# User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 013

Jump to: navigation, search
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

## Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BetacommandBot

I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned your talk page comment above in my statement. I would urge you to submit a version of that yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

## One last question Re: List of events named massacre

I think we are all but settled, and can let the list run for a while to see if the revised version works or not ... but we are having one final disagreement about the inclusion criteria that we could use your input on... should we put the inclusion criteria in hidden text or state it in plain visible text for all to see? Arguments for and against are stated on the talk page. Please drop by and opine. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for seem to consist solely of WP:IAR. Arguments against include Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. --John (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll comment at Talk:List of events named massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it to Wikipedia: space.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 07:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That was very quick. The draft was misnamed any way, so I deleted it. Could any further comments please be made at Talk:List of events named massacres. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

## Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria

There's a typo - "lastest" should presumably be "latest"! PamD (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pam. Maybe "lastest" should be a word, but at this stage it isn't :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Too much like "most unique"! Cheers. PamD (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
When we forced to "play"* sports at school, most people came near to last on at least some occasions. But I managed it so often that I think "lastest" would have been an appropriate adjective: "Yes, BHG was the lastest of the last". :)
*I deplore the use of the word "play" for such systematic and institutionalised humiliation --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

## Sorry

 Hello BHG. Chatting with you today reminded me how much of a good editor you are. I wanted to offer a flower of apology for my rather intemperate response to your comments last week. You caught me at an unfortunate time and I reacted badly to what was clearly an attempt to help. I regret that and hope it will not effect our working relationship in the future. Rockpocket 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that's sweet of you. :) (And not just because I love flowers!)
I think I owe you an apology too, for stomping in rather heavily in the argument over how to coax Sarah; I intended to try to calm a difficult situation, but since that wasn't the effect, I evidently got my approach all wrong. Delighted to see that we have moved on, even if our sockpuppeteer friend hasn't! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Its been bugging me all week, so I'm glad we're cool. Thanks also for the support here and elsewhere today and yesterday. I have gone rounds with Giano in the past myself, but these days I'm not too concerned over his verbal jabs. Like any good boxer, I think, he talks a good game. But away from the ring, when there is not a crowd to play to, Giano is a gentle soul and a perfect gentleman. Instead of getting irked by his comments, its my goal to out Giano as the big teddy bear that he really is!
Besides, the whole point of this little circus was to engineer a situation where someone would invoke his probation, giving Giano the opportunity to set his sights on the real objects of his ire [1] When, and it is absolutely inevitable, he eventually gets his wish and the Arbs do get involved again, I would very much rather I wasn't party to the underlying dispute. Rockpocket 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Rock, you are probably right that Giano has a better side; but having encountered him only in troubles-related issues, I have yet to see that side, and take care to avoid him otherwise. The whole everyone-who-doesn't-see-things-my-way-is-stupid-inept-and-self-serving act is exceptionally tedious and sadly predictable. I probably shouldn't have bothered commenting on it all, because doing so only brings more grief, since he has enough friends keen to give him licence to snipe. C'est la vie!
As you say, his final showdown with arbcom is probably going to be an event to avoid, and I'll put him out of mind again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## "Troll"?

Troll, is it? Giano doesn't get to discuss the Troubles now? Mind your mouth and your tone, girlfriend. Please. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

It's lovely to hear from you again Bishonen, though it's a pity that you only ever pop up on my talk page to defend Giano's trolling.
If Giano's interventions could occasionally acknowledge a few a salient points, they might be better received: e.g. the substantive problem here is a long-term disruptive editor who has been banned for using sockpuppets after umpteen last chances, and Giano does not support enforcement of the ban, preferring to attack the admins dealing with the case.
If you are concerned about "mouth and tone", could you please pay some attention to Giano's description of an arbcom ruling as a device to protect their "errors stupidity", or this instance of himdenouncing admins as "stupid" for enforcing policy against a banned sockpupeteer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't pop up on any pages much lately. But I'm making an exception, because for you to post a provocative sneer at a user on civility parole seems so... so... well, I'll keep my vocabulary to myself. The best I can hope is that you weren't aware of doing that. (Even though a glance at Giano's page is enough for full information). Bishonen | talk 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
P.S. Ah. I now see that you were perfectly aware of it. [2][3]. You insult a user on civility parole... oh boy, I'm still blinking in amazement here. I'm sorry, but I must change my mind and be more explicit: that, BHG, was a dirty thing to do. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
No, I became aware of Giano's civility patrol after I made my comment about his trolling, and I stand by it. Giano has a long history of sniping at anyone who takes enforcement action against Vk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen, a troll is a troll is a troll. Reading through the linked thread, I have to agree with BHG. (1 == 2)Until 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're simply wrong. It's not acceptable for anyone, be they admin or otherwise, to be using such epithets towards established users in good standing. It needs to be a violation of NPA, for it's handling. All it does is inflame situations to allow petty voices to get in a free jab at others. Lawrence § t/e 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Good standing? Are we talking about the same person? I am sorry, but "being established" does not mean that intentionally soliciting a negative reaction is no longer trolling. You can be an established editor and still do such thing. I really don't think BHG was in violation of NPA because the comment was relevant to the projects goals and accurate. Don't think of a troll as a green monster as that is not what it means, it means someone fishing by dangling bait behind them. (1 == 2)Until 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
BHG, I think it's best that we all step back. We're all to the point where continued contact with this interminable conflict makes us ill, either psychosomatically, or physically. If AE wants to deal with them, I think it's best if we step back, say "Good Luck, you'll need it..." turn around, walk away, and DON'T look back. SirFozzie (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice, I will take it. (1 == 2)Until 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fozzie, you are probably right. (and thanks too to Until(1 == 2) for the timely support). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## Another Cornish MP needs a Box

Please can you help, yet again, with a complex box for John Hearle Tremayne MP for Cornwall for 20 years. Vernon White . . . Talk 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that you could have a go at this one, perhaps by using the box from Edward William Wynne Pendarves as a template? I'd be happy to look over it afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## May I copy one of your Userboxes?

Greetings--I was going to say "fellow editor" but that term does not seem gender-neutral. Is there a better adjective?. I came across your Userpage today and would like to make a copy of your Rotary Dial Userbox for my Userpage, with your permission. Being a relatively new editor, I am not sure if this is acceptable Wiki-behavior, so I thought it better to ask first. Please respond to my talk page. Thank you. Thomprod (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and don't worry too much about the language -- so long as you aren't calling me "he", or (as one editor amusingly did last week), a "dick", it's fine :)
Anyway, the userbox is actually one I "borrowed" from someone else, and the code is {{User:UBX/Rotary Dial}}, I you want to ask permission, the person to ask would be UBX (talk · contribs), but in general it seems to be norm that once someone has made a userbox template, it's fine to use it. In any case, everything here has to be available for re-use, as a condition of it being published here, so I didn't see any grounds for anyone to object.
Anyway, good luck with you editing, and don't let the persistent rumblings of collective insanity distract you from the good work which happens here despite it all :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually enjoy a little "collective insanity" now and then. Happy editing. Thomprod (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am older than you are and I remember cranking a handle to be put through to the operator and it was she who dialled the number. I also remember going to bed with a candle and an oil filled lamp. - Kittybrewster 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite old enough for the candle-to-go-to-bed-with (though I do treasure the enamelled metal candleholder which my father used), but while we didn't have a windy-handle phone at home, my grandmother in a rural area not only had one of those, but also a "party line". This was basically a shared phone line, so you could listen in on your neighbour's calls and vice-versa ... and of course, the operator listened in too. It was a very good to idea to remain on to be as nice as possible to the operator :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

## Para and ELs

He's done it for some while now - I came across him about 9 months ago on M62 motorway (then a GA) over a dispute over microformats and geolocation - IIRC, that's the reason Pigsonthewing got rebanned. Will (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have no prob with him arguing that a particular link is a bad idea; what I object to is his repeated claims to be acting in accordance with a guideline, rather than simply in accordance with the way he would like a guideline to be rewritten. Very tedious :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up Will, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour does indeed remind me of Pigsonthewing. On Template talk:Coord he managed to stall a proposal on tidying article markup for three whole months with his single gripe, probably because of his vocal outbursts and lack of participation from others. In this case the gripe is more obviously irrelevant, but the outbursts are maybe even louder. Looking at BrownHairedGirl's latest contributions and responses to them, looks like she's heading down the same path. Cheers! --Para (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, you have spent over a month telling lie upon lie upon lie, claimning that there were no objection when there were, then saying that there were "no valid objections" because they didn't support your own synthesis of policies; you have have had long detailed responses on a series of issues, then posted another long splurge at a new section and because others didn't wrote another few thousand words reiterating the points you ignored, you tried claiming that there has been no objection, and so on. You repeatedly inverted everything said by anyone who disagrees with you, and it's little wonder that few editors have had the energy or patience to engage with your bullying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## I need a bit of advise

Hi, Mom! I need some more maternal advise! I can foresee a revert war about to take place on this article. Thx2005 has reverted an addition I made to the article twice now. I originally added a campus police subsection which falls within WP:N andWP:WikiProject Law Enforcement. There is also wiki "case law" which backs my stance on including the subsection which is located here. I very civilly explained to him that I reverted his good faith deletion and stated the reasons why. He then reverted it back with a rather uncivil edit summary. You can see the diff here. Any help would be appreciated! Mahalo!--Sallicio${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

## Archive index?

Hi, BHG: I'd been wondering about starting to archive my User Talk page, so am looking at what other people do. If I click on your link to "Cumulative index" I get ... ummmm ... an empty page at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Index. Is something going wrong? PamD (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

## External link revert

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just wanted to check that you actually meant to make this revert. It doesn't look like it's associated with the discussion on the talk page that you reference in the edit summary. -- SiobhanHansa 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I got that wrong. Now fixed, and thanks muchly for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

## Shipping companies of Ireland

"Seamens Memorial"

Thanks for restoring Category:Shipping companies of Ireland I'm not sure if its the perfect solution. There were many such companies, the flags of the seven largest war-time companies are paraded by the sea-scouts every third Sunday of November. There were lots of smaller companies. Then there were companies such as Dublin Gas and Guinness with their own ships. Thanks again ClemMcGann (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Irish categories, there's rarely a perfect solution, what with all the difft states that have existed in overlapping spaces :( (We should probably be thankful that we don't have to deal with the tangles which exist over somewhere like GDanzig).
I fondly remember the Guinness ships, with their black-and-cream colour schemes and their names often borrowed from the women in the Guinness family. Sadly, they are no more, but here's an great article waiting to be written on them if anyone has the energy and the sources — and especially if they have the photos.
However, at the moment we don't appear to have any such articles. If they are written, we can of course create any necessary categories, but underpopulated categories get deleted, so there's no point in creating one now, when there seems to be only article for an 1801-1922 category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth creating stubs? ClemMcGann (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The writer Edward Burke (Shipwrecks of Ireland etc) tells me that he is currently writing a book on Guinness. It will have a chapter on the barges ClemMcGann (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but!
... the "but" being the stub needs to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and there should be some reasonable prospect that it could be expanded beyond a stub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

## Philately template problem

Do me a big favour and have a look the the philately template that is used for the project's assessments. There seems to be a problems because the unassessed articles are not removed in the new statistics and those articles seem all to be rated as list-class. I posted to Walkerma's talk page earlier as he was involved in the initial setup but you did some work on the Ireland WikiProject template and seem very experienced with that kind of thing, so maybe you can see the problem:
The stats produced here seem quite at odds with the assessments I made within the last few weeks. When I view the unassessed articles there are 518, yet the stats say 411 and I know that I assessed several of the lists of birds on stamps as you can see from the log entry for February 14, yet these same articles still appear on the unassessed listing today. I checked this within minutes of the bot updating the statistics page, so I don't understand what is happening. Any advise would be appreciated. And after I assess some more list-class articles, the number of unassessed stays the same, leaving the just assessed articles still listed as unassessed. This only seems to affect list-class articles as it works fine for others, so there is something amiss with the way the list-class articles are not being recorded as assessed when they are.

TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to just be mischieviously dismissive and say that you had been censored, but that wouldn't help much :)
Anyway, I have checked out the template and it looks OK: I haven't triple-checked all the code, but wshen I test the template, it categorises correctly, and so far as I can see that's all matters.
My next check was in the categories themselves, but they seem to be properly parented ... so I started scanning Category:Unassessed Philately articles.
The problem appaers to be something to do with how the template handles list-clas article: see for example Talk:List of birds on stamps of Belgian Congo, which is in Category:List-Class Philately articles, Category:Low-importance Philately articles and Category:Unassessed Philately articles.
I'm trying to figure why this is happening, and will post again when I have either figured it out or given up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the template and ran the bot, but that hasn't caught everything: the stats are better, but still don't match :( The bot reports 431 unassessed article, but the category includes about 460. I'll check the template again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Did another tweak and purged the template, and it looks about right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am really thankful. I think you have fixed all the issues. I found that some redirects were also tagged even though the article was assessed. It is curious that Outriggr's script shows the assessment of the article and not of the redirect page even when that is the page you are looking at, so I have removed the template from any redirect pages I found. Thanks again. ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm very glad that fixed it! It took me more attempts than I had hoped.
The redirects issue is an interesting point, because I have encountered it so many times with {{WikiProject Ireland}} tagging. Bots are a sore point at the moment, but it would be great to have a bot which untagged article that had been redirected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Walkerma made some interesting comments about list-class that you may want to read here. The tagged redirect issue is indeed curious. Again thanks. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

## Barry Garvey

Please note that Barry Garvey is not a member of the gay pride organisation or its affiliates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickFlaharty (talkcontribs) 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

## Nóirín Ní Riain

Dear Brownhairedgirl, All information is based on written public material. The references and sources are there. As far as I know there is no other or more objective material to refer to. Please reconsider your remark. Thanks for your time. Hans Sentis (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans
It would have helped a lot if you had included a link to the article, just by putting brackets around Nóirín Ní Riain and even more so if you had included a link to my comments. I had to burrow around a bit before Special:WhatLinksHere/Nóirín_Ní_Riain pointed me towards this brief exchange two months ago, now in my archive, after I had tagged the article as {{unreferenced}}. I looked at the article again, and it's clearly very much improved — well done!
I have removed the unreferenced tag, but although I haven't added any tags, there are still a few other small things that need attention:
• per WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent_uses_of_names, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only". However, the article current refers to her as "Nóirín"
• "Biography" is a poor section title, sine the whole article is a biography; it would be better to call that section "Career". (There is a guideline om this somewhere, but I can't recall which one)
• A few references are just inline links using [http://something.somrewhere]; those should be converted to proper footnotes <ref>{{cite web}}<ref>
• The article does seem a little overwhelmed by rather gushing praise for her ... but my searches didn't find any commentators prepared to break out of the hagiographic consenus
If you want to expand the article a bit, I found an interesting piece in the Irish Independent as well as this feature interview in the same publication.
The article could really do with a photo, so I have added Image:Replace this image female.svg to request one.
Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks for your remarks. Hans Sentis (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What a pity it has come to this, but since everything else has failed, I'm glad that arbcom has taken on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

## Scouting in Northern Ireland

Greetings. I have just noticed your interest in the articles on Scouting in Northern Ireland, and in particular your suggestion that some of the topics of these articles are not notable. It has been a long established view of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting that articles on the organisation level one below national should be allowed. This gives the project a powerful weapon to effectively delete by merging any new article on lower levels such a Scout Troops, Scout Districts, Scout Camp Sites, Scout Events etc. This is a weapon that we use frequently and it certainly prevents the growth of Scout cruft. This works fine in places like Australia and the USA where the articles are on States, but the level below national in the UK is the Scout County or Scout Area, and these are fairly small. In Scotland they are in the process of replacing many Scout Areas with a much smaller number of Scout Regions. It will be interesting to see whether Northern Ireland, England and Wales will follow. It would certainly help us on wikipedia. Currently there are few UK Scout editors, so I doubt your tags will be noticed by editors from Northern Ireland right now. I try to keep an eye on things from a distance at the other side of the world. I'm not sure what to do about these articles. I am working on a plan to remove all the crufty lists of Scout Groups. This will involve copying the articles to the ScoutWiki, which also uses the GFDL and then deleting the lists, but it will take time. Any ideas? --Bduke (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to transwiki them, but how about merging all those county list to a wider Scouting in Northern Ireland article? The redirect pages would still contain the history of the articles, so you could always retrieve the text at a later date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I did think of that, but in spite of what I suggest above about lack of interest, I suspect I would not find a consensus to do this. Also it really needs someone who knows about the complex situation in Northern Ireland and in particular the role of Scouting Ireland as well as the Scout Association. NI can be trouble. See Northern Scout Province for their contribution in the North. It would have to be titled The Scout Association in Northern Ireland. Indeed there is a suggestion that the County articles should be renamed The Scout Association Area of Belfast or whatever, but the final naming is not yet agreed. I'll try to transwiki them soon, by moving them to the top of the list. I started with England but I'm still at "B"! --Bduke (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

## Scór

Hi I notice you placed a {{primarysources}} on Scór, I'm confused as to where this policy came from and whats it's purpose not only on this articles but others .Can't articles have reference from their governing bodies any more. Surely their is cases like the ref on Scór which can only come from one place ? Gnevin (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a by-product of Wikipedia:Notability. Primary sources can be used to verify facts, but notability is established by substantial coverage in non-primary sources. If nobody except an organisation itself regards it as being of significance, it's not something which Wikipedia (as a tertiary source) should be covering: WP covers things which others have found notable. I'm sure that Scór does have substantial coverage somewhere, but the article so far gives no indication that Scór is of significance to anyone except GAA members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Awe so its about Wikipedia:Notability i though it was about WP:V, cheers confusion lifted Gnevin (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess there's a bit of WP:V issue as well, because sometimes people or organisations can paint a rather too rosy picture of themselves … but I think the main issue is notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime

• hint* *hint* ;) I just saw your message on Clem's talk page. Care to join up? - Alison 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see that I have been volunteered :) So 'tis done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

## Could you have a look

This article seems to be a copy of 2008 in video gaming should this new one be deleted and if so under what criteria thanks. BigDunc (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I think you are right. It doesn't meet any of the suggest Criteria for speedy deletion, but it looks to me like a content fork. I suggest first raising the matter at Talk:2008 in video gaming (North America) and asking Randomengine (talk · contribs) to agree to redirect the page, and if you don't get agreement then take it to WP:AFD.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do that thanks. BigDunc (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
His reply suggests that AfD is the only option or does he have any validity in the points raised?BigDunc (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that depends on how trivial one regards the recording of every minor detail of the video games industry. I'm not aware of any other other industry covered in such extraordinary detail, and if you compare it with automobiles (a truly huge global industry), you'll find that there is nowhere near near as much detail there. We don't have splurges of separate articles on every minor variant, and you'll generally find that even a very high-selling car like the Ford Fiesta just has one article on all its variants over 30 years; yet total sales of that model amount to about \$100billion over the last 30 years. Compare that with video games, which spawn masses of spin-off articles on individual characters, and one can see a clear case of systemic bias. The question, though, is whether all this detail on the video games is really encyclopedic, and at what point it starts to descend into trivia. Randomengine clearly thinks that the 1998 North America list is encyclopedic, but I think it's trivial: it's one thing to list every instance of a specific class of product, but once you start listing it by year and by specific market, where do you stop? List of washing machines launched in 2008 (Europe)? List of washer-driers launched in 2007 (France)?
More importantly, the video games industry is pretty much globalised. North America is one of the big markets, and it would be perverse for a publisher to delay launch there for long, so the N, American list is always going to be largely similar to the global list; all it really does it to note which day the launch took place. And where does this stop? Do we have 2008 in video gaming articles for every market? Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Iraq, Polynesia, Rwanda, Liechtenstein ... a line has to be drawn somewhere.
So there's a case on both sides, but it looks to me like one worth taking to AFD. However, if you take it there, do remember that a legion of angry video gamers will probably be along soon to denounce you :)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice I'll look out for them ;) But since I started RC patrolling regular especially the new pages I am definetly not an inclusionist regarding articles and as you say the games ones are a prime example of spawning multiple variations on the same game. BigDunc (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

## One for your tagging spree

1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. I'd add it myself, only I'm sure project members will take umbrage at my importance and class ratings, although the latter might not be in dispute. One Night In Hackney303 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Up in the air and over the city ..."
Rated as B-class/mid-importance. I remember the incident very well. We were stopped by a Garda checkpoint when crossing the bridge at Carrick-On-Shannon, and when we asked what the problem was we were told "some of the lads are after getting out of the 'Joy". He was grinning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
PS I meant to say, it's another fine article — well done! Just as well for wikipedia that your membership of the escape committee was revoked ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and roadblocks seem about as useful as closing the gates! I'm just miffed that in all the sources there are for it, not a single one actually says it was the first ever successful (or possibly even at all) helicopter escape, despite that being the case. And that's my penultimate article, as I've just got one other I'm finishing off. I can't be bothered with all the never-ending arguments any more.... One Night In Hackney303 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the roadblocks were good theatre and gave the Gardai something to do :) In those days, that bridge would be blocked several times a year.
You're right about the silliness of the never-ending arguments, but I just filter it out as background noise. Like the never-ending rain where I live, or the weeds in the garden that grow as a result, it's just part of the package, and I try not to concentrate enough on the good stuff not to let it get to me.
BTW, I thought that the idea for the escape had come from a film, though I dunno which one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a film mentioned in one of the sources - "One particular volunteer on the outside had been busy at that drawing board. He was watching television one Sunday afternoon when he saw a movie featuring a daring helicopter prison escape. Why not? he thought". I'm just not convinced it's that important to put in the article, and couldn't find a particularly encylopedic way of phrasing it either. One Night In Hackney303 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It'd be easily done if we had the name of the film, but without the name I agree that the wording is likely to be clumsy. However, if the stylistic problems can be overcome, it does seem to me to be appropriate to include something on the inspiration for a novel escape method. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't the first helicopter escape I've just discovered. Apparently this was the first one, as I discovered it after seeing the brief mention in the headline of the NYT article on the escape. If I think of a convenient way of adding the film detail in I will, but it's not looking easy. One Night In Hackney303 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Even without the film ref, the precedent deserves a mention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

## Rollback question

Can you explain, in simple terms, the difference between getting rollback rights and the rollback ability of the Twinkle script? It seems to me that there is no greater benefit in getting rollback rights than continuing to use Twinkle's rollback features. Am I confused or have I missed something obvious? Cheers. TVM ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Twinkle rollback is javascript-based, and requires user input, which is good if you want to leave a msg in the edit summary, but a nuisance if you just want to rapidly revert without comment. Horses for courses, really: I find the built-in-rollback much better for mass reversion, and the Twinkle rollback better if I want to comment on the reasons, particular if I also want to leave a msg for the person whose edits are being rolled back. So I like having both :)
Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, I have the impression you are in Ireland, so you must be up early today, or never went to bed. OTOH maybe, like me, you are Irish but in a US time zone. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. I am usually a one-shot pony, so I think Twinkle works fine for me for now, but I am sure I can always get rollback right without a problem. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

## a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO

There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

## CSB projects

Hi BrownHairedGirl, do you remember that conversation with User:Blackworm at WikiProject Gender studies?[4]. Well it might be interesting to look over at this. And perhaps this if you get a chance--Cailil talk 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. More rhetoric, no evidence :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you've read this post[5]--Cailil talk 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This barrage of rhetoric has gone on long enough, and I have given him a warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Blackworm_disrupting_discussion_pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

## Triggerman (band)

Hey, how's it going? I'm just drawing your attention to the proposed deletion of the page. I have since satisfied the notability guidelines and will continue to do so. Thanks, Ryannus (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still see no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is the main criterion for notability (see WP:N), nor do I see any sign of it meeting the tests set out in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. See my reply on the AFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refuted your argument on the Afd. Ryannus (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NO you haven't. Please provide evidence of which of the tests is met. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for seeming a bit arrogant. I just read back a few of my posts and realised they may have sounded bad. Ryannus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I understand you feel miffed that the article may be deleted, so I discounted any growliness of tone. Thanks for the apology anyway, but it wasn't needed :)
The main thing, though, is that you do need evidence of that substantial coverage in reliable sources. It would help too if you formatted the references using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates — that makes it much easier for the reader to understand the nature of the reference than if they just see an external link. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

## Your ANI post on Blackworm

I've contributed my meager opinion. Not sure it's helpful but I'll try to keep tabs on the discussion. Given the longterm nature of his disruption despite several low-level attempts to alter his behaviour, I suspect it may take more than those kinds of measures. Cheers, Pigman 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg and for your ANI comments. I disagree with Blackworm, but that's not what concerns me: the problem is that his interventions are not focused on improving the articles, but rather on denunciations of other contributors and/or airing his views on the subject. I suspect that an RFC/U will be required to deal with it. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl I've just posted something to the ANI thread - basically I've said that if Blackworm is worried about the Projects he should RFC them rather than make off-topic posts to article talk space. AFAIK, and as far as the WP:PROJECT pages say, RFC is the right process to discuss a project but if I'm wrong please correct me. It is possible that Blackworm's argument goes toward an MFD for WP:CSB rather than an RFC. I don't want to be accused of sending him to the wrong places / through the wrong processes--Cailil talk 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion: RFC or MFD if he wants, but no more soapboxing. I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Blackworm_disrupting_discussion_pages to endorse your suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

## Agree with deletion

I agree with this deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_F._Whelan --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

## John Ogilvy

Please would you have a look at this parliamentarian. - Kittybrewster 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean Sir John Ogilvy, 9th Baronet? Looks genuine (according to Rayment's list, but the article isn't even near stub-class. Needs categories, refs etc. --20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

## Viscount Molesworth

Looks like articles Viscount Molesworth, Irish title and Viscount Molesworth of Swords needing merging. Can you help, please? Lots of Succession Boxes Vernon White . . . Talk 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have merged them, and added `{{s-reg|ie}}` to the boxes on the 1 & 3rd Viscounts. Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

## Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Would you have look at the edits made by the admitted WP:COI (see my talk page) editor to Republic of Ireland postal addresses? I have not reverted his edit for a 3rd time today but have given him a 3RR warning here with other reasons why his edits are improper to this topic as edited. TIA cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked (see User talk:83.70.211.45#Blocked). Very persistent edit-warring in pursuit of a blatant COI. However, I have read the Irish Times story Cork tech firm introduces numeric postcode system and it may merit some sort of brief mention. The story is weak, because it contains no independent analysis of the gpsireland system and reads very much like a reprint of a press release — the only person quoted is "Gary Delaney, the director of GPS Ireland", which sounds liked our edit-warring friend — but a one-sentence mention might be in order. --01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting that Gary is, most likely, the same person; he left his email address on my talk page as gary@gpsireland.ie. I don't have access to the IT article, besides which the Irish Times has subscription only access, so we can't really use that, can we. According to the only page I can access it is very specifically not an official postcode system but really a gps system. I think they are misusing the term postcode which I know to be a system used by the postal authority of a country, in this case An Post, and their system has not yet been approved or published. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the reference is very useable. Subscription-only sites are fine for reference (otherwise we couldn't use books!), but are banned for external links.
I think that their system is an interesting idea, a sort of simplified grid reference which could serve all sorts of purposes. I think that its status at the moment could be best regarded as a novel approach to the problem which might be used to make a formal proposal to the govt/An Post, who so far as I know have yet to clarify how they would design a postcode system. It could actually be quite good for an article such as this to discuss difft methodologies for postcode-creation, but that would need some more reliable source than a lazy journalist using a single source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
TVM ww2censor (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, our 3RR anon-IP editor has registered as Garydubh today and posted on the same pages again, though differently, and been reverted. I have moved his posts from my talk page to his and responded to his latest comments. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Golly gosh, you are a tough admin; I better not get on your wrong side, but then I don't know all the admin rules. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm usually a puddy tat, but this guy a) evaded a block (which in itself justifies resetting the block); b) resumed edit-warring; and c) continued trying to promote his own products. If he really wants to improve articles, he may well have the knowledge to be a very valuable contributor on these matters, but so far he is just trying to use wikipedia to promote his own products, and that will earn him rapidly-escalating blocks if he persists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
WwCensor and BrownHairedGirl..... I did not revert an edit - I retyped it - check and make sure you are applying the rules correctly. I did not evade a block I registered for the first time as recommended. BrownhairedGirl - yesterday you suggested to Wwcensor that the system I designed was worthy of discussion and that the Irish Times article could be referred to but he persists on demanding that any system discussed must be approved by the Government. I should not have to say this again but the reference to the Irish Independent article is a reference to something that is not Government approved and could never be as it is an inaccurate report and not technically useable. Will someone insist on some consistency here..... Brownhairedgirl - you were asked for a ruling and you gave it but have been ignored.

I am not going to go away on this - either get rid of reference to the article in the Independent or use reference to the Irish Times article - my suggestion would be to get someone else to rewrite the article completely - someone who knows something about it and does not believe that we live under martial law where anything referred to must be approved by the Government............. Finally my propsal is not a commercial product - it is not for sale - it is a proposal as are all other proposals referred to in the article.

I feel significantly agrieved here - I am aware I have broken editing rules and believe me I have better things to be doing with my time. I am new to wiki and for a long time believed that I was not entering my occasional content correctly as it kept disapperaing - until yesterday when I noticed for the first time that it had consistently been romoved for reasons which are completely inconsistent and a ruling given is now been ignored. You can imagine why anyone would get angry about this and would be adamant that this has to be redressed!!!

Is there anyone really in charge in Wiki or is it a case of whoever gets there first wins!!!!

I can find nothing about either of you - you are both pratically operating incognito - let me say that at least I am upfront about who I am and where I can be contacted directly - Gary Delaney - 021 4832990 - gary@gpsireland.ie

Can we please agree at least that as a compromise that this and any other article referring to the issue of Irish Post Codes be removed until someone independent rewrites them completely.

Look forward to hearing from you on this by this evening.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

????Garydubh (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
First, please stop evading blocks. Your IP was blocked, so you created an account and resumed editing under that; then you are evading the block on your account by not logging in so that you could comment here.
As to anonymity, wikipedia policy is that editors have aright to anonymity if they seek it. If you dislike that policy, wait until you are unblocked and seek consensus for changing it. (Beware: it's a well-established policy)
As to retyping rather than reverting, what matters is that you added content substantially similar to that which had been removed, which is edit-warring.
If you want to propose an article for deletion, you should use the WP:AFD process. However, I doubt you will find many editors agreeing to delete a well-referenced article simply because a number of editors have reverted your attempts to use wikipedia to promote your own business. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong- You state above "then you are evading the block on your account by not logging in so that you could comment here" - check the times my last post was at 00:37 on 21 March after my block ended. I had hoped that you who seem to be reasonable would redress this issue. Again you say that this article is well referenced. It references an Irish Independent article - you agreed that the Irish Times article could be included and now you continue to block me for insisting that it is. The article is no more that incoherent bits stuck together with no meaningfull discussion on definitions, needs, proposals (except 1 which is incorrectly reported) and likely users. You have taken responsibilty for this article through your moderation - the article is now redundant and with no value - one sided, protected and the guy censoring it who calls himself a "censor" now just removes discussion about it on his talk page...... I am not going away - use your repsonsibility in this area wisely - the world is watching. Garydubh (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I have just deleted a long [essay by you] about your GPS/postcode system, because it is irrelevant here.

This is wikipedia: please follow wikipedia's rules:

• WP:COI: Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business or your pet project or your point-of-view
• WP:NOR: Wikipedia does not publish original research
• WP:V: everything in wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources.
• WP:NPA: no personal attacks. That means not saying "[people who obviously know nothing about this"
• Don't lie. You claimed above that you had not evaded the block. Wrong: you posted at ) 07:23 from an IP address while you were blocked.

Now, I'll be brief, and blunt.

You started on wikipedia by edit-warring to insert links to your own business in wikipedia articles: you were blocked for the edit-warring, and will be blocked again if you repeat it.

I have not edited the Republic of Ireland postal addresses article other than to correct a citation[6], and I have no particular interest in the substance of this dispute. What I am interested in, as an admin, is ensuring that wikipedia's policies are followed.

It is quite clear that so far no other editor supports your proposed changes to the article. If you believe that they are wrong, you can discuss the issue at Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses, and try to achieve consensus. You will find that other editors want to make sure that everything is properly sourced to reliable sources, because wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V). You will probably find that other editors are unwilling to accept as a reliable source a newspaper article which reprints your press release without seeking external comment, but that's a decision which the editors working on that article will make. If you don't like what they conclude, you can seek wider input by opening an RFC.

However, the main thing that you need to bear in mind is that you have a conflict of interest here. You are out to promote you business, but Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, it is a free encyclopedia. Plaese stop treating it as free advertsing.

If you want to promote your postcode system, start a campaign: write to TS and ministers and newspapers, buy advertising, organise demonstrations, mount publicity stunts, whatever -- that's all quite legitimate and none of my business. However, trying to use wikipoedia as part of your campaign is my business, and you have been repeatedly asked to stop. That includes spamming the same lengthy post to several editors( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]). Don't do that: post once, and then post a link for other editors.

Now, please: less drama. If you want to discuss this, please do so at Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. This has already gone on too long and wasted enough of our time, though I must admit I was sucked in for a final time and have responded on his talk page again, but that's it for me. It's rollbacks or undos henceforth. BTW, as a matter of interest, have a look at this GeoDirectory website. Have a great Easter. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
More time-wasting from User:Garydubh deleted. If you want to discuss an article, discuss it on the article's talk page, not mine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
More time-wasting from User:Garydubh removed. As above, discuss an article on the article's talk page, not on my talk page. As above, that's Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Geddit? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So, about these postcodes then? ;) One Night In Hackney303 14:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaarrrrgggghhh!!!!! ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, for god's sake. Yet more verbiage from from User:Garydubh removed.
Which part of the following do you not understand: discuss an article on the article's talk page, not on my talk page. As above, that's Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry is your discussion page not for discussion - particularly for matters you raise on your discussion page - ok lets call this your "statement" page!!!Garydubh (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Final warning, Gary. Next time I'll ask for action to be taken against you for harrassment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Jut let me know BrownHairedGirl, this user has gone well beyond the realm of legitimate complaint an is now bordering on harassment. Gary, let it drop. (1 == 2)Until 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, 1!=2. I have left a warning on his talk page, but his subsequent comments suggests that he still doesn't understand how "discuss this at Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses", let alone anything else about how wikipedia works.
I'll see what happens! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for ever getting you involved with this guy, but thanks. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologise -- situations such as this need many hands, and I'm glad to be able to help! Anyway, I think we are near endgame now: he has been repeatedly warned, and has run out of chances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but thanks anyway. You are a star! ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

## PROD on Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the second person to readd the PROD so I took the liberty of nominating it at WP:AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig Mac Lochlainn. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
When I tagged it, I wasn't aware of the previous PROD — if I had been, I would have AFDed it. Thanks for doing the AFD nom and for being kind enough to notify me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

## PROD on Mick Cassidy (artist)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Mick Cassidy (artist), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're too fast for me! :P Redfarmer (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's 'cos I use Twinkle, which is brilliant and makes many of these tasks very much much much easier :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

## Ongoing discussion about bias and WP:CSB

I'm taking this out of AN/I; I don't see the purpose discussing this there. Here, you write: First you try pinning on others the claim that they believe "there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... and then when challenged you back down, ... I'm not backing down. Your niggling, semantic diversion is irrelevant, as the two statements are arguably equivalent. I've been questioning the very existence of this bias from the start, as you can plainly see from my post of 05:04, 18 March 2008 on WT:CSB: I'm not concerned yet with what steps we take to counter the bias, I'm concerned with the proof that this specific kind of bias exists. I ask you now to retract the statement that I am "backing down" from any position or shifting my position in any way in this instance. Further, even if I was shifting my position, I do not see how that would be evidence of trolling. On the contrary, I'm open minded about this, and very often in the context of discussion, points raised by one side will give rise to counter-points (i.e. solve the raised issue, but bring to light new issues). When the issues are all resolved, the whole discussion is resolved. That's what discussion means. Discussing that is not trolling. It's discussion. From the beginning you wanted to halt this discussion, involving several editors, by focusing on administrative threats directed at me. I'm sorry, but I do not see any merit in your demand for that discussion to end, administrative threats notwithstanding. I've already said I have nothing more to say on it until others answer the questions I posed on those two project pages. I am, however, forced to respond to misrepresentations of my position.

To be clear, no one has convinced me "systemic bias" exists, and no one has presented a basis for its existence other than an implied link from the demographic composition of the English Wikipedia, the facts of which the folks at WP:GS guess at based on an unreliable self-selected Internet survey of German Wikipedia editors. If you want to state that the evidence of the existence of systemic bias in Wikipedia is not OR, present the evidence and find a source for it -- so far, none has been presented and your claim that it is not OR is wholly unsupported.

Here, let me recap for you the sequence of events in this questioning of WP:CSB:

• I see a WikiProject page that claims a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors of a particular sex and a particular race, among other factors, and tacitly implies that their points of view and contributions must be actively "countered."
• As the validating reasoning for this seemingly un-Wikipedian activity (i.e. can I choose a race/sex to counter too?), the group points to "systemic bias," which they seem to describe as "the bias that's just there, in the system." Some others in the group also refer to it as "systematic bias," carrying a notion of intentional, methodological planning; presumably on the part of editors with the specific attributes (primarily sex and race) that they list.
• As evidence of this systemic/systematic bias, I am referred to original research claiming that the demographics of Wikipedia are non-representative.
• Taking the WP:OR demographic claims as true for the moment, I point to the fact that even if true, no logical or causal link has been established between the demographics of editors in Wikipedia and the existence of article bias in favour of that group. Indeed, I claim that to infer such a link without reliable evidence is tantamount to a failure to assume good faith on a wide scale, and in this case also a specific targeting of editors of a specific sex and race.
• In response to this, I am given hand-picked examples of articles with differing levels of coverage, and told that these articles are "evidence" that systemic bias exists at Wikipedia. I regard this argument as nonsense. One cannot make such a generalization with the level of confidence needed to take direct action globally against it, without a decent analysis or some kind of global study, even an methodologically flawed one, such as a good-sized random sampling and bias assessment. Since this doesn't seem obvious to the members of this group, I am forced to simply invoke WP:NOR. The conclusion of bias isn't reliably sourced, or even reasonably inferred from any available, reliable evidence.

In my view, a good editor can see imbalance, or lack of neutrality, in an article or set of articles, and if they choose to fail to assume good faith, they can conclude that editor bias is a reason for it. That's non-ideal, but perhaps tolerable, so far -- people are people, and people have bad faith. But to go from there to assuming, without reliable evidence, that this bias is common everywhere in Wikipedia, and to organize a WikiProject devoted to countering it, seems like throwing both WP:NPOV and WP:AGF to the ground and trampling on them. When this is done on the basis of the sex and race of the editors, as is done in WP:CSB and WP:GS, it seems doubly troubling and odious. Perhaps it's done with the best of intentions. My goal isn't to gauge intentions, it's to gauge whether the projects are compatible with Wikipedia's values. So far, based on my reading of those values, and the reaction I've gotten from editors in those projects when I inquire as to their basic assumptions, it seems to me that the Projects are not compatible with those values. I am, however, open to be convinced otherwise. Are you open to be convinced otherwise? It is difficult to determine if you are, given the three times now you have given a flawed interpretation of my position or a response that does not address my questions, followed by a demand for me to stop responding.

I've made myself clear on this several times. If you're going to repeatedly demand that I silently tolerate what I currently view as a stain on Wikipedia, please at the very least take more care in avoiding misrepresenting my position, as that would aid me greatly in complying with that demand. Blackworm (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that WP:CSB is fundamentally flawed, then you are welcome to open an RFC or an MFD. However, this endless petty sniping at the project is tendentious and disruptive.
You are still playing word games, arguing over petty semantics such as whether the German research on contributors is WP:OR, and ignoring some simple statistical checks which can be done on wikipedia.
I have wasted enough time trying to engage you in discussion, and at this point I find that the way you shift your position when challenged or resort to pedantic word games is a form of trolling, and I don't like wasting time with trolls. (Your post is a classic piece of trolling: accuse everyone else of evil things, shift your position around about, and then accuse people of misrepresenting you as you jump from one position to another; there is a long tradition of this stuff on usenet, and you would get on well there)
So, it's your choice. Are you going to continue trolling, or are you going to put your theories to the test by opening an open an RFC or an MFD?
Either way, don't reply here unless it is to post a link to an RFC or an MFD. Anything else will probably be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Synthetic outrage from Blackworm deleted. Per the duck test, if it looks like a troll, talks like a troll and quacks like a troll, then it probably is a troll. And per WP:SPADE, if it is a troll, let's acll it a troll.
Blackworm doesn't seem to understand this wikipedia is not a talking shop, it's a project to build an encyclopedia ... and it's not the place for rambling discussions about the nature of bias or whatever.
Let's see what happens now. A proper troll would not open an RFC or an MFD, because that requires them to state their case and let others see how it measures up ... and when the discussion closes, the issue is done. Trolls don't like that: they prefer running around like gadflies trying to stir wherever they can.
So this troll now faces an interesting choice. Will he confirm himself as a troll by continuing to be a gadfly, or will he stop trolling and set out his case properly? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

## Hey!

This hasn't got anything to do with Wikipedia as such, but I was reading your userpage and I noticed that you support the usage of "gender neutral language". Why? (I know this may seem strange, but I just want to get an opinion) Ryannus (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

## Mick Quinn

Just to let you know, I only "created" the article in a cleanup job, by moving some text that somebody else had inappropriately inserted into the article on a different Mick Quinn. I couldn't even begin to assess whether he's notable or not; I know absolutely nothing about him whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm sure you acted in good faith, but per WP:V I think it's best to just remove any such unreferenced material on a non-notable rather than create a new article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'd agree with you now entirely. But this took place in the fall of 2006. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Duh, silly me, I should have checked the dates. We all live and learn! (Last autumn I had to create mass CFR to rename a dozen really badly named categories which I had created in my first few months as an editor, and had to name myself as the guilty party). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

## Look behind you

 The Hidden Barnstar This user has found Basketball110's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it?

Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But it wasn't that well hidden :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you find it using PrefixIndex? Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
yes! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

## Baroness Ludford

Dear Brown Haired Girl,

My correction was merely to correct the misnomer in Baroness Ludford's name. The description of her as Baroness Sarah Ludford is incorrect - she can either be described as Sarah, Baroness Ludford or, more usually, Baroness Ludford.

Happy to discuss further or to point you to other sources which confirm my amendment.

Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteed (talkcontribs) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

## Barry Owens

Hi, BHG. I noticed the tag you placed on Barry Owens and have made some changes, putting in more citations. Do you think the changes are sufficient for the neutrality tag to be removed? Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that's done, so I have removed the tag. My concern was that if there a value-judgement such as "among the best full-backs in Ireland" is not an assessment that a wikipedia article itself should be making, but it's quite proper to quote it from a reliable source as as you have have.
The one other tweak is that URLs are not alway very informative about what's being linked to, so it's best to use a citation template such as {{cite news}} to clarify the reference. Just as a sample, I have added the citation templates to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

## Kilglass village

Hi, BHG. I have placed a comment on Talk:Kilglass which might interest you (in the light of some recent back-and-forth editing of your own contributions). Would welcome your views. -- Picapica (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have added my comment at Talk:Kilglass#Village_of_Kilglass. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

## BRFA for rewrite

Hey there.

Do take the time to file a new BRFA— if nothing else it'll give you a good trial period and assistance from other bot coders while you prepare the switchover. Thank you for taking the time to ask; just ignore the unrelated drama behind the curtain.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren -- will do! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

## Lough Derg Monster

Discussion moved to Talk:Lough Derg Monster#Hoax_.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

## Biography notability

Looking at your "notability" tag on Simon Rowe article. I would have said "Gee, the editor for two magazines, who also frequently appears on talk shows. That sounds somewhat notable." Compare that, I would, to Wiki sports bios with nothing but a person's name and a team, which are vigorously defended if they get tagged with notablity. I'm just not clear what's going on, to be honest. Is it basically that there is a "Wiki union" of sports fans who are vocal that every player on a regional team is somehow important? Whereas there is no Wiki group to defend professionals who run magazines?

I guess I don't mind so much the Simon Rowe article needing additional information to be seen as valuable, but...in comparison to a football player who's been on a small team for one season...?

24.130.14.14 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree about the sports bias, and I despair at the proliferation of trivial articles on sportsmen who were barely notable in their own lunchtimes. I took another look at the Simon Rowe article, and I think you are right: there is clear evidence of his notablity, so I have tagged the article with {{expand}} -- as you say, it could be clearer.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

## Perl wikipedia libraries

Re your recents posts about switching to from AWB to perl - I want to point out my alternative Perl library, which you can find at User:VeblenBot. It has a somewhat different feature set than perlwikipedia, and in particular it has built-in error handling and support for maxlag. Perlwikipedia has a somewhat different set of built-in functions, though. If you try mine and find any bugs or would like any additional functionality, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, for the pointer and for the offer of help. I had noticed Perlwikipedia's lack of maxlag support and assumed that I would just have to set a low edit rate, but it would be more efficient to use maxlag. Error-handling would be useful too -- I had noticed Perlwikipedia's lack of that and made a note that this would need attention.
I'll give your library a try, and see how I get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope everything makes sense; let me know if you run into any issues, and I should be able to fix them promptly.
The perldoc for API.pm is pretty complete. You have to do editing via Edit.pm, not API.pm. Once editing support is built into the API, I will implement that in API.pm, and then Edit.pm will become obselete.
The main 'gotcha' with perl and mediawiki is handling UTF-8 encoded strings correctly. I don't have any good written documentation about it, but the gist is that data passed out of API.pm will be unencoded, but you usually should encode data (such as page titles) that you pass into it, using Encode.pm. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

## Greetings!

Hello! How ya been? Another editor has been moving page names that go against the defacto standard [i.e., Citrus County, Florida Sheriff's Office should be Citrus County Sheriff's Office (Florida)]. If I move it to the correct format it could cause problems with redirects and such. Could you grant me rollback rights so I can fix them? Thanks!--Sallicio${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi son! :)
First thing: if you're posting a message about an article, it's really helpful to link to it. That makes it much easier to look at it.
OK, the article is currently at Citrus County, Florida Sheriff's Office. Since there Florida county is the only Citrus County, the word "Florida" is not needed for disambiguation and per WP:NAME it shouldn't be part of the article title.
So the article should be moved to Citrus County Sheriff's Office, from where it was moved on March 7. You don't need rollback to undo a move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke, Mutti! Some of the other page names that he has changed were also duplicates of place names in other states. If I revert the move or enter the disambiguation won't it disrupt other redirects and links?--Sallicio${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If the other moves were for disambiguation purposes, then they shouldn't be moved back. The naming formats may still need correction, and if so the way to do it is to move the article to the correct name, and then fix the redirects. To find the redirects, you can use whatlinkshere, and then use the 'show redirects only' option at the top to hind the redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

## Colton Scott

I've just stumbled across this page while checking out an IP whose vandalism I'd just reverted. (Some of the IP contributors here have been vandalising their hometown articles for eg). Anyway, it seems some class of recreation of an article titled The Raging Inferno - recently deleted it appears. As it stands, it certainly needs booting off asap! I've never nom'd an afd before so please -would you take a look and see what you think? Thanks, All The Best Plutonium27 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of notability, and not even an assertion of notability, so I have speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#A7. It was a 15-year-old's self-promotional article, which belongs on somewhere like myspace, not in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

## My comments...

...are located here. No bad faith, okay? Editorofthewiki 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you have a cheek. It's bit rich to say "no bad faith" to me, when you specifically accused me of "inherent bias", with an edit summary of "BHG bias". If you want editors to show you some good faith, don't start by making false allegations of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
All I was doing was noting something that I noticed. There's nothing wrong with what you did with that article (in fact, I applaud it) I'm simply making the connection. We all have biases, you know, and I want this stupid arguement to stop. All I'm saying is that, well, maybe mass afds was not the best idea. Editorofthewiki 01:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll just say something that I have noticed: that you made a malicious and false allegation for which you don't have the manners to apologise. My patience is short tonight, so please get lost and cast your aspersions on someone else. I'm quote willing to discus the merits of AFDs, but not with someone who assumes bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I will report you to the Administrator's Noticeboard if you don't stop. I'm guessing the reason for your misconstruement is that you are having a bad day and I will hope the best. Editorofthewiki 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Off you go then if you want to. I've had more than enough of you coming here to act all self-righteous because I objected to your assumption of bad faith, and more than enough of your dishonest attempt to claim that you were "just making an observation" when you had made allegation of bad faith. Anything else you post here will be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to report her to the Administrator's Noticeboard (Incidents), you will need something to report her with. If you were thinking of the topic "mass AfDs," I'd say it is already a known fact that that happened, so it wouldn't be anything new to bring it up now.
In any event, I'll give 1 more attempt in pointing out your flaws in your arguments of course. Your text italicized.
did some work here [Katherine Plunket] instead of nominating for deletion or merging.
I already explained to you why she didnt delete or merge the Katherine Plunket article.
I think this inherant bias should be noted at the mass AfDs.
I already explained that the mass AfDs are over, but if there is another supercentenarian AfD by her in the future, sure, you can go ahead and bring the Katherine Plunket case up.
For example, she tagged Lazare Ponticelli as non-notable and merged it into List of French supercentenarians. Now, several months later, his article contains 13,000+ bytes and is currently awaiting promotion to Good article status.
And you know what? You weren't around several months ago, so how is it an argument regarding the article's status at the time? How does arguing about something in the future affect the present?
So in other words, my point being, I can't find anything to being to WP:ANI. What is it I'm not seeing? Neal (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
No, not the mass afds, but the allegations of bad faith when I was only stating an observation. She misconstrued my point as to be against her and started saying that I, quote, "made a malicious and false allegation for which you don't have the manners to apologise." I'm just making some connections and I'm not trying to bring this further. If you want an apology, here it is: I'm sorry for causing you personal stress over my point about Katherine Plunkett. This was not my intention, so let's stop fighting. (I was originally goind to write more after saying that I would take her to the Administratr's noticeboard, but my browser got locked and I felt tired so I only wrote a quick statement.) Okay, so let this be over. Editorofthewiki 13:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
EoTW, you really are being dishonest here: you didn't just "make a connection", you alleged bias and suggested that this should be raised at AFD. You weren't around at the time, and part of problem here is that you appear not to have checked up on the history of before you appeared, and of why those AFDs took place. What actually happened was that after stumbling on this field by accident (through an orphaned category) I aware that some exceptionally vocal editors who were then working on supercentenarian articles completely rejected the WP:BIO's tests of notability and been using lots of original research and unreliable sources, so I set about systematically checking every single one of those articles (there were about 400 or 500 of them). Those had already demonstrated notability I left alone; those which hadn't established it, but where I could find more sources I tagged for improvement; and those where I couldn't find any sources to establish notability I merged to list articles which I created. Unfortunately, the mergers were systematically reverted by an editor who believed that supercentanarians should not be subject to WP:BIO's test of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources ... so the only route left was AFD. Some of the AFDs resulted in deletion, some resulted in merger to a list, and some led to more sources being found and resulted in a "keep". That's fine: if notability is established, they should stay, and in every one of the AFDs I included links to the Google searches I had done in trying to establish notability. Note that there were about 70 AFDs out of the hundreds of articles, because the rest did not appear to me to present a notability problem.
In the midst of all that, Neal asked if anyone could expand the article on Katherine Plunket. I did a quick check, and found that there were plenty of sources to demonstrate notability, so there were no grounds to merge or delete the article. And because I found that had a personal connection, I decided to do the work myself of expanding the article. Where's the bias in that? The consequence of your logic is it would have been better for me to leave Katherine Plunket's article as a stub with a {{refimprove}} tag and avoid accusations of bias. How on earth would that help wikipedia, if an editor refrained from expanding an article because they would be accused of bias for not having expanded hundreds of others?
That's what I object to: the accusation that expanding an article within my sphere of interest made it improper for me comment on the non-notability of others. I took enough abuse over this from Robert Young (and from the meatpupets he recruited through his mailing list), and from Kitia who used sockpuppets to try to stack both AFDs and deletion reviews which he initiated after his sockpuppets didn't sway the outcome, and I'm not inclined to accept lazy accusations of bias from someone who hasn't checked the facts of what happened and who assumes bad faith. I note that you have not withdrawn that allegation, so don't post here again unless it is to retract it.
Well done expanding and referencing articles — that's always a good thing to do. But as Neal points out, finding sources to establish notability now does not mean that notability had been established at some stage in the past. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with expanding that article. I'm simply accusing you of bias because the personal connection made you expand that article and not most of the others. I understand your reasoning why my point about Lazare Ponticelli is not my best; I'm simply saying that, if I were you at the moment, I would have expanded all of the articles that could be expandd and only the utterly non-notable ones could be deleted. For example, you nominated Moses Hardy for deletion, and now it's a god article. I was not assuming bad faith, I was only making a connection that you seem not to be getting. My logic is not that you should have left the Plunkett article the way it was, only do a little more reasearch on the ones you want to nominate for deletion. Also, making all the afds at the same time made it hard for those who wanted to expand and improve the articles. It may just be me that has do do that hard work and if you can, please list the articles that you tagged for deletion on my talk page if possible. Oh, and IMO the lists look absolutely horrible; if they are to be lists of supercentenarians they shouldn't be a collective biography of each. Editorofthewiki 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Editorofthewiki, it's kind of hard to debate about something when we're not being very specific. So hmm, what can I do..? I know, I'll make something about specific cases so we have something specific to talk about. Going to reply to 1 of your sentences.
My logic is not that you should have left the Plunkett article the way it was, only do a little more reasearch on the ones you want to nominate for deletion.
Okay, you want BrownHairedGirl to do a little more research on the articles she nominated for AfD. Let's see what I got. Here's some of what her introduction to some of these articles she nominated for deletion in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Did she do a little research?

Josefa Salas Mateo

[snip] Mateo is already listed in Oldest people and in Oldest validated person by year of birth; this is quite sufficient unless substantial coverage is available in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO, and my google searches found none. [snip]

John Ingram McMorran

[snip] I have found only remotely substantial ref to him, which I have added to the article, but two google searches [1] [2] appear to yield noting else of substance. I suggest a merger to List of American supercentenarians. [snip]

Khasako Dzugayev

Unreferenced short stub on a man who lived to about 110 years old. A google search threw up nothing in reliable sources, so unless more refs can be found he fails WP:BIO. [snip]

Henry Hartmann

Currently unreferenced article on a very old American. I have found only this one reference in a reliable source, and apart from that a google search throws up only bulletin boards etc. [snip]

Delphia Hankins

Another non-notable very old person. The 214-word "obituary" cited is little more than a verbose funeral notice, and a google search threw up only only two more refs in reliable sources: [1] and [2], both of which are also just slightly-expanded funeral notices. [snip]

Anne Primout

Article on a very old French woman, for whom the only avaialble ref in a remotely reliable source is one line in a list. I tried a Google search, but found no reliable sources; and even though she died in 2005, Google news gave me no hits at all.

Mathew Beard

I have searched for refs, but didn't expect to find much since he died in 1985: see Google books search, google news search 1, google news search 2 - the search is complicated by the two possible spellings of Matthew/Mathew and the presence of many other Mat(t)hew Beards, though Gnews did throw up two subscription-only hits in old local newspapers which may or may be relevant, but which in either case do not seem substantial.[1][2]

Clara Huhn

Stub article on a very old person, notability not established per WP:BIO. The only references to her are in list articles, and I have found nothing more substantial in reliable sources in a google search, while google news finds nothing at all.

Note, even though she linked to many of her Google searches, when I cut and pasted her text, they were delinked. And I'm sure you can find other AfDs where she did not mention Google search. Most of these articles where written by Robert Young and his crew for stuff off the top of their heads. Neal (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Editorofthewiki, I came here because I wanted to review some of your contributions for your editor review, and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that you haven't been assuming good faith. Wikipedia's policies clearly dictate that the onus for showing notability and verifying the information is on the user who adds the material. Was BHG a bit hasty with the AFDs at the time? Maybe. But as the results showed, most of the time she was quite correct about the fact that were few, if any sources. She put in a huge effort and endured a lot of crap to clean up dozens of articles that she had otherwise had no interest in editing. Furthermore, it seems that BHG has an interest in Ireland articles - it's not "bias" for her to search for sources for Katherine Plunket it's within her field of interest. She was never under any obligation to find sources for any of her nominations, but she did at least a cursory search for most, if not all, of them. Nothing that had sources got deleted or merged because people who wanted the material to remain took the time out to find sources. Obviously sources existed for Plunket - someone else would have found them in the course of an AfD if she hadn't looked for them. If anything, you should appreciate the fact that she took time out to do that, rather than accusing her of bias. Cheers, CP 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. I simply didn't do all the reasearch as I have other things to do. I made an observation, and everyone started jumping on me. Perhaps it was my wording? As I've said before, I appreciate the effort that BHG made for expanding the Plunkett article. Perhaps Young could write a book about some of these super-cs so that they could have articles. It seems that everything is you vs. Young, and I want to remain neutral. I was not acting in bad faith and I am sorry that it came to be viewed as such. Editorofthewiki 21:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I had composed a longer reply, but left it to think about it before posting, and now CP and Neal have kindly said nearly all of what I wanted to say.
However, there is one further thing to add. Editorofthewiki, please urgently read WP:AGF, because you did assume bad faith. As you now acknowledge, you didn't do the research; you found one thing which troubled you, and that point it would have been perfectly appropriate to ask "BHG, what was going on here; it looks bad, but have I missed something?" ... in other words, to assume that there was a good faith explanation which you had so far missed.
You didn't do that. You didn't consider the possibility that there was another explanation, and — most crucially — you didn't do the research. It's up to you whether you want to devote your time to that sort of research, but if you haven't bothered to do the research, then you shouldn't jump in and make allegations of improper conduct (which is an assumption of bad faith). I notice that you have only been editing under your current acccount since the start of January, which isn't all that long to familiarise yourself with all of wikipedia's policies and conventions, but WP:AGF is a crucial part of the civility which is essential to ensure that people of widely diverging age, temperament, intellect and culture can work together harmoniously despite their many differences.
You are obviously miffed that, as you put it, "everyone started jumping on me". That's simply because you didn't assume good faith. I'm sure that you would prefer to be unjumped-on, and the best way to achieved that not to assume bad faith.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, if Young wrote a book on super-c's, I'm afraid it'll still be Young's Original Research®. Sorry. And he'll have his 800+ members and his meatpuppets backing the "truth"fulness of his book. Lol, sorry, couldn't resist. ;) Neal (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
To BrownHairedGirl: I'm sorry it seems that I assumed bad faith. It was not my intention to do so, and I realize how it could have come out wrong. Sometimes I do such things, and I do not want this misunderstanding to go any further.
To Neal: Young's Original Research®? Is that a bad joke because if it is I am not getting the humour. And technically, if he wrote such a book, we would be able to use it as a source because it is an independent, third party publication. And since Young is an expert in the field, such information could be included. Editorofthewiki 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true, that for the way Wikipedia policies are, someone might find that book a reliable source. All it takes is an uninvolved admin who feels that way after stumbling across that book. Neal (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

As for a further note, shouldn't Young's talk page be unprotected? I mean, it's been protected for months, and I think that maybe he can contribute constructively now? It's worth a try, and at the very least he should be able to make comments and state his point on various issues. Editorofthewiki 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A blocked editor's talk page remains open for discussing the block, not to discus with other editors edits which he wants made by proxy on his behalf. Unfortunately, Young abused that, which is why te talk page us blocked. If he wants to be unblocked, he can of course send an email to the unblock-request email list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

## Project templates

Hi, and thanks for adding WPBiography templates on articles such as Andy Brady and Keith Brady. I just wanted to let you know that on any templates from WPBiography, the parameter that is tagged "importance" on some project templates is called "priority" on any templates from WPBiography. It kicks them to a category for repair, which is how I noticed. Hope that's not a huge deal for you, just wanted to let you know. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for the friendly tone!
I have been engaged in a big assessment exercise for WikiProject Ireland, and have assessed over 4,500 articles in the last two weeks since I installed the brilliant User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js script (it has a built-in counter). My primary interest is WP:IE, and given the scale of the job I have tried not to get sidetracked too much into other project's tags ... but I have tried to add them where I can do so without too much hassle. So, given the huge number of articles on footballers, I have added {{football}} to some of them, and {{GaelicGamesProject}} to the GAA articles ... and I have also tried to add the {{WPBiography}} tag. In many cases, the easiest way to do that is to copy the {{WikiProject Ireland}} tag and edit it a little, which in most cases is just a matter of deleting redundant parameters. Some of the tweaks are a bit annoying (e.g. WPIE uses "image-needed" but WPBIO uses "needs-photo"), and one of the annoying differences is WP:BIO's use of a "prioritity" field instead of "importance". I used to change that too, but then I noticed that "importance" seemed to work on WPBIO, albeit with a warning ... and so I stopped changing it, because the extra time is significant when multiplied over thousands of articles. (I think "priority" is a better term than "importance" in this context, so I have no complaint about the use of it)
I had assumed that given the scale of WPBIO, that there must be a bot replacing "importance=x" with "priority=x", and since any time-saving is important when tagging thousands of articles, I thought I'd leave that task to the bot. But I wonder from your post was I wrong? are you having to do this by hand? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

## Hello

What should I call you? Ok, Hi BrownHairedGirl. I just dropped in to say hello to you. This is perhaps my first interaction on your talk page, if "Hi" may be considered as an interaction :), except the community level interaction: [13] on 11.05.2006. You have been always doing so well to my envy. Please break one of your rules, and please come to my talk page to brighten it. Thanks & Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page. Yes, time flies ... --Bhadani (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

## 647 in Ireland

A tag has been placed on 647 in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template `{{hangon}}` to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 23:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

-BHG, could you de-tag this? Sarah777 (talk)

Thanks for the note. I would happily have untagged it, but Nakon (talk · contribs) got there first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

## Prods

I am nearly certain those unreferenced articles will not qualify as uncontroversial deletion candidates in most cases. I would suggest that you take them through AfD, and if they are uniformly uncontested deletes at AfD only then start using prod for similar articles. See User talk:BirgitteSB/Archive 1#Bot blocked.--BirgitteSB 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Also Wikipedia:Requests for verification and its talk page.--BirgitteSB 00:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I'll see what happens with this batch. WP:V is supposed to be a pillar of wikipedia, and if completely-unreferenced articles are to be kept indefinitely despite being clearly tagged and categorised as breaching that basic policy, why would we bother having such a policy? I'm very sorry to see that you were blocked, but having read Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification, I can see why you were blocked — at that time there seems to have been no shortage of editors who don't regard lack of sources as a sufficiently serous matter to justify deletion :(
It's deeply depressing that no mechanism was agreed at Wikipedia:Requests for verification. That discussion makes me wonder if WP:V should be regarded in the way some people the election manifestos of political parties, as something somewhere between shameless flannel and a set of vague aspirations, but not as a document which carries any weight. WP:V and WP:NOR are supposed to key elements of the first of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. What on earth is the point of calling such things policy if we don't uphold them?
I'll have to wait and see if WP:V is still regarded as controversial. But if articles which have been wholly unreferenced for two years are regarded as being controversial candidates for deletion, I'll have to concede that wikipedia's critics have a much stronger case than I had thought. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
BHG, I agree with Birgett on this. Vis not controversial. V means verifiable. An article where the facts can be verified & meet other requirements for WP should be kept. The way to find out if it can be verified is to try. Attempts to provide for deletion of articles on the grounds of merely unreferenced have been repeatedly rejected. Wikipedia:Requests for verification is marked "historical"--the discussion was clear on this one. But I totally agree with your mission to get WP free of unreferenced articles--I think everyone does. The way to do it is to try to reference the articles, and then nominate for deletion the ones where a reasonable search has failed to find any, after stating where you looked. You've been bold, as is your right; I'm removing the tags for anywhere I think notability is possible to be established, as is mine. I'll get back to the others, as I can and if and find nothing,I'll leave a prod2 saying so--if I find references, I'll add them.. Here's the start of the discussion. I suggest the best way to go forward would be to nominate one or two for AfD and see what people think of the argument there. If you move it elsewhere, please notify me. DGG (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say I agree. I would only support such deletions if the nominations lists the reasonable efforts (which may or may not include just a google search, depending on subject) that have been made & failed to turn up any references. Some of us remember the Assyrian king who was AfDed because he had no ghits (rapidly followed by the RfA failure of the nominator). There are still plenty of quite reasonable articles, mostly older ones, that are wholly unreferenced; sometimes academics are the worst. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict)Hi DGG, thanks for the very AGFing spirit of your reply, even though you obviously strongly disagree with me (as is your right!)
However, I disagree strongly with your assertion that it it is the job of other editors to find references. As you can see from the discussion above, I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Requests for verification when I placed the PRODs, and WP:V#Burden_of_evidence has been very clear on this point for a long time, that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and your solution is simply impractical, because the tide of new unreferenced material overwhelms those editors conscientious enough to care. WP:V#Burden_of_evidence "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references" and -- most pertinently "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons". Are you really saying that 21 months is not too long?
We appear to have a deeply anomalous situation here, where practice (as you describe it) is contradicting a very clear and fundamental policy.
I have already AFDed a few, and will AFD any more that are unprodded without being referenced, but not tonight. I now need to lull my pulchritudinally-challenged-self towards my much-needed beauty sleep by counting footnotes ... ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Before you do that, may I suggest you recall that afding too many articles at once of the same nature is disruptive of the process--there;s a limited amount that can be considered properly. If you are talking of overwhelming editors, one person placing articles for deletion or prod tags can overwhelm several dozen people trying to fix articles. Had you done it a few at a time, i would have done what I usually do and sourced them as I removed the prod tags--but I cannot cope with this number. It takes about 100 times as long to source even minimally as to tag. As I see it , it is the job of everyone dealing with an article to try to improve it, and delete it only if in goodfaith they think it can not be improved. No time is too long for improvement. I agree with you though that the author has the responsibility in the first place. We're trying to clean up after. Doing too much at a time, frankly, begins to look like POINT. I continue to accept your effort at being due to understandable frustration with the poor work of others, but consider seriously what would be gained by deleting the articles? What is to be gained by forcing the issue now by the afds? -- that's the definition of POINT. see how a few get handled. I think you will find that your argument is overwhelmingly rejected, and you will have gone to this work, and forced everyone to the work to deal with it, when one or two articles would adequately test the consensus. If you do more, even I will urge the rejection of the afds on that basis. DGG (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• And aside on the why I was blocked: Wikipedia:Requests for verification was actually started a month after the incident so I was equally unaware as you of the full range of opinion on the matter at the time. And if I had received a message similar to the one I left above back then, I would have changed my behavior just as I did after the out-of-the-blue block. But I really try not to be bitter about it :) (I am only making this completely clear because I have an RfA on-going and I don't want things misinterpreted)--BirgitteSB 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

## Help: Meatpuppet activity

Saw you flagging the potential sockpuppet activity on the Chris Davies article and wondered if you could advise. Found an article on Tony Filer that seems to have been created by the man himself. Did I flag it up OK, or was there anything else to it. GortonNorth (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so far as I can see, the Chris Davies article seems to have stabilised, or have I missed something?
As to Tony Filer, I see that shortly after you posted here, another editor tagged the article for speedy deletion as "pure nonsense", and soon after that it was speedy deleted in accordance with CSD#A7. So I think that one is sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
ThanksGortonNorth (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

## WP 1.0 assesments

Yes, sorry for the careless error on Talk:Declan Quill. I'll try to be more careful in future. Thanks for your advice!Tameamseo (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG, I see you were doing good work on tagging/assessing a few articles which were on my watchlist. I just have queries in relation to a couple of those. You placed the references tag on Billy Morgan (Gaelic footballer) which states 'This article does not cite any references or sources'. It certainly isn't too well referenced but aren't there a couple of footnotes near the end? Shouldn't there be a note saying it needs additional references, not that it doesn't have any at all? With regard to Tommy Langan, you attempted to categorise it as 'Year of birth missing' (didn't come up correctly due to a code typo), but surely his year of birth is mentioned in the third sentence? Thanks for your time! Tameamseo (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note!
On Billy Morgan (Gaelic footballer), you're quite right - my bad! I missed the refs and have corrected the tag to {{refimprove}}. It doesn't affect those tags, but may I point out too that per Wikipedia:Citing sources#How_to_cite_sources, the source should be fully-cited, not just a bare URL. I lerft some guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Gaelic games#Feedback_from_a_WP:IE_assessment_drive on how to do this, which amy help ... but if you'd like me to clarify or help any more, please let me know.
On Tommy Langan, I didn't see a date in the opening sentence, and missed it in the next section. Per WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph, the dates of birth and death should be in the opening sentence of the article, as the first thing after the name and titles (if any). I have corrected the article so that it now opens "Tommy Langan (1924–1974) was an Irish Gaelic footballer from County Mayo ...", and added Category:1924 births.
Hope this helps, and thanks again for your note. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

## Laois Junior "C" Hurling Championship

I've moved the content to Laois Junior Hurling Championships .Can i place a redirect on Laois Junior "C" Hurling Championship or do i have to wait for the AFD to finish?Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, merger is an excellent solution. However. if you redirect it now, then it will be harder for AFD contributors to see what was there ... so I suggest that you note at AFD what you have done, and propose merger. Under the GFDL, Laois Junior "C" Hurling Championship now has to be kept as a redirect to preserve the edit history, so a redirect is the only sensible outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
See my note to the AFD closer at User_talk:Scientizzle#Laois_Junior_.22C.22_Hurling_Championship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok ,will wait a while for it to be created and if not will recreate it(without its edit history) and redirect,have also done the same for Kerry_club_championships#Kerry_Novice_Football_ChampionshipGnevin (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

## New Pages

Hi BHG is there any way that a message could be put on this page to remind editors who are patrolling to mark them as patrolled. Maybe i'm in a bad humour :( but it is very annoying when you click on a page and it has been patrolled already, thanks.BigDunc (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how that could be done or if it could be done, but at first glance it does sound like a good idea. Maybe you could raise it at a suggestion at the village pump Village pump? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ill do that thanks, would it be in the proposals section? BigDunc (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess so! But that's only a guess, 'cos I haven't been to the Village Pump very often. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ill put it there im sure someone will put me right if in the wrong section, thanks again.BigDunc (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

## Irish geographical edits

I saw a load of new edits by Pad199207 who has been adding mostly unsourced information that I am virtually sure is not even vaguely correct and uses some POV words. He also messed up the sister cities of Atlanta with a Dublin addition that I could not verify and which I reversed. If your knowledge of the Irish edits is good enough please have a look. This edit seemed very POV and his population figures are totally inaccurate per the 2006 census, so I will reverse that part anyway. There are more. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, someone else got there first which I was writing the above post to add to my initial reverts. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was a bit slow, but well done raising it, and good to see that someone is on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

## Robson Lowe

Would you like to block this guy for his edit warring on Robson Lowe? He has also used this anonIP address to edit war the same article. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not just edit-warring, but if I saw the content correctly in quick glance, was it also a copyvio? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Either a copyvio or WP:OR. Now you are quick. Did I wake you? !! Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, are you really 84 years of age? Not yet Robbie Lowe's age. ww2censor (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Me 84? Why do you ask that? I'm fairly ancient by wikipedia-editor standards, and old enough to have been alive when JFK bit the dust, but not quite that fossilised :)
Oh, and I was up anyway, still assessing all these GA articles ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
An experienced editor like you did not spot the 1924 birth-year category at the bottom of your talk page! ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I did now! That's the trouble with speed-reading, I miss things I wasn't looking for, and since I didn't expect anything down there, I didn't look for it. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I got you! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
;p --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Achievements_of_the_GAA

Can you have a look at Achievements_of_the_GAA I've made several changes,I've all so made a suggestion to merge content and title change , which I believe will sort out the POV issue.What do you think ? Gnevin (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I really think that its a delete-and-start again situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries,I'll add to the list of stuff BHG wants me to do :D Gnevin (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Touché :)
That's the problem with a monster assessment run. Even only a small proportion of articles are problematic, a small proportion of the 2500 GAA articles means rather a lot.
However, the good news is that my bot-generated list of untagged GAA articles is now down to less than 350, so I'm nearly done, and can soon stop flooding your watchlist and to-do list. Alhamdulillah!
On the GAA Achievements article, you might want to make an offline copy of the article, because some of the references may be useful in writing something else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

## Help me

I am trying to get more people in to wikiProject Ireland by adding this template to their talkpage.

 The Ireland WikiProject is a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Ireland, Irish Geography, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

please add this onto anyone's talkpage that you know might be interested in WP:IEMarkreidyhp 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

## Your AFD request

Are you withdrawing your AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and the arts? If so, please let me know so I can close it as a withdraw. Thanks and happy editing Dustitalk to me 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, but no, I'm not withdrawing. The article is still a mess, and highly misleading, Better to start again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have relisted it to see if a consensus can be reached. Happy editing!! Dustitalk to me 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

## Supercentenarians

I'm still following the supercentenarian stuff. Just wanted to check whether the protections you applied last year have expired? Also, I noticed (on CP's talk page) that someone mentioned this compared to the current state of the article. The difference is here. Seems like things worked here - into list, back out again when lots of information emerged. I'm just wondering how much of the current article could have been written before the merge, and whether the merge was strictly needed. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I thought Carcharoth was a bit, more, well.. If the article was stub-like before the merge, how could you possibly argue whether or not a merge was necessary or not if the article later became better written? *Sigh* Neal (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
I have to agree with Neal. If the article had been expanded before the merge, then the merge wouldn't have been necessary, but it still appears that expansion was not possible back in December.
Merger doesn't have to be permanent, because circumstances can change, and in this case they clearly did change: the pre-merger version of the article cited precisely zero sources, so it clearly failed WP:BIO. The current version of the article is based entirely on news reports from January, when notability was clearly established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Exactly. It looks like we all agree here. Note that I said "Seems like things worked here - into list, back out again when lots of information emerged." That is identical in principle to what you (BHG) said here: "Merger doesn't have to be permanent, because circumstances can change, and in this case they clearly did change" I asked whether a merge was strictly needed, and I got a helpful answer from BHG, though I should really have looked into the dates of the references myself. Neal, if I may give you some advice, the "wow" and "*sigh*" style doesn't really help, particularly when you misunderstand what someone has said. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I was strictly replying to your question "and whether the merge was strictly needed."

Me and Extremely "Unsexy" are about to commit the 3 revert rule at the Katherine Plunket article, be sure to keep an eye on that. Neal (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

Um. Over the date format? Isn't that something people can set in their preferences? Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Neal, you and Bart are both wrong. Bart is wrongly trying to change to the US-only date format on an Irish article, and you trying to pipe the date, which is also wrong, per WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting_and_linking, because it break auto-formatting. I have corrected all the dates in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, when Bart added the [ [ ] ] tags, I didn't know if 15 December and December 15 redirect to the same article, so I changed the output. Oh, looks like they both exist. Okey dokey. Neal (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

I think it may be time for Chiyo Shiraishi to get her own article as she is now the oldest living person in Japan after the death of Kaku Yamanaka.74.140.136.51 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, please read WP:N. If there are references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, she fits the criteria for having a standalone article; but without that coverage, she doesn't. That applies whether she is 20 years old or 120. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
IP 74.140.136.51 points to the ISP Insight Communications Company and to location, Lexington, Kentucky. Or in other words, no clue who that is.
74.140.136.51: I find it very ironic you go to BrownHairedGirl to request a creation of a supercentenarian article. Don't you know that it is Robert Young and his WOP group that specialize in creating articles for supercentenarians on Wikipedia? Wouldn't the logical thing to do is make a request there? ;\ Neal (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
Neal in the 6 months since I first encountered the wikipedia articles on people aged over 110, I have found that it is a subject whose connection to logic can often be less than perfect. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

## I need you

At Talk:Bertie Ahern. Snappy56 is having a panic attack. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I blame the cynics and begrudgers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at McAleese's history now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered adding it myself, but I don't really object to the order number for the Presidents; the office has not changed title, and we don't have the problem of non-consecutive terms which makes the numbers such a bad idea with Taoisigh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, BHG, I'm glad you agree with me for once! This is nothing like the President of the Executice Council/Taoiseach debate, it was a completely new office. Btw, *I* didn't add the order no to the Presidents of Ireland infoboxes but since De Valera through Robinson have them, McAleese's infobox should be consistent with the other articles in the series. You know it makes sense!
On a related note, this article List of Taoisigh by important facts should really mention W. T. Cosgrave, at least in passing. Snappy56 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

## Abuse of tools

This editor shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute, it's only for obvious vandalism. Have been down this road already, not in the mood for it now? Any suggestions welcome, I left a post on their user page for what it was worth. --Domer48 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure that this involved rollback? I thought that since User:R. fiend had voluntarily relinquished the adminship that there would be no rollback too to use.
Secondly, I'm puzzled by your objection to the inclusion of the phrase "This followed years of personal union with the Kingdom of England, and subsequently the Kingdom of Great Britain" — those facts can be confirmed through any basic history of Ireland, and I don't see what purpose is served by removing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That is most definitely a rollback edit summary, and non-admins can gain access to rollback which can be used under certain circumstances - see WP:ROLLBACK. One Night In Hackney303 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
True. However, it looks to me like a reasonable reversion, and I'm not inclined to fret about whether it was done using rollback or Twinkle or undo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

## Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team

There have been updates made to the page to bring it up to scatch. Also confirmation of an honest mistake from User:Cobaltbluetony. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Still fails WP:N. I have replied at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

## Heads up

Hello BHG, just a note in case you hadn't seen this. —Moondyne click! 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I had indeed noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People (although only a few days ago), and I thought the whole "external leadership" structure was thoroughly inappropriate, but was reluctant to get involved because dealing with that subject seems guaranteed to bring headaches. This subject of extreme longevity seems to attract editors who are passionate about the topic, but unfortunately some of them seem to be much less keen on grasping wkipedia's policies and purpose.
You were quite right in to note that project page was inappropriate, and to remove the "leadership" stuff. I hope that will stabilise things, but maybe you could let me know if it doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine. I feel much the same way re headaches. —Moondyne click! 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

## Other stuff

I've been reading around a bit more, and one of the discussions I came across was this (about a set of photos of editors). I also didn't realise that Neal only recently created that "World's Oldest People" WikiProject. I'm not sure exactly sure what is going on here, but wanted to make sure you weren't missing some of the discussions. I'm sure there is more that I'm not aware of, but I just wanted to say that my posts at Talk:Ruby Muhammad were made without knowing what had been going on recently, though looking at your talk page I see you were aware of the WikiProject creation. Going off-topic, the prods discussion was particularly interesting. Getting back on-topic, Neal, if you are reading this, please feel free to comment. Finally, if you (BHG) still find my posts at Talk:Ruby Mohammad to be disappointing, my stance is probably best summed up with this post. Carcharoth (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I honestly thought it was pretty funny that the Lupo guy pointed out user contribs: StanPrimmer, and I almost bursted out laughing when he linked the Versieck's block log at nl-WP... Matter fact, so it seems he was only blocked 8 times with a block no more than 72 hours on the English WP, yet he's been blocked like 35 times with blocks up to 8 weeks in the .nl Wiki. ;/ Neal (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
Guy's, if you think Bart's a bad person, he's an angel on the English wiki. Here's some copy/paste of the translation from the block logs reason at the Dutch Wikipedia (in chronological order): Vandalism on user page, ignore and denying the conventies, against at least 4 warnings in always but continue with modifications in consultation, again troll behaviour, again editten in one's voice on the voice page, threats to other Wikipedians, sexist observations, because of remaining undesirable e-mails send Wikipedia employees after explicit warning, evasion, continues modify in other people's comment, and in accordance with the pronouncement of Arbcom. Boy, he's been everywhere. ;/ Neal (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
Okay, something new happened today. I have to make a little confession for what I said. Bart broke his record for longest block of 72 hours on the English wiki. Now it's 1 week (or 168 hours). BrownHairedGirl was right about Bart. Bart sure can surprise/impress me! He sure can prove me wrong. This means he is no longer been blocked 5x more at the .nl Wiki than at the English wiki but a little less than that. Neal (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

## Affane Cappoquin GAA

Primary sources and Affane Cappoquin GAA , i've added a ref or two and removed the tags, however the ref is to to club website but it's only sourcing the foundation date,is this ok or should i have left the tag ? Gnevin (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that looks great! You have refs to both primary sources (club website) and secondary sources (the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism PDF link), so you were quite right to remove the tags.
Cappoquin is a lovely town, so I'm delighted to see that article now tagless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers adding reflist to Caltra GAC .Was the last ones I did before I had to go out must of forgot that, 12 or so done on 570 more to go Gnevin (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Don't try doing them all in one go! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Slowly slowly catchy the monkey as they say Gnevin (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

## Project Ireland

I'm growing concerned about your blanked addition of Wiki Project Ireland to Northern Ireland articles. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but it is also part of the island of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but apart from anything it's over kill. Isn't there Wiki Project Northern Ireland. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There is, but it is nearly inactive: look at the lack of response when I have raised issues there. In any case, the crucial point is that WikiProjects don't WP:OWN any articles: they are just vehicles for collaboration and co-ordination between editors, and many articles are within the scope of multiple wikiprojects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, I just hope it isn't a political point. They could just as easily be in a W. P. UK! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No political point! And if a UK wikiproject wants to work on those articles, I have no objection to it adding its banner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The only projects with any activity are: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games, WikiProject Irish Republicanism and of course Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish literature, Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Belfast all seem to be inactive though there is some assessment going on in the latter two. Should we tag them as such? Irish literature is already tagged. ww2censor (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The apparent WPNI assessment activity may just be me adding WPNI tags as I go through my WPIE assessment list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland - ahem! Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, missed that one. it is not listed here but really should be. Cheersww2censor (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime also has some activity. Clem McGann is busy writing articles, and although there's not much activity at the project, there is a little bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

## Renford Reese‎

You might want to look at the edit war at Renford Reese‎ by Mr4sh0wz. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It mostly seems to be the article's author edit-warring with Cluebot, but that strikes me as far less of a problem than very poor state of the article itself. The article reads like a very badly-written self-promotional autobiography, and while I don;t know anything about User talk:Mr4sh0wz, I di know that the article needs massive trimming and cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you know best. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Me? I dunno about that :)
In this case, I'm afraid that I have little idea of what to do :( Tagging is probably inadequate, and I haven't the energy to explain WP content policy and guidelines to the editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, one of my edits was reversed as "vandalism" of the Matthew Parris page - I'm wondering why, given that it is a rather interesting quirky fact about Parris (and supported by reference material). Cheers! (Ox-alex) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ox-alex (talkcontribs) 16:35, 7 April 2008

Sorry, it probably wasn't vandalism, and I shouldn't have labelled it as such, but the edit which i reverted was unencyclopedic trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, true enough, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.171.246 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008

## Added a note at AFD/Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team

Added a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team. Not claiming possessiveness, just looking what needs to be done to the article as it stands at this particular point. 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite see your point. If you are referring to my additions, they do satisfy notability, covered at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes and elsewhere. 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I did consider the possibility you wouldn't see the point :(
You found nothing to say about those players that wouldn't be easily-accommodated in a one-line list entry. What on earth is the point of creating any 15 of these so-called "articles" when the combined content would happily fit on one screen in a 15-line list? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's a viewpoint of sorts, I guess. I have often found that people add to newly created articles, as I have done myself with newly created articles. 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of those sub-stubs you created are in Category:Cardiff Blues players. If you intended the articles to be expanded, they should be tagged with appropriate stub tag, but so far as I acn see you left it to other to do even that bit of housekeeping.[14][15] [16]
I took a look at the first few articles in that category. skipping those you just created:
• Ben Blair, created aug 2006, now a proper stub, but no references to any independent reliable sources
• Matt Cockbain, created sept 2006, now a proper stub, but still references to any independent reliable sources
• (Chris Czekaj, created july 2006, now a proper stub and does have one ref to some nearly-substantial coverage in an independent reliable sources
• Ben Evans, created March 2007, only 30 words of body text, no independent refs, let alone anything substantial
• Wayne Evans, created June 2007, only 93 words of body text, no independent refs, let alone anything substantial
• Ed Fairhurst, created December 2006, only 88 words, no refs at all
I had to skip down to Iestyn Harris before I could even find a start-class article. In Other words, out of ten articles which were 9 months and 2 years old, only one of them had progressed being stub-class, half are still sub-stubs which could be covered in a list, and only 3 of then then have established notability according to the basic principle set out in WP:N. This looks like a lot of cluttering up the namespace with people who appear to be non-entities about whom there is next-to-nothing to say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Playing in a top-line competition inherently qualifies the player of any notability questions. I think you illustrated my point by showing that other editors had followed up the articles, but I shall endeavour to further categorise pages. I have spoken with two other administrators on this subject and they were wholly supportive. 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are enough sports fans editing wikipedia that they have engineered themselves an exemption to the notability guidelines; my point, though, is that it's only the exemption allows the survival of these list-entries-split-out-as-stub-articles. On ordinary notability tests, they clearly fail.
The consequence of not merging these obscure sportspeople into the lists where they belong is this proliferation of sub-stubs on people about whom there appears to be nothing to say: that's well over half of the articles in my sample before you added more to make it about two-thirds. These permastubs would be better handled by lists, as we did with non-notable baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

## Oddities and stuff

User:Happy-melon and moi seem to have a different idea of the appropriate tag for an Ireland-related categories. Can't see where he's coming from but I'd appreciate your input. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right categories, but this edit to Cat:780s in Ireland (and a few similkar ones) appears to consist of Happy-melon unsubsting wikiproject banner templates. H-M is right to do that; those templates should not be substed. If kept as transcluded templates, then any changes cascade through, and with them used in thousands of places, that's very important for maintenance.
I'm sure that you used not to subst them, and I wonder why you started? (I am not suggesting any bad faith or anything, just puzzled about how it happened!)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

## I hope...

...that you will also disengage per my comment at User talk:Giano II. Please. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LesaHeard, thanks for your comments on Giano's talk pages. I will disengage, but, I am deeply sick of Guano's gadfly games. I didn't ask to have anything to do with the edit war on the monday club, I was asked to intervene. So far as I can see, the whole episode was nothing to do with Giano: he doesn't appear to have edited the article concerned or be in any other way involved. I don't actually enjoy having that sort of editwar complaint brought to my talk page, because trouble is usually a guaranteed outcome whatever steps are taken, but if asked I'll usually weigh up the situation and act if I really think it's needed.
Sometimes, others pop up to offer their thoughts, and mostly that's constructive; whether or not I agree with them, most people have something to add to the info available on the incident, or some idea on how to resolve it. The only exception to that is Giano, who only ever seems to comment on an admin decision after the fact, and then only ever to criticise because he wasn't the decision he would have made.
I think that in future I'll just deal with him like I deal with any other troll, and delete his comments without reply. But something has gone badly awry with the state of wikipedia that Giano's trolling seems to be unstoppable :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It saddens me that Giano may be labeled a troll, but then I am blinkered in that respect. However, I have also followed your "career" in WP and it further saddens me that two people of whom I think very highly - for differing reasons - are unable to peacefully co-exist (within the same pagespaces, anyway). However, this is entirely up to the individuals concerned. You are free to do as you feel is appropriate, which includes labelling Giano a troll, and I would now only comment that I appreciate your gesture in stepping back in this matter. I would also place on record that I give no credence in Giano's comments considering you responsible in any way for the trolling that occurred today. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

## monday club

Could you help me out with the edit war on Conservative Monday Club, I'm not sure about enforcement proceedings. Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've given up on this one. --Hereward77 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably best, you'll not win against editors who have a COI with regards to the Monday Club and will whitewash and censor the article as much as they can. One Night In Hackney303 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. These people have more in common with Oswald Mosley than with real conservatism. --Hereward77 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, did you see what he was writing...and you say I have a PoV. I have no CoI; nor have I ever claimed to be a Tory! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying you haven't attended various Monday Club and associated events and know particlar members? One Night In Hackney303 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was exposing the Monday Club for the Mosleyite Pan-European fascists they really are. --Hereward77 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a triumphant expose, well done. You should write for the Grahdian [sic] with that sort of material! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, in fact The Guardian and other leftist newspapers also supported Tudjman's fascist regime. I am a real conservative counter-revolutionary, not you. I suggest you visit Ian Paisley's website: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=serbia2 --Hereward77 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Paisley has been to MC events and many DUP MPs, MLAs and members are MC members. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the MC has been infiltrated, or perhaps DUP member Andrew Hunter should read Paisley's work before posing with Catholic fascists. --Hereward77 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
ONiH you really should check what Hereward77 was adding to the article before having a go at Counter-revolutionary on this. To say Hereward77 was POV pushing would be to take understatement to the extreme. - Galloglass 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's two sides to each POV, I'm just repeatedly seeing one being presented at the expense of the other. One Night In Hackney303 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree there are always two sides just I am a little surprised to see you defending the far right one against the ultra right.... - Galloglass 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending either, either have both or neither is my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And there was me thinking the point was to have neither.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They have both broken WP:3RR, so I have blocked both of them for 24 hours. Ultra-right or ultra-left or wishy-washy-soggy-centre, 3RR applies just the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking long term editors in such a fashion is hardly likely to engender any good will, of lead to a solution. It will just increase animosity regarding the page and subject. The sensible and obvious solution would have been to protect the page and encouraged them to slog out their differences on the talk page until an acceptable version and view emerged. Giano (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Blocking C-R was excessive.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They were involved in an edit war and were blocked well done BHG. Break the rules and you get blocked. Why penalise everyone by protecting the page, when two editors are edit warring. BigDunc (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: I meant ban them from the page, on pain of death or whatever, not everyone. Let them have a good arguement, everuone else express some views, and sort it out. As it is it will just fester on now. Giano (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Giano, you always know better than any admin who actually has to make a judgement call, don't you? And you can never resist sharing that widsom, can you?
FWIW, I did consider protection, but rejected because it I dislike locking a page off from responsible editors when there are only two edit-warriors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Glad you have finally realised that BHG, even though it has taken you a while. I'm always happy to help out if I can see a solution and prevent a problem escalating. Feel free to call on me any time for advice. Giano (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks, Giano. If I ever want to be sniped at by a troll and I don't have a usenet newsreader handy, it's nice to know where to call to find someone who is so keen to criticise the actions of those who actually try to do something about a problem ... especially if I want the wisdom who of someone who prefers criticising others to taking any responsibility for fixing things themselves. Bye! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Talking of Trolls - as you were - yours seemed busy this evening. Ciao. Giano (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Giano, put up or shut up. Where exactly do you allege I was trolling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Did I say you? My dear, you take too much upon yourself. Giano (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Giano, take some responsibility for your own words. You said "your trolls", so don't try playing word games to wriggle your way out of the accusations you make. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

(unindent) BrownHairedGirl, I suspect it may have been my comment on Giano's page, perhaps too easily misread, that is the root of concern. It appears to me that someone observing the earlier conversation that took place on your page decided to cause trouble. I do not think that it was you who was trolling; nor, I suspect, does Giano. Risker (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very heard to discern what Giano actually believes about anything, other than all admins are nearly as stupid as the believes arbcom to be, and the it we should all be grateful that he takes the time to snipe at our inadequacies. However, he did his best to try to associate me with whatever that anon IP was up to, without having the honesty to directly accuse me of involvement, and as usual made no effort to retract his insinuations.
Anyway, any further comments from him on this page will be deleted on sight. It's best not to feed trolls. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think Giano can say without a trace of irony that "some of his best friends are admins". --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's up to the admins concerned. Personally, I welcome people who want to discus or make suggestions, but I dislike people who who only intervene to sneer. His opening comment yesterday, with its edit summary "The sensible and obvious solution" is a just the latest in a long line of patronising snipes I have encountered, implying that the solution I chose was neither sensible nor obvious. If Giano was actually trying to be helpful, he could have asked a question, along the lines of "Did you consider", rather than indulging in another of his trademark put-downs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

## Molyneux Baronets

Please would you add Sir Francis Molyneux, 4th Baronet to Nottinghamshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Members_of_Parliament. I think I would do it wrongly. - Kittybrewster 10:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Horribly complicated job, but it's done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and well done. I was absolutely right; I would have made a complete hash of that. - Kittybrewster 21:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

## Replace this image

I left a response to your message on my talkpage yesterday. Your thoughts are welcomed on what might be done (if anything) to address the repeated uploading and (good faith) syntax errors which continue to be included as a result of the "upload image" request. (Where an image already exists). Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any other thoughts, I've decided to crop the existing image and use it in the infobox for McDowell. As noted, I still believe that using "replace this image" style placeholders is not appropriate: where a free image already exists, where there is an extensive history of users uploading inappropriate images to satisfy the "request", and (in particular) where the images appear in "non-bio" articles only loosely related to the image subject. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Wat up dawg?

Hey! Just wanted to see how your doing! Life going well? My goal is to make friends with every single person on wikipedia! Will you be my wiki-friend?

216.229.227.142 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but we do try to be friendly and welcoming, and if become an active editor I'm sure you will make some friends along the way. The first step, though, is to create an account. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

## Thomas Francis Meagher

I expanded the lead on Thomas Francis Meagher. Before I remove the "short" tag, I wanted to get your opinion/suggestions. If everything is okay, you could just remove the tag. Thanks-- Mitico (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work! I'll remove the tag now. It's a very well-written article, and the only thing I see holding it back from good article status is a lack of inline citations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

## Another request

Sorry to bug you, this is a copyright and source/citation issue, but can you have a look this editors talk page where I have posted several times about his editing of Czech Branch of the House of Thurn und Taxis. Besides what I have told him, adding a copyvio tag to the article and following the copyvio notification instructions, I am not really sure what to do next. TIA ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you discussion with the creator, but I have deleted the article anyway as a copyvio. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comments on his talk page, but you forgot the talk page. Maybe. ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. It's now deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been restored today with a ConfirmationOTRS template, so that must be ok I suppose. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. If it's been through OTRS, the copyright prob is fixed. I know little about the subject, so I can't comment on its accuracy. --12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

## Fra McCann

I see you added Category:Northern Irish women in politics to this article, one problem with that is that Fra is Male. :).--Padraig (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

These things are not immutable, but that's no excuse for my mistake, because WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and I have absolutely no reason to believe that such things might apply to McCann. In my defence, the article used no gendered pronouns ... and after your edit the article still used Image:Replace this image female.svg, although it was me who who had added that in the first place. I have now corrected that.
However, I noticed that your edit summary was "removed cat she is Irish", and when I checked your contribs, I saw that you had similarly removed the category from Dara O'Hagan, Carál Ní Chuilín‎, Caitríona Ruane, Bairbre de Brún and Martina Anderson.
I think that's a pity, because the result was that those 5 politicians were now no longer in any subcategory of Category:Women in politics, and gender is notable because women remain in a very small minority of office-holders in Northern Ireland, at least beyond council level (the Oireachtas also has rather few women, only about 14%). If you didn't like the "Northern Irish" adjective, then you should have changed the categ to Category:Irish women in politics rather than simply removing it.
Anyway, I took a look again and I have added those women to a new Category:Female members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which avoids the terminological problem.
I do honestly think that you are hair-splitting a bit in your objection, because (per the Good Friday agreement) the term "Northern Irish" is not exclusive of either an Irish or a British identity, and all these women have made their political careers in Northern Ireland. However, I think that the solution is simply to rename the Category:Northern Irish women in politics to Category:Women in Northern Irish politics. Is that OK with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, correction -- I see that it was BigDunc (talk · contribs) who actually removed the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The objections to Northern Irish trouble me. as you have pointed out BHG, the term is pretty neutral, and there is evidence that it is used and reasonably well accepted by the Northern Irish community. Yet there is sitll a strong campaign to wipe the term out on wikipedia.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, life is too short to explore all the nuances of complex identity issues, and if it's going to cause problems and there is a workable alternative, I'm happy to use the workaround. I have msged BigDunc to ask for his comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
BigDunc is happy with the renaming, so I'll change it later today.
It also occurs to me that the adjectival "fooish women in politics" format is probably a bad idea generally, because what's really of interest here is not where the woman is originally from, but the country/jurisdiction in whose politics she is participating ... so the national label should really be attached to the politics, not to the person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the change proposed.--Padraig (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Padraig. I'm glad that's OK. I'll do a mass CFR for all the subcats of Category:Women in politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Trouble at t' mill

Christiana Nickson, 1st Baroness of Donoughmore of Knocklofty - Kittybrewster 10:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Panic over. - Kittybrewster 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see it was sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Clive Watkinson

Someone has contested this proposed deletion at DRV and you may want to consider an AfD. Best regards, Tikiwont (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Watkinson. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and I indeed meant to write 'previous deletion per PROD'. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## For your amusement

[17] - Kittybrewster 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Thaat's great fun, that is. I particularly enjoyed the lad expelled for "disbelief in the ‘Popish Plot’" (worthy of Blackadder, that is) and John Asgill, for taking the wrong line on the bible. It reminds of how much I used to enjoy the history of that period :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What do I do with Robert Sutton (diplomat) who was a Whig MP (GB) but the only category for Whigs is for Category:Whig MPs (UK)? - Kittybrewster 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Use Category:Whig MPs (UK). It's a bit of an anachronism, but the category has to span the GB and UK eras, so I can see the logic was of using the same format as Category:Conservative MPs (UK) etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Wat up BrownHairedDawg?

Don't you just love random messages?! I was in hysterics reading that. I really just dropped by to say it's nice to see your name & comments popping up more often these days over at CFD. It's lovely that you've decided to spend more time there.

Also, I was hoping you might take a look at a discussion which may have escaped your attention and perhaps indicate whether you support my analysis. :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, but surely you're both in breach of WP:CANVASS? Perhaps some blocks are in order? BencherliteTalk 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Gitmo for both of us, pronto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Mary Coughlan article and user:Logicalview

Hi! Thanks for reverting the previous removal of the info I added to the Mary Coughlan article. Unfortunately the same user, Logicalview, repeated their editing/vandalism. I've reverted it but was wondering what - if anything - can be done about it? The user's profile is a blank page, so is there some way of leaving a message to ask them to discuss their concerns before deleting text?

I've welcomed the user to Wikipedia and left a (hopefully friendly) note about the article, assuming good faith.

Cheers, --Conor (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I started writing something, but you got there ahead of me, so rather than delete what I had drafted I posted it anyway. Hopefully a discussion will follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! Nice to make your acquaintance. -- Conor (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And yours too! My watchlist is humungous, so I may not spot any further edits to the article or its talk page, so feel free to drop me a note if you would like my comments on any further developments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Will do. --Conor (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

## What's so special about Ireland?

Since you have been doing a lot of work on the YearInIrelandNav template and since nobody cares to answer my question on the template's discussion page, I'll try asking you on your discussion page instead. And please, don't think I think badly of Ireland, but read my statement below to see what the above question is all about.

All the categories YYYY by country (e.g. 2008 by country) have subcategories for many specific countries like 2008 in Italy for instance. Now, the article 2008 in Italy is included in the category 2008 in Italy and does not have to be in the category 2008 by country. So, what makes Ireland so special since it alone has to be both in the category 2008 in Ireland and its superior category 2008 by country when no other country is?

I think this template ought to be changed, so that the article 2008 in Ireland is included only in the category 2008 in Ireland and not in its superior categories. Secondly, if the article is included in the category 2008 in Ireland it should not also be included in the category 2000s in Ireland, since that is also a superior category.

If this is not acceptable, please tell me why Ireland should stand out from all other countries. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at Template_talk:YearInIrelandNav: see the Topic article rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

## Mary Coughlan (2)

discussion moved to Talk:Mary Coughlan (politician). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

## Jennifer McCann

I removed the cat that you reinstated on this article as an IRA Vol and Sinn Fein member she certainly doesn't consider herself to be Northern irish.BigDunc (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I'm just in the process of doing the CFR we discussed above at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Fra_McCann, to rename the category to Category:Women in Northern Irish politics. In the meantime, please don't depopulate the category. The current name is imperfect, but it's silly to remove someone from an accurate category because the categ name is imperfect. In any case she is already in numerous other sub-categories of Category:Northern Irish people, including Category:Councillors in Northern Ireland, Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2007-, Category:People from Belfast, and Category:Northern Ireland politician stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok will do I will self revert the ones i have done till you sort it out. BigDunc (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Dunc! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, since I had created Category:Northern Irish women in politics only a few days ago, I just speedily renamed it to Category:Women in Northern Irish politics, and that rena,ing is now complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a cat on this article Bernadette Devlin McAliskey Northern irish independent politicians could probably use the same make over. What you think?BigDunc (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lemme finish the women category first, then I'll take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work BHG thanks.BigDunc (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Other renaming done, so onto Category:Northern Irish independent politicians.
I see your point. The same issue arise, particularly because not everyone in Northern Irish politics is from NI. I have just been checking the independent category, and I found John William Nixon and Paddy O'Hanlon and other examples of people who were independents in N.Irish politics, but were not born in NI, so the same case for renaming probably applies here.
The Category:Northern Irish independent politicians has existed for longer, so it can't be speedily renamed, so I'd suggest a WP:CFR nomination for Category:Northern Irish independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Northern Ireland. Lemme knows if you decide to go nominate it, and I'll support the renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

## RedKing7

Can you do something about this SPA whose only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to try and confuse the hell out of everyone by changing every mention of "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". His latest attempt at confusion was this on The Troubles, which on such an article is an atrocious edit. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The SPA tag seems appropriate, but I don't see that it falls under an immediate-admin-action category. Would you like to open an RFC/U? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Need two editors for that. And he's still at it on the Troubles, and refusing to discuss the edit :( One Night In Hackney303 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have left a note at User talk:Redking7#Edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As I'm sure you agree, the use of Ireland on an article that covers so much of recent Irish history is just a recipe for confusion. One Night In Hackney303 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lemme know if there is any resumption of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)