User talk:BrownHairedGirl

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

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

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Happy New Year!

Dear BrownHairedGirl,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

You're Invited!

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Talk back

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at 98.113.248.40's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(second response)

Walled garden

Please read my comment about the walled garden, an image I took literally, explaining that it has a bell to enter: an article's talk. Please cite "clique" or reword it, - to may observation there are many editors active around Bach's music who work independently. I see no need to place the whole set of articles (hundreds of them) under restrictions. Who would monitor that? If Francis would adhere to simple 1RR, as I'd expect from any editor, all would be fine. I could give you more examples of the past where that was missing but don't want to bloat ANI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gerda Arendt, but I am not going to change my comment.

My experience of classical music articles in general is that they are zealously guarded by a set of cliques, i.e. groups of editors who resent incomers and try to squeeze out those who don't conform to their existing consensus. That's not how en.wp is supposed to work.

I did of course read your defence of the walled garden before commenting on it. The notion that an articles or set of articles has a bell to enter is wholly contrary to the general principle of en.wp as the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The only point of such a bell at the gate in a wall is so that other editors can seek permission to enter, and that this permission can be refused. From whom are they seeking permission, other than a clique who claim WP:OWNership?

As to who would patrol 1RR, the answer is simply the community, as applies whenever 1RR is imposed on any topic. That's how it is monitored in all the contentious areas where arbcom has imposed 1RR on a topic.

If you would expect any editor to uphold 1RR, then why do you seek to apply it to only one editor in this case? If all the other editors uphold it anyway, then a 1RR rule would not restrict them in any way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested where you met that very general clique behaviour, because I work in classical music since 2009 and have not met it. I know only one editor who moves a featured article without a move request and when reverted still doesn't seek the consensus of the community but creates 25k bytes of talk page discussion, which is not how I want to spend my volonteered time. - I am on voluntary 1RR myself, just for politeness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are on voluntary 1RR, what would be the problem with compulsory 1RR? Why exactly do you oppose it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language. I wonder why you understood my "comment" as an "oppose". If I oppose something it's thinking of editors of classical music as a clique, - maybe I don't understand that word either. In German, it has negative connotations which are not justified for the editors of classical music with whom I work well. Back to my question above which you didn't answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying harder. You say: "My experience of classical music articles in general is that they are zealously guarded by a set of cliques, i.e. groups of editors who resent incomers and try to squeeze out those who don't conform to their existing consensus." You speak of experience, please give one example, because I have no idea what makes you think so. - If you catch me resenting an "incomer", ever, please tell me and I will go and try to amend the situation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My two reverts: the first delinking a link to a redirect to an article that was linked before. The second: restoring to bold a redirect (didn't even see the link was back). Call that bad behaviour if you have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, c'mon Gerda Arendt. You have been editing long enough to know to use "show changes" to check the effect of an edit. If you are reverting, it's important to check what you are reverting.
In that case, you didn't spot all the effects of your edit, and I'm sure it was a good faith mistake ... but if you want other editors held to the 1RR standard, why not you too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather long on Wikipedia, and had only one 3RR edit war on my talk. I never said I don't want to be held to 1RR, although I prefer to do things voluntarily, - as I'd hope from others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, everyone would prefer to do 1RR voluntarily. All I am saying is that if it is going to be imposed, it should be imposed on everyone editing those articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly show me one instance of edit-warring where Francis is not involved? (And don't tell me removing a duplicate link, even twice, is edit warring, - it's just applying the MoS). - My new year's greeting was: The peace bell by Yunshui: let's make 2016 the year of the reader and of peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "one instance of edit-warring where Francis is not involved" – sure: Gerda edit-warring with Dgljr5121973 (less than 30 minutes between the two reverts) 23:14, 23 April 2016 - 23:42, 23 April 2016

Context: Dgljr5121973 is the gardener of the "remote passions" walled garden I alluded to at ANI. This is what happens when two such gardeners meet on a piece of land they want to build their own wall around: edit war. IMVHO it is the walled garden concept that has to go from the Bach sacred music field, and all other solutions offered thus far will, as far as I can assess the situation, prove to be ineffective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the Weimarer Passion history, I see me gardening, you (Francis) gardening, others gardening, without a wall. I think that is the best solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope BrownHairedGirl doesn't mind us trying to sort out some issues on her talk page, the dialogue may be refreshing.

Of the three "walled garden" gardeners (Gerda, Mathsci, Dgljr) Dgljr is the least problematic (Dgljr's cursory approach to WP:V is problematic, but that's not the topic here). Let's compare:

Moving (-8,560)‎ out of Dgljr's "remote passions" walled garden to another page → not problematic
Moving (-2,330)‎ out of Gerda's "church cantata" walled garden to another page → huge problem
Moving (-1,095)‎ out of Mathsci's "organ preludes" walled garden to another page → huge problem

Of these Gerda knew me best: not recognising me for what I do is not problematic for me as such, but it gave a sad spectacle at ANI. Gardening without walls (like I do) is imho better for the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to agree more than you may realize, - I said "without a wall" just above. Moving content from a cantata was no "huge problem" (when there's an explanation and/or link to the missing context), - moving the whole article without discussion was. I suggest to continue on articles' talk instead of here, as already begun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid talking about behavior on article talk pages. Gerda going defensive in her walled gardens is a behavioral issue. WP:OWN was mentioned above by BHG, before I entered the conversation. All of it was dismissed by Gerda, with statements that on closer inspection were a bit flawed. What I tried to say with my examples above: Gerda, please, stop building walls around gardens, with you deciding who may enter. Your edit war with Dgljr (diffs above) sprang from Dgljr forcing an entry into one of your walled gardens; my editing Weimarer Passion (-8,560, see above) was not problematic while it was not your walled garden to begin with. My moving the BWV 4 article to an article title more in line with applicable policy would never have been problematic if you hadn't gone to defensive with forumshopping/canvassing and whatnot. Gerda, are you prepared to behave on Bach's church cantata articles less as if they are a garden where you are responsible for the walls? I assume that is a yes, while you say that "without a wall" is what you prefer. If that's something learned through the ANI episode I'm more than fine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update on "My moving the BWV 4 article to an article title more in line with applicable policy would never have been problematic if you hadn't gone to defensive with forumshopping/canvassing and whatnot": the behaviour continues, " ... just stop arguing, better go outside ..." is the hardly veiled recommendation given on the user talk page of someone who had commented for the first time on the article's talk page a few hours earlier, disagreeing with Gerda on the article title. @Gerda Arendt: please remember what you said regarding "without a wall". Your behaviour shows otherwise.

Further, "...what we - the editors of classical music - then did was: follow the NBA..." sounds kind of arrogant in my ears: speak for yourself will you. Afaik Wikipedia article titles rather follow BWV than NBA. "we - the editors of classical music" is of course also all wrong from the walled garden perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up one of Gerda's walled gardens (see elaborate discussion here, especially near the end "I, however, created an article with a short name (Ferruccio Busoni works) ..." ... a thinly veiled attempt to defend "her" version of the redirect with an ownership logic): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A birthday today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, I still forgot to mention the kafkaesque walled garden. Defending a canvass operation by indicating you were canvassing to a friend ([11]) makes it only worse from the viewpoint of the WP:CANVASS guidance (later I learnt "friend" was probably rather used ironically in the context, [12], but that doesn't diminish the inopportune defense of the canvass operation). @Gerda Arendt: please familiarize yourself with the WP:CANVASS guidance, and live up to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis (apologies to you, BrownHairedGirl, for abusing your talk), you quote a discussion but didn't quote what seems most important to me: If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith ..., just imagine ..., right, Bgwhite? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Are you accusing me of not assuming good faith in any way? Maybe look at it this way: I wouldn't take the time, extensively and repeatedly, to explain to you what goes wrong, rephrasing policy, providing links to it, etc... if I weren't assuming good faith. Whatever I write on talk pages, I always think: we'll collaborate again on this project, so take the time to explain things properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a walled garden is not assuming good faith, - I introduced it with irony, sorry, my mistake. I accuse nobody (show me where I accused someone, and will think about it and probably apologize), - to think I'm accusing you is also not assuming good faith. Things go wrong, yes, I agree, but could we focus on the things that went wrong? Please explain why you'd think that the article Ferruccion Busoni works (as it was) was no service to readers and had to go, or be changed? Why would you ever want to link with a full lengthy title such as "List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni", - all these many characters, many times? Those are the things I don't understand. What you wrote above about my assumed irony amused me. BrownHairedGirl, would you be willing to (informally) mediate? I don't feel understood, and I am sure, Francis, I might understand you better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt I think you pinged the wrong person as the quote is from B's talk page. My mom has always called me just B, but most people use "BG" along with some choice swear words. Interestingly, my wife affectionally calls me her Spanish: puta. Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you because our friendship was a topic above, "later I learnt "friend" was probably rather used ironically in the context", - no it wasn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Busoni

For hopefully better understanding, I start by explaining my point of view, example Busoni. When I realized that Busoni's 150 anniversary of birth came up, I thought about how to celebrate it and discussed that with the main editor of the biography, Smerus. I gave Busoni a navbox, {{Ferruccio Busoni}}. I looked at the related lists, including compositions and adaptions. I moved them to standard titles and cleaned up after the moves. I found the lists long, loaded with details, full of duplicate links, other links missing. I thought that an interface of selected works (works with an article, or works mentioned in the biography) would be a good idea, discussed with Smerus again, and created it. - Nobody disagreed, only you, Francis. Please let me understand. - I think that even when improved in quality, the long lists are not good for the average reader. What do you (all) think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got Mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the William Donald Patrick, Lord Patrick page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this series of edits[13]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Tod cats

Hi, I understand why you did this change from British to English but I think it is another example where categorisation rules can cause problems. Tod's parents were Scottish, he himself was born in London but spent much of his childhood in Scotland. It was for that reason we opted for British rather than English or Scottish - it just opens up a massive can of worms regarding nationality vs ethnicity etc. Of course, FAs can be changed just as much as a stub but I'm not convinced that it is a great idea in this instance. Then again, I am well aware that the categorisation cabal often has rules that seem distinctly weird to me and inconsistent in application! - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush

Fair enough, nationality is a little blurred in that case. So I have self-reverted.

And there is no Cabal :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is! please see here - Penguins

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art collector categories

Hi, I see you're whiling away a fine afternoon on these. They are rather compromised by ambiguity between the nationality of the collectors and the (rather more encyclopedic imo) nationality of the art - see eg Chinese & Japanese. I don't quite know how to handle this - many of the articles are vague on the collections, & I don't know that we want a rash of "Collectors of foo art" cats. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod

On a quick sample check, most of the usage seemed to be by nationality of collector rather than by nationality of art.

As I was working on them, I was once again the rueing the folly of the use of demonyms for people; they cause ambiguity with ocupations like this, and they have many NPOV problems. But every time I raise that issue, I get nowhere, so there it is :(

We do have some "Collectors of foo art" cats in Category:Art collectors. I'm undecided on whether they are a good idea, because many private collectors are quite eclectic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors for whom it is defining (and I'm sure it isn't for many in the cats) tend to have 1-2 specialisms. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Drollinger

Page has been full-protected nearly two years; any chance that it could be unprotected, as a test if nothing else? Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyttend

I had forgotten about that page, but I see that its talk page has been v quiet since I protected it 22 months ago, and the subsequent RFC. Given the storms which surrounded it at the time, I have been a little cautious, and reduced it to semi-protected.[14]

I hope that is OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've never heard of him before; I ran across it via a link at WP:HD to a list of indefinitely-and-fully-protected mainspace pages. Most of them were redirects or other non-articles, but several were articles like Drollinger; my goal was basically to reduce the number of such articles if possible. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I feel that on a number of occasions in the past, I have treated you poorly. I wish to apologize to you for this and ask for your forgiveness. I am trying harder to be kind to everyone on Wikipedia. Written communications is a difficult process when you don't know the person you are dealing with in "real life". If we had personally met, I think some of my behaviour would make more sense to you. But we have not, and so I can see that some things I have written would have upset you. So, I am sorry for acting that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Hello! You seem to be at your keyboard at the moment; please do what you admin-ly can to make [15] (see also [16]; too bad the deleting IP seems not to have given anyone a heads-up) go away. I have contacted Oversight but sometimes they can take a while and this is a doozy. (I did a quick online search to vet potential support for this proposition and found none.) Thanks--nice to meet you! Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julietdeltalima

AFAICS, each IP has done only one edit. What action do you think is needed, against which IP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the 2600...c580 IP introduced the nuke-able allegation. The 98....60 IP helpfully reverted it and can't be faulted for that. I am just trying to word a talk-page message in the most productive way to notify the user at the 98... IP that, in the future, if xe sees a BLP-related allegation of this magnitude, the situation should be escalated for revdel and potential oversight. Thanks for looking at this; my apologies if I made things unduly confusing. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Julietdeltalima: the BLP issue was serious, but it was promptly reverted, and you did right to warn the IP[17]. I have requested oversight of that edit. Good catch!

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is now suppressed, and the page protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ieuan Wyn Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to represent Ynys Môn until the United Kingdom general election, 2001|2001 general election]], when he stood down to concentrate on the Welsh Assembly. While a [[Parliament of the United

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed[18] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi BHG. If you're not busy could you take a look at Talk:TheLiberak.ie. A user has flagged the article at Dispute Resolution, but nobody has bitten yet and I'm not sure that's the right response anyway to obvious COI from SPA accounts. Would you advise AN/I, AN/Edit warring, WP:SPI or some other mechanism? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun

Did you mean Talk:TheLiberal.ie? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did! Me fail English? That's unpossible! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bastun.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... that's a rat's nest of SPAs, with such a strong whiff of COI that I am inclined to apply WP:DUCK.

I note that the article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheLiberal.ie, and that only the SPAs want to keep it. So it's unlikely to stay, and the AFD is ripe for closure.

If it is deleted, then the problems are history. If not, then we'll need to look again at what to do. Some sort of protection might be in order, and/or a trip to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I see that the article has been deleted. Can we mark this as problem solved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG. Yup, all good, thanks for the advice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Role-playing video games by year

Hello! Thank you for offering help here. Would be grateful if you can help create a group merge nomination. Every subcategory should be merged to Category:Role-playing games. Thank you very much. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdrianGamer

Merged only to Category:Role-playing games? Surely they should also be merged to a by-year category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The by-year category isn't useful as well. We don't have this kind of "by-year" category for other genres. Actually it should be merged to Category:Role-playing video games, not just Role-playing games. I am sorry. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: Surely you don't want to lose the by-year categorisation?

For example, shouldn't Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975 be merged to Category:1975 video games, Category:Role-playing games introduced in 1975 and Category:Role-playing video games? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you are saying about merging them together in the "RPG video game by-year" category. The year category is a non-diffusing category, so they should be present in the article regardless of whether they are merged or not. I don't think we need to merge them to Category:Role-playing games introduced in 1975. Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games excludes video games. This is their category, so WP:VG articles aren't usually involved. They shouldn't as well, since they are quite different. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All video game articles should already have Category:1975 video games categories. The way the user who added these games went is they converted Category:Role-playing video games to Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975 without touching the year category ([19], e.g. [20]). In other words, they diffused the genre category by year. And that's what VG consensus seems to be is against - diffusing genre by year. Role-playing genre is the only genre diffused this way. None of the video game articles should have "role-playing" (non-video game) categories, so those ones shouldn't be affected. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists/ethnographers/folklorists categorised as scientists

Hi, I think you'll be able to shed some light on the discussion at User_talk:Hugo999#Scientist.3F. It may well be one that needs to go to CFD but I am due in hospital for a hip replacement & bone grafts in the next few hours, so I'm not best placed to initiate such a thing. If you have the time to review that short thread then I'd be grateful. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush

Sorry for the slow reply, but I have just added my 2cents-worth to that discussion.[21]

V sorry to hear that you are facing such major surgery, but I do hope that it all goes well for you. Several friends have had hip replacemnets, and it was life-changingly good for them. Fingers crossed that yours is as positive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not slow at all. Thanks very much for the input and the good wishes. I'm not bothered about the replacement (routine) but the grafts are an issue because of the amount of dead bone. Should be out in three or four days but am likely to be even more doped-up than usual. That and 12 weeks of boredom might spell trouble - it's a pretty lethal combination for someone who edits here. I shall try to be careful. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: painkillers are fun. I did a prolonged morphine trip earlier in the year, after a broken shoulder, and it was lovely.<grin>
Anyway, doped up and bored? Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a mass of routine categorisation, of the sort that is too repetitive to be tolerable without drugs.</dont-let-editors-escape-work-just-cos-they-are-ill-slavedriver-on-the-loose> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And I've been on a daily 8 - 12 Tramadol for 13 years now, so I'll need a big morphine hit. See you in a few days. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boston Board of Aldermen members

Hi there, I noticed that you closed the discussion on the Category:Boston Board of Aldermen members. However, I feel that was a hasty close. Only two people had specifically !voted and a discussion on the topic had only just begun. I am requesting that you re-open it so that a proper discussion on the merits of the category can occur.--TM 10:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nambia/TM

I am surprised that you missed the instruction in my edit notice to "Please help me to locate what you are referring to, by including links and diffs in your message".

Anyway, I presume that you are referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 16#Category:Boston_Board_of_Aldermen_members. That discussion had been open for the full 7 days, which is when they are usually closed. Three other editors had participated in the discussion, none of whom supported your proposal or were persuaded by your rationale.

Sometimes that's the way it goes. It may still seem to you to be a good idea, and you are quite entitled to that view, but on this occasion you have not persuaded anyone else. C'est la vie.

Best wishes, -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only two other editors commented and only one made a formal vote. That is not consensus. Likewise, I had just posted a information to help inform others on the topic and less than six hours later you closed the discussion. I'm not upset that it is being kept; I am upset that you closed the discussion just as an actual discussion was beginning to start.--TM 11:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nambia/TM, your nomination was based on the assertion that this is a distinction without a difference. Some editors chose to !vote, others just to comment, but they are unanimous that the distinction notes a significant difference. Your central proposition is rejected.

I really don't see how your final comment addresses that issue ... but to avoid any doubt, I will relist the discussion and leave it open for another week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 25#Category:Boston_Board_of_Aldermen_members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category of Members of the Bundestag

Hello, all interwiki-links which I have removed, are at Wikidata. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Färber (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Färber (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks, Färber

I see you have done it for Category:Members of the Bundestag by state and all its sub-categories. That's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland has been nominated for discussion

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Hong Kong politicians

Category:Lists of Hong Kong politicians, which you created, is now empty.

There is also Category:Lists of political office-holders in Hong Kong, which could be placed inside it to populate it, but if there are no other contents I am not sure it is worth keeping, – Fayenatic London 08:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic london

Thanks for the notification.

I have reverted[22] the removal of the sub-category. This appears to be the work of a relatively new editor, unfamiliar with the broader category structures. There may also have been other content which was removed; I dunno yet.

In any case, this is part of the established series Category:Lists of politicians by nationality, so WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. So I have contested the speedy[23]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-moving categories against consensus

User:Graham11 has been mass-moving women-categories to female-categories against consensus. On July 1 I requested that he reverse his edits but he has not been active since I posted to his talk-page. Is there anything that can be done about this? I would appreciate a response on my talk-page since I do not follow yours. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottawahitech

Thanks for the notification. I have posted[24] on User:Graham11's talk page to notify them that I am reverting all their bold moves.

Please lemme know if there is any recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the naming by Chinese people

In Hong Kong and Macau media, the pro-Beijing camp is just called "建制派", and it is NOT an abbreviation of "親建制派". The Chinese name need NOT be a direct translation of English name. It is offending to include "親建制派" but not "建制派" in this article. 182.239.79.93 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]