Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 3 January 2010

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Welsh socialists

discussion moved to User talk:Welshsocialist#Welsh_socialists, to keep it all together

James Duckworth

I have had a look in the Times newspaper archive and Who was Who but there is not anything new there which is not covered in your article. I did make a couple of minor grammar changes.

The odd thing is that in your article you have a source which indicates Duckworth had a wife and son in 1862. However according to Who was Who, Duckworth did not marry until 1882. His wife's name is given as Emma Matilda Jully. Who was Who also has an entry for Duckworth's son also called James but his dob is given as 1869. He contested Bury as a Liberal in 1923 and 1924. I suppose the relationship could have been common law and James junior born out of wedlock with the parents legitimising things by marrying in 1882 but it's speculation and I do not want to add information to the article which appears to contradict the existing content. Does your source say anything about the marriage?

Graham

Use of pre- and post-treaty UK link

Hello. I remain concerned with regard to linking the post-treaty United Kingdom page to pre-treaty nationalist articles. This happens when using the single link United Kingdom House of Commons. That page states “The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”. The latter link opens: “The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc . is ..“ which is the post-treaty UK and misleading in pre-treaty pages. The use of two separate links (either short or long form) is however clear and reflects the historical situation at the time, i.e. the United Kingdom House of Commons. The first pre-treaty "United Kingdom of GB and Ireland" link, qualifies the second link. That a double link is untidy when a single link can do the job is something I can’t follow in this case. The "United Kingdom House of Commons" remains optically the same. I’m assuming that for the sake of historical clarity on relevant nationalist pages, split links will continue to be used and that it’s ok should I occasionally change a single link into a double link. It is similar to where the First, Second or Third Dáils are sometimes linked to the present Dáil Éireann. Greetings, Osioni (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Osioni, there are several points here.

1. First, while the Anglo-Irish Treaty did create a new state (the Irish Free State), it did not abolish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which remains in existence, although it was renamed in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That may sound like a minor point, but it is different to what happened in 1707 and 1801, when in each case a new state was created.
2. House of Commons of the United Kingdom and Parliament of the United Kingdom are both accurate abbreviations, and have been so since 1801. Your concern actually relates to a minor point of the content of one of those articles, and the place to remedy that is in those articles, not by inserting boilerplate text into the lead of every related article.
3. The split links acts as impediment to navigation, and unnecessarily complicates the lead section. In many articles, your edits utterly mangled the syntax of the lead section by spelling out in full every detail and creating hideously long and ungrammatical sentences.
   This level of detail does not need to be repeated in very single article on a Member of Parliament, because every person elected as an MP for an Irish constituency in the 19th century could only be an MP in Westminster -- there was no other parliament for them to be elected to. I have objection to the precise pedantic nature of the situation being spelled out, provided that it is done in such a way as to avoid disrupting the flow of the article. In most longer articles, that means that the fine details should not go in the lead (which exists to summarise the most significant points of the article's contents), but should be incorporated further down the article, when the Parliament is first mentioned.
4. The comparison with Dáil Éireann is simply wrong. The first Dáil was Dáil Éireann, as was the second, third, forth, fifth, and all the way up to the current 30th Dáil (except from a Republican legitimist perspective, which recognises only the first and second Dala). If you look for example at the Oireachtas website, you will find that the debates in and membership of first Dail are handled in just the same way as the later Dala. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PS see WP:OVERLINK: "if possible, try giving an informal explanation in the lead, avoiding using too many technical terms until later in the article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid a further exchange. The informative explanations are welcome (apart from the unjustly harsh comments). On the other hand I have obviously failed to communicate the absurdity of a situation, whereby pre-1923 events are depicted as taking place in a post-1923 period-setting, with the south of Ireland already separated from the UK. The need to sever the union was a driving force prior to 1923 and certainly requires the correct backdrop of the legislature "UK of GB and Ireland", and not that of a conflicting post-"UK of GB and Northern Ireland".

As previously mentioned, this occurs when the text implies that the current "re-named" UK successor state is one and the same as its original 1801 predecessor, which it is not. It happens (as I already said) when either the single United Kingdom or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom link are used without a qualifying link. It is unproblematic as well as imperative to include the historically correct pre-1923 legislature using the link to the United Kingdom House of Commons, the so-called split link.

The view that this creates a "boiler point text", "mangled syntax" or "impediment to navigation" and "text flow" is not possible to follow and is an over-kill on faulting. That naming the proper period-setting by its full name triggers something "horrendous" is in itself "horrendous". (An acceptable term such as "over-inflated" would suffice fully in some few, but not all cases). This is certainly not to deny that brush-ups may always be necessary and of advantage here and there, historical content having precedence.

I was first made aware of the need to adopt the correct period-setting some years back when pages I had worked on were all re-edited, much to my surprise, to include the correct full legislative period in the lead, (now called “horrendous”) which I had initially overlooked, or had inadvertently used the incorrect post- UK link. I immediately got the message, and since then adhered to it. Now all at once this is faulted. I respect different concepts as such, but feel they are being pursued in a rather over-exacerbated manner. To clinically deplete the lead of the title of the formal state existing at the time is difficult to comprehend. Taking the risk of looking at it on an analytical level, to remove or 'bury' the pre-1923 legislature resonates a little like hiding those parts of history people prefer not to be confronted with.

A further example of where the successor-UK link appears to be incorrectly used, taken randomly from a leading main article:
"In 1921 the United Kingdom government established a legislature called the Parliament of Southern Ireland in an effort to appease nationalists by granting Ireland limited home rule".
The "UK of GB and Northern Ireland government" certainly did not establish such a legislature in 1921. (A needed sub-linked edit would likely to be seen as untidy or pedantic?).
Pity those trying to unravel our history.

Regarding for the Dáils,I may have expressed myself unclearly, but am well aware that since 1919 there have been 30 Dáils which has nothing to do with the point raised. Many articles make reference to one or other of the first Dáils concerning an event, statement or somebody elected to them. The Second Dáil for example has its own page with its own specific historic background. It is baffling that it is now found to be perfectly correct when that particular Dáil’s page is de-existed through an obviously deceptive link to: the Second Dáil Éireann, which is sub-linked to the current Dáil Éireann assembly. The only thing they have in common is the word Dáil.

Yes, some of us know Irish MPs only had Westminster to go to, but the encyclopaedia is not just for us now, but for generations to come when this fact and its legislature will no longer be known. The reason they require to be mentioned individually. The MPs are not part of a single article with a single lead.

With that I hope I may have clarified myself to some extent. Osioni (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You have clarified yourself, but I'm disappointed to see that you still don't seem to understand that:

1. not every fact has to be in the lead section
2. The "United Kingdom" has always been the common name of that entity, both before and after 1927
3. a sentence such as "Richard Hazleton (5 December 1880 – 26 January 1943) was an Irish nationalist politician and Member of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and as member of the Irish Parliamentary Party represented North Galway (1906–1918) and North Louth (1910–1911)" is appallingly difficult to read (and it's a long way from being the worst of the grammatical horrors I encountered)
4. That the 1922 Treaty did not abolish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (if you disagree, where's the reference?)
5. That I have repeatedly said that I have no objection to spelling out ] in full at a place in the article where it does not horribly long sentences. That's all.
6. If you really think that the only thing the 1st and 30th Dala have in common is the word Dáil, then either you are pursuing a particularly narrow version of the minority Republican legitimist view, or you are playing games

Sorry, but I have enough of this. You have been kind enough to write me a long reply, but you appear not have read most of what I wrote above, and I think I am wasting my time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CFD-Rugby players/footballers

As mentioned in the original nomination, there are two discussions about this matter, on the WP:RU project talk page. Consensus has been reached, with the one you refer to (in your objection) being the second "courtesy-notification" after the consensus was already reached in the first link here. This idea comes from the wikiproject itself, so concern for our inclusion is appreciated, but not necessary, thanks. Would you consider removing your objection so this mammoth task can get under way? Thank you in advance. - Sahmejil (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Sahmejil. Objection withdrawn.

However, it is important to ensure that a change which affects so many categories and articles is clearly advertised, because there have been some quite vocal objections recently to CFDs where editors felt that inadequate notification had been given. I understand that you felt that the issue had already been discussed at the wikiproject, and consensus reached, and my objection probably appears to have been a piece of nitpicking ... but to avoid any scope for objections after the fact, it would have been much better to have left an explicit note at the project's talk page saying "CFD proposal to rename", per the discussion here. Maybe you could bear that in mind next time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. PS: You mention the subcats in your objection withdrawl comment. What is the next step to insure speedy renaming of all the subcategories? (This is my first CfD) - Sahmejil (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Formally, the subcats should not be renamed without a further CFR, because the new name is not an "established convention" (per the speedy criteria #4); it's a new convention. However I think that since WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY you should probably be OK to just wait until the CFD has closed and then list all the categories here. Just make sure to link to the the current debate when you list them for speedy renaming, and to notify the wikiproject promptly of the proposed speedy renaming.

Hope this helps, and let me know if you need any more help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any easy point

To understand the slippages and overlaps and domains and donts and dos of united kingdom projects? I was on mull a few months ago and have a few books i want to check things against - and noticed you had identified 2 projects - scottish islands and scotland - has any one done a map or explanation of what project fits where? I also cat tag a lot and such a guide would be very helpful not to raise ire of those who watch cat tags SatuSuro 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro

If you are looking for a centralised list of projects, the WikiProject Council maintains a rather good directory, which can be useful.

However, if I am looking at a particular topic, I tend to adopt two paths:

1. take a peek at some of the better-developed articles in that field, and see what wikiprojects have placed their banners on the talk page
2. if it's a geographical article, there is nearly always a wikiproject for the country as a whole, and that project's page is a good place to look for a list of related projects

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - yes it is some help - (but shucks I thought some smart brit would realise their whole project confusion for UK and the subsidiary ones - there are parts that are confusing I can tell you -- guides or no guides) needed an explanation somewhere :) SatuSuro 11:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Brits, smart?

As an Irish woman I find that an interesting concept. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(reply) For some reason or other I seem to think this has something to with cups of tea - but cannot just place where SatuSuro 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I suppose thatMisplaced Pages:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe#United_Kingdom - juxtaposed is probably what I am after - sorry to be a nuisance SatuSuro 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Politician

Hi BHG, regarding the change in WP:Politician (which I only recently became aware of), about first level sub-national political office, or in Ireland's case local city and county councillors. I see you are engaged in AfD for Billy Cameron but the main effect of this change is to allow anyone to create an article for an elected councillor (1627 of them in the RoI), and link a mention in a local newspaper and a passing mention (probably of local election results) in a national newspaper and say that the person meets notability guidelines. This is NOT a positive development, imho. Any suggestions about what can be done regarding this issue? Snappy (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

I think we are in agreement here that this would be bad news, because most local councillors are deeply obscure.

As discussed at the Billy Cameron AFD, I think that the interpretation being placed on WP:POLITICIAN by Mkativerata is a misreading, but like you I only just became aware of Sandstein's well-intentioned change to the guideline, which has evidently given some scope to those who don't want to know how severely limited the powers of Irish local councillors actually are, and don't want to understand that a free local newspaper in a small Irish city simply does not have the journalistic resources to engage in the sort of fact-checking which characterises a reliable source. (I have been politically active for 25 years, and both in Ireland and the UK I find that local freesheets are so hard-pressed that will pretty much print whatever anyone tells them, so long as it doesn't carry any obvious risk of controversy or defamation. Many of hem have literally only one or two journalists, usually a young cub on their first job).

So what I intend to do is to restore the wording before Sandstein's change, and post an explanation on the talk page of WP:BIO. I hope it won't be controversial.

This episode does remind me of how in general I don't like any of the specific exceptions to the general principle of WP:BIO, because these exceptions lead to the creation of inadequately-sourced articles. Notability isn't just some sort of tripwire to stop people creating new articles, it's a quality threshold, and a logical consequence of WP:RS and WP:NOR: unless there is sufficiently substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then any attempt to write an article on the person becomes a mishmash of unreliable sources, original research, synthesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording reverted to to format before Sandstein's change. See Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#WP:POLITICIAN_unintended_consequences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Wiki Banner Shell

Thank you for pointing out my typo. Whilst I did not intend to "break" anything, it is good to know that some people like yourself like to point it out to the person, rather than just fix it and move on. Thanks again ! Neonblak - 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I usually do just fix and move on, but thanks for being so nice about my slightly growly msg to you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work notifying everybody. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Category redirect

I just happened to see what you did at Category:New School for Social Research faculty. Was this discussed at WP:CFD or anywhere else? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It was an uncategorised category for which I tried to find a corresponding article, and found that the institution had been renamed to The New School, which already had an associated Category:The New School faculty. If you have a better solution, please implement it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't, nor do I disagree. I hope you are aware that this should have gone through Cfd. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, why? WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY

The category creator didn't even care enough about the category to provide any category text or parent categories: it was a useless orphan. There are hundreds of similarly orphaned categories here, and while some have been emptied pending deletion, most of them are new categories created with a similar lack of care. If every simple solution is complicated by a CFD, contrary to WP:IAR, it'll take months to clean them. Where I think they actually merit deletion, I'm CFDing them, but I'm not going to waste my time and that of others clogging up CFD when a simple redirect does the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not rely on all editors to always assess objectively whether the rename/redirect is indeed as uncontroversial as you make it sound this one was. I say this in general, and not because I disagree with your assessment of this particular case. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't wanna be rude, but that sounds to me like a near-perfect example of bureaucracy.

The way I look at WP:IAR is simple. There are established procedures for lots of things, which mostly exist for good reason. If someone steps outside those procedures, they'd better be damn sure that what they are doing is uncontroversial and that they are ready to engage reverse gear fast if the action does turn out to be controversial. That's the approach I'm taking here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all editors, including admins, are as conscientious as you are. Not to mention that the rules exist for good reason, and nobody is above POV. So yes, I am being a bit bureaucratic about it, but not unreasonably. After all, I do not insist on reverting you and bringing it to Cfd. I just try to point out the very real dangers of not taking category renames to Cfd. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from; this wasn't a category rename, it was a redirection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Day fix

The Picture of the Day for today is muddled with its tenses: Its curved beak is adapted to taking nectar from flowers, but they will also eat fruit and insects. Could you make them both plural or both singular? From WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays! Shubinator (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think you mean muddled pronouns rather than muddled tenses. <evil grin from one pedant to another>

Anyway, is this fix OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The pronoun's "drying up" by the end...maybe "the bird" instead of "it" for the last one? It's fairly clear either way. Shubinator (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstanding, why not just gimme the wording you want, and I'll paste it in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, ok: Its curved beak is adapted to taking nectar from flowers, but the bird will also eat fruit and insects. Shubinator (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have given it the bird. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category deletions

To keep discussion in one place, replies moved to User talk:Djln#Category_deletions, where the discussion started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Low-emissions locomotive categories

Hello: I noticed that this discussion was closed and that Cydebot has begun moving the articles to Category:United States emission standards Tier 2 compliant locomotives; however, the consensus of the discussion was that the new category should be named Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant locomotives of the United States. Do you happen to know why the bot is moving the articles to the wrong category? I would ask the bot directly, but they're usually not very responsive. ;-) Thanks and Happy Holidays! –BMRR (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BMRR

Thanks very much for telling me about this, and for being so polite about it.

It's just as cwel you didn't ask the bot-owner, because the bot did its job just fine, perfectly implementing the instructions it was given ... but now that I have checked, it's clear that I screwed up and gave the bot the wrong instructions, in this edit. Sorry!

I'll get to work now and sort out the mess I made ... and thanks again for spotting the mistake and altering me to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I have just given fresh instructions to the bot, which should now clean up the mess. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary! It was an honest mistake, and I've certainly made more than my fair share of those. ;-) Thanks again for your help! –BMRR (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

William Ryder

Uhm, why did you move that page of the rugby player to William Ryder (rugby union player)?. The other guy is known as William T. Ryder so no need to disambiguate that and just leave the "other names' tag on the rugby players page and + that person died 17 years ago and when people search, they would be looking for the rugby player, not him... Please next time you decide to make changes to "rugby related articles", ask the people at Misplaced Pages Project:Rugby union first...--Warpath (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Both men are/were known as "William Ryder", so there is ambiguity. The fact that someone died 17 years ago is irrelevant, because this is a general encyclopedia not a current events publication.

I have never before seen a wikiproject demand prior notification of changes to any articles related to that project, and do not intend to follow that request. Please read WP:OWN. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are only TWO William Ryder on wikipedia so there was no need for a disambiguation page. It was fine the way it was with the template "otherpersons" link added to the rugby players page. If there were more than three William Ryder then yes, but if its only 2 then I don't see any reason why it had to be disambiguated because neither the names were the same...--Warpath (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's hair-splitting, because someone looking for the paratrooper could quite reasonably look for "William Ryder". Additionally, using a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote facilitates the disambiguation of links, because any links to "William Ryder" will now be picked up by Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links, and they can quickly and easily be fixed using WP:POPUPS.

I don't know why it is that a few editors are so upset by the existence of disambiguation pages. They are a simple and lightweight way of allowing editors to maintain links, readers to find what they want, and wikipedia to remain neutral between the different fields of human endeavour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

FYI Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Brown_Hair_Girl_is_stalking_me Gerardw (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Pepperpot (Monty Python)

If you've a moment, can you take a look at this and tell me how I managed to bugger it up so completely? I have made dozens of AfD nominations, and I haven't any idea what I did wrong this time. All I know is this is not what it should look like. I thank you for your time and efforts, as always. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno what went wrong, but now fixed. Probably best assume that the software was feeling tired and picked on you as the closest person to hand. ;)

Anyway, yer a wicked blasphemer for suggesting that a single word about the Python should be deleted! Heretic!!!! <grin>

Hope you're keeping well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm the last person who'd ever want to see anything Python-related deleted, but this is just silliness. Three-and-a-half years and no improvement, and utterly redundant besides. So, gotta go.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I am still utterly confused by what happened, but I'll try not to lose sleep over it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite agree and was just being silly. Sorry if that didn't come across in the friendly way I intended! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Case categories

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

Hey, don't get upset! I was just trying to be helpful by replying at all - in the early hours of the morning after Christmas, I wasn't really doing more than flicking through a few things and answering messages. You're right, I should've added the category in the first place - thanks very much for doing it in the end. Ho ho ho, happy new year, Wikidea 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I copied this message to User talk:Wikidea#Category:Lord Lindley cases, and made my apology there, to keep the discussion in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cuckoo class schooner

Hi Brownhairedgirl, Holiday greetings, etc. Thanks for adding the category "Royal Navy schooners" to the category page. I have wondered how one created sub-categories and now I know. I added the Ballahoo class schooner category page too. You may have noticed that I have added five (of 18) schooners to the Ballahoo class. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work on writing the articles! And I'm glad to have been able to help a bit with the categories. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Romance (genre)

Hi
Is the category Romance (genre) is out of scope being a category ?, I think it could at-least have members as those works listed in the Romance (genre) article page. The novel Marthandavarma is tagged as historical romance - is it not right to (for the novel) come under Romance (genre)- just a humble doubt(harith (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure what you mean by "out of scope being a category". Plesae can you explain this a bit more?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
What I meant is – whether there won’t be a category Romance (genre) in Misplaced Pages hereafter or from now .. ??, its just that the Category inclusion was removed from the Marthandavarma (novel) article, where the same was added by me. Okay .. if there going be a category Romance (genre), I’d suggest it to be added to the above mentioned article otherwise .. never mind, Thanks
(harith (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Quite alright

. I forgot; thx. Good Ol’factory 12:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being nice about it! I know that per WP:TPG I was being naughty, but hoped it would be understood as a small bit of housekeeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Levineps Categories

Please take a look also at this talk page post. The problem isn't just bad categories; there is objective error in what he does as well. The response I got was...less than constructive. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already picked up on this at CFD, where rather a lot of Levineps-created categories seemed to be causing widespread concerns. When I looked at Levineps' category edits, they seemed to consist of creating badly-conceived new categories. I will pop across to the talk page and take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a long comment at User talk:Levineps#Second_opinion, asking for restraint. I hope that may help prompt some genuine dialogue and a moratorium until there is some consensus ... but if it doesn't, then I suggest a prompt WP:RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that right after your comment were two separate complaints by different individuals about other categories he created. I think for a minimum first step, he needs to start writing full edit summaries, explaining every change he's making, and not marking his edits as minor. As so many editors have complained, it is clear that his editing choices are contentious and it's dishonest to continue to treat controversial changes as minor. I'm all in favor of an RFC.

BTW, I don't think I've told you that I greatly appreciate your participation at CFD. It's at its best when it's populated by level-headed, systematic thinkers. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for your nice comments about my presence at CFD. After flooding the place with squillions of uncategorised categories over the last week, I wouldn't have been surprised if some ppl wanted to see the back of me. :) Anyway, I do agree that CFD works best when it has a number of regular who are trying to approach the issues systematically, and I think that at the moment we are lucky enough to have several people who regularly bring that sort of approach to it. I value your contributions too!

Anyway, as to Levineps ... I have just posted again to eir talk page, to make another plea for restraint. I do hope my appeal won't fall on deaf ears, but I'm not putting any money on it, because many have tried before me. If that doesn't work, then it's time to start drafting an RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for making efforts to intervene with Levineps. I was concerned about two months ago about some of his edits, and since that time I've tried to work with him a number of times on my own initiative, and I've also been approached by a number of other editors on my talk page and via email who have been as troubled as I was. He bounces around from topic to topic, so it seems that some editors get very concerned, and then when he moves on to other areas, the concerns of these editors die off, but overall I think his pattern of edits is very concerning. I have not known where to take things since my last comments on his talk page—I was kind of waiting for someone else involved in CFD to notice that we have a pattern developing here. Good Ol’factory 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that support! If this does need go to RFC/U, will you help draft something? I'm happy to do the initial spadework, but I think more heads will make a better job of ensuring that it is reasonably thorough, as well as fair and balanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just give me a heads up if it gets that far. I can provide you with a rough chronology of my own concerns combined with those I've been involved in. There's been quite a few incidents, and some are scattered around on wikiproject talk pages, etc. Overall, I have found him non-responsive to requests. Back in Oct, I actually blocked him because he just refused to respond to any inquiries at all. Then he piped up and said, "hey, why didn't you give me a warning before blocking", so we considered that his warning and he's at least responded to inquiries since then, but he's never been terribly helpful. He usually just says, "looks like we disagree" and stuff like that—never really addresses the issues raised. Good Ol’factory 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, for only a couple months' work, his "deleted user contributions" list since late October is shockingly long. And there's still quite a bit to clean up. Good Ol’factory 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Robinson

I'm afraid you're incorrect: I added nothing. I shall re-edit, but without removing the fact tags, since what I removed was opinion and irrelevant anyway. SE7/_Contribs 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I don't "sneakily" edit things. I imagine one would have to live a very sad life indeed to go around editing things merely to suit their purposes rather than suit the truth of the matter, but thanks for the lecture anyway SE7/_Contribs 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Easier solution: I have just removed the whole unreferenced section. It is all just opinion, and should not be included unless referenced to reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

stop reverting my edits

All you are doing is reverting my edits for the sake of reverting them. All your doing is hitting the undo button. If my edits are wrong thats one thing, but what you are doing is really disgusting.Levineps (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All explained on you talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats clearly an abuse of the system. And looking from your own talk page, you got some issues of your own. So maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Levineps (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are issues you want to take to ANI, then do so.

However, I and others put a lot of time and effort into politely trying to engage you in discussion about your disruptive editing. You ignored repeated requests, and have subsequently tried to remove the warnings from your talk page. I started reverting only because all attempts to ask your discuss your disruptive editing had failed, as had warnings. I will stand over all the reverts I made, and none of them were, as you allege "for the sake of reverting them". Those you have restored have been reverted by others.

Anyway, I am now off for some sleep. I will leave matter this in the hands of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

devil's advocate

It seems to me you would make a good lawyer(if your not already). You always find an argument for everything, which can be a good thing. But I think unless it's a legitimate reason and you have shown a few, what your doing should be done less frequently.--Levineps (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, take it to WP:ANI#User:Levineps_and_categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Levineps

Is it appropriate for me to implement the community ban per the ANI talk page since I initially proposed it, or do I wait for an outside admin to do that? Am I expected to take the lead on this or would it be inappropriate for me to do so? I think there's a clear consensus for a category-edits ban and the additional points you've made. I've never done something like this before so I don't know. Good Ol’factory 00:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that I may be the wrong person to answer this since I was the person who made the first complaint at ANI, but here's my thoughts for what they are worth.

Ideally that step should be taken by an uninvolved admin, and Rockpocket has agreed to implement the consensus. It seems to me that you are right on consensus: there is near-unanimity on what to do, with the only dissent being those those arguing for a complete ban now, so I doubt that there is any scope for objection to someone going ahead and implementing the consensus. It seems to me that this would be best done by asking Rockpocket to go ahead. If you do it yourself, you run the risk of complaints against you for being the wrong person doing the right thing (a mistake which I have made before), and that can be used to undermine the validity of the agreed remedies. I think it would be a pity for a procedural wrangle to undermine the consensus which has been achieved so far.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It does—sweet. I'll just wait a bit and see if anyone goes ahead. If not, I'll approach Rocketp. Good Ol’factory 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many cooks... Please see the current state of the AN/I post, and this post. We need to undo that and implement them as I have written them, which is actually what was agreed to. User:Coffee's summary is neither an accurate restatement of the AN/I consensus, nor clear in its terms. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Double upmerge

You probably know this already, but this won't work. It will only upmerge it to the first one listed. We have to put the double upmerges at WP:CFDWM for manual merges. They get done eventually, but it's slow. I wish there was a faster way. Not to worry about the one in question as I tracked down the four articles and added the second category. Good Ol’factory 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that pointer, and for tidying up after my error.

I knew that manual for multiple merges used to be the case, but that I thought that Cydebot was now able to handle double upmergers. Thanks very for correcting that impression -- it could have left quite a mess if I had applied that assumption to the close of a big category or series of categories.

Shouldn't there be a warning about this at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of no consequence

I was wondering about joining your userpage category, as I meet some of the qualifications. However I am not "Cariverous" and wondered if this was a typo. If it is a fey, Celtic quality of some kind I apologise for my ignorance. Ben MacDui 14:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a very select group. As well as all the other criteria, you have to be a meat-eater who doesn't always bother typing accurately. <grin>

Of course, if you feel that you meet these criteria, you would be very welcome to join.

Just as I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue is "the antidote to panel games", this category is intended as the antidote to user categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I score pretty well and I'll be sure to get in touch if I improve it, although "troglodyte" is possibly an ambition too far. Have a great 2010. Ben MacDui 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And you too. May your meat be tender and your typos plentiful! <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category moves

BrownHairedGirl, I thank you for and appreciate your message to me concerning my creations of categories for the "House of Esterházy" and "House of Kinsky." As a lowly editor, I get caught up in the weeds when ensuring all persons are granted the proper categories for their articles. In the early days of Misplaced Pages, new editors created categories for families by naming the category just the family name without "House of..." or ".... family" and in my haste to correct these errors, I neglected to check Misplaced Pages policy. (And let's face it, Misplaced Pages policy is Byzantine in nature and not many editors are aware of all the policies they must strive to work within). This is why I'm thankful that administrators such as yourself are able to remind editors of these rules. Thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages. --Caponer (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain

That category doesn not correspond, because Oliventian Portuguese is a subdialect of Alentejan Portuguese, delete it. Read that article in Spanish Misplaced Pages. I believe that I confunded Oliventian with Alejentan, but I shall fix it. --Der Künstler (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to Category:Dialects of Portuguese in Spain?

I don't read Spanish, so the Spanish Misplaced Pages is no use to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge Erle-Drax

If you're still on your MP-expanding trawls, can you do the wonderfully-named John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge Erle-Drax at some point? (See his talk page for a summary of the current issues). – iridescent 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What a bizarre self-caricature of a man!

I corrected one small glitch, but unfortunately I don't have sources which would allow me to do much with it. Election results which would confirm his electoral history, but that's all.

Anyway, good to hear from you. Hope you are keeping well, and have a Happy New Year! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories reinstated

Hi BHG, sorry I slipped, well caught. Happy New Year! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I could see it was a mistake, so I thought it best to just fix it and not make any drama!

Happy New Year too you too :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to join in as you've been mentioned

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Offliner -- for what it's worth, I'd say that it appears that there is no good basis for those 3 articles to be in the category and that they should have been removed. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)