User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 028

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
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

Contents

Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
..And a barnstar from me too, for offering a sensible voice during a media-led storm. Span (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Sadly, the irresponsible article in the NYT has created a lot of silly drama. The author should have first made some effort to understand how Wikipedia categorisation, before using her powerful platform to incite people to start changing things.
This has led to a lot of hot air based on a mistaken understanding of how WP categories work. For example, it is quite wrong of the objectors to say that women writers were deleted from Category: American novelists. They were not deleted from the category: they were moved to a sub-category.
The NYT article claims that Male novelists on Wikipedia, however — no matter how small or obscure they are — all get to be in the category “American Novelists.” Again, not true. They are there only if they have not been diffused to other sub-categories.
It has been depressing to see how many editors have responded to the media storm in a sort of panic, rather than simply using our established procedures to discuss the issues raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Self-appointed 'outraged' crusaders with little clue of how WP works seem to be creating a lot of mess and most won't stay around to help clear up. On the up side, I think categorisation has been one of the weak aspects of WP as it grows organically according to individuals' interest and time invested. While this MO seems ok for article development, with a cat system, it seems bound to head off in odd directions and reflect the obsessive inclinations of certain active editors. A knowledge information system would seem to need a clear place to stand in order to get an overview of the whole thing - a place to view omissions, kinks, paradoxes, screw ups etc. Maybe there is a such a viewing place and a body of people are monitoring, stewarding and planning the shape of the category system, but I haven't come across them. So, more attention to sensible cat development and stewardship might not be a bad thing in the long run. Thanks for all the work you have put in to these sets of discussions. US and UK novelists and poets are my main area, hence my involvement. Not that the debate is really anything to do with novelists, but there we are. Have a good weekend. Span (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Milowent[edit]

User:Milowent seems to have a desirte to attack me personally, although so far the attacks seem benign. This user has however made clear they think categorization can in some way be compared to slavery or the holocaust. I find it very disturbing that this user has brought up both Nazis and slavery in the discussion of Category:American women novelists. The user has also falsely accused me of "advocating that female presidents bbe refered to as presidentesses", which was never my postion at all. Her and Avt tor are carrying on a direct attack on my post on facebook for now good reason see here ""Revert the Unintentional He-Man Women Hater's Club President. i wrote this article and though i don't own it, i cannot suffer to see this atrocity continue." High five. :) Avt tor (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC) " hehe. I am upset about the whole thing, but you gotta laugh sometimes. Meanwhile, take a look at this:[13]. I am speechless.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Okay, that is scary. Avt tor (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)" This person also wrote in response to one of my edits "Revert the Unintentional He-Man Women Hater's Club President. i wrote this article and though i don't own it, i cannot suffer to see this atrocity continue". That is distrubing enough, but what actually happened. I had put Anne Hampton Brewster in Category:19th-century novelists, Category:American women journalists and Category:American women novelists. I find these person attacks on me very distirbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

JPL, without diffs, I can't comment further.
If you get the diffs, you may want to consider a complaint at WP:ANI. I am WP:INVOLVED in this issue, and cannot act as an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian towns categories[edit]

I've explained the situation in greater detail; you may want to reconsider your comment, especially the claim that my actions would leave us without any category for Indian villages. Category:Villages in India is alive and well and is in no way related to the categories I nominated for deletion. I haven't changed that category, its content or that of its subcategories in any way. Huon (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Outright lies in the media[edit]

It ourrages me that an article like this has been written. [1] They claim that the American women novelists category was the work of "one misguided editor". This is clealry false. I did not create Category:American women novelists. I did not put Amy Tan in there. Ann Rice was added to the category back at the beggining of February by the another user. It is very misleading for people to claim that one editor created the problem, and probably downwright wrong for Filipacchi to bring up Anne Rice when she is in multiple by-gender sub-cats of Category:American novelists. I find these accusations of it being the work of one person very disturbing. I really wish there was a way to see the size of categories over time. This would give the lie to the claim that I manufactured this category out of whole cloth. Another case I was not responsible for is Zelda Fitzgerald. I guess maybe I should not get so worked up about this, but it is misleading to claim that one person did it, when I did not create the category and was clearly not the first or only person to apply the category in that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Claims of edit warring[edit]

It is now claimed that I have edit warred on James Branch Cabell because I added him back to a category after someone removed him for no clear reason. The directive of CfDs states "Please do not empty the category", but makes no similar charge against expanding the category. Since some people have specifically argued to delete Category:American men novelists because it is "empty", it seems like removing articles in the category is a backhanded way of influencing the discussion. It is pretty clear the long term agreement is that since some categories are deleted as too small, there is no reason to claim edit warring. This is part of a long standing patter of attack by PBP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good God. Once again, Brown, I apologize for JPL wasting your time. The category clearly wasn't emptied. JPL added Cabell and others to the category BOLDly, I removed two he added, something that I am perfectly entitled to do under WP:BRD. If JPL undoes my edit to add them back, that's edit-warring, pure and simple. pbp 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you are not entitled to remove people who clearly fit the definition of the category. He can claim that removing just two is not emptying the category, but there is no justification for doing so. This is especially true when the category was nominated for merger so quickly after it was formed. There is no ban on expanding categories under discussion. However it is higly looked down upon to shrink categories under discussion. He has not argued that Cabell is not a man, an American and a novelist, so I see no arguments at all for removing him from the category, and even less reason why I should sit back and let such an unjustified removal stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
BRD. That is all. pbp 18:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
PBP, there's s very simple issue here. Do you disagree that James Branch Cabell is an American, a men, and a novelist? If not, then you have no business removing him from Category:American men novelists.
You may believe that Category:American men novelists should not exist, and you're quite entitled to that view. But argue your case at CFD, rather than unilaterally depopulating the category (whether in whole or in part). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tag team exclusionism[edit]

Here [2] Anne Hampton Brewster: Revision history is what I would call tag team exclusionism. They have not yet put forth any argument to exclude the article. I even posted specific reasons not to at [3] which have been entirely ignored. Why do these people think they can persist in fighting the expansion of existing articles, especially in light of my actual explanation of why this expansion makes sense?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Milowent, Avt tor and I are not a tag team, and you didn't make any comments until only a few minutes ago. Remember that it's generally a bad idea to edit-war against multiple editors, which is what you've been doing pbp 19:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The three of them do not have the right to unilaterally remove someone from a category just because they do not like it. They had not presented any good reasons to exclude the person from the category. I made the comments on the talk page before the final revision. There is no reason I should sit back and let these people remove articles from categories that both exist and clearly the person belongs in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that Milowent has been told to stop removing articles from categories that are nominated at CfD and still persists in doing so is what should be paid attention to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Potential DRV[edit]

The first step of a DRV is to contact the closing admin and request a reconsideration. I feel that the DRV of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_17#Category:National_Collegiate_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame_inductees was done without proper notifications and closed against consensus. Would you reconsider your decision before a DRV is necessary. I am under the impression that Talk:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame, Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball, Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports were not contacted about the discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Deletion_of_Category:National_Collegiate_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame_inductees there is an emerging consensus that something wrong was done with this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for your message.
You raise two issues, so I will take them separately:
  1. Notifications. The category was correctly tagged, which is the only required notification. I think that it is a good idea to notify the creator, which was done. I think it's also a good idea to notify WikiProjects (and I try to do so myself), but there is no requirement to do so. (WP:CFD#Procedure says only that editors should "consider" such notifications, and proposals to make it a requirement have been repeatedly rejected). So I did not check for other notifications, because they would not have affected the closure. (The only thing that might have changed it was canvassing, but I saw no suggestion of that). I have just checked, and see that the category#s talk page was tagged with {{WikiProject College basketball}}, which caused it to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Article alerts (permalink). It's up to project members to monitor the article alerts.
  2. Closed against consensus. Please please remember that WP:NOTAVOTE. Really, really not a vote :)
    What matters here is arguments founded in policy, and we have here a very long-standing guideline at WP:OC#AWARD ... so my role as closing admin was to weigh the arguments against that guideline. I did so, and found no consensus that this award was one of the few v important categories for which an award category should exist.
    I discarded arguments based on WP:CLN, because the fact that categs/lists/navboxes can coexist is a different issue. That guideline is a solid response to an argument "we have a list, so we don't need a categ", but it does not override the long-standing consensus that there are some things for which a category is inappropriate.
So, I stand by my decision so far ... but I am keen to listen. If there is anything you think that I have missed in my reply, please let me know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I think the required parties were notified, though some may feel more notifications would have been better (e.g. eponymous article, other tangential projects, etc). Hindsight is 20/20. I agree with you that discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. However, based on interest expressed at this discussion at WP:CBB pointed to be Tony, there are more editors that would still like to join the discussion. Would you kindly consider relisting the discussion, adding your !vote, and enable those still interested to add their opinion? Thanks in advance for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba, I had started a reply to Tony before your msg, so I posted that reply first.
I'm not really keen on re-opening a discussion because more editors want to join in. That seems to me to be like re-opening to polling booths to allow people who would have voted if they had know their vote might matter. Elections would be an ugly business if we did that. Additionally, WP:NOTAVOTE, so more voices won't change the outcome.
However, I am willing in principle to reopen a discussion if significant new evidence is available, and have done so on previous occasions. Is there anything you want me to consider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the concise response! I would point out that WP:OC#AWARD is linked to a discussion started in 2011 that the criteria for notable category awards was unclear. I added to that discussion after I stumbled upon it based on this and other recent CfDs. IMO, the deleters in this CfD made a WP:VAGUEWAVE at OC#AWARD, which itself allows for exceptions, although the guideline only gives cryptic examples. The keeps all countered that it is a high honor. So we are left with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT debates as to whether it is a notable enough exception. However, the keeps seems to give more elaborate explanations on why it is a notable award, as opposed to short dismissals by the deleters. Also note that User:Dirtlawyer1 in the WP:CBB thread voiced that he would add that "WP:OC#AWARD is the exception, not the rule" in light of what he considered to be the actual practice in the community. Based on the vagueness of OC#AWARD, Dirtlawyer1 or I could argue that WP:PGCHANGE was not followed for OC#AWARD if its inclusion was not "faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion."—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that WP:OC#AWARD reflects the long history of deleting award categories. The list at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Hall_of_fame_inductees is huge, and the wider list at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Awards is humungous. I have not checked which (if any) of the other Hall-of-Fame categories have survived CFD, but if they haven't been through CFD then they are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The keep arguments were that it is a notable award in a sub-field of a sub-field. (The field is basketball, of which American basketball is a sub-field, and college basketball is a sub-field of that). That does not add up to me as an argument that this is a highly important award of anywhere near the standing of the examples cited in the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm admittedly not a regular with category discussions, so I'm not intentionally wikilawyering (if it comes off that way) but just learning as I read. That being said, you appear to put more stock in the example of "Exceptions include Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners" than you do in the subsequent text of "See also Category:Award winners and Category:Awards", which contains many "sub-field" awards. Regrettably, OC#AWARD IMO leaves too much to subjective common sense.—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
That's the eternal dilemma with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. How much should be spelt out, and how much should rely on commonsense? Spelling out everything is a recipe for horrible instruction creep, but OTOH commonsense is culturally variable and often subjective. Some of the notability guidelines are appallingly over-detailed, but I agree that WP:OC#AWARDS could probably do with a little more detail. However, I think that the best thing to clarify it would be a link to the list of precedents.
You mentioned, so I looked at the first 5 subcats of Category:Sports hall of fame inductees (i.e. Category:Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame inductees‎, Category:Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inductees‎, Category:Football Hall of Fame (Australia) inductees‎, Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame inductees‎, Category:Australian Rugby League Hall of Fame inductees‎, and AFAICS none of them has been nominated for deletion. I don't think that the untested existence of other categories sets a precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Followup on AWARD[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I've been trying to get a better personal understanding of OC#AWARD, and there's been an ongoing thread at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Awards_.28again.29. Good Ol’factory also expressed concern over this CfD's closure. That being said, I'm more focused for now on trying to understand AWARD further, and I have no immediate plans to open a DRV. However, you did ask to be alerted if there was any new information you should consider. Unless anyone was already following this thread or WT:OC, I was not going to notify anyone further of either of these threads. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DRV opened[edit]

This CFD was listed for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 5#Category:National_Collegiate_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame_inductees.

The DRV nominator had (incorrectly) claimed above that the CFD was inadequately notified, but then failed to make either of the two notifications required at WP:DRV#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review (see steps #4 and #6). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Your input would be welcome here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_CfD_result_regarding_American_women_novelists_ignored_at_Amanda_Filipacchi. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the ANI thread is long enough already, and my main inclination is to pour a bucketlake of cold water over just about everyone posting in it.
So far as I can see, the situation is:
  1. Lack of WP:Category intersection prevents us from creating gendered categories without some risk of ghettoisaton. This is a long-standing technical failure which cannot be resolved by the community, but the Foundation has chosen to ignore all technical requests from the community and concentrate on a new editor interface as the magic potion to improve editor retention (which I think is daft). My comments on that led me to [the issue of category intersection] in October 2012, but sadly I didn't follow through on it. So far as I am concerned, this saga has revealed the critical importance of dynamic categ intersection.
  2. Gendered intersection categories are an ongoing dispute on Wikipedia, because a) some editors take a hardline view that gender is never a relevant factor in categorisation, b) some editors oppose it in all except the most clearcut cases (such as porn stars). This has led to bizarre follies, such as the long-standing consensus against gendered categs for actors, which I succeeded in overturning this winter after a 4-month effort.
  3. In this case, we have a further tangle: Category:American novelists is huge and unwieldy, but has limited scope for diffusion, because most literary novels don't fit into any clearcut broad genre (such as sci-fi). So if we do create gendered categs for American novelists, we risk ghettoisation ... but if we don't, then we deprive our readers of the opportunity to browse the set of American women novelists, even tho that is a significant field of study.
  4. Into this mess weighed a novelist who had good access to the media, and used her clout to create a shitstorm without having bothered to try to consider the complexity of the issues involved. Once she created a media panic, lots of editors responded with a panic of their own, taking their orders from the bully pulpit and paying little attention to the wider principles of the Wikipedia categorisation system.
  5. The compromise reached at CFD 2013 April 24 is probably the least worst option in the midst of such panic, but it is ugly and unstable. Ugly because it causes category clutter, and unstable because non-diffusing subcats are so extremely rare that most editors are unaware of their existence ... so they are likely to diffuse the pages anyway.
So I predict that this will run and run until we do actually get dynamic categ intersection. Which right now looks being when hell freezes over. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi - as you might guess, I fully agree with your points above. I wonder, did you have a chance to look at the band-aid I proposed here for category intersection, using the cat_scan tool? --> Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? I would greatly appreciate your input, and if possible, your support to move that idea forward.
also, would love it if you'd take my quiz: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Correct_categorization_quiz. See if you can do better than John Pack Lambert :0
On the actors, a question - to me it makes sense to have male actors and actresses (or female actors, not gonna go down that road...). But shouldn't they always be siblings? I've seen in the actors tree actresses being under actors, and uneven application/use of male actors categories at lower levels. Is that intentional or just work-in-progress?
Finally, FWIW, an intrepid editor is now proposing an RFC about the famed Category:American novelists. Weigh in if you like: Category_talk:American_novelists#Preparing_an_RFC My opinion is this is chauvanistic and trying to solve the wrong problem...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Westerns[edit]

Yup, see my explanation on the talk page.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

quick close[edit]

I withdrew this, and there were no other votes to keep, so it would be one less hanging about. Would you mind closing it? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1#Category:Puerto_Rican_short_story_writers. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft topic ban Jax[edit]

I would like to see you comments and additions to User:The Banner/Workpage28, the draft for a topic ban proposal regarding Jax 0677. Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 12:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick opinion[edit]

On this tree Category:Anti-Islam, including a whole subtree like this: Category:Anti-Muslim_organizations, etc. My gut is, much of this has to go (labelling an organization anti-muslim is pretty subjective), but having been involved in many of these earlier discussions, I'd be interested in your thoughts. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates[edit]

FYI: the proposal is filed here The Banner talk 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories for broadcasters of various sports events (?)[edit]

BHG, in light of this CfD from last month, were you aware of the recent efforts of User:Ashbeckjonathan to add multiple new categories for broadcasters of American college football bowl games? (Please note the newly added categories for broadcasters of the BCS National Championship Game, Cotton Bowl Classic, Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Sun Bowl here.) I hate to rain on the guy's parade by filing a CfD, but it's a pretty clear precedent that these sorts of categories are frowned upon. Would you like to take a crack at explaining this to him, or should we just file another CfD? I just left a courtesy message on his talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that deleted your courtesy note without repying to it. :(
I have nominated them for merger, at CFD 2013 May 29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for following up, BHG. Wikipedia offers enough controversy without recreating classes of previously deleted XfDs. I'm not a big fan of creating these sorts of micro-categories, especially when there is a heavy overlap of the information imparted among the various subcategories. When I saw this, I thought I would raise the issue with one of our CfD experts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

South Pacific (musical)[edit]

Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page, here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Princes and princesses[edit]

I've been playing with category intersections based on a new tool developed by Magnus which does them super fast. See [4] for example, which intersects men by nationality with women by nationality. The intersection seems mostly around royalty, because you often have X men by occupation which contains x princes which contains x princesses. While I understand while it was done this way, it still doesn't seem right to have women as a sub-category of men. Can you think of a better way to structure these? Sometimes they are absurdly nested, but women are 'always' subcatted (princesses, duchesses, etc). shouldn't they be siblings instead? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:REMOVE after block expired[edit]

Hi, thanks for all your hard work with the admin mop. Regarding this lock. There was discussion of this kind of case Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 12#Possible ambiguity. As regards this particular editor, the lock of his page (which he actually is happy with as protection from IP, and in a righteous huff perhaps since an admin was aware of his dual account) is a minor inconvenience to other WikiProject Vietnam editors - though his edits are positive and can still be discussed on article Talk pages. Not requesting any particular action re the User's Talk page, but you may want to comment on the WP:REMOVE thread. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't he just call me a racist again? That worked out so well last time around. Kauffner (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I probably should not have indef-protected that page, and now that the block has long expired, the protection is certainly superfluous.
So I have unprotected User talk:༆. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of organisations based in Slovenia[edit]

Category:Lists of organisations based in Slovenia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of organisations based in Poland[edit]

Category:Lists of organisations based in Poland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Medical and health organisations based in Poland[edit]

Category:Medical and health organisations based in Poland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of organisations based in Russia[edit]

Category:Lists of organisations based in Russia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of organisations based in Romania[edit]

Category:Lists of organisations based in Romania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of organisations based in Serbia[edit]

Category:Lists of organisations based in Serbia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note[edit]

You can disagree with a close. You are indeed welcome to.

But undoing a close because you disagree with it is considered disruptive, as I presume you know. And a bit of presuming good faith might go a long way.

Anyway, There is currently a discussion on that proposed guideline because I asked that it be started. (And because Fayanetic was kind enough to start it.) I see you have commented in that discussion.

There is no deadline. So nothing is hindered waiting. - jc37 06:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being silly. I did not undo a close.
I undid something which you did after closing a CFD, but which not mentioned in your close, and which appears to be supported by nobody except you. A little less edit-warring on your part would go a long way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
a.) it was noted in the close.
b.) you commented in each discussion. You are clearly not uninvolved.
c.) if anyone is attempting to edit war, that would be you.
d.) there is no deadline. Honestly, the world will not end if we wait for the rfc to finish. It's how things are done on Wikipedia. Not by being impatient and edit warring to push a POV.
e.) you know better than to do this.
Please do not revert again without a consensus. - jc37 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts, except the last one "e":
a) The parenting of Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland is not mentioned in your closure.
b) I am indeed involved. And so are you, but not as a closing admin, because te action you took is neither mentioned in your closing statement nor supported by any other participant in the CFD. You are an edit-warrior upholding your preference with no support from any other editor.
c) No siree. The edit-warrior is you. You are acting unilaterally, without support either in the discussion which you closed or in subsequent discussions.
d) There is indeed no deadline, so allow the status quo ante to stand unless and until there is a consensus to change it.
e) Indeed, I know a lot better than to claim that as a closing admin I do what I like to a category without regard to the discussion closed, without regard to the established convention of other similar categories, and without regard to every other editor who comments on the matter. As an admin, you should also know better.
Anyway, since you didn't heed the requests on your talk page, I will take this to 3RR and ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan-Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Henry Wallop, 8th Earl of Portsmouth[edit]

Please would you improve this page. I hope you are well. Kittybrewster 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richmond Road ground[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Richmond Road ground has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenBailey (talkcontribs) 06:13, 8 August 2013‎

Block request[edit]

Certain someone keeps using multiple IP addresses messing up in my talk page. So I need you to semi-block my talk for indefinitely. Thank you. ༆ (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk[edit]

Hi. I have nominated Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk for deletion. As you were a particpant in the previous deletion discussion, you may wish to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 14#Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RNLB Lucy Lavers (ON 832)[edit]

RNLB Lucy Lavers (ON 832) is notable because it is not only one of the lifeboats that went across the channel to take part in the Dunkirk evacuation and still survives to this day, It is also part of the National Historic Fleet,[Here] Core Collection which makes it notable. In November 2012 Rescue Wooden Boats charity[Here] secured a £99,300 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore LUCY LAVERS, which will account for 67% of the projected costs of the restoration. The aim is to restore her in time to return to Dunkirk in 2015 for 75th anniversary celebrations of the evacuation of troops. When fully restored she will be returned to the water in Wells, where she once served. Source: Eastern Daily Press 24.co.uk, Dec 2012. As an administrator on Wikipedia, I would have thought you would have a least entered into some sort of dialogue with me, before tagging the page! Cheeseladder (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A few misunderstandings there.
First, the fact that you created an article gives you no special rights over it. (See WP:OWNERSHIP).
Secondly, tagging it to mark a problem is not some sort of attack. It is an invitation to all intersted editors to try to fix a problem.
Thirdly, you seem to misunderstand the concept of notability; please take some time to read WP:N, which is linked from the tag I applied. The arguments you make relate to your assessment of the importance of the topic, rather than to its notability. As summarised in WP:GNG, notability is based on substantial coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the article I tagged included no refs to any such coverage. Even with the links you have provided above, the topic does not satisfy GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • replyI am sorry to say that you are complety wrong about these articles being not notable. I suggest to you that these two lifeboats are as notable as many of the other lifeboat articles, of which there are many, on Wikipedia, especially the Lucy Lavers but I’m not going to get in to some sort of edit war with you about this subject. Please do not band about accusations of me assuming some sort of weird ownership issue over these articles. As you well know! You should assume good faith at all times. I created the articles as stubs to try to encourage others to contribute to help with the template on Suffolk lifeboat stations. You have tagged them because, for some reason known to your self, you do not want the template to flourish. I will now walk away from this subject as I wished only to make positive contribution and not negativity one as you plainly think they are. I have no interested in a battle of opinion on what is and isn’t wanted on Wikipedia.Cheeseladder (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    Great to hear that you don't feel WP:OWNership. I got the opposite impression from your complaint that you hadn't received a direct personal notification before a problem tag was added, and am delighted to hear that I was mistaken.
    You're quite entitled to your views on the notability of these topics, and it doesn't look like we are going to agree. However, in making your case, please be wary of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may well be that there other lifeboat articles which also don't demonstrate the notability of the topic, and I will examine them to see if any more need tagging. That may encourage editors to expand and improve them, as yo eventually did with Lucy Lavers, which now comes close to meeting WP:GNG.
    And finally ... if you are concerned about AGF, it's not a great idea to assume bad faith on my part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reply. I would like to put our discussions concerning the Lucy Lavers Lifeboat's notability on the articles talk page for future reference and as a help to other contributors, I will only do this if you have no objections.Cheeseladder (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I and Manning[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What you appear to be failing to understand is that wikipedia is not a battleground - there are not "sides" there are just editors being editors, some who agree and some who do not. Your appeal to consequences in discussing the media was extremely unhelpful. If all you care about is winning the argument, maybe it's time to take a break for a while? I did. Editing from an IP gives me a huge incentive to not get personally involved in disputes. If you're trying to defend "your side" there is a problem. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If you can't AGF, then you might want to take a break for a while. I don't just care about winning the argument. I have put a huge amount of work into Wikipedia over many years, and I care a lot about its contents, as well as the project's reputation. Selective justice is not just bad for individual editors, or for editors as a whole. In a high profile case like this, selective justice will be reported externally. Editors should know better than to risk the project's reputation in this way.
I know well that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground, and I think that's a very important policy. What you seem to be failing to understand is my concerns start from a view that in this case some editors on both sides have been using it as such.
My concern is that although there has been bad behaviour on both sides of the fence, only the pro-trans editor faces punishment. The soapboxing and POV-pushing by BB is apparently acceptable to the community, despite breaching numerous policies. If an editor took a similar approach to race or religion, the sanctions would be swift and decisive ... but in this case, since the argument is that trans ppl should be denied the respect we accord to other BLP subjects, the aggressive comments of BB are going unpunished.
Forget for a moment what the topic is. Just look at one editor displaying a blatant battleground approach and getting off scot-free, while an editor on the other side of the argument faces sanction. That is a blatant injustice, and I make no apology for pointing it out.
I also make no apology for warning editors of the negative consequences for the project as a whole when justice is administered so selectively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not seen anything said by BB that begins to approach the kind of things that JG has said. Perhaps you can tell me, but the example you pointed out on the board is very mild by comparison to accusing those supporting the move of gross sexual harrassment and many similar comments. 190.43.93.178 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(e/c)Ultimately, it's a WP:WAX argument. To be blunt, I agree that BB's behavior is completely unacceptable, but he's not battlegrounding, he's just being himself, which is apparently fairly repulsive, and I don't know why he gets away with it, but I'm willing to accept that other people have valid opinions on the subject. AGF has limits, and your constant comments about "sides" mean that I'm not discarding them baselessly. JG's behavior was not acceptable, his move-warring on the Latin project makes it comically obvious that he has no interest in the opinions of others. Do you honestly think that JG's presence in those articles benefits anyone? I can remember a few debates where I happened to be supporting the same content as ScienceApologist and his lunacy weakened my arguments. JG's presence does not benefit the conversation, and he is absolutely unapologetic about his behavior. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
BB's presence does not benefit the conversation either, but as you note, he gets away with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:OSE. BB's flaws do not justify JG's flaws. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Please stop building the straw man. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious you're heavily entrenched and either can't hear or don't want to hear, so I'm not going to say anything more. I've done my wikipenance for getting involved in this ridiculous mess. Ironically, it involves getting pissed and a "Dr. Angry." 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hear you, but I don't agree with you. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of massacres in Turkey[edit]

Hello, I am writing this to you in order to inform you that some Turkish-related articles have for quite some time been hijacked by a group of editors whose only goal, it seems, is to negatively portray the Republic of Turkey, its predesseccors and its people as warmongerming murderers. This has especially become a problem in the article of List of massacres in Turkey where they only allow information about Turks killing others, and delete all reliabely sourced information about massacres against Turks/Muslims. By doing WP:OR, discrediting sources and authors, source falsification, distortion and tag bombing.

Sources which state the number of Muslims casualties during the Greco-Turkish war is persistently being deleted.

Your help is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.77.28 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.
First of all, you are labelling a whole group of editors as people who edit in bad faith, pushing a POV. That may be true, but if you want to make that sort of serious allegation you better have some good and precise evidence.
Secondly, you provide no links or diffs to illustrate what you are complaining about.
So I will not even consider taking any action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Haskalah[edit]

Hi there, Brown-haired one! If you can spare a minute or two, would you be good enough to have a look at this CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_4#Category:Haskalah? I was hoping that the editors who I replied to would engage with my responses, but alas, they haven't. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, BHG. I'm still holping that you might find time to have a look at this. I think you'll find it very interesting, and hey -- it would be a nice break from any high-stress ruckuses you may have been involved in of late. :) It's been relisted here. Cgingold (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It sounded like you were leaving the door open to possibly changing your mind. Please have a look at my response(s). PS - If nothing else, I hope/suspect that you found the subject of some interest (I mean, the Jewish Enlightment). Cgingold (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Say, what could I do to entice you into having a look at my response(s), BHG? Hmmm... Roses? Chocolates?? Suppose I just promise not to bother you again for, say, 3 months?? ;) Cgingold (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I keep spotting your indefatigable additions, and just want to say thank you for adding to those articles that I've had something to do with. I think I'd go mad with boredom methodically adding categories to an endless succession of articles, and I'm grateful to you for doing so (and so should the whole of Wikipedia be). Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom: wiki-activism[edit]

BHG,

Not here to argue with you, more to see your perspective on your comment re: my conduct during the Manning discussion, specifically about "labelling as 'activists' those who opposed" the title Bradley Manning.

I don't believe I did so. For example, in this thread, I proposed a general sanction against accusation of "transphobia". On my talk, an IP suggested an alternative that would be a general sanction against both accusations of "transphobia" and "wiki-activism". I supported that and suggested the IP propose it In this thread, the IP propses a general sanction against accusation of "wiki-activism" and I support it.

--RA () 09:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

RA, I'm sorry, but my reply has to be harsh.
This isn't complicated. Suppose editor X posts something blatantly anti-semitic, and editor Y denounces the anti-semitism. By your logic, editor Y would face sanctions, and the anti-semite would go unpunished. In my experience, using a label like that is rarely an effective way of countering prejudice of any sort, whether racism, homophobia. religious bigotry or whatever. However, the ineffectiveness of the term is no grounds for censuring those who speak up against prejudice, particularly those who did so while so much of the rest of the community (including admins) stoked the transphobic flames.
Secondly, the charge of wiki-activism has repeatedly been laid against editors who actually knew something about trans issues, and tried to inform the debate. As Sue Gardner pointed out, their expertise should have been welcomed; but instead you are one of those who wanted sanctions on them, while those posting blatant crude prejudice were free to proceed without restriction. The fact that you belatedly object to the label should not obscure your role in assisting those who used the label to suppress informed commentators.
I'm shocked and appalled by this. There was plenty of scope for debate on how to handle the article, but a lot of editors were assisted by admins like you in turning our editorial discussions into a public lynching of a trans woman, while you led the charge in victimising those who complained. I have several trans friends, and this all horribly similar to the sort of systematic bullying which use to occur before they got legal protection against discrimination and harassment. They were systematically abused, and then victimised if they complained.
I have admired a lot of your work before, and am sad to see your role in this. However, I believe that someone pushing the line you have taken in the procedural rows around this debate is unfit to be an admin. If and when arbcom takes the case, I will be collecting the relevant evidence, and hope that you will be de-sysopped ASAP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I respect your opinion.
"Suppose editor X posts something blatantly anti-semitic, and editor Y denounces the anti-semitism. By your logic, editor Y would face sanctions, and the anti-semite would go unpunished." I never said that. I wouldn't suggest such a thing. But the accusations of transphobia weren't helping. I think CombatWombat42 put it well when he/she wrote, "'Transphobia' is this page's Godwins law."
"...instead you are one of those who wanted sanctions on them, while those posting blatant crude prejudice were free to proceed without restriction." I did want to see the mutual name-calling calm down and so I proposed one general sanction and supported another. Individual sanctions were proposed against Josh Gorand, including supposedly for comments he made to me. I didn't see any point in escalating things by denying voices and I didn't see his comments as being any worse than anyone else's. Baseball Bug's natterings were hugely unhelpful. However, I similarly opposed a ban but, in his case, I said he should cool his jets. As discussion continued, internally I moved to believing the discussion would have been better of without him but the time had passed.
"There was plenty of scope for debate on how to handle the article, but a lot of editors were assisted by admins like you in turning our editorial discussions into a public lynching of a trans woman..." Apart from where you say "like you" :-), that his is exactly my position. Instead of a reasoned debate (informed by those with personal experience of trans issues), the issue was forced to be discussed in the terms it was. I resented the way the community was herded into that position. It made a pressure cooker of something that didn't need to be a big deal. And I did not lynch Manning in any sense. I pointed to the circus that was made of the RM as an abuse of her dignity. --RA () 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
RA, thanks for the reply. I AGF that you did want to calm things down. My problem is with how you tried to calm things down. What you and others did was to seek sanction on those challenging the abuse, rather than on those spouting it. That's why it turned into a lynching.
That was a fundamental misjudgement. You were not alone in taking that view, but you were one of the most prominent admins to to do so.
This isn't complicated. If the baying mob had been abusing WP's processes to hurl abuse about black people or Jewish people, they would have faced instant sanctions, and their comments would have been removed. In the case of the multiple comments which made the off-topic and potentially libellous suggestion that Manning's claim of trans identity during her trial was false, the comments should have been oversighted after deletion. But because the vitriol was being directed at was trans people, the mob directed its energies on those who shouted "stop", and sought to sanction them for not doing so politely. No admin should have collaborated with that inversion of duty.
The community was not "herded" into that position. It walked itself into that position in an orgy of prejudice stoked by the controversy over the world's highest-profile trial of the year, and many of those who had a responsibility to restrain the abuse chose instead to try to gag the protesters. If we are going to avoid this sort of farrago in the future, I think it's important that Arbcom now lays down a marker that admins who invert their role like that will face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the question then falls, why did you not do anything? You could have gone in with your truncheon swinging. I don't think that would have helped.
For my part, I wasn't acting in an administrative role. How could I? I was involved. I also had my eye on the longer term issues the incident raised. As for the conduct of admins, I may be naive, but if the case is taken up, I'll present a case that made my jaw drop. So, hold onto your socks and don't judge me just yet. Best, --RA () 18:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was WP:INVOLVED, so it would have been wrong of me to take admin action. If ypou were involved too, then you couldn't use your tools either. But that's not my criticism of you; I never thought that you used the tools.
I look fwd to seeing your evidence.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence‎[edit]

In case you weren't aware, the evidence phase was supposed to close on July 31st, though there were some additions for a few days. The proposed decision is now moving to a close, with the talk page there still active. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. Thanks for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

You kindly supplied evidence on the Infobox case. "Evidence" is closed for a long time, the discussion is now on the Proposed decision talk. Please move it there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC) ps: I see you got it, never mind, nice to meet you and your thoughts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Beau Monde spice[edit]

I've never edited a wiki page before so I have chosen to contact you instead. Searching for "Beau Monde" redirects to:

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

which is about London high society.

However, there is a spice called "Beau Monde" thus I think there should be a disambiguation page for the phrase "Beau Monde".

I tried to create an account but my usual internet handle, "SezMe", isn't accepted by Wiki. If you want to reply, please do so to SezMe@cox.net

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.176.199 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Best to create an account under a different name.
If you want to create an article on the spice, you can create it at Beau Monde (spice). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

categories
Thank you, tireless girl who doesn't want to tempt us to stereotype, for your helpful bot, for quality work on categories, such as those for elections and the monuments of the split List of National Monuments of Ireland, and for thinking in the category "constructive suggestions", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 August 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words, Gerda.

I have sympathy with both sides of the infobox dispute, and disagreement with both sides. I don't think that this can be resolved simply by sanctioning individual editors, and hope that some attention is paid to the possibility of a structural solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Amen. One problem is that both sides don't even mean the same thing when they use the term. I put a quote from the opening of the Library of Birmingham on my talk, repeated for you (but more beautiful in context): Let us not forget that even one book, one pen, one teacher can change the world, added by the user whose banning was supposed to solve the problem ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Actors from Palo Alto, California[edit]

I have now made a counter proposal to upmerge Category:Actors from Palo Alto, California. I am becoming less and less convinced we need to keep there city categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong support in principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Elphicke[edit]

Hi BHG. AS the font of most knowledge to do with UK elections, I wonder if you are aware of any source which might provide a list of election results by major party swing? Charlie Elphicke had a dubious uncited claim -which I have removed -that he had one of the highest swings in the country. I know that candidates rate their achievements by the swing and would have liked to have replaced the statement with something numeric but couldn't find it. The University of Keele used to provide a spreadsheet with really useful facts but that has disappeared. Any suggestions? Thanks in anticipation! JRPG (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Howdy JPRG!
I have a few suggestions. First off, for overview stats on UK parliamentary elections there is no substitute for Rallings & Thrasher's British Electoral Facts. They crunch all sorts of data, and there is probably something in there to answer your question ... but sadly my own copy is in my other living quarters, and I won't have access to it for a few months. Your local library may have it, or maybe you could treat yourself :)
The University of Keele data was published by Richard Kimber, who has moved his site to http://www.politicsresources.net
Burrow around that, and you may find something which would help. RK has a wonderfully thorough set of individual seats results, but I don't see any mention of swing in his 2010 statistical breakdown. However, I may be looking in the wrong place.
Otherwise I thought that The Guardian website might have something, and I found this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/may/06/uk-election-results-map
There is also a downloadable spreadsheet linked on that page, and it may answer your question. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi BFG. I had seen the Guardian result map but it lacked sufficient colour resolution and also it is difficult to factor in some of the considerable constituency changes. In short, on your advice I have decided to treat myself! Regards JRPG (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the map I was thinking of, just the spreadsheet. But maybe it doesn't have any more detail than the map.
Anyway, good luck with the book. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi BHG. The Guardian spreadsheet didn't appear to have swings. Book arrived ..but only covers up to 2005 -though it will still be useful. Harvard has a link to what looks like a Keele University style spreadsheet with swings which looks like it should do the job. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that the book didn't help. I thought it had been updated, and feel bad that I pointed towards parting with your cash :(
Anyway, the Harvard link looks good. Well done for persevering! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi BHG. At £3, the cost from Amazon was less than going to the bookshop & I can use it for much older politicians so no big deal. :) JRPG (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a backbox and what can be done about them?[edit]

I saw your comment at the CFD for 'People from Baldwin, Pennsylvania. When looking to fill that category, I found tons of what links here too. What's causing it and is there a solution?...William 19:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant navboxes. Have replied in more detail at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:P4 laboratory[edit]

BHG, you're so much better at this than I am, I thought I'd ask for your advice. I wanted to nominate this cat for deletion based on WP:DEFINING. The way I came to know about this cat is its creator is probably a sock. That aside, what do you think of the cat? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bb
I presume that it refers to Biosafety level 4 (aka P4). I knew nowt about this topic until your message, but I so far it appears to me to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This is the highest level of biosecurity, so I presume that it is rare and significant.
So if it went to CFD, I think I'd initially argue to keep it ... but I'd be very interested to see comments from other editors who know more about it than I do, and am open to changing my mind.
Hope this helps :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The name isn't very obvious. Should it perhaps be renamed to "Biosafety level 4 laboratory" or even "BSL-4 laboratory"? Even if the name is left unchanged, shouldn't there be something in the body of the cat that links to what it is?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right, the current name is clear as mud. It fails WP:JARGON.
A rename to Category:Biosafety level 4 laboratories would be a good idea, and it certainly needs an explanation. I'll ad one now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't this is as a candidate for a speedy rename, so that means I'd have to CfD it and suggest that it be renamed; is that right? A lot of trouble to go to for a category created by a probable sock. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria, so it needs a full CFD. I will nominate it now; quick and easy with WP:TWINKLE.
I suppose it's a bit of trouble, but OTOH it may be a good category. Even socks sometimes do useful things :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Now at CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 8#Category:P4_laboratory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks again for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear BrownHairedGirl.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Beekeepers[edit]

I reduced the category to 72 articles, and split it all by nationality. I still think a-someone else should go through and weigh in on things like if Sir Edmund Hillary is really notable enough as a beekeeper to keep in the category, and 2-with the smaller size if the sub-classification still makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffusing Category:English actors[edit]

I assume you're probably making these changes manually and were thrown by the unusual forename, but in case you're working from a flawed master list, this is just a heads up that you filed the actress Doon Mackichan as a man, earlier. --McGeddon (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and fixing that.
I'm just doing a first pass by forename, and then checking the ambiguous ones like Alex & Sam, but I tend to drop my guard a bit on the rest :(
I should have checked that one manually, and am glad you caught it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

Thanks for acting on the speedy delete for the category for male pornographic actors, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) . One minute, I'm categorizing Bangladeshi male actors and the next moment, I've created an duplicate category for porn actors. <facepalm>

But during the course of a busy day with categories, I made this mistake two more times. But when I looked into CSD, an empty category has to stand for 4 days before one can tag it for a speedy delete. Is this not the case? Since they are empty categories, it seems preferable to tag them rather than post them to CfD for discussion since I am 100% sure the consensus will be Delete.

Thanks for any guidance you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:
Have you read WP:CSD? There are lots of different grounds for speedy deletion.
Empty categories can be deleted under WP:CSD#C1, with 4 days notice. That applies regardless of who created them, and how old they are.
However, any page can be deleted by its creator under certain conditions, per WP:CSD#G7. If you make a mistake, then a prompt G7 is your solution.
Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This is very helpful, thank you! I was thinking of WP:CSD#C1 and so was waiting a few more days before tagging them but since I created them (for shame!), WP:CSD#G7 would indeed apply. Luckily, I just found that I can search through my contributions just for Categories and see the new ones (marked by a convenient "N"). I'll see to this tomorrow...it'll be nice to cross them off my list.
Have a great weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Hello I am Fredric Abbott's widow and earlier today I returned my previous edits to his page - I see they were removed and your name is given as the editor. I am 77 yoa and not au fait with Wikipedia except to repeat my corrections over the last 18 months. I'm not sure how you locate your information or the grounds on which you delete information given to you. Perhaps you could advise and allow me to 124.183.250.134 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)verify my bona fides. Joanne Abbott

Hi Joanne
Thanks for your message. It is best to discuss an article on the talk page of that article, so I have copied your message to Talk:Frederic Abbott#Comment_from_Joanne_Abbott, and I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Come Now Sleep[edit]

I recreated the article per another users request because it is notable with my work.HotHat (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@HotHat:, I see that Come Now Sleep has lots of refs, but where is the substantial coverage in reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BAND and per NSONG, I think that I can safely say by the double charting and the four reviews by the likes of AbsolutePunk, CCM Magazine, Cross Rhythms and Jesus Freak Hideout that the album is notable for inclusion because that alone provides "Significant coverage" by GNG standards. At the same time, just the charting alone would make it notable, even without the reviews, but we have those as well. See, Metacritic has set four reviews as standard for giving a Metascore, so four is sufficient coverage by me as well.HotHat (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Recording Industry Association of New Zealand[edit]

Hello,

You are receiving this message based on your participation in this discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The discussion was procedurally closed by me and reopened here. I invite you to participate in the new discussion.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD Notifications[edit]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl,
I was double-checking categories nominated for deletion, renames and mergers and finding in only a few cases were the category creators being notified of the discussion at CfD. Is this an optional step? I found this step being skipped both by newbies and regulars. It's always done at AfD so I'm surprised not to see it a mandatory part of the process at CfD. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

For single nominations, I use WP:TWINKLE, which notifies automatically. For groups noms done manually, I don't usually bother. Too much work for too little response.
There have been many proposals at WT:CFD to make such notifications compulsory, but there has never been a consensus in favour of the idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there is a recent example of a lot of categories involving awards and honors being nominated for deletion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals group members being unaware of this because CfD discussions happen over a matter of days and not every category page is visited during the limited time period where a user might see a deletion notice. Although group members might have contested the deletions they also have a much better understanding of which orders might be important enough to retain while others are less consequential and could be dispensed with.
I think since there are some Editors who are very thorough about CfD proposals and always post notices on creators Talk Pages and WikiProject Talk Pages, it makes the fact that other Editors skip this step make less sense. It takes less time to look at a category's Edit History, click on the Creator's name, see if the user is active (or a bot) and post a notice than it does to actually write up the proposal at CfD.
I fully understand that my opinion might be in the minority here but I'd still like to propose that it be a mandatory (or, at least, expected) step. Would the correct way to post a RfC at the CfD Talk Page?
Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hostile activity on a page that I contribute to[edit]

Hi,

First of all, I hope you received a "Thanks" notification after you kindly improved the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I am certainly very grateful. I have noticed with serious concern on that page that an effort is being made by people who truly have no real history of contributions to try to change the style of the references section. Robcamstone and I are main contributors and we want to preserve the format that has been employed for years. I beg you for help because Duffbeerforme (who is trying to impose his way), was very militant about trying to have the page deleted at one point, and we had very intense debates during that week, and in the end he lost because the page was kept, obviously; in a few hours I will further increase its notability significantly, by the way. Anyway, I have strong reasons to believe that Duffbeerforme and the anonymous user who first changed the style of the references section are the same person, and Duffbeerforme was very hostile by completely ignoring my request to discuss any changes on the talk page first to try to reach consensus. Please read the recent page history and the talk page as well. Any help that you could give us would be greatly appreciated. Keep in mind that Duffbeerforme spent lots of time and energy trying to destroy that page, so it's tough to assume good faith on his part. Many thanks in advance, and please reply on my personal talk page. Dontreader (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, @Dontreader:. I did indeed receive the thanks notice, which was kind of you.
My edit was just a quick pas in a much larger recategorisation exercise, and I had no intention of becoming further involved in maintaining or developing the article.
As to your concerns about references, I have commented in detail length at Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt#Ref:_the_reference_section_of_the_article.
I don't see any useful purpose in considering what you say about other editors, and would remind all of you to assume good faith in other contributors. I see that almost all of your contributions to Wikipedia relate to this one article (which could lead you you being seen as a single purpose account), and I wonder whether perhaps you feel some sense of WP:OWNership about it?
I think you would find it helpful to contribute more to other topics, and gain wider experience of how Wikipedia works, rather than pursuing an inadequate style of referencing because it is "easier for me to deal with".
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I am very grateful for your time and help, especially the comment that you wrote on the discussion page. It's true that most of my contributions are to that article (I happen to be a very big fan of those artists); however, whenever I see mistakes on other pages, I correct them. Early on I used to edit more, but my lifestyle has changed; nevertheless, I don't think a sense of ownership applies to me since I let Robcamstone do whatever he pleases, although he is courteous and tries to reach consensus with others. The problem with that other user is that he has no manners, having ignored our requests to try to reach consensus on the talk page before making radical decisions. That's not polite, and although I may be relatively inexperienced, that's not the proper behavior of a Wikipedian. You were kind enough to explain in detail why my method of referencing was wrong (it will take time for me to make those adjustments), and if that guy had also politely stated the reasons for wanting to change the format, that's fine, but he did not do that; he reverted what had been done without having the courtesy to say a word to the main contributors. I would never do such a thing. The fact that he aggressively tried to destroy that very same page, to then come back in a hostile manner to edit it many months later does not help either. Anyway, your prompt response, advice and generosity are very much appreciated. I will make a transition to the new format. Have a very nice day. Dontreader (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Dontreader:, I'm glad that helped. Good luck with improving the article.
But, please please please please calm down. You are taking this way too personally, and showing extreme signs of of WP:OWNership. I see a lot of good intent in you, but really do need a bit of distance on this.
Nominating an article for deletion is not an attack on anyone; not on the article's subject, or on the editors who created it. It's starting a discussion about a concern that the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and it's a piece of editorial scrutiny which you should have welcomed. Looking at an AFD nomination as "aggressively tried to destroy that very same page" is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset which rarely ends well, and your angry comments at AFD about the admin Tokyogirl79 were completely out of line. All she did was some technical steps to facilitate a discussion.
You then say that this editor "came back in a hostile manner to edit it". I see no hostility at all in improving references; on the contrary, it was a good thing to do, and there is nothing impolite about being WP:BOLD and doing it. Every time you edit a page, there is a warning that your contributions may be "edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"; don't be surprised that this happened. You wanted the other editor to respect some agreement you had made with someone else, but please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There are Wikipedia-wide standards for referencing, and you should not have tried to set them aside, nor demanded that others consult with you before working in accordance with those norms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. In theory, I agree with what you have said, but the person who proposed the deletion of that article decided to hide when I pointed out the flaws in his arguments; had he been sincere about improving the article, he would have replied to my observations, instead of looking like someone else's pawn. The Harp Twins have many thousands of fans but many mentally-ill haters as well. He could have put a sign on the article saying that it needed improvements, and he could have contacted us to express his specific concerns, instead of suddenly proposing it for deletion without any warnings, plus he was contributing to an article that had no place whatsoever on Wikipedia because it had virtually zero reliable sources, so that's highly hypocritical. My code of conduct is just very different. Anyway, from what I have learned, Tokyo Girl is a very competent administrator but she made a big mistake during that process, which caused Robcamstone to even call for her administrator status to be removed. It was a misunderstanding, but anyway, I did effusively apologize to her whereas Rob never did. And if the referencing is poor, there are ways to let me know, instead of being rude and completely ignoring our request that the matter be discussed on the talk page. Maybe you can see why I saw malice in the whole thing, but then again, maybe it's standard Wikipedia behavior, which would be highly disappointing to me. Anyway, you've been very good to me and I appreciate that very much. By the way, I just added a paragraph that should further enhance the notability of the artists considerably. I'll work on the references, but if that has to be done manually, without a bot or something, it will take practically forever. If you know a trick for fixing that mess, please let me know. Thanks again so much for your kind consideration. Dontreader (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok Dontreader, one last reply.
I just checked the history of the PROD and the AFD. Here's what happened.
  1. [5] Knowtheory WP:PRODded the article on grounds on non-notability. That's a perfectly legitimate action.
  2. [6] Robcamstone contested the PROD, by removing the PROD tag. Again, a legitimate step.
  3. [7] Robcamstone quite properly posted an explanation of why they had contested the PROD.
  4. [8] Knowtheory opened an AFD discussion on the article. Again, that's standard procedure. If a PROD is contested, and the PRODder still advocates deletion, then there is a discussion at AFD.
    However, Knowtheory make some technical errors in the nomination, so ...
  5. [9] Tokyogirl79 fixed the formatting of the AFD page
  6. [10] Tokyogirl79 tagged the article
That is all absolutely by-the-book. If a deletion rationale doesn't stack up, it will be contested in the discussion, and a WP:CONSENSUS reached. If an editor makes a technical error, another editor may be kind enough to fix it, as Tokyogirl79 did. (Any editor could have fixed it; no admin powers were involved).
I have over 330,000 edits to Wikipedia, and have been an admin for 7 years. Having reviewed this, I am quite satisfied that Tokyogirl79 acted entirely properly. You may wish that Wikipedia's procedures were different, and you are welcome to start a discussion on how to change them, but please don't attack others for correctly using them as they are.
Six months on, the fact that you still falsely claim she "made a big mistake" doesn't bode well, nor does your comment about "mentally-ill haters".
You have big WP:OWNership issues here, and far too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. I really hope you can set those aside, because if your editing comes under scrutiny they will count heavily against you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Hi again, BrownHairedGirl. Many thanks for taking the time to examine the PROD and the AfD. Obviously you have vast experience here on Wikipedia, so if you say Tokyogirl did not make a mistake, then I believe you. Even if she had (which is not the case, now that you have explained it), my behavior was inappropriate, so, as I said, I very sincerely apologized to her. I'm sorry for some of the language that I used, such as "mentally-ill haters". I was about to go to bed when this whole thing happened last night, and I ended up spending 9 hours working on organizing links, composing, and editing the page, so I was totally sleep-deprived and in a bad mood, knowing that I would get nothing done today, which has been the case. I'l do my best to improve my behavior. Thanks again for all your time, advice and kindness. Dontreader (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do with this?[edit]

Just when I thought this matter with Duffbeerforme was over, and I could spend time on other things, I now see that he has edited the discography section of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. He claims that "Wikipedia is not a directory of download links", but he has wiped out the only reliable sources that support the discography section. Please, as an administrator, what do you suggest? Thanks in advance.Dontreader (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, but there is a problem here.
Itunes as a source for a discography is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources. Per WP:ELNO#5, editors should generally avoid linking to "individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", and that is clearly the case with Itunes.
If there isn't an independent reliable source for their discography, I do wonder whether it should be included at all. I have never before encountered an article on a popular musician who isn't listed on www.allmusic.com, which is a widely-used reliable source, but the Harp Twins don't show up in a search.
However, as recorded music increasingly becomes a online-only product, this situation must have arisen with many other Wikipedia articles. So I suggest asking initially at WP:RSN.
You may also find it useful to ask for help from WikiProject Musicians. Please do take great care to phrase your requests neutrally, and to leave no doubt about your assumption that Duffbeerforme is acting in good faith. That article badly needs more eyes on it, and I hope that those venues may help to bring them in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much once again. I do apologize for abusing your generosity. I will do as you suggested, but it's already after 5 am here, so it can't be now. Keep in mind that the Harp Twins have their music available only in MP3 format, not albums. Do you think I could simply state at the top of the discography section that "Camille and Kennerly have released several of their harp duet arrangements on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, CD Baby and SoundCloud." without including the links to their personal pages where the music can be bought? That way Wikipedians could verify that such tracks do exist if they perform searches on those sites, but without being able to accuse the editors of trying to use the page to sell their music. I wonder if that sounds like a reasonable compromise, as there are no other sources, other than the ones that were taken down. I personally believe that the discography section is very relevant, or else it might seem that all they do is perform at venues and make videos when they are not acting, as opposed to having musical available for purchase, as all musicians do. I hope my idea is clear enough. Thanks in advance for more of your time. Dontreader (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Take your time; WP:NODEADLINE :)
I don't want to suggest too much about what sort of shape a solution might take, because I don't have enough experience of working with that sort of topic. I really think that the article needs input from editors who do have the relevant experience of where consensus lies on how to handle this sort of material in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! Very well. I will come back later to study the tips you gave me and I hope to find a solution. I must emphasize once again that I'm very grateful for your time, help and generosity. Have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl. Many thanks for your kind wishes and advice, as well as your concerns. The way I see it, the only clear mistake I have made was contacting several experienced Wikipedians, including yourself, to help me with this matter, but I think good faith should be assumed since I did not know it was against the rules. As you know, Wikipedia has thousands of rules, and you can't expect everyone to know all of them. I'm just trying to solve a problem which arose after Duffbeerforme began to revert edits on the page in question, putting the entire discography section in danger of deletion, while not offering any suggestions or solutions. You were the first person I contacted, and I'm addressing you again since I'm troubled by a recent message you wrote, of course with the best intentions.
First of all, you wrote, "you came to my talk page to ask for advice. It would help a lot if you paid more attention to what I and others have pointed out to you." I believe I have done that. You suggested that I seek help at WP:RSN, and I did that. Did you not see who showed up there to "help"? It was Duffbeerforme of all people, who was later reprimanded by another user for not stating that he was involved in the dispute. But for some reason you put all the blame on me. Also, using that same quote of yours again, "It would help a lot if you paid more attention to what I and others have pointed out to you", if I recall correctly, the only other Wikipedian that has made the same observations that you have made is precisely Duffbeerforme, so he can't be counted as one of the "others" since he is not impartial in this matter. I don't remember any others. Bgwhite is a very experienced Wikipedian who must know a lot about the issue in question, and he said confidently to go ahead and include the iTunes links next to each track in the discography section because this approach was in compliance with the rules. I was very happy to hear that, but then Duffbeerforme immediately indicated indirectly that if I did that, he would revert my edit. Yet again, apparently it's all my fault in your opinion, and I'm being threatened with sanctions. All I want to do is support the discography section with references, since Duffbeerforme took them out, and I don't want the section to get wiped out, and then I will move on. I would be very grateful if you would contact him, since he is not blameless for this problem at all. At the very least you cannot defend that he jumped into that forum where I was seeking help, and where he was told that his conduct was inappropriate.
Secondly, you raised the Ownership concern again, and I will quote you: "I and others have warned you about this several times, but this is starting to look to me like a case of what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Again, as far as I can remember, only you and Duffbeerfome (who is not impartial) have raised this point of Ownership, or am I wrong? So "I and others" seems like a mistake to me. Besides, I do not contribute to that article often at all (see the dates), and the sooner this issue gets resolved, the sooner I will contribute to other articles. I highly regret that this situation has taken up precious time that I could have potentially used for editing other articles. I have edited many articles as acts of kindness, especially considering that I am unable to spend almost any time on Wikipedia. We all have different lifestyles. I spent a lot of time early on editing articles on demons, but then my life changed; however, I don't think anyone is expected to make thousands of edits on Wikipedia. I really don't see the need for warnings being issued against me.
Thirdly, you wrote a few days ago, "Per WP:ELNO#5, editors should generally avoid linking to "individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", and that is clearly the case with Itunes. If there isn't an independent reliable source for their discography, I do wonder whether it should be included at all. I have never before encountered an article on a popular musician who isn't listed on www.allmusic.com, which is a widely-used reliable source,". Very well, I appreciate that you looked up that information; however, I then decided to look up Lindsey Stirling's page, as you can see on the talk page of the Harp Twins, and there is a link in her discography section to an individual web page that primarily exists to sell products. An editor on the forum explained why this is fine, but as you can see and have told me yourself, none of us know all the Wikipedia rules, and I think I should be forgiven for that.
Nevertheless, that editor based his explanation on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Useful_resources. The information there is rather vague because it merely says "Useful resources" (not mandatory or exclusive), and it goes on to say "General", and provides two examples: The artist's or label's website, and an Allmusic link. However, that same page says that a Wikipedian can invoke Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Ignore all rules in certain cases, which is probably why Bgwhite told me to proceed with the iTunes links. I quote, "if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals."
Therefore, in order to support the claims made in the discography section, I ask you to please allow me to use the iTunes links, which in essence serve the same purpose of Lindsey Stirling's links, and please tell Duffbeerforme not to revert them again. That way, we can all move onto more productive things with our time, including editing other Wikipedia pages, which you asked me to do. Thanks again for your time and help. Dontreader (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

category intersection[edit]

Please see my homepage for instructions on a category intersection prototype that Magnus Manske has developed. I'd be interested in your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi.
I will try it later, but my initial reaction is that Javascript is the wrong way to do this. It would be so much more powerful if it was server-side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Most of the work is done on the server side; the javascript is just to do the rendering since I can't, as a lowly editor, change the category HTML that is sent back. I've reached out to WMF for help on this but was mostly brushed off, so I'm thinking an independent extension might work better. But happy to hear your thoughts and suggestions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Duo[edit]

As an admin, can you see what Duo (music) looked like before it got redirected (bizarrely) to Duet? Oculi (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No prob, Oculi.
The page was:
  1. created on 15:40, 27 October 2005
  2. tagged for deletion 15:41, 27 October 2005
  3. deleted 15:44, 27 October 2005
The content was nonsense:
== Headline text == jh[http://www.example.com link title]jhgggg--[[User:81.82.7.223|81.82.7.223]] 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC) ----[[Image:Example.jpg]][http://www.example.com link title]''Italic text''yjyyyyc[[Media:Example.ogg]]<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>--[[User:81.82.7.223|81.82.7.223]] 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>''Italic text''[[Link title]][http://www.example.com link title] == Headline text ==[http://www.example.com link title][http://www.example.com link title][http://www.example.com link title][http://www.example.com link title][[Image:Example.jpg]]<math>Insert formula here</math>--[[User:81.82.7.223|81.82.7.223]] 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC over Gender categories[edit]

Hi, BrownHairedGirl,
Could you or another Admin please close the discussion on Women sociologists from July? To be honest, I don't know if you've weighed in on these sociologist/gender discussions, if you are considered "involved" and whether you do or do not want to participate in closing the CfD. But I think 2 1/2 months is enough time for discussion. There is also an associated rename CfD, Sociologists by sex, which could probably be addressed at the same time.

The related decision for Men sociologists in a Deletion Review was "Overturned to No Consensus" (the initial decision was to Delete). Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz
I think that I might be seen as WP:INVOLVED, because I took a strong line on the need to categorise actors by gender. Believe it or not, for years the consensus of WP's predominantly-male editors had been that gender is nothing to do with acting.
Over the years, I have also argued strongly for women categories of politician, and probably a few others. So even though I would actually oppose keeping gendered categories of most professions (including sociologists), I would be seen as WP:INVOLVED.
It would be best for you to ask at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, BrownHairedGirl, that's what I'll do. It's interesting that in the spring, there was that strong argument expressed that actress categories shouldn't exist but now they are present under every acting category. So, consensus does change.
I see a similar deletion push going on with categories regarding ethnicity. I know that arguments about whether ethnicity should or shouldn't be included in categories are complex but I think it's important to see the big picture, see how subject areas are categorized and not consider each category for deletion, one at a time. It's important to see the context. And the argument that because particular individuals are difficult to categorize shouldn't be a rationale to delete an entire category. But, here I go again, I'll get off my sandbox. </rant>
Thanks for your advice! Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Teach me what I missed?[edit]

I recently made an entry to Billy Connolly's Wp page with regard his recent his recent health announcements, I noticed you have made some change to this entry, can you explain what that was so I know what to do in future? Amanda138a (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Aboutmovies's talk page.
Message added 01:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 01:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sir John Jackson, 1st Baronet[edit]

Please would you correct my error. Thank you. Kittybrewster 09:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked and tidied, and succession box added, in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me[edit]

Why saying I have pursued the issue in multiple forums seems unfair[edit]

User talk:Wikiaccount2311[edit]

User talk:Wikiaccount2311 has consistently attempted to return the article Rachel Lillis to Category:American actors and other specific sub-cats. I have made multiple requests on the users talk page to accept the results of Cfd on the matter. That user has responded by accusing me of being sexist, and has reverted this situation multiple times. This is getting quite troubling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

JPL, that editor has a clear COI wrt the article, so I have left a COI warning and message on their talk page. Concerns about the article should be discussed on the article's talk page.
This editor is clearly inexperienced. However, you have a lot of experience should know by now that the place to discuss an article is on its talk page. You have posted 3 times on that editor's talk[11][12][13], but never once asked them to discuss at Talk:Rachael Lillis, even though you had posted there[14].
So come on, do this properly. Ask them to discuss on the talk page., and post there with the appropriate links showing your reasons for the terminology in use. If you can't reach agreement, seek a WP:3O. Then, if that fails, seek admin assistance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Withdrawing nominations[edit]

I have posted to withdraw all the nominations related to the intersection of place and occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I just spotted that, but thanks for notifying me.
Well done. I think it gives editors a chance of reaching a consensus on this without more drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll put a note on administrator The Rambling Man's talk page tomorrow morning(my time) asking that the CFDs be closed and refer him to this talk page plus JPL's notices on the CFDS saying he is withdrawing the nomination. Is everyone fine with that? I am waiting till tomorrow so both of you have time to reply back. Of course an uninvolved administrator might come along and close it before then.
BHG when you start the RFC, let me know. Would you like to go over what specifically needs to be discussed first? In this post here[15] I made mention of possible points to be discussed....William 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@WilliamJE:, thanks for that offer. I think that you and I disagree quite strongly about some of the substantive issues here. I think that's a good starting point for us to work together to draft an RFC which raises the issues we both want raised, and does so in a neutral way. If we two can agree on an RFC draft, them I think it will be better than either of us working on it alone.
I should clarify that I am not interested in an RFC about the "how do we decide where someone is from" question. That may be needed, and if someone opens such an RFC I may comment on it. However, I will not open that RFC. (If anyone wants to, the existing guidance is at WP:COP#By_place).
I am interested in a narrower question, which is about the intersection between occupation and location. (The current guidance is at WP:COP#By_nationality_and_occupation and WP:OC#LOCATION). Are you okay with an RFC which addresses only that question? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
BHG, I can go for that. When you have time, draw up what you think needs to be discussed on the intersection between occupation and location. Put it here and ping me and I'll get back to you on it. Let me say it here, I don't think occupation categories for just anywhere are needed. The lowest level I'd go is the city, but I don't think every city needs them. Some editors have created in a few instances Sportspeople from Foo County, now I think that's gone too far. Lets iron out what the RFC will be discussing and when finished, start the discussion. BTW, are you fine with my asking an administrator to close those CFDs like I mention above?...William 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting advice[edit]

666![edit]

As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Magic AfDs[edit]

Hello, I noticed you have nominated most of the Magic: The Gathering blocks and sets for deletion. I have one question: have you seen the RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)? pbp 16:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Purplebackpack89. I hadn't seen it, so thanks for the pointer.
It is good to see that there has already been some consolidation, but the result is still a pile of in-universe fancruft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Titles of CSI diocese articles[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, There is a discussion in progress about the titles of articles of Church of South India articles at Talk:Diocese of Madras of the Church of South India, in case you are interested.The Discoverer (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Video games featuring female protagonists[edit]

"Almost all video games have female protagonists" is 100% false, these games are actually rare.

See, for example:

Etc. --Niemti (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The current list (about 850 titles with articles on Wikipedia - out of tens of thousands game articles) is in fact pretty much definitive and there's not much more. I used the lists compiled by others as well as my own knowledge. Also this:

Not quite an "overwhelming majority", no? --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, have you read WP:MULTI? It says "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums".
The Category:Video games featuring female protagonists is being discussed at WP:CFD 2013 October 2, where you had already posted most of the above. Repeating the same post at multiple locations serves no useful purpose.
If you believe that you have added a significant contribution to a discussion, and want to draw it to the the attention of other participants in the discussion, then all you need to post on their talk pages is a brief note, saying something like "I have added what I think is significant new information to WP:CFD discussion about Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. Please can you take a look and reconsider your !vote".
Better still to not even write that many words, and just leave a {{talkback}} message, like this: {{talkback|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2|Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC Draft?[edit]

BHG, have you worked on it any? A RFC is needed. Sportspeople from Foo Metropolitan area categories have been made and you might be surprised, but I don't support them at all. We don't categorize people articles by metropolitan area. The metropolitan area categories are container categories....William 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to tell if a category was deleted before[edit]

In the discussion of Category:Italian-American actors I realized that when a category is deleted, the template telling you it has been deleted is harder to find. Is there are easy way to find past deletions of an existing category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Go the history, and look at the page logs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Binksternet[edit]

I have been trying to have a discussion with User:Binksternet about categorization of actors. I pointed out that Category:20th-century American actors is a subcat of Category:20th-century American people. He came back with a really rude comment about "with all the women writer problems you created I am surprised you have not been topic banned from categories". I just can imagine what would happen if we mixed in some animals in the actress category. I find this personal insult very disturbing. Maybe I should not press, but I find it very disturbing that people act like I am the one person who made Wikipedia categorization genderly unbalanced. I am really, really sick of it. It was bad enough that Jimbo Wales went on an attack on my, it was bad enough that people insulted me and tried to malign my religion, called me "president of the women hating men's club" and on and on and on. The fact that they bring it up now to try and justify their single minded attempts to insert a dog born in France into the American actors category is really frustrating. I am just tired of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have started discussions of the underlying issues on the Rin Tin Tin talk page, but I am wondering if there is a better place to do that. However since Rin Tin Tin is the only animal in any actor category besides Category:Animal actors, I have my doubts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourgish/ian[edit]

Hi. I've noticed you've been involved in discussions about the use of the term "Luxembourgish/Luxembourgian" etc. in the past and I would be grateful if you could make an input into the (hopefully last) discussion on the topic at the Luxembourg Wikiproject. Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Elphicke[edit]

Hi. Please delete section as I managed to get it semi-protected. JRPG (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)