User talk:BrownHairedGirl

02:35 Wednesday 22 May 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.

Fatimah

Just wanted to let you know that I unprotected the article. There's an attempt to get it to good article status and nobody noticed that it was protected. It's hard to claim a stable article if it's in permanent protection. Feel free to change back if you think it should be kept protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was left semi-protected because User:Klaksonn, who is now blocked, was inclined to use socks, but that was 6 weeks ago ... so you're quite right to try listing the protection at this point and see if it's now free from that sort of attack. However it is highly contentious topic, so I won't be too surprise if it faces more attacks. But let's see how it goes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping the discussion will continue on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Was I Blocked

i know i accidentily vandalised Iron Maiden but it wasnt my fault i was writing positive remarks about Bruce Dikinson with my friend, Scott, then my other friend pressed many keys and clicked save. Please forgive me and my friends.
sincerily, Nolimitownass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolimitownass (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2007

You can use the {{unblock}} template on your own talk page to request unblocking, but you had better come up with a better reason for unblocking. (If you save an edit you didn't intend to save, you can undo it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orange Order

What time frame do you recommend I give on this issue[1]. I have refs regarding triumphalist marches and the OO's anti Catholicisim that could be used here. I left this notice on talk page as per your suggestion during the page protection thanks. BigDunc 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give it a few days, say until the end of weekend. TU doesn't seem to be around much, but if he doesn't do the work by then, you can't wait forever.

I'm glad that you are going about things in this way. TU does seem to me have some potentially valid concerns, but has so far been slow to do the spade work of getting the refs to start discussing an agreed version. I don't want to see the article becoming another edit war, so if you can give TU a reasonable time to respond, there are no grounds for him simply jumping in and reverting if he doesn't contribute and doesn't like the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats great I will wait till Monday. I have no intention of getting into an edit war. BigDunc 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Ireland-road-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What bureaucracy of a five-day delay? It's a speediable type, so once it was double-checked to make sure it wasn't going to cause problems (such as "is this for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic?"), it could have been created immediately. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at WP:WSS/D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Islands project

I thought from your recent edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. --MacRusgail 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but much as I like the Scottish Islands I don't think I'll get involved. I just dived in briefly when I saw that Category:Uninhabited islands could do with sub-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Constantinople

I really hate to ask for this but it appears the Constantinople page is on the school curriculum somewhere and has been vandalised several times a day for the past month. Would it be possible for you to limit the page to registered users only for a few weeks until it abates? Thanks. Galloglass 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I put two months semi-protection in it. With any luck they'll have moved onto something else by the times that expires. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Galloglass 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"County" CFD's

Hi, I just closed all of your CFD nominations from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6, and I had a question. After cutting and pasting to WP:CFD/W, I saw some potential problems, which I removed. Can you take a look at this diff and let me know if my edits are ok? There were a few instances of "Foo in County Bar to Foo in County County Bar" and "Foo in Bar to Foo in County County Bar". You'll see what I did in the diff. Thanks. --Kbdank71 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for closing them all (big job!), and for spotting and kindly fixing those glitches in my nomination. Your correction looks perfect, and sorry that it was necessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all.  :) --Kbdank71 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy God!

BHG, my extensive watch list has been utterly overwhelmed by your bots and semi-bots and gargantuan tools. No wonder you have clocked several zillion edits. When will the storm pass over?! (Sarah777 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, Cydebot isn't my bot, he's the bot who implements CfD decisions.

As for when it'll all be over:

"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."

<grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dublin Shopping Centre Articles

Oh, and I'd be very interested in your views on this: Talk:Shopping in Dublin (Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Ireland-geo-stubs

Hi BHG - just tp let you know I've deleted the misspelt redirect at T:Roscomon-geo-stub. Were you getting some sort of karmic revenge for the ireland-road-stub business, misspelling my ancestral homeland county? :) Grutness...wha? 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enuf, it wasn't worth keeping. Caused by karmic exhaustion, rather than revenge :( I'm not a revenge kinda person, even if I do sometmies growl at bureaucrats ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's you told — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sinebot, you are a hyperactive cretin. You have busily adding my sig to modifications I have been making to a CFD nomination, and I have been busy undoing said sigs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If Sinebot's bugging you, you may want to look at how to avoid its watchful bot eye! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It got you again! Bencherlite^Talk 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind that sort of thing: if I put in the wrong number of twiddles, it's kind of sinebot to add the datestamp, although it is far too quick (is it tracking me specifically?). And it's a dumb bot in its inability to distinguish between an unsigned comment and the work of a CfD nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BHG, the bots ARE out to get you because of all the work you create for them through your painstaking nominations at CfD. (deliberately unsigned to see whether Sinebot is listening in to me too)

Sinebot is evidently not watching you, or at last not watching my talk page. It's a plot! I tell you, its' all a plot, involving the International Marxist Conspiracy, The Forces of Reaction, The Spanish Inquisition, the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, the International Jewish Conspiracy, The Muslim Threat, and Tuvalu Secret Service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

		The XfD Barnstar
		Awarded to BHG for all her careful hard work in nominating and commenting at CfD, most recently displayed with a veritable mountain of Irish county categories. BencherliteTalk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CfRs for Media in the Northern Territory

Thanks for bundling the above. I was planning on doing it myself except:

• Some people don't like bundled XfD's. In this case as one is a parent of the others I still would have bundled except for;
• I didn't know how! I wasn't sure of the correct format so it was better to be safe than sorry.

Thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

category help

thanks for your help with Category:Alliances, and also for giving me that template information. Your page is interesting...you look like a good administrator. I may contact you again for some help on different things. thanks again. --Steve, Sm8900 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed

Hello BrownHairedGirl: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi IZAK, yes I'm doing OK, and hope you are too. Sorry, but this is not an area where I have much expertise. I'll enjoy reading the articles, but I don't think I am in a position to add much to them, and definitely not to start them. I thought of asking my rabbi friend, but he's very English, and not much intersted in Celtic countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi, I am working on the Jewish history of Wales. Northern Ireland is covered by Ireland... I have already written most of the Scottish equivalent. --MacRusgail 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Please would you semi-protect this controversial page 1 month. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! Definite WP:BLP problems here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one

moved from user page

BHG, for your humongous work on Irish Categories I hereby award my first ever barnstar; the The Irish Barnstar of National Merit: (Sarah777 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your help

Many thanks for helping tag those categories! --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! By the time I got there, you had done most of them by hand. Sorry for not spotting your request sooner (it's v quick with WP:AWB). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

help on a survey

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I am extremely sorry to bother you, but I need some assistance on conducting a survery among Wikipedia contributors. I am a student of linguistics at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. In my MA thesis I would like to discuss some issues connected with Wikipedia. To get a wide perspective on the free encyclopedia, I would like to conduct a short survey among the contributors. Unfortunately, I am not yet fully acquainted with the system of Wikipedia and I don't really know how contact them all. I would be very grateful, if you could give me some advice on how to post the survey (it is a one page Word document with 5 questions) to the contributors. Thanks in advance, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberbogger (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 October 2007

I don't know any generic way of doing it, other than asking individual contributors, but you could try asking at the WP:HELPDESK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin help required with vandalism of nomination page

Hi BrownHairedGirl: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus (talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [2]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone else has reverted his changes and warned him, but I have added a further note of warning at User talk:Ludvikus#AfD_changes. I won't be watching the AFD, so please let me know if there is any further trouble at that AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the fine rules of WP. I'm involved now in a complex effort by very experienced Wikipedians to delete a set of articles. I therefore need asistance in seeing to it that there is a balance of fairness representing the other point of view. For example, I know that Wikipedia encvourages Boldness. What you call Moving was in fact a Good Faith effort to Rename an article. Best wishes, --Ludvikus 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Ludvikus#AfD_changes_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Protocols_of_Zion_.28imprints.29, where the discussion started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Upmerged baronets

I cam across Talk:Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet whose article has been upmerged. There was also a Talk:Sir John Miller, 3rd Baronet. How do we find and identify all the similar upmerged pages? - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any generalised way of looking for this sort of merger. The best way of looking out for this sort of thing is by monitoring your watchlist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither was on my watchlist. And corollary question, what do I do with them having found them? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversing a nomination on page

Hi BHG: A user is reverting the legitimate template on the Żydokomuna page [3] that is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism that is already underway, under the pretext that it is "mass filing" when this involves only three articles with duplicated content about Jewish Bolshevism. Your admin expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace and geese

		The Barnstar of Creativity
		For writing one of the funniest song lyrics I've heard or read, and thereby making editing here more enjoyable: In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the (insert chosen enemy) with joy and with mirth//And feeding their corpses to geese". – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read through the lyrics of Bogle's song, it was funny to be sure, but I have to admit that I wasn't entirely sure what made you suggest it as one of the funniest songs ..... until I reached the 11th section. :P Very nice indeed. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne?

Hi BHG, Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne? About three-quarters of the edits are vandalism or reversing vandalism at the moment. Once again, I suspect the battle is on some school syllabus somewhere hence, the heavy levels of vandalism for a battle that few remember any more. Nunquam Dormio 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for 2 months. Hopefully that'll be enough, but I don't like excluding well-intentioned anon IPs, and with any luck the mischief-makers will have moved onto something else in 2 months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the young shavers will soon be studying something else and vandalising elsewhere! I'm hoping that German experiment works and we can all spend our time doing more productive things. Nunquam Dormio 07:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat: Zim women writers

Hi there, I've asked for advice about Category:Zimbabwean women writers over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. You started the cat, so your suggestions would be particularly appreciated. Many thanks, JackyR | Talk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

You're the only Wikipedian whose been of any use regarding advice on how to proceed. Maybe that's because your a Girl - I mean that as a compliment - and I hope you accept that as such.

• There are quite a few articles up for deletion. And so there is much to be said in defending them. It appears to me that my "adversary" (often "men" attitudes) will not co-operate with me. I've tried to come to terms with him on his talk page - but he's not responded. As You know by now I'm sure, he finds my position as bizarre while I hold that his is one out of ignorance. Since there are so many articles involved which have been put up for proposed deletion, I need some guidance and assistance in expressing an opposing position. I do not think its Good for Wikipedia to just have that one paragraph by the Proposer which says why the articles should be deleted. I do not see why I should not be permitted to give an opposing paragraph to the readers and administrators, so they could make up their own minds. That, in fact, is the American way when it comes to our judicial system. I cannot imagine that Wikipedia Rules prohibit me from doing what I propose. I do not intend to delete anything. I merely want to put up the opposing anti-bizarre position. Can you advise?

Thank you, Peace promoting BrownHairedGirl, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for being so nice :)

The basic situation is that wikipedia makes its decisions by building consensus. The guideline Wikipedia:Consensus is well worth reading, but basically it means that we discuss things politely and try to reach agreement.

A with any discussions, there are some rules and guidelines about how we discuss things: see in particular WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:TPG, as well as WP:CHILL. In summary, make your point politely, don't attack anyone else (even if you feel that they have attacked you), and in discussions add your comments below other comments and sign it.

I'm afraid that you have got some of these things wrong, and I'll list sme of your mistakes here not to get at you, but to help explain how to get things right.

• You felt provoked, and got angry on a few occasions. Never do that; if you feel angered, take a break (see WP:CHILL)
• You added your comments in at above other comments, which is a bit like interrupting someone else's speech; don't do it. (see WP:TPG)
• You repeatedly criticised the motivations of other editors. Bad idea (see WP:NPA); you are required to assume good faith (see WP:AGF), which means assuming that the other person genuinely and honestly believes that that what they are suggested is a good idea
• You posted pictures and templates to the talk page, which is not allowed (see WP:TPG). Your comets should be made in plain text, with links as appropriate, but with other formatting (such as bold and italics) used only very very occasionally.

OK, so that's what you got wrong. What you need to do is to write your explanation of why you think that the article(s) should be kept: make sure it's polite, and that it discusses the issues and the arguments made by other people rather than the people themselves (for example, if you think that User:SomeoneWhoSaysNothingYouCanAgreeWith is a nasty person, you must still stay polite and explain why you have a better solution, and not attack that user, even if they have attacked you).

I'll make a further suggestion. You obviously feel strongly about this, which is fine, but that's not always the best situation in which to participate in a discussion (see WP:CHILL). So write what you think needs to be said, but as a draft, on your own computer or on a subpage of your own userpage (e.g. at User:Ludvikus/sandbox). When you have finished writing it, take a break from your computer for an a hour or two; eat a meal, have a bath, watch some TV, go for a walk, dig your garden, wash your car, or anything that takes your mind off the subject for a while (if you are really annoyed, stay away overnight). Then when you've had a break, go back and look at what you have written, and make sure that it really does come across as the friendly and thoughtful comments of someone who believes that there is a good reason for keeping he article, a reason which others have overlooked.

After a break, you may well feel that what you have written needs to be toned down a bit (I have often come back to a draft after a break like that and then decided that I should say nothing at all!) Once you reckon you have it right, then add it at the end of the discussion. If you do all that, and someone removes it, let me know and I'll try to help --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion (imprints)

1. I've tried to re-name that. But it appears I may have inadvertently violated some rule.
2. I wish to do this Protocols of Zion (imprints) → List of the Protocols of Zion (imprints)

• The intent is to have just that - a list - of all the notable imprints warranted. I cannot imagine that that would be deleted. Is there any reason why I cannot do that now? That would be a mere improvement to the article. It makes no sense to make me waite until deletion has been accomplished.
• Also, how am I supposed to make that change proposal on the already over-cramped deletion-proposal page? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words"

Dear BHG,

• It would be helpful if you were to intercede on my behalf regarding baseless charges by User:IZAK against me,
• He has charged, on the Jewish Bolshevism deletion proposal page, that I've used "obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words."
• I deny this as a reckless accusation that is in violation of Wikipedia policy.
• Please ask him either to account for this charge, or have him retract it as baseless. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where this allegation was made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [4] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [5]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, please don't stir things. Your comments about self-righteousness is a personal atyack. There has been some disruptive editing, but please don't provoke, even if you feel provoked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Club Competitions pages

Just noticed your editing of the templates set up for FH/LM/SO, I'm wondering is there any way you could make them viewable in full on the page, i.e. that they aren't collapsed and need to be clicked upon to view the contents. This happened before but I'm not sure how to change it. Owenmoresider 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They should only collapse if they are two or more other collapsible templates on the one page. Wikipedia:Collapsible tables says that there are only two options: making them auto-collapsed (if there are two or more on the page) or making them always collapsed when the page loads. In this case, many of the calls to the template (such as in Fermanagh GAA) have another template piggybacked in, so the collapse is unavoidable. It seems to me that this is probably a good thing, because it applies to so many nav boxes that the issues will have been well-debated before 2 was set as the threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lords of France

Hi, I'd appreciate your comments here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one very big mess. Time for some mass-PRODding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs someone who can use a bot. I know somebody like that. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One of these days :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dublin Shopping Centres

Hi, I replied to your last message on this talk page. Pathless 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Britain

Hi - do you know why was this category debate closed and a solution that had little support imposed? (Sarah777 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Discussion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 12#Category:History_of_Britain] at User talk:Kbdank71#History_of_Britain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

1. I suspect that any mistake in form I make in the above will be used by you as an excuse to Block me.
2. The Talk page reference you've sent me to is not helpful.
3. So I've asked you to explain further certain fine points of Format so that I may avoid any mistake which you might use as an excuse to block me.
4. Furthermore, what are you going to do about getting User:IZAK off my back?
5. During my Block by you he has expanded the charge against me that I even altered his words.
6. That charge is still pending. Having observed what I consider recklessness on your part, I am nnow forced to spend my time on Wikipedia Procedure, instead of defending the very important articles which User:IZAK has put up for deletion.
7. It is clear to me that he is guilty of Troll (Internet) in his behavior towards me.
8. It is your duty now to clear me of his trolling charge that I even altered his words. You already have investigated the matter and you know, and have so concluded, that I have not done any such thing, but merely been disruptive by posting my comments out of sequence.
9. Furthermore, his misleading, conclusory, false and dishonest, charge that I used that most famous Anglo-Saxon four-letter word (regarding the sexual act) is in fact a word he's using against me to discredit me.
10. At the very least, in light of you having blocked me for his provokations, I hope you have the decency to clean up after him.
11. I expect all those unfounded accusations by him to be deleted in accordance with the very same Talk page regulations you have asked me repeatedly to read and which I have done.
12. I also expect you to take at least as harsh disciplinary action against User:IZAK who has persisted in his inflammatory behavior against me while I was being blocked by you and after you had repeatedly worned to disengage himself from such behavior.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I have one piece of advice for you: move on. What's done is done, and unless you let go of the personal disputes, you'll wind yourself into more trouble again.

You were being highly disruptive, and IZAK repeatedly asked you to stop. I don't think that everything he said was appropriate, and I have already warned him about WP:NPA, so I see no need for any further action there.

If you want to make a complaint about IZAK, you may do so at WP:ANI, but I doubt that it will succeed. You are of course free to try.

But above all, Ludvikus, please please please please please please please please please please please please calm down. I would like to see continuing to contribute to wikipedia, but if you keep on getting so worked up about things, you are likely to find yourself being blocked again.

Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You've partially answered some of my questions on my Talk page. Thank you. But either you are not listening to me, or I am not being sufficiently clear. So I'll try to clarify.

There is an outstanding charge by User:IZAK that I've even altered his words. It appears to me that you have found only that I've placed things in improper Form or Order. Knowing how things are (at WP) regarding discipline, I expect new charge - based on what you've already acted up - to be dismissed as having been already disposed of by you. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The charge by User:IZAK that I altered his words - have you not disposed of that already? Why cann't you be clear instead of giving be behaviaral advice as if I were a child? Did you, or did you not decided that what I've done is cause disruption by posting comments all over the place? Or are you, or some other reckless Adminstrator, going to Block me tomorrow for the same conduct yesterday which you have effectively found did constitute changing User:IZAK's words? Why can't you simply answer this question unequivocally, rather than keep reinforcing you firm belief that I'm an nundisciplined child who does not know how vto behave and needs to be punished?

You have asked to read the WP page concerning guidelines as to Talk pages. I have done so. Now I'm asking you to follow that same procedure. The Talk page in the article named above is full of personal attacks against me by User:IZAK. I'm affraid to touch it because I suspect that you might charge me again with the same sort of disruption for which you have unfairly just finished doing. According, I ask that you WP:cleanup that page of all its accusations, involving the alleged use of four-letter words. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I'm asking that that very policy youv asked to abide by be followed as to my person and as to what is currently posted there by User:IZAK. That remains unresolved. The effect of that is to make me appear as some sort of a fanatic, mad-man, lunatic, etc. (I believe which I've seen you still hold - no doubt in my mind that that's the work against me of editor IZAK).

So if you really wish that we MOVE UN I think you need to address this unfinished business first.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, move on means move on. Just let it go.

I do not intend to take any further action against either you or IZAK over what has happened already with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does. You were blocked for the disruption, and that issue is done.

I do not intend to do any further cleanup; there doesn't seem to me to be anything sufficiently outrageous to justify removing it.

I don't see personal attacks against you by IZAK which warrant any further action (sucha s a block or further warnings), but as I said above, if you want to pursue a complaint or to ask for comments to be deleted, you can raise a complaint at WP:ANI. I have said before that I think that will only serve to prolong the dispute, and that I think it would be a bad idea, but you are always free to make a complaint if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hard to see the forest because of the trees.

• You say: I do not intend to take any further action against either [of] you . . . over what has happened already with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does. That's what I needed to know. Thank you.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The crucial point is the bit where I say "over what has happened already with regard to that AfD". Further disruption will be dealt with in the usual way, but I hope that the trouble is all in the past. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Dalys Cross

BHG, just wondering about your tag on this stub asking for "reliable references". I cannot see a single thing in it that would require a reference; maybe you'd tell me which piece of information needs a reference?! (Sarah777 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

These pieces of info:

• that it a village
• that it is on the N7 national primary route
• that it 12 km (7 mi) from Limerick city

Apart from the railway info (which is referenced), that's about all there is in the article so far. I hadn't noticed until now that you had written it, and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with creating a stub article ... but everything is supposed to be reliably sourced. As WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

So if you have been to Dalys Cross and checked it out for yourself (which you presumably did to take the photo), that doesn't count (see WP:OR); what matters is that the info has already been published in reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good God!! it's on the main Dublin-Limerick road, has HUGE big signs on all approaches and appears on OSi maps. Is a photograph original research - I have pics of the signs. Maybe a reference to the OSi map would do? If you are serious here (and I don't doubt it!) then I have about 200 similar stubs of well-known (in Ireland) inhabited villages that will need an OSi reference! We'd need to get one of your Bots on the job! (Sarah777 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, it's on the maps, so I don't doubt that it exists! But the references serve two purposes. First, they demonstrate that it's not just something you made up with a few edited pictures; and secondly, the references are the means by which notability can be established. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is the requirement for notability, and I do wonder how many of the hundreds of stub articles on Irish villages and townlands could meet that test. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while I would like to think that an island like Ireland with such a rich history has many many notable places, that notability needs to be demonstrated. An OSI reference would help to verify that the place exists, but it doesn't establish notability. I haven't been tagging the Ireland-geo-stubs with a {{notability}} request, but unless steps are taken to establish notability, someone else may do so. I don't want to see mass-deletion of Irish places, but unless efforts are made to assert notability, and preferably to demonstrate notability, someone else may do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have little doubt that any of the hundreds of towns/villages would pass any notability test. After all, people are forever being born and dying and getting married in them. That mythical reporter fearing the sack knows he must write about the village if he wants to sell any papers there. Townlands are an entirely different matter and they tend to be inserted by locals.(Sarah777 09:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

I suspect that you are right that they could pass the notability test, but the crucial thing to remember is that unless the references are there, they don't pass the notability test. To do so, they'd probably need to have more substantial coverage than simply recoding the births and deaths of non-notable people, and show some wider significance. For example, one of the main parts of The Sligo Champion is reports from all around the county, every week. Those are mostly at the parish level, and they are wonderful records of social history, but I doubt that many of the reports establish notability. Notability involves more than mere existence! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not use vulgarities

The following discussion 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.

---

Luvicus: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not controlling yourself in this regard, see this [6] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, it is not acceptable. Please stop. IZAK 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please be more specific as to your accusations against me. As my accuser you should not leave such charges to my imagination. I should not have to guess what you have in mind. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• In addiotion, you should stick to the topic, and not refer to other articles. Let other issues be discussed elsewhere - not here. Things are already complicated by there being many articles grouped here for deletion. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• You, User:IZAK, are apparently a very experienced Wikipedian. It seems that you believe that I've used "vulgarities". However, you have not kept the principles of Good Faith in that accusation. You are talking about conduct in a totally different space, namely: The Jewish Bolshevism. If that is your opinion, please feel free to bring it up there - but not here. You are apparently merely attempting to portray my conduct, once again, as bizarre. I do not deny you that opportunity. However, you must not do that here. The topic here is already far to complicated - you are already forcing me to defend several articles that you believe should be deleted. It is not good for Wikipedia for you to bring in my alleged use of improper "vulgarities" elsewhere. I therefore ask you to cleanup (from here) all references to what I have done regarding a totally unrelated article. Cheers, --Ludvikus 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [7] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [8]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm moving on as you advised. The above is a Cut & Paste from the Talk page of the Page you've found me disrupting. I strongly disagree with regarding you view that there is nothing wrong, or some cognitive to that effect. I consider the above as not only an attack on may person, but also as inappropriate material that remains posted on that Talk page. Accordingly, I intend to clean it up. If I do so, will you consider it Disruptive and Block me for X amount of time (accordingly to User:Banno, X may mean forever)??? Please advise according, as I do not intend to be disruptive, and I consider my contemplated action to be in keeping with WP regulations.

• I must advise you again, that Administrator Banno has said that the next time I'm Blocked, it will be forever. So it is important that you give me sound advise concerning my next move. You've just created an ambiguity by saying that there is nothing wrong which needs addressing. I strongly disagree. Please advise according, and please, please, please, don't waste my time and yours telling me about complaints which did not express an interest in persuing. I also will not go to France tomorrow (that too is irrelevant). The issue is that you, and Administrator Banno have created a situation in which I have no idea what either of you consider disruptive behavior.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus

If you want the text, removed, ask IZAK to remove it or lodge a complaint at WP:ANI. But don't go removing it yourself, or you may be blocked.

I have had enough of this. I am fed up with my talk page being filled with huge cut-and-pastes from a row which is over.

You have had enough of my time, and enough advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 19 October 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.

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

"An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I believe that User:Mikkalai has been vandalizing my substantial work at the above article.

• This is a new issue, by the way.
• I would appeciate it if you could advise, and or, deflame the volatile situation in the above.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War#Repeated.2C_arbitrary.2C_capricious.2C_and_unreasonable_reversions. I see no evidence of vandalism (a good faith edit is never vandalism). Please discuss your differences with User:Mikkalai, to try to reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out it's Edit Waring. You know that. I just learned it now. I now understand the distinction.

So my request is that you help us avoid edit-waring. I've spent some time writing on both pages, and I've tried to come to some understanding with User:Mikkalai. But he merely reverts what I've done. He ignores my discussion on the user page. So what am I to do? Can you talk to him and ask him what the problem is, ""please, please, please" (to use your bown words)?

Thank you, --Ludvikus 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not a one-woman mediation team.

Ludvikus, if you want to talk to him, try messaging Mikkalai in a friendly way at User talk:Mikkalai, and try posting on the article talk page in a friendly way. That means saying "please" rather than calling him a vandal, it means assuming good faith, and it means not approaching the whole situation as if you want a fight. If that doesn't work, try dispute resolution. But I doubt that anyone will bother to get involved until you start to approach other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening to me. I have contacted him on his talk page in a civil manner - but he just wiped out my posting, with no response, nada. You should also look at his Talk page which he has changed recently. He says he will not respond. So there is no way to communicate with him. As to the Talk page, heb has simply ignored what I have to say there. So that kind of action is fruitless.

So why can't you just ask him what he wants? How he would like to end this Edit War - or is it an Edit War?

General advice on politeness are not useful. I've had contact with other editors. It is only an extreme minority that I have a hard time finding a peaceful solution with. That's why I'm asking for your help.

Are you giving him any counsel? Or is it just me?

Please ask him what he wants. Obviously, he does not want to be contacted on his Talk page. At the same time he does not respond on the varticle talk page to what I have to say.

I really think that you could do a lot of good if you tried to speak to him yourself.

Why will you not do that?

Please & Thank you, BrownHairedGirl, --Ludvikus 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, BHG. I've just noticed that you've given the matter some balance. Much appreaciated. And have a nice day!!! --Ludvikus 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Islands project (2)

I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look, if you haven't done so already. --MacRusgail 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for the friendly invite, but we had that conversation before: see above User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Scottish_Islands_project. Of course if you can promise to banish all the midges I might change my mind ;)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must be losing my memory! I've been inviting a number of people who've made good edits to various island articles... --MacRusgail 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. But I'm still hoping that you can evict them midges ... :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed Limerick

BHG; Category:Towns in Limerick still survives; I've checked and it is the only one. Can you zap it? (Sarah777 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Done it as a self-speedy. It doesn't technically fit the criteria, but in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:BURO and a strong sense that the good folks at CfD have Irish county-fatigue after 726 squillion of these categories were pumped through there, I just done it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt there will be any complaints! Thanks (Sarah777 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Cleanup by Administrator of article Talk page allowed?

Was it OK for Mikkalai to delete this comment from the Talk page on the "Chinese at ..." page as he has just done?

“

• • I am repeating for the fourth time: I will contribute professionally to this article only when trolling stops. I don't care about my "credibility". I don't think my credibility means much for a person who passionately wants this article destroyed. Finally, in case you didn't learn this yet, wikipedians' credibility has nothing to do with article content: please spend some time perusing Wikipedia:Attribution and all policies mentioned in it. `'Míkka 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

”

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:170.185.144.19

Could you have a look at this editor User talk:170.185.144.19 vandalim on Spanish-American War have asked him twice to stop but dont think he will thanks BigDunc 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blaa

Could you take a look at this and also [this section] of the Waterford City article - I want to confound expectations by NOT getting sucked into an edit war!(Sarah777 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Mikkalai and Ludvikus Redux

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just so you know, the whole ANI issue may be rearing it's ugly head again. Mikkalai has been deleting non-free images uploaded by Ludvikus (see here). I was trying to help Ludvikus with the copyright issues (scans of book covers as fair use), but the images got deleted pretty quick. I'm not enough of a copyvio person to know if that was a justified deletion, but it seems odd given their history (inherent COI, etc). Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I'm passing the buck to you, but I was hoping there was a way to prevent this from getting out of control again. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A book cover looks to me like it might be fair use (tho I'm no expert), but I'm staying out of this. When I took Mikkalai's conduct to ANI the on sunday, I got shouted down by a group who think that because Luvikus is so disruptive, Mikkalai should be allowed to do what he likes.

After that, I'm afraid that I see no point whatsoever in my remaining involved. You may, of course, raise the issue at WP:ANI, but on recent precedent, you are likely to find yourself in big trouble for doing so.

It's all rather a pity. After sunday's episode, I had a large postbag of supportive emails from admins who disagreed with Mikkalai being allowed to remain outside control, but who felt too intimidated to speak out at ANI. It's not a good situation to be in, that ANI is perceived by some admins to be a place where there is mob rule, but there we are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, as someone who had a full understanding of what was going on, I think you acted correctly. The "mob" does have an unhealthy tendency to protect long term users when perhaps they should be treated more equally. It does not serve the community to allow even established users to act in such a fashion. 1 != 2 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I know that you have been watching the situation carefully, and it's good to hear your take on things. I can see the short-term temptations in following the mob's position, but it doesn't create a healthy climate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire thread at AN/I, but I agree with your actions as well. Too many times around here people turn a blind eye simply because the editor in question has been here forever, or is an admin. --Kbdank71 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll get nowhere with Mikkalai. Don't even try. People who like him call him grumpy, and, despite that, they will quickly unblock him and let him get away with pretty much anything. I know it's frustrating, because you did the right thing, but hang in there and don't let them get you flustered. -- But|seriously|folks  00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty sad. --Kbdank71 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are sometimes a useful bot, but your messages can get very tedious. Yes, in commenting at zillions of CfD discussions, my sig sometimes missses its date, due a typo, and I do appreciate your botship's kind help in adding the date. But these are typos which I try to avoid, and your messages seem like nagging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland tagging

I see that you have been retagging several articles but notice two things about the way you tag. First, I have not noticed you filling in the image-needed or infobox-needed parameters. Whenever I tag an article I try to add the yes or no parameters, so that it does not need to be revisited until either has been done. Would you possibly do that? You are looking at the article anyway, so deciding if it needs either is an easy task. The second thing is that your summary on my watch-page does not indicate your edits (the ones I noticed such as Talk:Fenit Harbour) are merely a retagging but, to me, imply a completely new tag, which technically they are, where there was none before but when I look at the difference I don't see any significant change except that you are substituting the full preferred tag. Maybe you would rephrase your summaries because then I will know what was done and not bother review your edit which may well be perfectly fine. I often use the word "rate" or "add params" when that is all I actually did to the tag even though I inserted the preferred tag instead of the old one. Hope that makes sense. Cheers and keep up the good work. BTW what do you know about having a bot tag all the untagged Irish stubs? (When you reply, please do so where I started the discussion.) ww2censor 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK first thing is that I have not been looking at the articles; as you may have seen from the edit summaries, I have been using AWB, which only shows the page being edited, and from which it is difficult to launch the article page if viewing the talk. So while viewing the talk page, I have no idea whether the article is a bare and unsourced 1-line sub-stub or a feature-grade 70K article.

So what I have been doing is looking for articles which are not already tagged, and adding a bare {{WikiProject Ireland}} tag, with the following parameters filled in:

• class=Category (for category)
• class=List (for a list)
• class=Template (for a template)
• priority=(whatever) for a very few articles where I felt able to make a clear assessment of importance without seeing the article

... but to the others I would either have to guess (bad idea), or to stop, tab across to my browser and open up the article, which massively slows the exercise.

Initially, my AWB run was including articles tagged with the old template, so on some of those (depending on mood) I substituted the new one, but most of them I skipped; I have now set AWB to skip those articles (sorry for putting a few misleading edit summaries your watchlist when I was replacing them)

The outcome of this run will be a huge increase in the of articles with blank tags, which is not as useless an exercise as it sounds, because they will then show up in Category:Unassessed Ireland articles and Category:Unknown-importance Ireland articles; the additions to those categories can of course be tracked by using Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Unassessed Ireland articles and Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Unknown-importance_Ireland_articles. The same goes for Category:Ireland articles needing attention, Category:Ireland articles needing images, Category:Ireland articles needing infoboxes, etc ... which means that anyone wanting to complete the tags has an accurate list to work from.

As to getting a bot to help, yes, that would be brilliant. I have already asked for a bot to get to work: see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are doing and understand that using AWB does not allow seeing the article itself to make any judgements on its merits. Leaving out already tagged articles from your AWB runs seems a better idea unless you actually see them. I do all my edit through the browser unlike you. I am well aware of the Category:Unassessed Ireland articles pages which I had actively been trying to reduce down to zero but only got it down to 16 recently, but now you have filled it up again, damn!! I am also aware of the Category:Unknown-importance Ireland articles pages but the others special pages you mentioned are new to me. Asking a bot to do the initial tag job seems like a good idea. Thanks for that but do you really think there are a squillion Irish articles? One last thing is that I favour the sequential tag layout because it takes up less visual less space in the page when editing, and especially where there are several tags, rather then the vertical layout that you use and have asked for the bot to use. It's just a small point. What do you think? Thanks for the work. I see that the assessment bot is on one of it longer intervals rather than the usual 3-day schedule. Cheers ww2censor 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for a belated reply. Well, there aren't millions of Ireland-related articles, but there are nearly 3,000 categories and over 25,000 articles.

I find that tag parameters are much more easily read if they are laid out on separate lines, as is one in programming. If there are only one or two parameters, they easily legible if laid out one line, but in a case like this where there are about 7 parameters, the vertical layout makes it much easier to identify which tags are blanks and which aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to see where you got those statistics from - 25,000+ Irish articles - wow. Can you tell me how to get them? You are probably right about the parameter layout from the ease of legibility though I prefer the other way myself. Did you look at the list of cats here yet? Thanks ww2censor 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the count when using AWB's "make list" feature to list all the articles under Category:Ireland and its subcats, using the "Category (recursive)" option. I wanted to do a few checks on the list to see what was would included if a bot did a mass-tagging, and found some things which should not have been there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you dump a list of those articles by category somewhere so we could all see them? That figure is 2.5 times our highest estimate! (Sarah777 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

The list is a bit of a jumble, and not really sorted by category (because most articles are in several categories), but I'll post it later in its raw form. Meanwhile, have you seen Special:CategoryTree? e.g. Special:CategoryTree:Ireland --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy (BH)G! I hadn't seen that...thanks. (Sarah777 20:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

I can assure you that I am a deeply unholy person ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) OMG !!! ww2censor 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So what are we going to do with the project tagging? Work on as we have been or wait until the bot has tagged the rest of the untagged articles by category? Just curious now that we have less than 100 to go to get to 5,000. Cheers ww2censor 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are hard at work! Unfortunately, the bot has either taken a holiday or taken a dislike to Irish articles, so I'm not sure when or if it will start tagging. If it's still silent in another few days, I'll ask for my own bot account and let AWB roll away :)

But the bot won't overwrite any existing tags, so you can safely continue the good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really working that hard, just pausing for a breather, but waiting a bit too. I'll just keep working a bit until we hit 5,000 and then devote some time to other more important things like the Irish FARs and other stuff. Let me know if you end up running a bot yourself and what it can do. Thanks ww2censor 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fox family of Falmouth

Fox family of Falmouth: Thanks for your advice about this article. I hope that the new version is some improvement. --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Not that the previous version was bad, but this is much improved, and gets further wa from the note format I commented on before. It is a fascinating account of how family remained influential and prosperous over several generations.

If you want to take the article further, I think the question I would ask is what happened to them in the later nineteenth century, and early twentieth century, when coverage seems to just fade out. Did the next generations enter the professions, did the businesses fold, or what? But maybe that;s just me eager to know more :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

G.C.Fox (shipping Brokers) ceased trading in 2003. The "Poly" in Falmouth flourishes. The family became global and many ceased to be Quakers. There is still one family in the membership of Falmouth Quaker Meeting. None of them became MPs or Baronets, except the Backhouse and Pease spouses. I expect there are many Quaker families who are Foxes through their female line. I don't want to tell the tale as far as grandparents of living people, without consultation and permission. I would hope that some of them might add more accurate data to the WP article.

My aim was:

1. To provide background information for readers of the Journals.
2. To record the influence that this Quaker family had on Science, Technology, Industrial Development and culture in Cornwall.

I now need to check that all the linked WP articles are up to a reasonable standard. Caroline and Barclay's Journals should be fairly readily available through public libraries or possibly your local Quaker Meeting House, or Friends House Library. --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:School districts at the top 7% etc

Category:School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests

I'm retired, but(in response to [9]) I am just dropping by to apologize for creating the above category for Garnet Valley School District. I must not understand how cagtegories work, and thought that other users would expand it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's good of you to pop back, and don't worry too much, we all learn as we go! But looking again at the CfD discussion, I owe you an apology. There was no need for me to so caustic about the category, and I'm sorry for being so rude. I'm sure you created the category in good faith, and I shouldn't have sneered. I hope you'll come back to edit again! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I just wanted to clarify that my retirement had nothing to do with this. Just some real world issues. It was always my pleasure to help out the project in any way I could!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just to let you know that three of the categories nominated at CfD so far today have been the work of Emesee. I've left a comment/suggestion on his talk page about future category creation, but an extra pair of eyes wouldn't go amiss, just in case he starts creating categories about bishops... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 1910s in Ireland

A tag has been placed on 1910s in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Jameson L. Tai 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it myself, it was only a test of a template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games templates

There are pages listed twice now in this category , should the cat be removed from {{GaelicGamesProjectTemplate}} or should the category beremoved for the template:x such as {{2006 All Stars}}Gnevin 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not possible for an article to be listed twice in a category. Can you point to an example? Oops, I mean --Kbdank71 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{2007 All Stars}}is in Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games templates as Template:2007 All Stars and Template talk:2007 All StarsGnevin 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That just means that the template and the template talk page (which are two separate pages, category-wise) are in the category. And just as an aside, this isn't new. Prior to my completing the CFD, they were both in Category:Gaelic Games Project templates. --Kbdank71 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that that means anything, of course. We probably don't need both in the category, as you first suggested. I'll just go away now. --Kbdank71 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, afore you go, thanks for closing the CfD! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) As Kbdank71 says, no need for them to be there twice. Long-term, it's probably easier to keep them there by the template on the talk page, so I guess it'd be best to remove the categ from the template itself, and check that the talk page template is in place. Do you want me to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sounds goodGnevin 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, done now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

People from Offaly Merge

I agree to the merge as you suggested on my page. No probs!!! Eiri Amach 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB Feature Requests

I've replied on 2 of them..

Have you seen the filter button at the bottom of the list maker...?

It should do most of 2 of your requests! Reedy Boy 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's going to take a while to wipe all the egg of my face after that! I don't know how long that feature has been there, or why I didn't notice its appearance, but you're right — it's exactly what I was I after in my first two requests. Many thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lords of France II

You have contributed at the CFD for Category:Lords of France here. The subcats have been deleted, and Category:Lords of France is being held for cleanup until Nov 5. I was wondering if you'd like to help with the cleanup, as I don't have a lot of experience prod'ing articles. Thanks, and sorry for the cut-and-paste. --Kbdank71 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Prodded some, {{unreferenced}}'d some, and other look OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: removed tags

I told User:Irongargoyle to discuss the tags with you before removing any more of them. Uthanc 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am reinsttaing them, and have left a msg on User talk:Irongargoyle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm writing this note to raise my concerns about the mass tagging that you have done. In my view this sort of mass tagging overwhelms people working in the area and can discourage people from making the changes we both want to see happen. This sort of thing has happened before. Please see this archived Administrators' noticeboard discussion on what is acceptable article tagging behaviour. If you disagree with that, maybe another such discussion is needed? That case involved 193 notability tags. I believe you've added about 150. Where do you think we should go from here? As I said, I'll be away this weekend, so hopefully we can carry on this discussion on Sunday evening. Carcharoth 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that you have expressed this view, but with all due respect, you taking the same view twice doesn't make a guideline! I started tagging a few articles the other day when I first stumbled across the bridge of whatsit article, and launched a discussion at the same time, so there is nothing sneaky or underhand about it.

I'm really disappointed to see that we are still talking at cross purposes. The situation is quite simple: the overwhelming bulk of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations either cite no sources, or cite only primary refs. In the whole of those categories, I eventually found about five articles with multiple non-primary refs, though I didn't evaluate them (I just left the articles untagged). Those tags are an invitation to editors to improve articles which don't meet wikipedia's most basic criteria for inclusion, and the only reason I can see for removing them is if someone believes that these guidelines don't apply and the problems don't need fixing. Those tags are an open invitation to fix, not a specific challenge to you or to anyone else!

In the meantime, I'm really disappointed to see that you removed the tags from The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor. After all today's discussions, I feel like a broken record restating that WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION requires multiple non-trivial references in sources independent of the subject. In this case, you added one source, so the criteria are clearly not met (even if the coverage in that source is substantial).

Similarly, Lothlórien, where you added a single ref to an encyclopedia. Compare with the requirements of WP:FICTION: only one source, and is a mention in an encyclopedia non-trivial? I have re-tagged that one too, again with {{nn}} and also with {{refimprove}}.

This what worries me. IronGargoyle previously removed the notability tag from that article when it had no references at all, and clearly did not meet notability criteria (yet it was part of your complaint at ANI). Now you have done the same thing when there is only one reference, and when we have just spent a large part of the day with me repeating WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION. Why?

From WP:NOTE A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I really don't know whether you are finding this this hard to understand or are just resenting the fact the articles in your area of interest don't meet the standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, embarassing though it is to admit, I had missed the "multiple" part of the tag. Thanks for pointing that out. I have other sources to add as well, but I thought that a reference to the entries in that encyclopedia (which is a tertiary source) would be enough. Can I ask you to assume good faith and accept that as a mistake on my part? Carcharoth 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I assume good faith! There are oodles of times that I have missed aspects of a guideline, and we all learn as we go :) It seems to me that we moving closer to agreement on this, and hope that it seems like that to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A start

(Originally at User talk:IronGargoyle)

Please have a look here for a series of 18 edits where I've added a third-party source for location articles that have an entry in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. That is at least a start, I hope, and demonstrates that those subjects are notable enough to get an entry in that Encyclopedia (the other location articles don't have separate entries). Can we agree that this solves the problem for the moment with those articles (though they still have other problems), and concentrate on the other ones you've tagged? Carcharoth 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the tag here, as that is not a fictional place. It is an essay written by Tolkien. The assertion of notability is right there in the article, and the article cites where the essay (or parts of it) have been published. I'm also going to add a cite to back the notability up. Carcharoth 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. How many are multiple sources? Two, three, four? I am trying hard to work with you here. I'm not asking you to thank me for providing some sources (though that would have been nice), but let's try and improve the encyclopedia with references, rather than 'fix' it with tags. I'm nearly done for the night, but I think this has got to the stage where I'm going to try and get some fresh eyes on this. I'm going to ask at WP:AN for guidance on where to go next with this, as I find this behaviour of tag, respond to tag removal with AfD, debate, more tagging (around 150 of them), respond to reverts by edit warring to re-add tags, to be troubling. Lots of people are trying to work with you, and we don't seem to be making any headway. Some recognition or signals from you as to whether things are moving in the right direction would be nice. Carcharoth 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired too, so pls forgive the note-form reply:

• Yes, we are heading in the right direction, in some respects. Adding the refs was good, but removing the notability tag when there was only one ref was not good. "Multiple" means more than one, though as the guidelines say, if they are trivial refs, more may be needed. (I am assuming that the most of the refs you provided are non-trivial, tho I have questioned the encyclopedia refs: most such works have some very short entries).
• I am impressed that you made a start on referencing -- I hadn't expected it this quickly. It doesn't have to be done instantaneously, and many articles remain tagged in this way for many months. So take your time :)
• Per my comments at the project talk page, I am horrified that you were still suggesting that Christopher Tolkien would be an adequate reference. When I saw that, I thought we were taking a huge step backwards: whilst I'm sure he is a very reliable source, he is clearly not an independent source, which is what's needed to establish notability.
• By all means take things to ANI if you want to, but I do think that it would be more helpful all round for you to look again at the notability guidelines, because it still doesn't seem to me that you have really engaged with it. I'd have no objection to people taking lots of time adding refs if you weren't still arguinng against the guidelines and objecting to the tags as "intrusive".

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It does help. Thanks. I am posting something at AN, as I'm still concerned about getting the balance right between pushing people to improve articles, and not pressuring them with implicit threats of deletion debates and dozens of tags. I would be happy to help you develop a better approach to take to educating people about this sort of thing. Carcharoth 02:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you fight Tolkien?

Could you please explain why you keep posting notability tags in articles about place names in Tolkien's works? Are Valinor, Fangorn, Beleriand, etc. not notable to you? Although this is material out of one of the most-read works of literature? I really suspect you are trying to abuse your administrative powers here. Instead of trying to remove said articles, you should try to expand them. Please stop your private rampage. Cush 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of a rampage (see WP:NPA), please read Wikipedia:Notability and WP:FICTION. The issue is not whether you or I consider these articles notable; there are clear objective tests set out in the guidelines, which these articles do not meet. That's why I tagged them.

No administrative powers are involved in tagging articles, and I hope that in future you will assume good faith before accusing people of abusing them. Those tags are an open invitation to editors to expand and improve the articles. You are as welcome as any other editor to improve those articles, and you would be better engaged in doing that than in objecting to the fact that the deficiencies in these articles have been noted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are asking for something that is entirely pointless. We are talking about fictional places from Tolkien's works. There are no other sources or references needed for such articles than the original works, Hobbit, Bombadil, LotR, Silmarillion. If we were talking about places or characters in Shakespeare's works, would you dare to stir such a fuss? I doubt it. And Wikipedia is still better off with stub articles than with missing articles. If you can't contribute anything to the articles in question then at least leave them as they are and have patience that someday someone might take the effort of expanding them. But what you are currebtly doing is actively discouraging people from adding anything to those articles as one would have to fear the loss of one's work because you find it insufficient and tag it for deletion. What do you want to achieve by threatening the Tolkien fan community on Wikipedia? Cush 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong to say that "there are no other sources or references needed for such articles than the original works". Read the guidelines, and try to understand why independent references are needed to establish the notability of the subject of an article.

You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone.

Oh, and in answer to your question: if articles on anything by Shakespeare, or any part of the bible, were similarly unreferenced, I wouldn't hesitate to tag them too. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine, and referencing is a fundamental requirement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to disagree with you on anything, I think Cush, Caracaroth etc are in the right here; personally, I don't think fiction articles should be here (yes, even Shakespeare et al - I'm the one who got my very own Wikipedia Review thread by AFDing Antonio (Merchant of Venice)) other than very brief summaries, but, following the huge arguments over the Harry Potter pages, the consensus is clearly that fictional characters & locations in significant works do warrant their own pages, and The Lord of the Rings is certainly as notable, if not more, than Harry Potter. The consensus as thrashed out in the Harry Potter and similar AFDs and DRVs seemed to be that for works like this, the novel in question was valid as a reference about itself even though it constituted a primary source. — iridescent 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, and it may be that I'm fighting an uphill battle. But if that's the case, then let's do this properly and tear up WP:FICTION and put a big loophole in WP:NOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction is self-sufficient. What other sources can there really be for a work of fiction? Especially when it's created from scratch as Tolkien's work is? Maybe those guidelines need a review. Articles on characters, places, events, etc out of Tolkien's work are primarily for those who seek information on Tolkien's work, and those folks just don't care whether or not the article they were searching for meets any arbitrary guidelines. Of course this is not a fanzine, but then why have articles on Tolkien's work in the first place? Cush 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cush, please don't bother posting on my talkpage again unless you have read and studied the guidelines. Your questions are answered there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note to anyone who doesn't know where to find it, the place for this debate is Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and not BHG's talkpage! This is a very longrunning dispute and nothing at all is served by content-forkig it to here. — iridescent 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are with out a doubt the rudest person I have encountered in two years on wikipedia. You're rudely telling them to take a flying leap and read the guidelines, which they have already said he believes are too extensive. You interpet them to unbreakable commandments, and have taken a puritan stance on it all. I've noticed most of them you end up attaking things you disagree with, as if you're the surpreme authority here. I, and many tens of thousands of others, would be extremely upset if Wikipedia was not as broard and extensive as it is. If I could not look up extensive amounts of side information on interesting fictional works. I can't help but say, "What is your obsession with following arbitrary guidelines to the t and the i." So much that you are attacking perfectly acceptable articles and offending the large user bases who have worked on them, and the many people who look them up. Would you like to turn wikipedia into a boring, standard encyclopedia. One of things I like about this site is that I can look fiction and find a great of aside information wirtten by knowledgeable readers, helpful information too, nad I'm sure it's not just me, but many other people using this site that do the same. You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone. Again, What is your obssession with the wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia is an online site for people to read up on things, than Tolkien fans who are trying to look into his works, have a right to have access to articles on the known information on the major geographical places. Stargate SG-1 has about fifty pages worth of articles on the various fictional alien races and planets and technology, are you opposed to that. I believe you are outside your zone her, as your main projects seem to be hundreds and hundreds of works on British Legislators. It seems that everywhere I run into a controversial article deletion tag, you are involved in it, and are fighting with the writers of the article, and very uncivily at that, in fact I have never read a polite and civil argument posted by you. I would say you're on a power trip as I see your name constantly on deletion pages, most of the time for articles that have otherwise good content and relevance. I would say that you and your group of supporters need to quit trying to delete every article you dislike or don't think falls perfectly under the guidelines, you don't have be a puritan. And, the absolute worst part of it is that most of the things I've seen you try to delete are outside of your said areas of knowledge and interest, giving you no right to pass judgement on them, on what other people with different interests are working on. On a last note, you say that a topic has to have a particular amount of notability? Well these do. I interpet that to say I, can't and shouldn't, write an article on myself. I am not notable, Valinor is. You have no right to make that judgement based on the fact you think it's silly. That fact is that the enormousness of that piece of literature and the amount of fans of might look up information on it, make it notable, not what you think about it. There is plenty of room on wikipedia, for your interests, mine, theirs, their is room for all semi-notable well written, and informative information. That is the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information. The site is not running out of memory, so therefore you shouldn't be going out of your way to delete perfectly good articles based on your own puritanically dictatoral view of the notability guideline, it's a power trip, 100% a power trip. I'm sorry for the way the formating came up, it really got away from me. I would just like to add, again, that I have read through most of the Tolkien pages, all of them are perfectly good, though a few need more information and their are people working on that.--Robert Waalk 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you say that "the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information". Wrong: the internet has lots information, but the purpose of this site is to make an an encyclopedia, which is a different exercise (see WP:NOT). The purpose of policies and guidelines like WP:V and WP:NOTE is simply to maintain quality standards. For people who don't want to try to maintain those standards, there are many other places on the internet where they can post their writings, but verifiability is not a mere detail here: it's a core principle of wikipedia. And if you read the guideline, you'll see what wikipedia's founder says about sourcing things.

And I'm a little bemused that someone with whom I've had no previous encounters comes to my talk page and accuses me of being rude, and then embarks on several paragraphs of personal abuse. Do please try to be a bit more restrained when you read what Jimbo wrote about verifiability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help! Disappearing images

Three apparently random images were deleted from apparently unrelated articles by a Bot on 26th October. AGot any idea why? (Licence was fine). Bot says "Removing deleted image" but the article record shows no prior deletion and the history of the image disappears completely along with the image.

Greystones

1. (cur) (last) 17:36, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (15,488 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 03:14, October 26, 2007 Ww2censor (Talk | contribs) (15,456 bytes) (revert unsourced edit about Lotto) (undo)

Lough Ree

1. (cur) (last) 05:35, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (2,758 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 22:25, October 19, 2007 Cydebot (Talk | contribs) m (2,779 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Loughs of Westmeath to Loughs of County Westmeath per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14.) (undo)

Glenamaddy Turlough

1. (cur) (last) 05:35, October 26, 2007 ImageRemovalBot (Talk | contribs) (1,442 bytes) (Removing deleted image) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 22:22, October 19, 2007 Cydebot (Talk | contribs) m (1,410 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Loughs of Galway to Loughs of County Galway per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14.) (undo)

Something sinister going on? (Sarah777 11:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't think it's sinister, though it does look a bit messy. Just checking the last article, I found this entry in the deletion log for IMG GMaddyTlough2758.jpg ... it seems that the reason for the image's deletion was something to do with commons (WP:CSD#I8 was cited). I do v little work with images, so I suggest you raise the issue with the deleting admin Maxim (talk · contribs), who I'm sure will be able to explain it all. If the image was deleted because it was on commons, it seems a pity that the links to it were not updated to point to commons, but as above, I have little idea of the procedure with images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About the notability dispute

I think that part of the conflict here is that you are not listening to, or accepting, what people are telling you. You have continued to repeatedly say that these articles not only do not include references establishing their notability (which is true), but also that their subjects do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which is not). This despite acknowledging that you have little direct knowledge on the subject and having been told just as often by people who are familiar with the subject that the articles are notable and sources for such exist. This apparent unwillingness to accept what you are being told is likely related to your repeated statements intimating that those disputing you are simply ignorant of Wikipedia's notability standards. Consider that several (e.g. myself, Carcharoth, IronGargoyle) of these 'ignorant' users are themselves admins. Speaking only for myself, I am extremely familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, and past precedent on these issues. Iridescent cites the Harry Potter decisions, but those were nothing new. Back in 2005 Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items established standards for articles on Middle-earth topics. That was then re-affirmed for fictional topics in general in this discussion... which was then copied to create a new guideline... known as WP:FICTION. In short, WP:FICTION exists because of past debate about these Middle-earth articles - which concluded that they should be kept. THAT is the consensus which established the guideline you are citing... though you argue the opposite of what the consensus found. Which wasn't a new development then either, Talk:Elros has a similar discussion (with the same results) in 2004 and there were others even older still. This has been accepted and repeatedly re-affirmed practice on Wikipedia since the beginning.

On Christopher Tolkien: You object that he is not independent and thus cannot be cited to establish notability. Actually, nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members, but I think this also overlooks the reality that Christopher Tolkien did not act alone. If CT had put up a website and posted all of his material there or gotten it published by a vanity press then it would indeed be difficult to draw much evidence of notability from that. Instead, top tier publishers in various countries around the world contracted the man... for fifteen books on the subject. Which have since been reprinted, printed in versions with illustrations by noted artists, printed in combined editions, printed as Folio Society collectors items, et cetera. Can you honestly say that is not independent verification of notability? These books have continued being published, and all remained in print, in multiple languages, for more than 30 years... without their contents being notable?

Finally, even if the WP:FICTION guideline had not been created specifically to affirm the notability of these articles, even if the notability inherent in the world's biggest publishers releasing multiple texts on the very minutiae you are challenging were somehow 'invalidated' by the person doing the work having been related to the author, even so these articles would be notable... because, as has been said repeatedly, there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them. Encyclopedias, atlases, compendiums, volumes of annotations, scholarly journals and papers, adoption into popular culture, et cetera ad nauseum. They are notable even in their own right, and not just by the long-standing practice of being part of an extraordinarily notable subject. So, by all means... observe that they, like most of the rest of Wikipedia, are not yet properly referenced. But don't say they aren't notable or that the people who disagree with you on that point need to research the standards. I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable. --CBD 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I find tone of your comments unnecessarily hostile, and I hope that before posting again you will consider being less accusatory and try to assume good faith.

I hope it is clear that when saying that an article is "non-notable", I have meant that those articles have not so far demonstrated notability according to the guidelines. That's a subtle but important point, and it's central to all of this: notability is demonstrated by the tests set out in guidelines, not simply asserted. I'm glad that the Gondor article which I nominated at AFD have been improved sufficiently to meet the guidelines, and welcome the speedy closure of the AfD. It's a real pity, though, that an article which so many people claimed was so important did not have those references beforehand.

Now, if you are just going to come here and hector me with statements like "I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable", I'd prefer you went off and did something else. Don't tell me; show me.

If you read the lengthy have discussions on this, you will see repeatedly that I have asked for evidence of how the guidelines have been met, and that has not been forthcoming.

Now, you come here and point me to the first draft of WP:FICTION], and claim that as a trump card. Sorry, but that version is over 2 years old, and WP:FICTION has changed substantially in that time: I have been working off the current version, and I sincerely hope that you are not claiming that it was wrong to do so.

The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth_items also sheds little light on the issues at stake here. It is mostly about whether to keep or merge articles (with a clear consensus to merge the minor stuff), and has remarkably little to say about notability. The consensus to upmerge minor articles seems to still stand at WikiProject Middle-earth, and I have had no dispute with that.

On Christopher Tolkein, I'm very surprised by your statement that "nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members"; I have dismissed him as evidence of notability not just as a family member but because of his role. WP:FICTIONWP:NOTE(as it is now, not as how it may have been 2 years ago) very clearly says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and explains that as "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". I see nothing in WP:FICTION which exempts fictional material from that test, and quite rightly too, or else everything fictional would become automatically notable if there had been a collaborator or third-party editor or someone to complete the work. Christopher Tolkein was not merely a family biographer; so far as I can see, he was in many respects more like a co-author, albeit a posthumous one.

You are also introducing a further test of notability: that it should be be sufficient to show that a work has been widely published. That's an interesting argument, but I cannot find it anywhere in WP:FICTION. If I have missed it, can you point out to me where to find it?

You suggest that the consensus in 2005 was that everything Tolkien was automatically notable; if so, you should remember that consensus can change, and you have not shown how the current consensus-agreed guideline supports that view.

However, all this is probably irrelevant. If, as you say "there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them", why not just cite those sources rather than angrily denouncing someone who asks for them?

I look forward to your reply, so long as you actually try to engage with the points I am making: I welcome any explanations of things I have missed or misunderstood. But if you post again to just say "I'm telling you", expect to see your post deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't 'angrily denouncing' you or being 'hostile'. I was trying to get you to see that the views opposing yours were not born of the ignorance you have attributed them to. Unfortunately, given your response, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I will be adding references, already cited repeatedly, to the articles, but obviously that can't be done for hundreds of pages all at once. --CBD 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'm quite happy not to receive messages saying "I'm telling you". If you change your mind, and want to engage in a discussion, I still look fwd to hearing from you.

Good luck with adding the refs. I know it takes time, but if we agree that it needs to be done then it seems to me that we have actually resolved our differences :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

peerage-work-group

Please would you change the viscount's coronet to image:Lord_red.svg. It will affect the talk page of every peer with WPBiography. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can you give me some clearer links to explain what you want done. What page or template us to be changed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have just done a bit of digging. I presume that you want Template:WPBiography changed so the peerage work group logo is changed from Image:Meuble héraldique Couronne Comte.svg to Image:Lord_red.svg. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's done: [10]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How come it doesn't show through? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which talk page(s) is it not showing up on? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cancel. It does - it does - and is a great improvement. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When templates are changed, it can take a while for the articles in which they are transcluded to be rebuilt, and with such a widely-used tag, I can imagine it may take a long time for this one to propagate. Anyway, glad it doth look better :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC) trying to keep the customers satisfied

Roman Catholic Bishops

Some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The nominator appears not to have read WP:BIO :(
All those articles clearly pass the test in WP:BIO (albeit one rather narrowly), and a discussion about the general principle of a presumption of notability for RC bishops belongs at WT:BIO, not a AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: Women computer scientists

Thanks, I'm not withdrawing my nomination, but I've replied to your comment on the deletion discussion. SparsityProblem 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD Category:Oil fields of ...

This discussion relates to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28#Category:Oil_fields_of_Scotland

Hi, I fear we're getting a little bit polarised over at the CfD, I thought I'd just note that I really do appreciate your thoughts on the CfD above, but I had rather hoped you'd be prepared to WP:AGF on my viewpoints in the discussion.

Technically, I thought that User:Jw2034's proposal had some merit. FYI, I once spent a solid 6 months going through the mapping, licensing & proprties of those b****y North Sea licence blocks in some detail. I therefore assure you I fully recognise what a politically loaded topic this, and I note you are not alone in making your views clear. (You might also observe that I have not stated an opinion on who should own the oil & its revenues, just on the facts of how it is managed now.) That's also why I thought that, for consistency, any claims to "English" oil should be taken out as well as Scottish. Its pointless, its use is already being misunderstood. If you've looked into the history and operation of the oil industry you'd also appreciate there are many different ways that countries can handle and redistribute mineral explotation & distribution rights, which means that ownership & control might not follow the most 'obvious' route.

Suffice to say I feel there should be a way of handling the simple classification of this, while still maintaining accuracy, and without trying to double-guess how a devolved settlement would affect rights. (Personally, I'd think that anyone seeing a North Sea field in a UK Cat could work out the obvious way...)

So WP:NPA, thanks Ephebi 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you have been confusing the related concepts of "Scottish things" or "things of Scotland" with the narower legalistic one of "things currently under the control of the Scottish Government". The latter is a subset of the former, but you seem to be trying to restrict the use to the latter. I know how the oil is managed (at least in the very broad outline, that the licensing and the taxation is a reserved issue), but I don't see why you want to remove the Scottish and English labels unless you are concerned that, as you put it "we really are trying to feed these agendas".

It's not wikipedia's job to either feed or stifle any political agenda, and you'll see from the legal links I provided that the current legal division of geography is clear. If and when there is a divisions of oil assets between England and Scotland, I'm sure that the current boundaries will not be the last word. Just as the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty included exceptional provisions about militarily-desirable sea ports and the Imperial Debt, I'm sure that neither side of a UK oil split would feel restrained from grabbing as much as it can possibly get. My own best guess is that if Scotland gets independence, the English reaction will be along the lines of "if you're going, there's one crucial condition: whether you like it or not, you are going to have to take Northern Ireland with you and we're keeping all the oil". Wars have been (and continue to be) fought over oil, and I just hope that this one never escalates to a shooting match.

But that's all crystal-ball gazing. For now the boundaries are well-enough defined that it's quite possible to objectively determine whether a given oil field is at present legally in Scottish or English waters or both. People can draw from those facts what conclusions they wish about the future, but that doesn't change the facts that the seas are as well-divided as the border at Gretna. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I guess we have been talking past each other here, while vigourously agreeing about the context! - We agree that there is no dispute that the north sea fields are associated with Scotland waters in some way (that ref. to the set of legislation was quite informative, thanks). Your amusing analogy with the 'Military of Scotland' is a good one - the army has always called the regiments from north of the Border their "Scottish Regiments" probably for just that reason, until some imaginative soul recently decided to call the 6 merged units the "Regiment of Scotland"! (And BTW the 'Military of Scotland' is a completely false category as well, IMHO!) And you are probably right - should the devolved Holyrood government be handed the rights to North Sea oil it will probably be hamstrung in such a way that such revenues that remain are channelled through the Westminster Treasury, either through exploitation rights, distribution licences or some other cunning fee structure. Thus was it everso in the land of oil! I do see the use of the "of" word as being inappropriate at a devolved level in so many of these categories, based on one of the meanings of the word. There have been wars fought over this 8-( It just that somehow WO seems to have developed a dogmatic approach to names using "... of Foo" which, in the interests of tidiness, ignores actual circumstance, when "...in ... " would be so much more accurate. Else, in the interests of accuracy, do we have to put up a health warning with each of these categories - "In spite of the name, this is a category of things which are physically in Scottish territory but are governed & controlled by the UK government" to avoid the cries of "but its ours" from the crowd? Hmmm.

Rgds, Ephebi 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and glad that we seemed to have got beyond talking at cross purposes we weren't really that far apart in our views, were we? :)

I feel a bit guilty that I didn't acknowledge your evident expertise from spending 6 months analysing the drilling licenses and mapping; I felt at the time that you were rather not seeing the wood for the trees, but sorry for being rather rude and pushy. (BTW, what did you do deserve that punishment? It sounds like an alternative to a sentence of breaking rocks, imposed as only on the most hardened of desperadoes! <grin>)

I try to look at a category name as being a bit like a headline: a brief and rough outline of the contents, which has to strike a difficult balance between accuracy and brevity. I guess that an unambiguous category name here might be something like "oil fields in Scotland or in the territorial waters of Scotland as defined by SI No. 1126 of 1999", but that's a long way from the approach urged by WP:NC to "prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature".

To add to the difficulty wrt to oil fields, we have three difft sorts of territorial distinction: a) oil fields within the land area of a country, b) offshore oil fields within internationally recognised territorial waters, c) oil fields within waters claimed by a country as part of its economic zone, but not neccessarily recognised as such by other nations. To accommodate all three without turning the category name into an essay, we can't avoid a certain amount of fuzziness; and while some countries might be manageable with an "Oil fields in foo" category name, that would undermine the consistency which is important to make categories easy to link to.

So I don't see any alternative to putting some sort of brief health warning in the UK categories, as you suggest. I think that we have to be careful to make it clearly neutral, and not to give any impression that it takes a view either way on the claim that It's Scotland's oil.

May I suggest that we discuss possible wordings at Category talk:Oil fields of Scotland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Paperwork

Glad I could do so, after a heavy week for you! Johnbod 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I have rather stepped out my usual safety-zones this week ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

Thank you for nominating the Tolkein articles. I've been going through many articles on fiction like it trying to get them cleaned up for example my recent AFDs for the myst games. I had just looked at the various Tolkein articles thinking they needed cleaning up and wondered if anyone would ever have the guts to take them on. I also posted a rant on the talk page of WP:Fiction. I find it kind of funny that if you read through the archives originally it was a guideline to help clean things up, but has since been made so vague that it's now an excuse to keep everything. Is it just me or dose it seem like WP:Fiction is moving in a direction counter to other policies. Ridernyc 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's deja-vu night!

Following on from Category:Rappers currently in prison, which you kindly zapped earlier, I've now noticed another familiar name at the new pages (category section): Category:Fictional drug users, a recreation of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Fictional drug users - although I'm prepared to accept it's a good faith recreation (the user's account was only created at the end of May, post-dating your deletion of the category in mid-May). Care to do the honours again, or shall I list it for CfD to see if consensus has changed? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that one. I have tagged with {{db-repost}}, and unless the creator objects promptly, it'll be on its way soon. I think we can skip the CfD unless there is an objection. --23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, and I saw your closing comment at the rappers about nominators using {{db-repost}} in future. Whether it's because the admins who patrol CAT:CSD tend to overlook the categories or because more knowledgeable admins watch WP:CFD, the rappers category is now gone and salted, whereas one that I used {{db-repost}} on earlier tonight (Category:Colombian men) is, at the time of writing, still waiting for a "speedy" deletion... Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta, once again! Sorry to bother you with this once again. Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, there must have been a bit of backlog. Anyway, I have sent the Colombian men off to the saltmines ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

A backlog at CAT:CSD? Whatever next?! Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor

discussion moved to Talk:The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. I agree that the notability tags at Ósanwe-kenta and The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor are needed, and will make a note to get around to establishing notability for those. I'm still unsure how helpful "This article needs additional citations for verification" is. In both cases the details of the publications are cited in the body of the article (maybe you are making the common mistake of only looking at the bottom of the article for footnoted citations?). For The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor: "parts of it were published in Unfinished Tales, and the remaining parts were published in the periodical Vinyar Tengwar, issue number 42 in 2001", and for Ósanwe-kenta: "published in Vinyar Tengwar (39) in 1998". Do you think you could replace the "unreferenced" tag on Ósanwe-kenta with "refimprove", or even replace refimprove on both articles with "fact" tags for the individual bits you think need citing? I'm actually rather surprised at what you tagged as needing citations in The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor - I added a citation needed tag to the most obvious bit - the third paragraph that is clearly an opinion and needs to be sourced to who said "based on what can be gleaned from this, it seems it is at this point..." etc. In some senses, the citation for the Bibire letter claim is "According to Christopher Tolkien". That is more an incomplete citation that a lack of citation. Hope this helps. I also hope I'm beginning to persuade you that discussing things in details is much better than leaving tags! :-) Carcharoth 09:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The tags help in two ways: they both flag up the issue prominently to any reader, and place the article in categories of articles needing attention. Both those effects increase the chance that someone will come along to fix the problem.

I think you may be right about Ósanwe-kenta needing a refimprove; I would think on balance not, but AGFing etc, I have changed it to refimprove. At the least, it should have an external citation of the key facts asserted: ISSN etc for publication, rather than just a link to a wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, and a citation for the subject matter (clarifying whether or not that description is based on an external source).

As to The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor, the points where I have sought citations are the key facts stated about the provenance of the essay. The key question which citations could answer is whether those points are made in the essay itself or in external sources, and if so in what external sources. I'm afraid that "according to Christopher Tolkien" isn't an incomplete citation, it's assertion: CT published lots, and I'm sure he also talks lots. A citation points the reader towards a source specified precisely enough that it can be verified, but "according to CT" could mean "as he told my grand-dad in the pub", which is not verifiable.

I understand what you say about discussing things in detail, and it's something which I have been thinking a bit about. It seems to me that the issue may be that not everyone is familiar with the principles of referencing and notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About the last point, I think people assume notability can be imnplicit, rather than explicit, and they assume any old references are enough to establish notability (which is not the case, as we have been discussing). Maybe have a look at the guidelines and policies and see if they could be improved. I often think we should get feedback from new editors, as they are the best ones to tell us if the policies and guidelines are understandable, as opposed to being too long and confusing at first glance. I've often talked about simplified versions of the policy documents, and the nutshells sort of do that, but more work is needed in that area. Carcharoth 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's a rather skimpy decision and rather short on nuance, but I hope that it will help. I hope that the probation will not have to be used, but it's good to have it available if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdos number evidence

If you have found evidence which meets the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Reward board#Erdos_number, please post it here. (Note that this reward relates to the CfD debate on Erdős number categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Machine learning

Thanks for finding a parent for my orphan. These beauts come up in uncategorized categories pages - these are just a short alphabetic range. Learn something new every day. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Always nice to find a home for a lost child :) Well done you for bringing so many of them in off the streets :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Antonioli

Can you take a peek at Dan_Antonioli. There is a copyright violation tag on it and I was just told the article is being deleted. Can you take a peek, and see what the fuss is about? I can't see the article anymore. There were some strong words exchanged last week in the deletion process, and I suspect this may be a continuation of the process to eliminate the article. The argument is now about how much text in the quote function of the citations constitutes fair use under the DMCA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A category you might like, or not...

As a / the leading light in categorization of British MPs, what do you think of Category:London Labour Party Member of Parliament? My initial thought (leaving aside the actual wording / use of a singular etc) is that it'd be overcategorization to group MPs by city and party, and I can't immediately find any parallel categories e.g. at Category:Labour MPs (UK) or Category:Conservative MPs (UK) to change my first impression. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think aaaargh! Strong delete pronto pronto pronto pronto (or rather upmerge).

1. It's a triple intersection (MP/party/city)
2. It's historically ambiguous (London's boundaries have been radically expanded twice in the last 130 years)
3. It will in many cases not be
4. There is general agreement at CfD that MPs are already as heavily categorised, more categories are a bad idea, and that categorisation by location of seat is inappropriate in finer detail than by country. For some MPs this category will simply be a more verbose replacement for Category:Labour MPs (UK), but for MPs who have also represented seats outside London, it's an extra category. In the current parliament that includes a bunch of Conservatives — Malcolm Rifkind, Peter Bottomley and Jacqui Lait — but in the next Parliament it will include Labour's Stephen Twigg and in previous parliaments it has included lots of notable Labour figures such as Ian Mikardo, Hugh Dalton, Brian Sedgemore, and Hyacinth Morgan (that's just a few from memory)

So I think that this orphaned category should be CfDed pronto. I'd be happy to nominate it, but do you want to do the honours? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to affect your blood pressure so early in the day! I'll nominate it and unashamedly steal your rationale! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As an academic friend of mine says, it's not stealing and it's not plagiarism, it's recycling :) So please go head, do your bit for the environment ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you know this song by Tom Lehrer, which makes the same point? Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friend in Omsk has friend in Tomsk ... yes, I love that song. That's the awful thing about Lehrer: so many wonderful songs that it's hard to select a clear favourite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability tags

Back at WT:Middle-earth, I've proposed to replace your notability (and secondary sources) tags on Tolkien pages with a single Template:ME-importance or Template:Merge JRRT. Do you agree with the points I set out there? Súrendil 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for the note, and see my reply at WT:Middle-earth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note as well. I've also realised (rather belatedly) that the importance categories at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality statistics are effectively a form of assertion of notability made on the talk page. Obviously the evidence needs to be added to the actual articles, but I am confident all the ones in top are easily notable, and similarly most of the ones in high. The other two (mid and low) probably contain more of the ones that concern you, while the 425 here might really shock you! I periodically pick through that category, trying to pick out ones that have reasonable articles and assessing them and assigning an importance. Misty Mountains for example, and the recently discovered Ringers: Lord of the Fans. I guess actually adding references would be more productive, but it does feel like slowly order is being created. Carcharoth 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An update - am starting to work on some of the articles this weekend. I did notice, though, while reviewing my watchlist, that others disagree with your notability assessments. Maybe there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between the generic tags "may not satisfy" and the explicit "I realise it is notable, but please provide sources to document this" requests? The problem with generic tags is that they are very anonymising. There is a world of difference between "I don't know whether this is notable or not, please tell me" and "this is notable, but we need to say so in the article". The former is OK when phrased politely, but when posed in the form of a generic tag, the subtext is "I haven't taken the time to research the topic, but I'm leaving this tag for others to do the work". Anyway, no offense intended, just wanted to jot down a few more general thoughts on the topic before starting the work. Carcharoth 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated that tag. {{notability}} clearly says "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and it is for this asserting notability to provide the references to demonstrate it.

Of course tags such as this invite others to do the work, that's the whole point of them, to invite more people to see if they can bring the article up to scratch. But you still appear to be taking the view that notability is established other than by the evidence of real-word notability. It seems to me that what your argument amounts to is "I know something about the subject of this article, and think that this article is notable, but I couldn't be bothered to do the work to demonstrate that, so I'm asking you take my word for it".

In short, if it's notable, then demonstrate that notability. Don't blame the reader for not doing the work which the writer hasn't done!

I'm sorry if this sounds like a growly reply, but the point here is quite fundamental: that it is up to anyone who adds material to wikipedia to justify its inclusion. The tags simply say "justification not provided". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The tags don't say "justification not provided". They are generic ones that say "The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline". Note the "may". That clearly sends the message: "Not sure exactly what is wrong with this article, but here are a list of possible reasons. Please try and work out what is wrong with the article and fix it". I would be much happier if the tag simply said "Notability has not been established for the topic of this article. See here for notability guidelines on topic x. Please establish notability by referencing ...". This could be accomplished by having parameters for the eight linked notability guidelines, and then people leaving the tags could take the time to leave more useful tags. I agree that writers need to avoid being lazy and should establish notability and sources early on, but readers (or rather, taggers) also need to put in some work as well. Just reading an article and putting "notability" on it is an imbalance in effort, and I hope you can understand that. But enough of this. Time to establish notability. The articles I will tackle first are:

• Gondor
• Mirkwood
• Angband (Middle-earth)
• Arda
• Lonely Mountain
• Lothlórien
• Misty Mountains
• Mordor
• Rivendell
• Moria (Middle-earth)
• Rohan
• Shire (Middle-earth)
• Tol Eressëa
• Eldamar
• Valinor

Please don't throw your hands up in horror if you see me merging some stubs into those articles first. Give me time to finish the job. Carcharoth 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob, if you merge first, and good work clearing the little stubs :) But similarly, if notability has not been established for the merge targets, best to tag them to invite others to establish notability.

The notability tag may not be perfectly worded for every situation, but that's because it does try to cover a variety of situations. You suggested wording of "Please establish notability by..." presuposes that notability can be established, which may not be the case: we don't know until the evidence is laid out.

And I'm sorry, but I can't disagree about this effort thing. The fundamental issue is whether the article currently establishes the notability of the subject (not whether any of us believes or disbelieves that it could establish it), not who fixes it. If there is a warning sign saying "danger: there's no fence on this clifftop", would you take down the sign because the person who put it up should instead have installed a few miles of safety fence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, I wouldn't take the safety sign down. but I do like that analogy. Comparing Wikipedia article notability tags to a cliff danger sign... :-) Carcharoth 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely and utterly over-the-top as a comparison of hazard; nobody's going to plummet to their death because of a few tags. But the same principle applies: keep a warning notice on it until the problem is fixed. (As a less extreme but possibly more comparison, every daily copy of the Westminster editions of Hansard includes a disclaimer that it is a draft, and that the definitive edition will be the weekly bound volumes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RAF Gailes article

I noticed someone (not me) removed a non cited source tag on the page. I have added an external link, would this suffice or is more information useful? Douglasnicol 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• That looks useful, though multiple sources are usually required for verification and to establish notability. So I have changed the tag on RAF Gailes to {{refimprove}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Geobox categories

I'll do as you suggested and first post my objection at this page though I don't think it's necessary, it's just polite. There are a couple of things around this template (and not only its categorization scheme) which have shaken my respect to the Wikipedia community a great deal. I'm definitely going to raise my objections somewhere, I just I don't not yet what's the best place to get more attention. I've always believed the major aim of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia for the benefit of readers all around the world and that the community around this project believes in fairness, objectiveness and definitely prefers a seeking consesus in all issues. The {{Geobox}} template is a highly versatile template which can be used for virtually any type of geography related data, it's major advantages are consistent, easily parseable, user-friendly data format and a uniform data presentation with a lot of automation (unit conversions, automated locator maps etc.) It doesn't "compete" with other templates, it is not used by its creators to "eat-up" other templates as it is the case of other templates, it is just here and users/editors can decide whether they prefer this template or some other. After some users' request, the auto categorization scheme was started as no-one had come up with a better solution. It's absolutely fair to disagree with it, but these objections should be expressed in a polite and fair way which I'm afraid wasn't the case here at all.

User:Darwinek placed a suggestion (a mere suggestion) on my talk page which I answered. He didn't give any clear reason why he objected to the auto catgorization, just I think these categories shouldn't show up and another user wrote I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. A bit vague, rather just personal point of view. Anyway, the sugestion got answered. Instead of clearly statting the reasons for the suggestion, this user moved to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question where he made some false statements, not based on anything that was written before, to which User:Francis Schonken repeatedly added abolutely absurd and false accusations (which I believe gave me a good ground to raise an official complaint). Yet at least he/she made the objections to the issue clear. I repeatdly asked anyone to continue a normal discussion where it rightly belonged: Template_talk:Geobox#Auto_categories. Though we (the people around the Geobox) were repeatedly accused of being unwilling to cooperate it was the other way round, the people who objected just made accusations, issued instructions and didn't bother to come up with any solutions or at least suggestions (besides suggesting to ditch the template completely).

I strongly object to:

• Unwillingness to open a discussion (I requested it at least five times) and instead complaining behind everyone's back (I mean the creator's and the users' who requested this functionality and were making use of it.)
• Using absolutely false arguments and strong accusations when those making them obviusly did not understand the topic being discussed.

I didn't want to make fuss about this treatment but I was possibly wrong as it seems this behavior becoming more and more common on Wikipedia.

And you were right there would be strong oppositing to the way how the discussion was closed. As there was obviously no consensus at all. I consider the situation when one user closes a discussion based on their own interpreatation of a debate as a breach of wiki etiquette (and it would be a breach of a discussion anyplace). It was stated good reasons weren't given. How come? What wiki policy is that which would say if a feature which is found useful by many users while not breaking any of basic rules (no personal attacks, NPOV, no bias etc.), not breaking or damaging the ideas on which Wiki is built is bad just because some users are able to browse thru thousands of often contradictory policies and guidelines (which I don't think are binding but a subject of debate and opposition). You state that technical categories such "Artciles needing this or that since October 2006" are OK in the main namespace for the benefit of a reader. Is it a general concensus or a consensus of a few self-proclaimed regulators? Besides, the appropriate page says: "They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." I boldified the last section because it seems to explain perfectly what the situation is, these templates are not officially accepted or rejected but just some users think they are useful and so they have the right to be here. I'm definitely not that well acquainted with the thousands of rules and exceptions to these rules but I daresay I know well what the principle of Wikipedia is and that is a peaceful coorperation whose main target is to create a the largest and and free source of information for anyone to use. Those, who add geoboxes to articles, do not place rubbish to their articles but supply them with a lot of neatly organised data. Each Geobox added means a lot of work done. And the categories are highly useful for them. Furthermore, it is not true there was no reason given why the template was useful for a reader, so let me just repeat: it helps the reader find out articles which contain neatly organized geodata about a place (editors don't just add geoboxes with one or two chaotic lines, they fill them with a lot of useful data). Wikipedia is not here for editors but for readers first.

There were couple of views expressed in the debate, some wanted to keep the categories completely, some suggested renaming them so that they didn't contain the word geobox (which I accept was not a good idea at all and should be changed and asked about possible alternative names but as usual got no answers). I suggested I'll make changes to the template that would satisfy both sides but that I need to work out the best solution. No help was given. (Except USer:SEWilco who was the only one who really tried to help and suggested various solutions, thank you very much indeed.) But simply some users' voices mean nothing. I do not think this is the right course for Wikipedia, that so many discussions are flooded by users putting in tens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than discussiing the merit of the thing: does this help improve Wikipedia or not? Adding those categories was not my idea, I did that following a request from other users as it seemed the most elegant solution. I do not personally care much about them but I'm strongly concerned about the free spirit of Wikipedia being damaged by users imposing rules for rules, creating world of their own bound by them, not respecting other views, refusals to discuss things, imposing orders but no viable solutions … – Caroig (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Clandfield

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I'm not too sure if you will receive this message but I was at school with a guy called Stephen who, I think had the title of Viscount Clandfield. I'm not completely sure of the spelling of "Clandfield" but he would've been at Stowe School in Stowe, Buckingham from around 1975 until 1980.

All I can remember of him was that he was quite an introvert, although he had a very sharp wit which often got him into trouble with both tutors and pupils. He had a particular interest in natural history.

The last I heard of him was that he'd relocated to Johannesburg in around 1988/89... I've not heard anything since then.

Hope this may be of some help to you.

Kind regards, David Goldstein ( d.goldstein@hotmail.co.uk ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty1234 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was initially unsure why you are telling me, but I see that there was a discussion here (now in my archives at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_008#Viscount_Clandfield) about this title. However I know nothing about the subject other than what's written there) and the fact that the article Viscount Clandfield was deleted at 20:38 on 12 September 2007 by User:Craigy144for the stated reason: "(nonsense article - no such creation of this title.)"

The fact that my talk page takes the No. 3 position in a google search for "Viscount Clandfield" suggests to me that this title is not prominent in the usual lists of peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The google search does reveal a Stephen Richardson as 4th Viscount Clanfield but that is definitely a spoof title. There was however a Viscount Clanfield and Earl Peel created 10 July 1929, granted to William Robert Wellesley Peel. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London

I'm on the case. Thanks Jed keenan 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Lemme know if I can help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

TTI Telecom

Hi. I noticed you deleted this article as spam. I looked at it very closely as part of a detailed review of spammy articles I did recently at Talk:List of network management systems‎. While a TTI Telecom-related editor did a lot of spammy stuff, I think the company is notable. As I recall, it's listed on the Israeli stock exchange; that alone is usually taken as a sign of notability. A quick search of Google's News Archives turns up 567; probably 80 to 90% are press releases, but that still leaves several dozen articles from Forbes, the Jerusalem Post, etc. I may have tagged it for notability (I don't remember) but if so, it was because:

1. I was spending hours working through a long list of articles quickly looking for deletion candidates that I could immediately process per CSD, PROD or AfD. I did not look closely at possibly iffy articles.
2. I wanted to flag that somebody needed to add some refs citing notability

I suggest if you still want to delete this that you restore the article and list it at AfD.

As for Category:TTI Telecom, all those individual products of TTI's are not notable and I proposed them for deletion several days ago. They'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if you restore TTI Telecom. I suggest that if you see these links go red, you just speedy the category:

• Netrac
• Netrac FaM
• Netrac PMM
• ServiceImpact
• TrafficGuard

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just restored the article and listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom.

Now that the head article is restored, the category probably won't empty before the CfD closes, so a speedy is probably off the menu, but it's a only a few days delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the prompt objection, while it was all fresh in my head! :) (heda beg turned to mush by raking through the hundreds of bizarre orphans in Special:Uncategorizedcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki

I'm wondering if this whole fight about notability fiction is going in the wrong direction, Kind of like trying to put out a forest fire by stomping on burning leaves. I'm wondering if we should make a proposal somewhere that some of these fictional wikiprojects be moved off of wikipeida. Ridernyc 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have wondered about that. There is clearly a lot of hard work going into some of these fiction wikiprojects, and I do understand why the authors are upset to see some of the material facing possible deletion. I'm pleased to say that my discussions with the ME-project have become very friendly and productive, and that they do seem to be starting to get to work on taking on board notability as part of their remit.

However, despite all the goodwill built up since last week, I do wonder how easy it's going to be for them to do that, when there are some really dedicated Tolkien-fans who want maximum coverage of everything, and don't get the notability and referencing issues (see e.g. my discussion with User:Cush).

Any idea how this could be raised in a non-confrontational way? I think it's really important not to give anyone an impression that there is any sort of desire to make wikipedia a fiction-free zone, and that it's actually a way to allow the fans to set out their knowledge at unlimited length without tussles ... and that wikipedia will continue to apply notability tests in an even-handed way to fictional articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of of this travels beyond notability, and I consider 99% of the fiction pages I have ever looked at to be violations of WP:Plot> I'm really not sure how to start maybe just a conversation at village pump. I tried looking at wikiprojects today and figure how that's run and so far all I can find is a nightmare of messy pages and guidelines, and the projects council which is a mess and has no direction. I've also wondered if maybe we should push this to the policy level, maybe start conversations at WP:NOT, WP:V and others stating that the numerous guidelines are overshadowing and contradicting policy. All I know is this is nuts and can't keep going on, I found this page yesterday List_of_one-time_characters_and_guest_stars_on_Desperate_Housewives I then found 3-4 other pages all listing NN characters from the show.Ridernyc 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you notcied?

Your talk page in now in the "Unknown importance Tolkein article" catagory.Ridernyc 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now fixed, although I suspect that there was some existential truth somewhere in that categorisation of me :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewards

I was going to offer $10 a couple of days ago, if there were no more Erdos posts, but thought it somewhat against the spirit of WP. Now I'm rather regretting it! Johnbod 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on, there's still time! And I'd be very surprised if you were parted from your money. :)

I do hope it's not seen as against the spirit to do it this way around, because if there's any suggestion of undue influence, or money leading the debate, it's money being used to encourage the other side to come up with some killer facts, like one side paying another's legal bills.

It is strange, though, to watch mathematicians standing their ground over trivia, just like some fictions fans tend to do over every obscure character or place in the fictional world of their choosing. (Actually, now that I think about it, the similarity may be greater than I thought; it's the same phenomenon of a thoroughly notable subject, but in which not every little detail is notable). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

100

If they didn't want the work they shouldn't have taken the job. No sympathy! Pile 'em on! Bury the barsteds! Otto4711 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:)

I have done most of Special:Uncategorizedcategories, so I hope today will be a one-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the laugh.

this was really funny: [11]. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good :) CfD can get v tedious, but I try to avoid saying in that would offend those who created a category or take a view on the subject under discussion, so it's rare that I feel safe to say anything which might lighten the gloom of life in the category-repair-shop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:User:Mdd

Hi, I wanted to ask if it's not allowed to create your own user category. This is for me very helpfull because I develope different article over a longer period and sometimes lose them. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have a similar category. Is there a policy here? - Mdd 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was disallowed, but couldn't find a reference, so I have just proposed to rename it to incorporate the word "wikipedian", as required for all user categories.

However, I wonder why you need it. Doesn't Special:Prefixindex work for you , like this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help! (again)

Phibsborough and Phibsboro are pretty similar, the result of a failed experiment. Could you help sort it out? (Sarah777 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Response to message left on my user page

Regarding the below message left on my user page:

[edit] Supercentenarian trackers Hi Ryoung

I'm sure that your intentions are good, but your postings to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers are becoming disruptive, and I have just deleted a lot of material which is irrelevant to the discussion. CfD is not the place to discuss the details of a possible article, but simply to discuss whether a category should be kept, renamed, merged or deleted.

Per WP:TPG, posts at CfD are normally kept brief, and restricted to a few pertinent points. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting material pertinent to discussion can hardly be described as 'disruptive' or 'irrelevant'. Perhaps you should consider whether your actions and comments have been in line with what is expected of someone from your position.Ryoung122 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A single reply which amounts to three screenfuls is deeply disruptive, which is why I deleted it all. See WP:TPG: "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Votestacking?

Dear BHG,

{a screenful of irrelevancies deleted by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)}

I am here on Wikipedia to 'give back' to the community and educate the public. I am not here to cause problems for long-time Wikipedians. However, it is true that what I do may not be well-known to the general public. Yet when you hear of the world's oldest person passing away, everyone hears of that.

Sincerely, Robert Young World's Leading Expert Ryoung122 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, all that "about me" stuff is irrelevant to the vote-stacking exercise, and irrelevant to keeping or deleting a category, except insofar as there is a clear conflict of interest in creating a small category specifically for the field in which you claim to be the "World's Leading Expert".

If you want to "give back" to the community through wikipedia, then you really do need to start trying much much harder to work with the wikipedia community, which that means following wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That includes:

• Follow WP:TPG. Link to discussions and edits rather than copying-and-pasting them, keep your contrbutions brief and to the point (don't splat in huge blobs of text from external references), learn about indentation and threading and don't just start a new section for each reply.
• Stay within the spirit of WP:COI. Don't create articles about yourself or your friends, and don't create categories for them either
• Respect wikipedia's process of consensus, and don't abuse it by votestacking

You say that you are the "World's Leading Expert", and I would like to believe that, although my experience of the world is that people who claim that sort of title for themselves or their products are often, to put it mildly, overstating the case (and, no, that's not an invitation to spam this talk page with more links to your achievements). But this self-promotion and disruption makes your claim less and less credible.

I found the Category:Supercentenarian trackers while I was clearing out the Special:uncategorizedcategories, and I have no axe to grind here: my only interest was in drawing attention to an inappropriate category (it's orphaned, it contains an unsourced essay, and it's underpopulated with little potential for growth). My own great-aunt lived to be 110, but I have little or no interest in the subject either way; I just don't like badly designed categories, and put in a few hours every day helping to decide what to do with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am interested in claims to age 110+. How about this: you tell me the name of the person and what nation she was born in, and I bet I can find the birth and death dates. She may already be on my lists. Or, give me the birth and death dates and I'll probably be able to find out the name. Given that you appear to be Irish, I wouldn't be surprised if she were Irish (not that hard to figure out, granted, but we cannot assume).

And, if by the off chance I don't know who it is, if you have the documents I'll add her to the worldwide database. How about that?Ryoung122 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm NOT selling a product. There is no 'robertyoung.com'. I am a science researcher. I am here to educate the public as to how long the human life span really is. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for...to educate the public...or is it here merely to reflect what the kids already know, gobs of articles on high schools, college football players like Keeley Dorsey and fictional TV settings like Sunnydale, California?Ryoung122 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for the offer wrt my great aunt, but I prefer to maintain my anonymity, and her children are for various reasons rather private folk, so I wouldn't want to step on their toes.

As to selling a product, it seems to me you keep on missing the point: that the results of your research, like anyone else's research, can be included here if they meet the neutrally-designed verifiability and notability thresholds, and I don't see any move to delete that material. The difficulties have not been over that, but over your promotion of the people who do the research, including yourself. With the best will in the world, there are difficulties in assessing one's own notability, which is one good reason why it's best left to others. The other good reason not to write about oneself in this way is that if queries arise about the notability of an article on yourself, it's much harder not to take it personally if you have had a hand in writing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Truce Proposal. I would very much like to operate on Wikipedia in a proper manner. Despite all the negativity, I was looking for a response like the one (above) and I finally got it.

The current Irish record is 111 years 327 days set by Katherine Plunket (in 1932!), the oldest record in the book. Other public Irish cases to 110+ include Florence Lytle, Elizabeth Yensen, and Catherine Furey...a very short list. We know that Irene Richardson (born May 29 1896) made it to 109 but no updates since. The lists we have include over 1,000 cases worldwide.

Please note that my original creation of an 'autobiography' was partly factored by the creation of the article David Allen Lambert by himself...an autobiography. He was involved with ONE supercentenarian case. ONE. I had over 1,000. He deemed himself notable with a little self-publicity coverage. Seem fair? Not quite. Also, some have been asserting that persons such as Mary Ramsey Wood were '120' when the evidence pointed to 97. When the question became 'on what authority' do you say she was 97, it made sense to create my own article and provide a link to it from the appropriate article...because, in actuality, I am the authority.

Note I didn't include in my autobiography: parents, high school, anything like that. Only material relevant to answering the question: why should a reader of Wikipedia trust me when I say that someone like Micajah Weiss isn't really 114 years old? As a child, I was 'fooled' by several cases that turned out to be false, such as Pierre Joubert (claimed to be 113, turned out to be 82). It became my mission to educate the world as to how long people really live. Wikipedia is a part of that education mission.

Note that I was the major case contributor and co-organizer for this book, which also was made into a featured exhibit at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

This book included a foreword by U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. That was in 2002...before Guinness hired me.

So, already in 2002, persons like Jerry Friedman searched for an expert and they found me. He lived in Connecticut...I lived in Atlanta. Hardly what I'd call a 'local' story.

Yet even earlier, in 2000 I had gotten an invitation to Germany to attend the FIRST annual conference on supercentenarians. In 2004 I was called to help form the 'Supercentenarian Research Foundation.' Thus I have been not just an 'editor' or 'listmaker' but involved in setting up the very apparati that are now involved in this emerging field.

When the Wall Street Journal wanted an expert, who did they turn to?

Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal"We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, .... Club Has One Requirement: 110 Birthday Candles," The Wall Street Journal, pp. ... www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Similarly, I have also been cited/quoted/mentioned in the NY Times, Japan Times, BBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. I actually worked on a project for an NBC news segment in 2005 with Max Gomez.

OK, if you don't think that makes one notable, then fine. But I expect to see junk like Keeley Dorsey done away with. Two touchdowns and oops, died at 19 from the heat while in practice, does not constitute 'notability.'

By the way, I have already developed the 'XX theory' of gender differentials in supercentenarians. It's not due out, however. I agree on the 'professor' front I'm 'not yet notable.' That will probably change in the future. But in the meantime it seems that I should be counted as 'notable' based on the fact that, when the media want a person to turn to regarding supercentenarians, they often turn to me. That's over 1,000 newspapers on all six continents...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia. This is not a little 'hometown' citation. For example, ABC news:

ABC News: 2nd Oldest Man in World Dies at Age 113Moses Hardy, Last Known Black WWI Vet, Dies at 113; Listed As 2nd Oldest Man in the ... Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2711726 - Similar pages

ABC News: Oldest Person Dies at 114 in ConnecticutEmma Faust Tillman, World's Oldest Known Person, Dies at 114 ... Her four-day reign was the shortest on record, said Robert Young, senior consultant for ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2831097 - Similar pages

Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:

http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm

have cited me (even though I'm not linked to it and not deriving any money from it).

Thus, there is no 'fear' that mine would be the 'first' of many additional articles. Actually, mine wasn't the first...E Ross Eckler Jr, who worked for Guinness in the 1950's, was the first article. Thus I see myself as continuing in that tradition. I did not decide to be notable...others decided for me. Every group I was with, invited me to 'help' them get started on the subject. I have done more than 'create' lists. While true that Louis Epstein was also a pioneer, I have already invented several concepts including organizing data by 'oldest by year of birth' and invented ideas such as the 'age bubble effect,' 'XX theory of gender-related lifespan differential' (why women live longer). In 2002, I overturned the long-standing notion that 'life expectancy increase in the West began about 1750', instead demonstrating it went back to the 1200's. That's notable...to researchers. Maybe not to those concerned about cartoons on TV.

So, I propose this: I will be 'polite' and 'civil'. In exchange I request that you not delete material that, even if you don't consider relevant, I do, and consider that some statements made, even if not intentional, may have been incorrect. For example, that article you said didn't mention me, actually mentioned me seven times. It is only fair for whomever may vote to delete me would do so based on the actual facts, not miscontrued information. Is that too much to ask?

Sincerely, Robert Young

Vote check

Hi, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:Books_in_discourse_analysis you voted "Rename per nom" here; the nom was (presumably) to delete, but i'd suggested a rename.

I thought I'd let Erdos run for the record in the end - it must be a contender. What will be next weeks hornet's nest? Cheers Johnbod 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

oops! I meant rename the books per Johnbod, but it looks like Kbdank71 read my meaning correctly (Kb is a very astute CfD closer).

On the Erdos numbers, I do hope someone puts it out if its misery it's going nowhere and it will all end up at DRV anyway, so the sooner this phase ends, the better. You're right, though, that it looks set for a record, which actually rather surprised me, because I thought that the Scottish oil fields were going to be sunday's cause celebre, but it fizzled out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Erdos numbers, I have picked up on a post of Lquilter's to suggest a solution: put it on talk pages as a WikiProject Mathematics category, under Category:WikiProject Mathematics articles.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

oops!

There are only c410, not over 600 US country stations, so I changed both our refs to the number, which I hope is ok. Johnbod 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Thanks for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scottish MPs

Scotland_constituency#Members_of_Parliament_returned_for_Scotland contains a lot of wrong links. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that's probably inevitable while there are so few articles on the first Scottish MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sorted the blue links which should be red, but not red should be blue. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please delete Hugh Montgomerie (Canadian politician) if non-notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done sorting the links. I have zapped Hugh Montgomerie (Canadian politician), because his only claim to fame (so far) is coming second in a ward in the Toronto municipal election, 1976, which fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Promptly unzapped. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Porter and Anna Maria Porter

Hi BrownHairedGirl, could you confirm what connection these ladies have to Ireland as they seem to have been born in Durham and lived all their life in England? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. As you may have seen, I added them in this edit and this one to Category:Irish women writers because they were already in Category:Irish novelists. At the time I made no evaluation beyond that, because I was just categorising women writers according to existing Irish writer categs, but having just checked Jane's DNB entry I find that their father was a surgeon in the 6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons, an Irish regiment (at least nominally). The DNB article on their brother Sir Robert Ker Porter is slightly more informative: it says of their father that "He was descended from an old Irish family, whose ancestors included Sir William Porter, who fought at Agincourt".

None of three DNB articles mentions Jane, Anna Maria or Robert ever setting foot in Ireland, and it seems unlikely because their father died when they were all infancy, and their mother took them all to Edinburgh. So far as I can see, though, as children of an apparently Irish father they would all have been Irish citizens if born in similar circumstances in the 20th century, but they should probably be categorised as English.

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change them to English. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Sayeed

Perhaps it would be useful if you said on the talk page why you have labelled the article on Jonathan Sayeed (npov, cleanup needed; please discus on talk page).--Toddy1 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just finished writing it, now there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SDP party colours

See reply on my talk page. Cheers Galloglass 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot seeks approval

For the benefit of anyone watching this page who might be interested, I thought I'd note that I have created a bot called BHGbot, to be used for a limited number of specific purposes. BHGbot has not been approved: see the request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot.

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#BHGbot_to_tag_WP:IE_articles.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Help please

LiberalViews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already warned about his conduct by ArbCom member Mackensen for this edit, and seems to be on a trolling mission right now. Firstly there's the removal of reliably sourced content claiming "propaganda", adding POV/weaselry (source says nothing of the sort). Then related to that there's claiming sources were used falsely, further similar accusations and trolling, trolling including inflammatory edit summary, more trolling, soapboxing, personal attacks and trolling, and repeated trolling on the WikiProject talk page. Just in case you aren't aware, IED refers to improvised explosive device. Advice welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be subjected to a checkuser against certain The Troubles edit-war participants. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From the checks I have done, ONIH's assessment of the edits is spot on, and i note with relief that LiberalViews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked. Any evidence to point to any particular one of The Troubles parties? At the moment, the only action I can see is to ask for a checkuser against all 36 editors listed in the RFA, which seems to be both a huge burden to place on checkuser and a bit of a fishing trip. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be "our friend in New York" Rms125a@hotmail.com trying to provoke people with one of his many socks. There was a gap in his contribs when he was also editing using this IP - 216.194.2.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't really have the energy to rustle up a checkuser as based on his many, many disposable socks it wouldn't serve that much purpose, but without it I'm not too sure as his other edits aren't particularly RMSesque. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Or an edit-warring unionist. There are many people it is not (e.g. vk). - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, I have no evidence to point a finger anyone, and while I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of an agent provocateur, there is no evidence. I don't think that there is much we can do except to hope that the terms of probation continue to be applied, and that others don't let this sort of drive-by trolling wind then them up again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget though, it's an absolute fact that the 17 year old talked about in the Martin Meehan article was "beaten and interrogated" despite the judge saying his evidence was "poor quality". However it's only an allegation that he confessed to being an informer right? And people wonder why we have all these problems? It's pretty obvious that any anti-Irish republican information is absolute fact, but anything supposedly positive must be POV right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever either side's view of the appropriate label for the troubles (war/terrorism/civil unrest etc), all the usual blindness of war applies here, in spades :( It's going to take a loomg time for some people to face up to what was happening on both sides there, and there are too few people like Meehan and Gusty Spence who are ready to to do it.

I think the only solution to this sort of nonsense is a very firm application of the probation on offer from arbcom. One of the reasons that things escalated so badly beforehand is that admins had to escalate slowly even in the face of this sort of trolling, but those days are over. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've still yet to figure out a good way to work it into the articles, but Pat McGeown and Billy Hutchinson became quite close, in fact Hutchinson visited McGeown's home to pay his last respects on the morning of his funeral. If the people who were that involved (and many others) can find ways to work together, I don't see why it can't happen here without editors being hit with metaphorical big sticks first. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's often the old soldiers who can make the biggest leaps: they more than anyone else know what the conflict actually cost. I have seen this often in the veterans I have known of formal wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Israel-Lebanon 1983, and even among cold war generals); they can very often be found sitting down together agreeing that there should be no return to the conflict, and that's why HM University The Maze was so crucial back in the lead-up to good friday.

But while the armchair warriors on wikipedia may well have suffered during the conflict they have not been forced to confront the stark realities as the old soldiers had to. My best guess is long after Gerry Kelly and Peter Robinson are jointly marching on the Twelfth and acting as joint patrons of the Feis Ceol, we'll still have plenty of the uninvolved trying to poke their fingers in each others eyes like kids in a playground. Better, I suppose, to have it happening here than in the torture-cells at Castlereagh or the back-street kneecapping zones.

Back on topic, though, I do hope that you can work some of these personal rapprochements into to the articles. Like Cyril Ramaphosa's fishing trips, those vignettes are to my mind one of the biggest signs of hope to come out of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This makes my head hurt

This seems like a misuse of the category system and I'm wondering if some of this mess needs to be cleaned up. Things like categories for articles that don't exist strike me as a bad road to go down. Otto4711 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! My head hurts after reading that. It even starts to rival Pastorwayne.

I have a few other things on the go right now, and apart from needing an aspirinfest, I don't have the energy to tackle that one :( But if you can find the time I suggest a mass WP:RFD on the redirects and and then a group CfD on the category. Lemme know if you do it, and I'll lend my support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, redirects often need to be kept because they have edit history for text that has been merged elsewhere. That needs to be checked either before, or at, RfD. And in general, categorisation of redirects is accepted. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Finally, administrative categories are perfectly acceptable. See {{Wikipediacat}}. Sorry if you both knew this already, but it wasn't clear from the above whether you were grouping in the administrative categories with the redirect categories. The "planning" aspects of the categories should be removed to the WikiProject space, and linked from the category, I agree. Carcharoth 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some of the redirects should probably stay (those that are the residue of a merger), but that the categories should be removed to project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable Canadian hyperlinks and redirects

Category:Ontario_municipal_election_results_templates leads to alll sorts of blue links that should be de-linked. Is there a way to do a mass tagging? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they could be tagged with apart from a generic {{cleanup}} tag, which isn't very informative. May I suggest talking to the templates' creator? They all seem to have been the work of CJCurrie (talk · contribs).

I do agree that the names should not be linked unless there are specific articles on those people, because the names nearly all relate to local councillors, who have no presumption of notability in WP:BIO. CJCurrie may not be aware of this, so it would be a good idea to explain the point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 6#Non-notable_Toronto_local_election_candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Well done. Sadly I notice it goes well beyond Toronto. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me :( I suggest that we treat this rfd as a test case, and if it passes, then it should be easier to zap the rest. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

This discussion related to canvassing by Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), who posted his reply both here and on his talk page. I have replied at User talk:Ryoung122#Category:_Supercentenarian_Trackers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User 160.81.29.174

Could you have a look at this ip he vandalised Wall Street article last night and if you look at his talk page you will see that he has been warned repeatedly it seems it is an account just for vandalisim thanks. BigDunc 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dunc, you're right. It's petty and childish, but it's vandalism nonetheless, and it wastes a lot of time for others tidying up after this stuff. I have blocked 160.81.29.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for three months, which is as long as seems to be considered acceptable for IPs. Roll on compulsory registration, I say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear thanks for that on a bit of vandal patrol at the moment studying for exams so not much time for reasearch on projects so just going after the bad guys ha ha. BigDunc 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work. And good luck with the exams! .. and don't let this stuff distract you too much from the path to first class honours :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging - how to keep track

Hi there. I've noticed you doing some more tagging, and I'd like to thank you for that. One question - is there an easy way to generate a list or category of the articles you've tagged? I'd like to be able to review such a list, as some will be easy to deal with straightaway (such as On Fairy-Stories). I can't work out any easy way, other than following your contribs logs, or using Template:ME-importance, or a variant of that. What do you think? Carcharoth 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again :) I wish it was easier to track this sort of thing :( If we had dynamic category intersection, we could rapidly generate virtual categories such as the intersection between Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Works by J. R. R. Tolkien, and it would be really useful for all sorts of purposes, but particularly for those diligent editors like you who are keen to bring the article up to scratch.

At the moment, the only way I can see of doing that is to use a project-specific variant of each template, which woukd add aricles to project-specific cleanup categories. As per our discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth, that has its downsides in that it could lead to the creation of many forks of the tags, which could both dilute the message of the tags and lead to the articles not being categorised in the relevant tracking categories such as Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2007.

But those I have been thinking about it a bit more, because it seems a pity to let technical niceties impede the efforts of you and others to improve articles. I think I can see a possible win-win solution, which I'd like your thoughts on:

• The way I think that this could be done is to provide a hook in the underlying {{ambox}} template, accessible through the {{unreferenced}} etc, which would allow customisation parameters. So, for example, {{ME-unreferenced}} would consist of something like {{unreferenced|project=Middle-earth|project-tracking-cateory:WikiProject Middle Earth unreferenced articles|project-guidelines=foo|project-specific-extra-text=Middle Earth likes references}}. That way the template logic could handle categorisation, so that the usual tracking categories are all included, and it could ensure that the core text of the template is modidified. That way, if the standard text in {{unreferenced}} is changed, it cascades through to all the templates derived from it.
• I suggest that we trash this around a bit and then (unless we conclude it's a dead duck idea), talk to the folks at the Wikipedia:Article message boxes standardisation project about a generic way of allowing these maintenance template to be safely adapted for a wikiproject.

If this makes any sense, what do you think? I hope that in outline this might be a way of helping projects tidyup articles in their own areas, but without creating the maintenance headaches of content-forking or losing articles from the generic wikipedia tracking categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Though I wouldn't give up on category intersection just yet. See Wikipedia:Category intersection, and look around. There are lots of ideas and some working systems. Just none that work here yet. Bots can also update category intersections, and if all else fails, manual intersection is possible if the categories are small. Unfortunately, Category:All articles lacking sources is not small. Manual intersection could be done with the date-limited ones, but integrating topic-specific (rather than WikiProject specific) categories would be an idea. See what was done at Template:Fact, which can be submodifed by using Template:Fix, as was done with Template:Me-fact. Carcharoth 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia:Category intersection link; the problem still seems to be not the lack of code but the fact that implementing it would overload the servers, which I think is roughly where it has been at for at least a year. The suggestion of a separate category database server may have potential as a way of lowering the bar, but I guess even that would cost money. I haven't lost hope, but it still seems that any holding of breath would be inadvisable.

I like your dry observation that Category:All articles lacking sources is "not small"; just a slight understatement :) But if this technique provides a way of drawing the attention of wikiprojects to problems in their area, allowing them to fix the problems, it might stop the category growing quite so fast. I'll post a proposal to the Wikipedia:Article message boxes standardisation project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you have time to check this. Wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you meant by the tag. BTW, I left an earlier response at the same time as a previous one (in the section started by Otto), so just making sure you didn't miss that. Carcharoth 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You was quite correct to remove the tag: after you had added so many secondary sources, notability is clearly established, and my concerns were solely about notability. BTW, I think that series of edits pretty much illustrates how these tags should work: editor who knows nowt about the subject spots a structural deficiency and tags the article, then an expert comes along and doesn't just get over the hurdle but takes the article way beyond it. And in this case, with an impressively quick turnaround time :)

It think it also illustrates how useful it would be to have project-sorted tagging of this sort of problem, to make . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for project-specific extensions of tags

See Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Project-specific_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and dusted

Rose Dugdale finished, after much hard work.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article -- a fascinating story, told in a rigorously neutral style whilst bringing in all the details and including enough colour to give a real flavour of the personality. Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On the "image needed" front there is actually a possibility. There's a couple of photos in the book, and one of them is of her and female friend dressed up as men for the gatecrashing incident. I'm well aware that fair use of living people is generally quite restrictive, but I'm thinking that's a unique enough photo to merit fair use? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never had much involvement with image policy, so I think that any guidance I offered on licensing or BLP wrt images would be useless :( But I do hope there is some way of getting that photo up there, it sounds like great fun.

BTW, I can see several potential DYK items in that article, so I hope you find time to nominate it. (the dressing-as-men episode, the first helicopter attack, and first marriage of two Irish prisoners). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort of admin doesn't know about image policy? ;) And I'm well ahead of you on the DYK front, although feel free to suggest any alternative hooks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort admin? One who loves words and can't draw, and whose preference for text is probably not unrelated to her lack of any photogenic qualities :)

There doesn't seem to be room to fit the marriage into the DYK item, so I have posted a second entry. I dunno if that's allowed, but we'll see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's generally done underneath and without refs, but I fixed everything. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

is being vandalised. Please would you fix and semi-protect. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected again for 6 months. There is something about the persistence of vandalism to that particular article which makes me a little sad about the state of some chunks of humanity :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One for you

As our resident expert on Irish administrative miscellany, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo? This looks to be headed for a delete vote under highly dubious circumstances (the place patently does exist) - but do you think Wikipedia's "all named geographic locations should have their own article" policy breaks down at the townland level?

Incidentally you're now in the top 10 of all time by edit count... — iridescent 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Top ten? Aaargh. I must hive my AWB edits off to a separate account. Meanwhile, look what pops to the top if you put BrownHairedGirl into Goooogle. So much for hoping for obscurity for that typo :(

I have added a little location info for Derry, and my comments at the AfD. I fear that there is some recentism at work, or at least a certain lack awareness of how the historical geography of a country which until very recently exported most of its people raises very different issues to that of a country which avoided such calamities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to at least keep going until you hit 100k... — iridescent 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that when I get a gold watch, or will I just be sent off to the knackers yard to be rendered down into pig food? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You get officially classified as a bot. — iridescent 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The folks who coded me will be very pleased!

Maybe that's why BRFA request is a taking a while, if they are waiting for my edit count to climb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirects

Please see my response here. CJCurrie 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe You Can Figure This Out

I'm cleaning up Category:Urban_legends and I can't figure out why Talk:Killer badger is listed or how to remove it. 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{urbanlegend}} template automatically adds it to the category. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks.Ridernyc 10:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom

Hi -- I have rewritten TTI Telecom, originally a spam article, and included references since you nominated it for deletion. I invite you to take another look at the article and its AfD before the AfD closes shortly. I am not affiliated with the company; in fact, I PROD'd their 4 other articles -- see Talk:List of network management systems.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the pointer. I have now withdrawn the nomination. Your rewrite in neutral terms solves the self-promotional problems, and the refs you have provided in the mainstream press (not just the trade press) demonstrate notability per WP:CORP's requirement of substantial coverage in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Listas parameter in WPBiography template

It seems to me an obvious MoS, but please could it be stated somewhere that listas=Smith, Sir John is not correct and it should be listas=Smith, John. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a general indexing issue? Same applies to {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, John}}, and for Sir Egbert Snodgrass, 6th Baronet it's {{DEFAULTSORT:Snodgrass, Egbert, 6th Baronet }}, not Sir Egbert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been going through unprioritised Baronets, trying to assess their importance / priority, and am coming across a number who are wrongly shown on listas (which is on the talk page). Defaultsort ia usually right. - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline appears to be Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering_names_in_a_category, which seems to be completely silent on the point. If you have the energy, it would be a good idea to propose a knight-and-baronets clause. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good find. I think it is clear on the point - in that it says "Surname, Forename" but I have added the point as an additional note for the sake of clarity. I doubt anyone would wish to challenge it since it is normal indexing policy. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it looks like a weak case to me. One substantive piece of coverage, and one mention in a list which is reprinted in a few places. The other interviews, comixtalk include, don't look to me like WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster's "mass" movement of article page names

I notice that over the past 24 hours Kitty has move the titles of a number of articles relating to Baronets. Now it kicked off big time over this time especially when now disambing is required. We have just had an arbcom and the issue of Baronet played a large part in this, I would be tempted to change them all back and report Kitty but in the spirit of the arbcom I would like you to see if you can sort it out. regards--Vintagekits 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any news with regard to this?--Vintagekits 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a msg on Kittybewster's talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Grand, I have seen his reply also. I am not sure "noted" cuts the mustard tbh. I would prefer he actually put them back into their correct titles, with the exception of those which you believed to be correct titled of course. Finally, I am not sure what his reference to the tit-for-tat proposal is about - I dont think I have titted or tatted! If he feels I have incorrectly titled articles for boxers I would be glad to rectify them. thanks for looking into it and regards.--Vintagekits 18:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think that would be better, but as long as articles are disambiguated where needed I don't think that it's a big deal. And when it comes disambiguation, I don't take the narrowest possible definition of "needed"; I recall someone once arguing that Dorset South was sufficiently distinct from South Dorset that no disambiguation was needed :(
  But aside from disambiguation, I am puzzled as to why the baronet-naming issue seems so important to both of you. In the spirit of the abcom decision, wouldn't it be better for you to stay off Kittybrester's case, just as he appears to have stayed off yours and you asked Rockpocket to leave you alone? There's enough bad blood between the pair of you to fill many a swimming pool, and it seems to me to be much better for both of you to stick to your own areas of interest and exprtise.
  Anyway, I should have given you a warmer welcome back to my talk page after such a long absence :) It's nice to have you back, and I hope that in future we can all go the extra mile to minimise any conflict. ONIH sets a great example: avoiding the minor disagreements and concentrating on churning out lots of good articles, such as the recent one Rose Dugdale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see it as a breach of the Arbcom - probably enough to be put on probation. Considering the massive deal Rock made of my revert I would say that it was a pretty big deal - I dont think that ignoring this because of the arbcom is an issue - infact quite the opposite this was one of the issue that was brought up in the arbcom as being a bone of contention.--Vintagekits 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can bring it to ANI if you want to (tho please cite this discussion if you do), but my best advice to both of you is to stay off each others cases and out of each others areas of interests, in the spirit of this finding of arbcom.
  I'm also concerned to see two AfDs (Nuttall, apparently WP:SNOW-kept and Borwick, still open); neither was nominated by you, but it's not at all helpful to see what appears to be a resurgence of Irish Republican editors targeting British articles for deletion (by a new editor on their first day who made two AfD noms within their first 30 edits). Tit-for-tat AFDing was one of the disruptive features of the previous long-running dispute, and I would be just as concerned to see similarly frivolous nominations of republicans, as we had earlier in the year. Mercifully, that doesn't seem to have happened so far, but this appears to be heading back towards a resumption of the old lines of battle. Please draw back, and just lets some of these minor things go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here but Kittybrewster has had a constant long-term interest in Baronets for possibly obvious reasons - he is one. Referring to the recent "The Troubles" ArbCom it was stated that those involved should not intrude upon the obvious areas of interest of those 'named'. I think its unlikely that Kitty has been busy on Ulster pages or indeed on anything much to do with Ireland, nor, indeed on boxers. Maybe Vintagekits could explain what his great fascination and intense interest is now with Baronets - how it ties in with his normal interests so evident from his contributions history. From where I am sitting the principal breach of good faith and the Arbcom seems obvious. David Lauder 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

David, you are very welcome to comment, as are others, so of course long as anyone joining in stays civil and tries to seek consensus. It seems to me that there are two issues here: Vintagekits straying into an area where his previous involvement has been controversial (potentially problematic), and kittybrewster apparently breaching the guidelines (also potentially problematic). I think it's much the best to separate the two issues, and to note that because of the history of this dispute Vintagekits' involvement in baronet issues is unlikely to prove constructive, however good his intentions. I have asked Kittbrewster to sort things out, and I think that there is a much greater likelihood of everything being resolved amicably if Vintagekits now withdraws from the issue having drawn attention to the problem. I see no reason to question the good faith of either Vk's note to me or Kb's moves, and I hope that anyone else who wants to comment will likewise assume good faith. Let's just leave it that, and not talk ourselves into raking through the embers of a dispute which consumed so much time and energy? If anyone has some energy to spare, then it woukd be best to use it try to find solutions - would you perhaps like to help Kittybewster clarify where things have got to with the article names? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American scientists

Hello, BrownHaired one -- If you can find the time, would you please take a look at the comment I've added to the discussion re Category:Jewish American scientists? I believe the need to articulate what I wrote there crystallized in my mind as a result of reading your very interesting comments in the DRV for Category:African American baseball players. Regards, Cgingold 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at the CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London (2)

That is apart from the encyclopedic listing of wider refference source material but I ain't a barrister so arguing is no fun. Better to delete than be encyclopedic. Or maybe if I just listed refferences instead is it same difference but maintainable? See List of wards in Greater London Jed keenan 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the MPs, see reply at Talk:List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London. The List of wards in Greater London seems to be a different case, where the councils produce the lists, althiugh that article really should also cite the Boundary Commitee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

About the Jewish scientist category discussion

I first must say that if it was me to decide than you been chosen for having the most elegant nickname on wikipedia :). Any way, I replied to your last comment there.--Gilisa 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very sweet of you. Actually, I have long regretted choosing that name, because apart from being too long, I think it sounds too childishly cutesy for a woman getting close to middle age, and I think that it probably encourages some of the macho male editors to be more inclined to try to push me aside :( I definitely wouldn't have used it if I had thought that I was going to be a long-term contributor, but I never intended to be.

One day I decided I try editing wikipedia to see how it worked and needed a user ID. For some forgotten reason I had just been thinking about the Van Morrison song "Brown Eyed Girl"; I don't particularly like Van the Man anyway, and to my mind that's a long way from being one of his better songs (it hasn't a fraction of the depth of Saint Dominic's Preview). But my imagination was lazy that day, so I adapted that song title, thinking that it would be as much a throwaway identity as the meaningless colorless green ideas-style ID I once created for one-time use on some site. Unfortunately, editing wikipedia turned out to be more addictive than crack cocaine, and by the time I admitted to myself that I was hooked, I had enough edits clocked up that a name change looked likely to be rather disruptive. So I'm stuck with it, like one of those people who never shake off a childhood nickname, except that this one is entirely my own fault!

Anyway, on the substantive point, I think that you misunderstood which part of WP:CATGRS I was referring to, probably because I was not clear enough. I have replied at the the CfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always change it, you know... User:Cold Eyed Killing Machine and User:I Run Over Animals for Fun are both still free. (User:I hate everyone and User:Kill immigrants are already taken, though, as is my personal favourite User:If it weren't for bad faith I'd have no faith at all). — iridescent 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had considered something along the lines of User:Hormonally-crazed pedantic bogtrotter, but you ideas suggestions also have potential :) But if I was going to rename myself, I think it would be to something studiously neutral, albeit possibly relating to some aspect of Irishness such as th fact that we were busy establishing universities all over Europe while the rest of Yurp was still trying to figure out how to invent woad ;) Anyway, I'll stick with what I have, for better or worse: the results of renaming a user always seem to me to be a bit messy, BrownHairedGirl is on so many pages now that I think it's easier for everyone if I stick with it.  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but think how high a search-and-replace of every occurrence of it would push your edit count - you might knock Rich Farmbrough off the #1 spot. — iridescent 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And crash the severs in the process .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:British Army Portal officers

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:British Army Portal officers

Would you mind if I relisted that discussion to WP:UCFD (it seems to be intended as a user category) and expanded its scope to include the 19 subcategories? Mostly, I want to ensure that the comments made so far are transferred ... although I have to admit that I'm tempted to simply close the discussion as "delete" and then delete the subcats (which would become orphaned) per CSD G6. Please let me know your thoughts. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to you relisting it at UCFD if you see fit, though I won't follow the debate there, because any time I have ventured in there the place has looked like a madhouse ("Wikipedia is doomed if we keep Category:X wikipedians" v "how dare you censor my ability to collaborate with other X wikipedians"; not so much a storm in a teacup as a category 5 tropical cyclone in a thimble).

I think that a closure and then a G6 on the subcats would probably be appropriate, but I'm also not sure that's it appropriate for my advice here to guide you, since I was the nominator. All I can say I'm sure that whatever decision you make will be a wise one :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence! :) I'll give the matter some more thought and will try to arrive at a well-reasoned closure. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! There are several few CfD closers whose judgment I really respect: Kbdank71, jc37, Radiant, Sam Blacketer, Samuel Wantman, and you. I don't mean that I would necessarily reach the same conclusions that you do, but you all try conscientiously to assess arguments against policy and you give reasons for decisions where necessary. I dunno where in the world you are based, but in English law one of the main grounds for seeking judicial review of government or administrative decisions is that a decision was "perverse or irrational" ... in other words it's not sufficient to argue that a better decision could have been made, but that this one was made badly or on the wrong grounds. All your closures that I have seen are well clear of that threshold :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I'd like to see in a DRV decision: "overturned; perverse closure". :D ... But, seriously, thank you again. I consider you an exceptional editor and your words mean a lot. ... I'm also glad that the explanations that I occasionally attach to my closures have a useful purpose other than serving as practice reading material for psychoanalysts. ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Flattery! But thanks :) [altho I think of myself more as obsessive than exceptional ;) ]

Maybe it's because I spent too much time pursuing test cases through courts, but I do place a lot of value on reasons for decisions. When I first started frequenting CfD a year ago, decisions tended to be a one-word "keep" or "delete", which I didn't like. I eventually found that some decisions I disliked were not as irrational as they had seemed, but it would have been much to have had the reasoning explained up front: everyone could have learnt from it. I'm pleased to see that in the last 9 months or so a lot more rationale has been given for XfD closures. I don't think it's necessary in all cases, and in many simple ones it would be a waste of time and energy, but particularly in controversial or complex cases it can help avoid a lot of confusion and resentment. Of course, if people really won't accept an outcome they dislike, then no reasoning will soothe tempers, but that's they way it is with any form of decision-making. CfD is often noted as a particularly obscure and jargon-ridden end of wikipedia which can be intimidating to newcomers, which it certainly was for me ... and explanations of decisions go along way to helping mir people to get involved. They certainly aren't wasted :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks (re: Erdos Numbers)

You posted at my Talk, with my reply following: ANI re your canvassing ===

{{ANI-notice|WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've rebutted you at the indicated link, and IMO you are deliberately making ad hominem and unfounded accustations, at the vary least with out adequate research (you accuse me of not notifying YOU of a thread which YOU had already posted to. Obviously I figured you already knew about a thread that YOU had posted to.) Your incessant spam on this matter, with accusations of personal attacks intermixed with personal attacks, is abusive and I'm complaining about it. Pete St.John 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A good faith report of canvassing is not a personal attack, and I did not post to the DRV on Erdos numbers for over 12 hours after your canvassing (at 14:42 today). You are of course welcome to make any reports to ANI, as you see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant votestacking

Jc37, since you were the first admin to notice Pet St John's canvassing, I'd like to notify you that I have lodged a further complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The_votestacking_exercise_continues. Whilst now being conducted mostly (though not exclusively) on the maths wikiproject, the attempt to "get out the vote" continues more than 24 hours after you first drew Pete's attention to WP:CANVASS. As noted at ANI, I have never seen anything else on wikipedia remotely resembling this effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll respond at the user's talk page for unity-in-discussion reasons. - jc37 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Wanted To Let You Know

There is a conversation at the village pump about WP:Music, seems they are having the same exact problem we were having at WP:Fict. I posted talking about our issue and pointing issues with the multiple notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_guidelines_for_songs.3B_resolution_needed Ridernyc 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have commented there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have commented there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Isaura Navarro

Can I ask for your assistance on the above page please due to current vandalism/edit warring? I have attempted to discuss this with User:Recicla but they seem intent on continuing to revert changes. I believe that their reversions of sourced material represent vandalism and/or a breach of WP:3RR Thanks, Valenciano 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article now protected: see Talk:Isaura Navarro. You were both edit-warring, so I have also issued WP:3RR warnings to both of you. On wikipedia, content disputes are resolved by discussion to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Best wishes to both of you in resolving this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I was aware 3RR didn't apply to reverting vandalism. User:Recicla/85.53.31.112 was indeed asked to discuss concerns over the article's content on the talk page [12] and another user asked them to stop doing this [13] but was also ignored. As their response to requests to discuss the article's content is to accuse me of belonging to some faction of the Valencian United Left Party (!) it hardly bodes well for reaching agreement! Valenciano 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Vandalism, I see good faith edits by a new editor which may not have been appropriate (I'm not going to try to be a one-woman arbitrator over content!), but which are also unlikely to have been done with any knowledge of he relevant wikipolicies and paractices. Please do try to discuss the matter in a friendly way, and to WP:AGF. We all had to start somewhere as editors, and sometimes it takes a bit of time to explain to people about how to approach issues such as verifiability and neutrality, and it seems to me to be likely that Recicla did not understand what she or he was believed to be doing wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair dos BHG and don't be too hard on yourself - I've always found you a good one woman arbitrator. :) The user also edits on the Spanish Wikipedia so is not really a newcomer, although 3RR doesn't yet apply there. I will try to reach content agreement with Recicla, although it's been a bit frustrating to date that attempts to do so have been ignored or rebuffed in favour of accusations linking me with a political party solely because I translated some sourced stuff from the Spanish article. Valenciano 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so nice about it. Olive branches don't always work, but they are usually worth trying, and sometimes it's possible to be pleasantly surprised. I know that you have experience to give them a good try here on the "we got off to a bad start" sort of line, if you have the energy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)

Dear BHG, one must at least respect such a powerful opponent as oneself. However, please do consider that your actions may have negative consequences on the future education of the world's children. Your actions have no impact on research or the older scientific community, which regards Wikipedia with disdain and little more than a kid-pedia. The fact that I risked a lot of reputation to come here and educate the under-30 crowd should say a lot about me. In addition to my own article, Louis's article, the supercentenarian trackers category, etc, we now have pro-myth opponents seeking to undo the work done to stop the myth-makers, from the USA and elsewhere. That at least two of the pro-myth crowd (that insisted Mary Wood was '120' in 1908, when evidence showed otherwise) chose to violate COI and opine against me on my own AFD page says a lot. Whether an individual article or a collective article exists, there certainly needs to be one. As Guinness World Records said in 1979:

The Guiness Book of World Records, discussing old-age claims, frankly warns readers: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity.”http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/moments/oldfolks.html

Is 'process' more important than truth? Actually both are important. Truth must be arrived at through process. I find it incredulous that, though CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc all find me notable, Wikipedia does not. Yet what is on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia today? A fake story about World Wrestling Entertainment, Vince MacMahon, and Bret Hart. If that's what Wikipedia wants to be, then so be it. But I had hoped it would be an actual fact-based encyclopedia. Children today are educated through TV, video games, and Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they knew that "Quahog" was the town where 'Family Guy' was located, but had never heard it was a clam. Apalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, on wikipedia as in academia, truth is established by referenced, verifiable use of existing sources which establish the accuracy of the article, and we use the same process to establish notability of the subject. If those are available, then a deletion nomination by me or anyone will be overwhelming rejected, as happened quite rightly with my AfD for David H. Kelley.

I'm afraid that I don't have the energy to explain any further why a one-line quote in article about something else does not establish notability of the person quoted. And when it cones to vanity, I suggest that you consider very carefully what's written at WP:COI, and particular how relevant the concept of vanity is to someone who is the main defender of their own claim to notability and who makes claim about their own role which is self-evidently false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the AfD notice off David H. Kelley and put an oldafd notice on the talk page. Any steps I missed? I'll leave an AfD regular to properly close the AfD itself. Carcharoth 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith, but I think you got things in the wrong order here. The AfD notice should not be removed until the AfD is actually closed. I suggest that you revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)