceptable to you.

As to notability, the whole point of WP:N is that it defines a way of assessing notability which does not depend on POV. Whether you like it or not, there are different points of view about the significance of different sorts of titles at different points in history. You say that you "believe that the titled nobility are all notable just by virtue of their titles", which is simply a mirror-image of those who claim that the titled nobility are an irrelevance. Both are extreme points of view which get us nowhere, and which have led to endless sterile arguments on countless talk pages, and both positions are in the end more about perceived worthiness than about notability. I could list plenty of people who I consider to be very worthy, but who are utterly non-notable, and similarly highly-notable people who I consider to be thoroughly unworthy. The point here is that the way wikipedia does things is define generalised tests for assessing notability, rather than saying that this particular rank of person in a particular country is notable. If you don't like it, try persuading others to change it ... but I hope you might stop and consider whether calling someone a crybaby is really the most effective possible way of persuading them to change their mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I was writing generally and that remark was not directed at you personally. This year every time I attempt to raise pertinent points numerous editors/admins throw all these labels at me instead of engaging in rational adult dialogue. That was the basis of my comment. I would add that you appear to misinterpret my comments:- I do follow WP guidelines to the best of my ability, but I disagree with the use of personal opinion over reality, whichever way it is dressed up. David Lauder 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, but characterising the difference as "personal opinion over reality" is not brilliantly civil or helpful. The issues here relate to which bits of reality to record on wikipedia, and how to record them; so trying to cast one side as unreal does not appear to be assuming good faith.

The bottom line here is that wikipedia sets fairly simple criteria for notability, based primarily on how much the subject has been written up elsewhere. Inheriting a title is not one of the items listed, and that's unlikely to change precisely because there are many people who have inherited or been awarded all sorts of different titles, but who are nonetheless deeply obscure. That applies, of course, not just to the British titles, but to many others, such as the Papal Orders of Chivalry. I really think it very unlikely that either the Pontiff or the British monarch is likely to regard it as a hostile gesture if any publication draws its inclusion criteria in such a way as not encompass everyone to whom they have given an award, so you can relax about your fears of becoming a renegade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewes (UK Parliament constituency)

About 18 months ago I went to the local library and found a document that listed very many of the MPs for Lewes back to 1295 and I used this to write some of the stuff on Lewes (UK Parliament constituency). I scanned in the document and used OCR to create a searchable PDF which is located on the Wikimedia commons. I am very good at starting projects but terrible at finishing them. The information contained in that document has languished unused since then. You may or may not wish to take up the baton by looking at Talk:Lewes (UK Parliament constituency) Jooler 11:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's a very useful source, and well done you for going to all the trouble of scanning and OCRing it to make it available like that. I have a long queue of constituency articles on my to-do list for expansion, so I'll Lewes to the list and do it some day unless someone beats me to it.

There's one thing about that document which I find particularly interesting: that in the late 19th century, Parliament had ordered a list to be made of all MPs, but that the job was very badly done. I can understand that a mishmash like that might have dissuaded a generation of parliamentarians from approaching the task again, but it's bizarre that parliament has never returned to the task in the 130 years since. The Oireachtas has had an easier job to do, having only the period since the 1918 election to account for, but the Oireachtas Members Database is still a good example of what Westminster should do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it had been done - http://www.histparl.ac.uk/CD-rom.html . The printed edition is some 23 volumes, the CD-ROM costs £550, but it is available at some libraries. Jooler 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I wasn't aware of that. Silly Parliament, though, being too tight-fisted to ensure that it is available free online. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Lauder

You seem to be the admin in charge of Baronets, so you may care to compare this version of Harry Lauder [6] with this biography here [7] written by Gregory Lauder Frost a page not without its own wiki-problems in the past. You will see there are more than a few similar turns of phrase which are too similar for comfort and copy-vio. It was the odd term "mother's father" which I edited today that first struck me as odd. Bearing in mind that Mr Lauder-Frost has history with wikipedia I suggest this page is deleted asap. Giano 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano can I ask why you think Harry Lauder is a Baronet? He appears to simply be a Knight Bachelor. As to deleting it, would it not be better if you took this to someone who is uninvolved with the current Arbcom case of which yourself, David Lauder and BrownHairedGirl are all a part of, in one form or another. Now I'm sure its not the case but it could look like you using this particular article to have a go at David Lauder which would not help solve the current dispute. Galloglass 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please appolagise, if you bother to check the history you will see it was written in this way by an anon long before "our Mr lauder" arrived on the scene. Secondly, in cases of copy-vio and serious legal problems I am not the least interested in minute distinctions of rank between those who call themselves "Sir". Giano 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano I am not involved in any way with any of this dispute between you and David Lauder, I also have no involvement in anything to do with baronets, Knights etc. I am simply suggesting it would be better to take this matter to someone who has no involement in the Arbcom case. I'm sorry if you see this suggestion as a personal attack, I can assure you it is not. Choess has been good enough to look into it , and I'm sure will sort it out to everyones satisfaction. Galloglass 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the article content was overwritten with content from Lauder-Frost's page [8] over three years ago, apparently undetected. The IP in question traces back to BT; I don't know whether this was Lauder-Frost, unregistered, or a copyvio. I have begun rewriting this in order to avoid any question of violation. Choess 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the article and its history, yes, there does appear to have been a copvio from http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/htol/lauder3.htm … but I'm sure that Choess's rewrite will resolve the problem, when it is completed. Well done Giano spotting the problem (though if you are going to continue this useful work of scrutinising these articles so thoroughly, it would be a good idea to familiraise yourself with the difference between a baronet and a knight).

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with David Lauder (talk · contribs), and I'm not sure that it's a great idea to get too heavily involved with the history of the Gregory Lauder-Frost article (whose history shows over 700 deleted edits and a lot of disputes), because if it's a copyvio it's a copyvio, regardless of the source, and what matters is that the article is either deleted or rewritten.

WP:COPYVIO sorts out the procedure, which basically gives a week for the article to be rewritten, after which it is deleted if the problem remains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of, I hope. And I know the ArbCom case has everyone's nerves on edge, but bringing issues somewhat outside of one's usual realm to knowledgeable editors and admins is a Good Thing, IMO. Choess 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done Choess. Have read it through twice now and can't find any copy violations left. Galloglass 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done on the rewrite: much needed, and elegantly done.

I think you're right about arbcom; I have have had some doubts about it, but have come round to the view that an outside assessment is needed. Even if all it does it generate a ruling on the block of Vintagekits that will provide some closure to one of the lingering issues … but hopefully they can also help defuse some of the tensions around baronets and some of the endless POV-inspired revert wars over Northern Irish articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks - no problem at all happy to help out. I am looking at all the "Sirs" pages for problems that could bring Wikipedia into disrepute - as it seems this topic attracts more than its fair share of rogue editors. I am fully aware if the precise detail between a knight and a baronet, a Marquess and a Marchese, but believe me, if I find a problem their rank will not save them. So if anyone reading this knows they have faked or elaborated a fact or reference, now is the time to change it. Giano 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always useful to have articles checked over, though I do hope we can agree that it's best for further problems found to be fixed (by a rewrite if necessary), rather than for the article to be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move please?

Geoffrey St George Shillington Cather to Geoffrey Cather. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NAMB

Just thought you'd like to know that WP:NAMB is being discussed [9] and as you put in some good arguments for hatnotes on non-ambiguous pages I thought you might be interested in throwing in your thoughts. (Emperor 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

User:Klaksonn

Hi, you blocked Klasonn a month or so ago, but it looks like he is back as IP 83.229.104.4. There are a couple of edits from the IP that are very telling: [10],[11]and [12]. These edits are very similar to a several made by Klaksonn: [13],[14] and [15]. The hostility of the edit summaries from the IP also indicate the are the same. Both Klaksonn and the IP have the same habit of calling good faith edits the disagree with vandalism. Let me know if you want to me to post this somewhere else or if you need more info. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh Boohoo. According to this asshole, Walid Jumblatt, the criminal who destroyed hundreds of Christian villages and massacred thousands of Lebanese Christian villagers is not a warlord. Now who the fuck is Daniel Leivick to decide whether or not Walid Jumblatt is a warlord. Even his own supporters boast about him killing Christians to defend them. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.104.4 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2007

Well, the uncivil style of the reply here is very much Klaksonn's. I have blocked the IP -- see discussion at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New User

Does this list of contributions + edit summaries remind you of anyone? -- roundhouse0 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. :(

I'll check it out further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:OfficePuter has created 30+ categories since 19 Aug or so and is editing prolifically (expats, bishops, burials, considerable intersection with my test pages such as test 6, ditto test 5 etc). I suppose we could try a cfd and see if the phrase 'useful and appropriate' arises. (Did we not delete Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome or something very similar? Indeed we did: at this cfd.) -- roundhouse0 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested a checkuser: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. Would it be okay with you to await the results of that before deciding on any further steps?

I agree, though, that this does look very much like block evasion by Pastorwayne (talk · contribs). Either that, or he has been cloned :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Check-user is fine by me - I wasn't sure that the evidence was sufficient to the untrained eye. -- roundhouse0 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit more browsing of the contribs list of OfficePuter (talk · contribs), and this looks very much like Pastorwayne: same sort of articles edited, same sty;e of writing, same style of edit summaries, same style of prolific creation of categories, etc. Given the rate at which the creation of dubious categories was proceeded, I have blocked OfficePuter as a suspected sockpuppet, without waiting for the results of the checkuser request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if checkuser is negative. The naming of, say, Category:Dutch Reformed Christians and Category:Reformed Christian Americans demonstrates a mastery of ambiguity possessed by few of us; and there were/are the usual redundancies in category trees. -- roundhouse0 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Could you block user:70.104.101.220 (as an s-p of PW)? This was PW when he was blocked earlier. -- roundhouse0 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address appears to be a dynamically-allocated one from a block owned by Verizon, so I'm wary of blocking it unless it is used again. It shows no sign of having been used anonymusly since February, so I'll hold off unless it is used, because long block on IPs are frowned upon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is somebody going to examine and unravel OfficePuter's work? - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that the article edits appear to be fine, and the category ones relatively harmless (so far - but heading who knows where?). The main thing is that OfficePuter should stop creating categories. -- roundhouse0 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to just put the cats up for CfD as I can't see any that are of much value. Galloglass 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have collected together the Complete Category Edits of OfficePuter at test8, some 164 of them in 10 days with 30+ new creations. (PW was specifically requested ages ago to subcategorise Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction and OP has created Category:United Methodist bishops of the Northeastern Jurisdiction.) I leave it to others to consider cfds as my head spins with any one of these fissiparous religious groupings, never mind a raft of them. -- roundhouse0 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My head spins a bit too :( The problem is not just the fissiparious nature of these religions, but the way that Pastorwayne creates categories which bear such a bizarre relationship to others (he sems to have no idea of how to parent them, and no idea on how to avoid duplication or excessive subdivision).

Anyway, thanks for once again taking the trouble to list PW's edits, which has been very useful. I ahve already listed Cat:Presbyterian clergy and Cat:Dutch Reformed clergy; I may find a few more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would probably vote for the complete removal of all religious categories.
Checkuser seems to be a gradual process. (OP seems now to be affecting a pidgin style of English, but not here.) -- roundhouse0 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this editor - seems to have stopped roughly when OfficePuter started and resumed when OP was blocked. Burials, Ohio, Expats, church people. -- roundhouse0 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ValleyForge1979 (talk · contribs) looks like another sockpuppet of Pastorwayne (talk · contribs). Now indefinitely blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please would you create a list of sockpuppets of PastorWayne, including IP addresses? I have an idea that this problem is not going to softly and silently vanish away (yes I know that is a split infinitive). - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there's no need to politely apologise for a decision to deliberately split an infinitive :)
Anyway, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76 is a rather bizarre sockpuppet.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag appears to have been added (probably inappropriately to this discussion about PW's first sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76#User:70.104.101.220. However, I don't propose to remove it, because it serves a purpose and I don't like editing archives.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne confirmed User:OfficePuter as a likely sockpuppet of PW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bikerider3 - PW rides again? (Cooperating to a remarkable degree with user:198.30.217.220 for the period 9 Sept to date. One creates a category and the other populates it.) -- roundhouse0 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BikeRider3 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly PW. I have indef-blocked BikeRider3, and will rollback the edits. I'll now check 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs) ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

After checking the history, I have also blocked 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs). Well done for keeping an eye on all this; those test pages of yours are proving to be an v useful resource! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More PW-like edits. (A flurry of 20-odd category related edits in random religious areas in a few minutes including the 'creation' of a red-linked cat Category:Anglican priests by nationality.) -- roundhouse0 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You're quite right about the PW-style of editing; its very a close fit in all sorts of ways. I have blocked User:72.69.220.166. Indef-blocked for now, but I think I should shorten it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See also explanation to PW at User talk:Pastorwayne#More_sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check-user says 'no' to the ips, although WHOIS for one of them says it's in Ohio. I personally am pretty sure it's PW, perhaps visiting a library or a friend. I don't believe these edits are by 3 different people. (I suppose PW-clones could be springing up.) BTW, I don't know if you noticed User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying, a gripping account of 1 user logging in under different names from different places, and holding conversations with himself (allegedly). -- roundhouse0 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too think that the editing patterns and style look so uncannily like PW that I'm inclined to suspect that the answer must be something like your suggestion of PW using another connection. I don't want to discuss all the traits publicly, but PW's editing doesn't just have a particular pattern, it also has a quite distinctive style, and it would be very surprising for someone else from the same geographical area to suddenly start editing the same sort of articles in the same quirky style. Not sure, though about the Anglican priests edits, because they are trivial enough that they coukd reasonably be done by three unrelated editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be someone trying to discredit PW, of course. Internecine church rivalries in Ohio. You could try unblocking the ips and seeing what happens. (My guess would be - nothing will happen.) -- roundhouse0 09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another ip

70.106.130.112 categories, UM, Ohio, burials. -- roundhouse0 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, 70.106.130.112 (talk · contribs) shows all the ususal PW traits, but no edits for 12 days. So I have tagged the IP as a suspected sock, but not blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any recent PW-like edits unless the focus has moved to one of the myriad of earlier random forays. Prelates perhaps. This latest came from considering ValleyForge1979's edits (eg this). I haven't yet considered bikeRider's edits. Perhaps there is PW-software, wielded by teams of fast-moving acolytes. -- roundhouse0 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BikeRider turns up links to OfficePuter, User:72.69.74.23, User:70.106.130.112, User:198.30.217.220, User:72.69.74.150. None of these is a new user, so must be socks of someone. -- roundhouse0 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of that list, it seems to me that only 70.106.130.112 (talk · contribs) and the previously-identified 198.30.217.220 (talk · contribs) look like PW socks. Whois and Traceroute are interesting; both those IPs belong to the same ISP as the IPs which you previously identified as socks, and all are in the same area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Baronets

Hello. I have gone through a number of articles on baronets and listed those that I think should be merged with the relevant baronetcy article. Could you please created an appropriately named subpage where these can be listed before merging. Tryde 09:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

David Nestor AfD

Thank you so much for your comments on the AfD. Too often we lack a worldwide perspective - I imagine a lot of things are deleted out of ignorance. I've changed my opinion and added some more sources that I found browsing around. Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Clandfield

This page has rightly been deleted. Who created it please? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the revision log. As you'll see, it looks there are may have been a few Burkem socks at work --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 20:05, 12 September 2007 . . Timrollpickering (Talk | contribs | block) (2,768 bytes) (start wikifying)
2. 04:10, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,812 bytes) (Added family history re: fortune etc.)
3. 03:30, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,483 bytes) (Birth and youth)
4. 03:29, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,479 bytes) (Birth and youth)
5. 03:27, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,478 bytes) (References)
6. 03:24, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,486 bytes) (References)
7. 03:22, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,482 bytes) (Added reference re: family history.)
8. 03:12, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,435 bytes) (Birth and youth)
9. 03:02, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,400 bytes)
10. 03:00, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,400 bytes)
11. 02:59, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,394 bytes)
12. 02:50, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,388 bytes)
13. 02:50, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,392 bytes)
14. 02:49, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,388 bytes)
15. 02:47, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,382 bytes) (Added heading.)
16. 02:45, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,376 bytes) (Added heading.)
17. 02:37, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,344 bytes) (Added family details of birth and youth.)
18. 02:17, 12 September 2007 . . Pilotboi (Talk | contribs | block) (2,126 bytes) (cleaning and tagging)
19. 02:09, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,166 bytes) (Amended category)
20. 02:05, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,174 bytes) (Added category re: List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family]])
21. 01:45, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,102 bytes)
22. 22:30, 11 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,098 bytes) (Amended category)
23. 22:11, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (2,053 bytes) (Added reference)
24. 22:05, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (1,997 bytes) (Removed extant surname)
25. 22:04, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (2,008 bytes) (Removed extant surname)
26. 21:24, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,019 bytes) (Added category)
27. 16:44, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (1,987 bytes) (Removed category)
28. 16:41, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,052 bytes)
29. 16:40, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,084 bytes)
30. 16:39, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,139 bytes) (Removed category)
31. 16:09, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,167 bytes) (Added & removed category.)
32. 18:00, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,160 bytes) (Correction of spelling mistake,)
33. 03:19, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,159 bytes)
34. 02:39, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,169 bytes)
35. 02:35, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,140 bytes)
36. 02:30, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,112 bytes) (Categorized)
37. 02:12, 9 September 2007 . . Bennyboyz3000 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,965 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 79.72.223.160; Test edits.)
38. 02:12, 9 September 2007 . . 79.72.223.160 (Talk | block) (1,979 bytes)
39. 23:11, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,965 bytes)
40. 23:09, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,962 bytes) (Categorized article)
41. 20:17, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,935 bytes) (References - Added category)
42. 01:36, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,905 bytes)
43. 01:29, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,905 bytes) (References)
44. 01:22, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,837 bytes)
45. 01:12, 8 September 2007 . . 79.64.170.118 (Talk | block) (1,825 bytes)
46. 21:56, 30 August 2007 . . 86.137.47.240 (Talk | block) (1,317 bytes)
47. 04:10, 25 July 2007 . . Alaibot (Talk | contribs | block) (1,412 bytes) (Robot: tagging uncategorised page)
48. 23:09, 9 July 2007 . . 80.41.103.203 (Talk | block) (1,379 bytes)
49. 03:19, 2 July 2007 . . Fulhamguy1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,379 bytes) (?Created page with '== Viscount Clandfield == Viscount Clandfield, of Clewer Within in the Royal County of Berkshire, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It ...')

BTW, what about Baron Clandfield — is that kosher? (I know it's not wikified, but is it genuine?) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. More socks to be banned. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help required to revert two bad page moves.

Greetings,

You helpfully adjusted a couple of categories that I was reorganising a few weeks ago so I'm hoping you may be sympathetic to my plight.

I've made a mistake with some page moves (not following correct procedure) and hope you can revert them. The actions to put things right are:

1. Rename Moravians Church -> Moravians (religion)
2. Delete Moravians Church
3. Rename Moravian Church (temp) -> Moravian Church
4. Delete Moravian Church (temp)
5. Ensure Moravian Church redirects to Moravians (religion)

You can be sure I'll use the correct procedure next time!

Many thanks,

-Arb. 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hope I did what you intended, but it looks OK to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All is as it should be once again. Thanks. -Arb. 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pastor Wayne

If he was unblocked at this point, would you still seek a community ban? (See: User talk:Pastorwayne#Re-Indefinitely blocked) I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to notify you, but it seems Vassyanna beat me to it : )

I'm tentative about it, but I'm willing to WP:AGF on the short term. However, I'm holding him tightly to his statement. So we'll see. You are, of course, free to start whatever discussion/request as you choose. - jc37 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(reposted after edit conflict) Sorry for not replying sooner, but I didn't spot from Vassanya's notice that there was an unblock request. As per my comment on PW's talk page, I'm not going to wheel-war, but I do not think that it was appropriate to unblock an editor who had been heavily engaged in sockpuppetry to evade a block.

I won't at this stage seek a community ban, but that's only because I am suffering a bit of admin burnout due to being caught up in an arbcom case between two groups of POV -warriors, and I don't have the energy for another bureaucratic process. But if someone else did the spadework, I'd still support a commnity ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been reblocked with User:Navou's assent.

That said, the user has had at least 5 hours with that IP unblocked. We may need to look for socks created in that time. - jc37 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reblock. Roundhouse0 (talk · contribs) has some monitoring pages with which zie has been mounting a regular sockpatrol, so I'll see if that can be stepped up again. Hopefully, more socks have not been created, but we;ll see! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Typo: "but the existence of non-trivial coverage".[16] Tyrenius 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'd caught it as you posted, but thanks for the very prompt heads-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:72.69.220.166

Hi, I see you used an indefinite block here, would it be possible to shorten it for, say, 6 months to 1 year? I don't like the idea of having indef blocked IPs hanging around, since people move and they eventually get rotated :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have just shortened the block to one month. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Category:Afghan politicians

Actually I have provided an expanded explanation now. So if you could please place it back that would be great. Thanks. -- Behnam 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Behnam, I don't think you understood what I wrote on your talk page. If you had more reasons to offer, you could have offered them this week in the CfD you opened on Sept 17. But that CfD was closed with a consensus, so regardless of whether you have new reasons, that issue is now done. As I wrote on your talk page, you may make a new nomination in a few months if you feel that something has changed, but not now. We can't keep on endlessly discussing the same thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistani singers & Afghanistani musicians

Hi. About a month ago we had a discussion on a move from Afghanistani singers ---> Afghan singers and Afghanistani musicians ---> Afghan musicians. Please see herefor Afghanistan singers and here for Afghanistani musicians. As you can so the consensus was to opppose and keep the categories as Afghanistani singers and Afghanistan musicians. Yet the admin mistakenly moved it to "Afghan musicisn/singers". Can you please correct this? Thanks. -- Behnam 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, so far as I can see there is nothing to correct. The renaming accurately reflected the way that the two CfDs were closed as "rename"; as per the debates, this tallies with the naming used in the current Constitution of Afghanistan, in the Constitution of Afghanistan (1990), Constitution of Afghanistan (1987), Constitution of Afghanistan (1976), Constitution of Afghanistan (1964), Constitution of Afghanistan (1923). If you want to challenge the renaming, you can ask for a deletion review, but I don't see any grounds for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am from Afghanistan and so are the people that voted and we understand the terms Afghan and Afghanistani better and we understand the politics involved. The constitution was only written in 2004. Prior to this everyone had their ethnic group on their passport. It will most likely change again because everyone knows we are not Afghans, we are Afghanistani. Due to the conflicts, people chose Afghan in the constitution for unity purposes but that isn't working out so this constitution which has only been here for 3 years will soon be changed anyway. The correct term is Afghanistani and the votes were to oppose the merge, just add up the numbers. -- 22:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, it doesn't matter who is from where: the decision has been made. It's done.

Also, CfD is not a vote-count: the arguments are weighed, not the number of people who show up. As I wrote above, if you want to challenge the renaming, you can ask for a deletion review, but I don't see any grounds for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair. You are taking sides and ignoring everything we are trying to tell you! The government in Afghanistan for the past 200 years has been run by Afghans and is a fascist one that wants to steal other's identity and impose their name (Afghan) on the non-Afghans and you are siding with them by ignoring all of our arguments! We are not Afghans! Stop calling us that! We are Afghanistani! Most of these singers are not Afghan! We are trying to tell you that and we are being ignored! -- 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beh-nam (talk • contribs)

Behnam, there is no point in complaining to me, or to any other admin. Even if I agreed with you, I cannot simply undo the results of a CfD debate. As above, if you want to challenge the decision, you can do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry its very frustrating that people don't understand the facts. I'll try that instead. Thanks. -- Behnam 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

Hello, BrowhHairedGirl. A week or so ago I posted a cfr proposing that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed pretty quickly. I've noticed that my cfr displays as a cfd on the category's talk page. I was wondering why it was closed so quickly and what caused it to be displayed as a cfd. Thanks. Citadel18080 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Citadel18080. Sorry, I made an error in the notice at Category talk:Homophobia, labelling it as a deletion nomination rather than a renaming, and I have now fixed it. As you will see, there is a link in the notice box to the CfR discussion, where I explain the reason for the speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Citadel18080 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block please

Vandalism account User:212.85.1.38. Baronetcy edits reverted by Counter-Rev; Other reversions need to be done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted a few more bits of vandalism, and blocked the IP for 72 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be an optimist. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If this was a registered user, I would definitely have imposed an indef-block as a vandal-only account. However, per the notice at User talk:212.85.1.38, this is a shared IP address, and a block on it may impede many legitimate unregistered users; Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block_lengths says that "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". If the problem persists, I guess that it may be appropriate to implement a longer anon-only block on the IP, but that appears to be reserved for particularly extreme problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Coram Deo

Did you ever or do you still attend Coram Deo Academy? --In His service Hodie Dodie 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in this incarnation, and (so far as I am aware) not in any previous incarnation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder whether that school admits people who have been touched by his noodly appendage? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

free copyright images

I seen your discussion on Kittybrewers talkpage, in connection with that I e-mailed Sinn Féin in feb 2006 in regards to use images or content from their Website for use on another wiki, and posted the reply here in which they state that any content of their site is public domain and can be reproduced.--Padraig 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I just looked at some of the Irish and British parties:

• Fianna Fáil says "the content of this website is copyright of Fianna Fáil"
• Fine Gael appears to say nothing about copyright
• The Irish Labour Party has a copyright notice at the bottom of every page
• The British Labour Party appears to say nothing about copyright
• the Conservatives retain copyright on what they own, but point out that they don't own the copyright on all of their site's content
• The LibDems have something to say about privacy, but nowt that I can see about copyright
• The SNP claims copyright where it can

... so I don't think that we can assume that other parties follow Sinn Fein's public domain approach. more individual approaches will be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sinn Fein site also carries the same notice, but I think that applies the site design itself, as most sites would carry such a notice.--Padraig 09:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably true, but we can't assume that others intend their copyright to be limited in that way. Without a clear disclaimer of copyright such as the one you received, I think we have to assume that copyright is claimed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you fancy the task of e-mailing them all to see what response if any you get.--Padraig 09:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's something I have intended to do for ages! But now it looks like I have volunteered myself, so I'll see if I can find time over the next few days. Well done for pushing me (just as I took the opportunity to push Kittybrewster in a similar direction), though sadly it seems that he's not well enough. Hoist by my own petard! I can see a few technical issues, which I'd like to talk through with you later if you have time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure just drop me a message or e-mail anytime, I would be glad to help if I can.--Padraig 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Scottish Government has an images section which states that they can be used "use by the media or other organisations as illustrations to accompany information on the process and function of government. Crown Copyright applies. Any pictures downloaded from this section should be used appropriately and within context" [17] Astrotrain 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With Crown Copyright don't you still need to obtain permission before you can use them, although they should be ok under fair usage.--Padraig 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CELTICROVER

You may want to check out the contributions [18] of User:CELTICROVER. He's becoming a bit of a nuisance on (mostly Irish) articles adding in fictional stuff about himself. Scolaire 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor nuisance, but that of low-level silliness in new users sometimes leads to responsible editing and sometimes it's a prelude to more systematic disruption. I have a bad feeling about any editor who uses an uppercase username, but I hope that's misplaced. There is no sign of any edits from CELTICROVER today, but please let me know if there is any more trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Scolaire 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Page That Wouldn't Die...

Has been resurrected yet again at List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. My feeling is that the reorganisation isn't enough to save it from a G4, but it's different enough that I don't really want to delete it without a second opinion. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I had already deleted it by the time I rec'd your message (as a re-creation, citing the AfD in June. I think that despite some differences in content, the problems of maintaining a huge list of living people still apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for the clarification - its appreciated.Traditional unionist 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I haven't yet made any assessment either way on that point, and I'm sorry that my first clumsily-worded comment wasn't clear enough, but glad to hear that the the clarification helped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness

please block User:User44130. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Now blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How about User:162.82.215.199 ?? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

162.82.215.199 (talk · contribs) doesn't look like a PW-sock, at least not to my eyes. Can you explain why you think it might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs

The proposal with these was to include both predecessor parties (though granted I didn't originally make that explicit on the category page). If anything, I'd have thought that the Unionists would be the questionable inclusion, if either was problematic: why wouldn't one want to include the ur-Tories? Or do we just have a miscommunication here? On a related note, the Category:Conservative MP (UK) stubs are oversized again, if you have any further thoughts on what's the best (or least worst) axis on which to re-split... Alai 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, put me in the "please don't reply here" camp. I must get a template or something for that... Alai 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

comments regarding Sandra Gidley MP article

I have taken to monitoring and editing this article as it has been repeatedly vandalised and despite my requests for it to be protected from further editing this has not happened. The statement that her majority was reduced in 2005 is true however adds nothing to the article and the statement that she "made clear she no longer relished her role" is untrue and therefore I am sure that it could not be substantiated.

Other malicious edits that have taken place have accused her of endorsing drug taking to 18 year olds and misrepresenting her position in the removal of Charles Kennedy using emotive language to cast this MP in a very poor light.

Whilst I no this does not really matter I would like to point out that she is my MP and has been a great help to me when I have written to her so I feel that protecting her from malicious online attavcks is the least I can do.

If I have inadvertantly caused an incomplete sentance or some other mistake I do appolgise.

yours

Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 (talk) 86.143.198.223

User talk:Geraintrdavies

I think you have been ott here. Going from a welcome message to an indefinite block in 3 hours? It looks like newbie biting to me. Remember that new users don't necessarily understand how wikipedia works. Catchpole 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a round of applause for BrownHairedGirl for going the extra mile in making Wikipedia look even more like a cult of insanity with such a ridiculous block without so much as a discussion. Rules? What rules?

• BRAVO* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

There must be a barnstar somewhere for "Worst Admin Act of the Week"