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
Convention
Apart from cups of tea suggestions, I find the xfd process so fraught with issues - that when I offer unconventional responses - it is always reassuring to see your request of conventional layout and responses - I must say that I feel that the xfd xlosing persons should be challenged at times - regardless of snow or otherwise SatuSuro 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you, but CfD closers don't want to spend all day on each discussion, and if I am closing a discussion then I can attach no weight either way to a comment whose intention is unclear. Not everyone commenting at a CfD wants to influence the outcome, but if you do, then clarity helps. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I can understand that point of view from their perspective and understand that - clerical simplicity is one thing... however sometimes I think some xfd issues imho shouldnt be there - but where is the question - like I can think of a bloated sore of a huge family of templates that should have never been allowed to happen on wikipedia - but where the hell does one start to remove/try to encourage their removal? beats me as to where one starts of finishes - and tfd does not seeem the place as the issues reverberates across a number of areas SatuSuro 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find TFD rather discouraging, because there are not enough editors who try to take an overview of the use of templates, with the result that decisions tend to get made on very narrow grounds, and wider issues of bloat get overlooked.
If there is a family of templates which you think is problematic, I suggest an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CFD dumbed down
Is it just me, or are the discussions in CFD becoming more and more, er, dumbed down? I see very little good analysis lately coming from anyone but a few, yourself included. Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well I dont help :) SatuSuro 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are active in CFD lately? I actually haven't run into one of your comments in the past few days, so rest assured I wasn't referring to you. It feels like we're on a glacier that's melting, and we're sliiiiippppping into the water of "let's just do whatever" .... Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed the same thing. Go back two years, and there were routinely half-a-dozen regular editors taking a systematic overview of the category system and trying to apply consistent principles. There are maybe 6 editors doing that now, but at most discussions there are only two of them. I have wondered whether part of the reason for this may be the lack of an experienced CfD closer: when Kbdank71 did the job so diligently, he was brilliant at trying to weigh the arguments rather than counting votes, but in his absence most of the current closers are more cautious and are more likely to prioritise a numerical result. I'm not suggesting any bad faith, incompetence or any other malpractice their part, just more caution ... but the result is that WP:ILIKEIT !votes are carrying much more weight at CfD than they used to. There are a bunch of good-faith recent closures which I intend to challenge, where vote-counting seems to have won the day, and I wonder whether the drift towards vote-counting is discouraging those editors who are more inclined to take an overview. (I have no evidence either way, but I do wonder).
Meanwhile, my monitoring of Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories shows a growing number of categories being emptied out-of-process, and I don't see any sign of anyone much efforts to stem that tide.
So, yes ... I too have that sliding-on-the-melting-glacier feeling. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes if you both discern that - that is not a good sign - I have had a sense of dumbing down in a number of not so easy to identify trends - but if you folks see that clearly - oh dear SatuSuro 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a problem that cats that have been deleted for sound reasons, keep coming back. I was considering a project to identify such categories, and maybe an ongoing monitoring of them. the reason I mention this here is that this process dilutes the carefully thought out principles referred to above. RichFarmbrough, 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hello
You might remember making a motion to delete Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Back not long ago. Someone there suggested that I write an article about the stamp, so I am doing that. My usual method for writing articles (this is not actually my first) is to post bits as I go along. Having your block of tags suddenly appear as I am composing is sort of jarring. I will try and respond to the issues that you've raised in them, but I really would much rather be working on the article. Actually I'd much rather be off doing other wikipedia stuff but I'm getting pulled into this what I fear is a black hole that will just go on and on. But there, I'm being touchy again. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carptrash
Sorry, I was a bit hasty in tagging the Hal Blaine Strikes Again article: I saw a link to it in the CfD debate on Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again, took a peep, saw a few problems, and added a few tags. It's only now, when I read your msg and checked the history, that I noticed the article was only a few minutes old at the time.
Anyway, don't let the tags put you off. If you're expanding the article and adding refs to demonstrate notability and so on, then the tags will become redundant. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too concerned about the tags, I was just a little jumpy last night. I'd spent a lot of time putting together the (now) hundred songs in that category and was then convinced to write the stamp article to legitimize the Blaine category. So I did it. Someone has suggested that a category of songs that the Wrecking Crew played on but to me this is fraught with even more perils than the course I've charted. I looked at that category and I don't believe that it would work. However generating the Blaine category and ones for other musicians would be wikipedia's doing a real service for serious researchers. Often it seems to me that we are in danger of just being a congealed version of what is already available on the internet. I believe that it is in our interest to keep expanding what we offer our readers and actually feel that what I am proposing - categories for all sorts of musicians is a seriously good thing. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sidestepping CFD
Hi, I noticed your early closes of a few CFDs recently on the basis that the categories had already been emptied prior to the CFD. Not to judge one way or another, I wanted to point out a relatively recent VP discussion regarding when CFD was necessary, here, which you may or may not have already seen. Just wanted to know your thoughts generally. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! And in any case it was really my fault. When I spotted the mistake and corrected the list I realised that the strikeout was a bad idea, so I left a note at the top of the list and meant to remove the strikeout ... but forgot. :(
I will not be rude
Why on earth have you have nominated this category for deletion?
This is a pretty valid caterogry Lebanese who polictically are activst against syrian haegmony in Lebanon.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I didn't see the hidden comment as I assumed it was the regular old instructions that have been there. I'm a klutz at times. — ξxplicit 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, when you don't expect a comment like that to be there, it's easily missed. I'm sorry that my edit summary on removing it appeared to be a bit sarcastic: I should have said "missed" rather than "ignored". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It actually didn't come across to me like that, so no worries. — ξxplicit 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew!
BTW, I meant to say congrats on doing so many CFD closures. You have gotten rid of most of the huge backlog, which is great. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? It just seemed like a lot because of this large nomination. Other than that, it doesn't seem I've done too much. Or maybe I'm not paying attention... Ah well. — ξxplicit 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re House of Clare
Thank you for notifying me about the renaming of House of Clare, which I fully support. Your rationale is right on-target. I wish I'd thought of it! ;-) I was simply in a hurry to create a category. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not quite understand which article you are referring to. The article I am referring to is, as of this moment, titled "de Clare" . Perhaps we are talking about different articles? Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal at CFD is to rename the category, not the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're a centenarian
Wow. Next you'll tell us you're a man. What other secrets of identity are you saving up to spring on us all? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a man????????? No, there are some ideas for an identity that are just too horrid to contemplate, even in jest. Yesh gvul. :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is with reference to your CfD nomination of Category:Tomar Kingdoms. I am commenting here and not on the discussion page as I have no objection whatsoever in the deletion of the Category. I have not created the Category myself. I have gone through the History of the articles and found that he three articles present in the Category were linked (Gwalior was linked to this Category on 21:06, 26 May 2009 with this edit, Indraprastha was linked on 21:13, 26 May 2009 with this edit, Nurpur, India was linked on 21:00, 26 May 2009 with this editto this Category by the same user. I did not even join Wikipedia at that time. I just came across this Category recently and placed a head article linking to Tomara dynasty on 00:43, 12 February 2010 and yes, it is related to Tomar Kingdom;there is also a subtitle in the Tomar dynasty article named Major Tomar Kingdoms. Thus I changed it to a Category with blue link;As, there were already articles present in the Category prior to my edit, I don't think that I created the Category(i may be wrong as I still consider myself a new user. However, I have cleared the content of the Category for it to be deleted in the best interest of Wikipedia. Sorry for the trouble and have a great week ahead. Thank you. WorLD8115(TalK) 12:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emigrants/immigrants
I'm kind of having second thoughts again about this, just as I did the last time I nominated it. Essentially, I agree that "emigrants" would be better, but I also think we need consistency across all categories. Would you help me tag all the other categories if I withdrew this nom? Or would you start a nomination, in which case I would help you tag them .... Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go for consistency over perfection, but the structure of those names really grated with me for some reason, so I broke my own principle and said no. Anyway, I'm flattered to think I might have helped persuade you to change your mind, although looking at the previous CFD I think that you were edging in that direction anyway.
So if you decide to go the other direction, I'd be happy to help nominate the other categs ... at least in principle. However, before I sign up, how many squillions of them are? With 200 countries, the theoretical limit is somewhere just short of 20,000 of them ... but this search suggest the number is actually in the low hundreds. Does that sound like it might be right? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That number sounds about right to me. There's a bunch of them. Maybe we should do a test nomination first, in case there's major resistance to this? I don't expect there to be much, though. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, you bastard. No hurry on the other nomination. It can happen at any point. Just give me a heads up if you want some assistance with tagging. I'm going to be offline for the next few hours but should be around per user in the coming days/weeks. Oh, wait, you're not a man, right. I withdraw the bastard part. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would do my own work and nominate these myself without asking you to do it, but I feel I probably have zero credibility on the issue now that I've done the same ambivalent dance twice. That's why I'm happy to do all the grunt work if you agree to do a nominating statement, etc. I want to do the nomination, I just don't have the confidence about the issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel or felt that you are under any obligation to follow this up, I want to release you from that feeling. You don't have to do it and I'm not expecting you to and I won't be upset if it doesn't happen. I was excited at the time, but on reflection a more salient point is that it would be a lot of work for very little payoff, if indeed consensus agreed to change them at all. (As you can see I'm very fickle about this issue, mainly because I often have disagreements within myself about what I think would be correct vs. what I think past and current consensus supports. Another point in case—my recent nom for "American people by ethnic or national origin". I think I'm right, but I have little hope consensus will take us there. When I finish noms like that, often I start regretting that I tried and that I should have just left well enough alone.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your false accusation
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.
Brown-Haired Girl - How dare you falsely accuse me of "Canvassing with a non-neutral message". If you had bothered to read any of those messages you would have seen that they ALL clearly contained the words, "whatever your opinion would you please weigh in on this discussion". That is completly contradictory to your accusation. Your message is incorrect and impolite and deserves a public apology to a public false accusation. It would seem by this untrue statement that you are highly intimidated by a free and open discussion. I would suggest that you read the rules on Wiki Civility before making any more untrue accusations. You might find yourself blocked, because it is about as anti-Wiki as you can get. You have misused your administrative privileges, in my view. Mugginsx (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mugginsx, see others' comments at the discussion about the messages you left. I and another editor also agree that the messages were non-neutral. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does one misuse administrative tools with using said tools? — ξxplicit 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mugginsx, if I began a message to you with the words "You seem completely crazy", would you take that as a neutral comment or as evidence that I had was trying to convey a particular POV about you? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I began NO sentence saying you were crazy, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you will re-read my message, it begins: "It (the operatable word being "it") seems crazy to me, but .........." The "it" referred to the idea (a mistaken idea for which I have already apologized) that you were proposing to change the name of the ARTICLE. These editors were all contributors to the article, serious and scholarly editors and NOT MY FRIENDS OR PATSYS. They were not coming over to VOTE MY WAY. It was a gross misunderstanding on my part thinking you were discussing the change of the name of the article. It was also a gross misundestanding on your part that I was trying to influence them unduly. Actually, if you were to study their work you might even find it laughable that anyone could bend them to their will. Again, I said, "whatever your opinion please weigh-in". The fact that their voting was varied should, if nothing else, show you the truth of the matter. In fact most, including me, voted for your proposal! Mugginsx (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mugginsx, by stating your view of the situation, your message was non-neutral. People voted as they voted, but that doesn't alter the fact that by stating your view, you did not conform to the requirement that any such message be neutral.
You also engaged in excessive cross-posting, which is also forbidden by WP:CANVASS.
Anyway, I'm glad that you now accept that you you completely misunderstood what was happening. That's why it's a good idea to ask what's happening and to discuss things rather than fire off "it's crazy" messages to lots of people. When you did ask, I answered with twenty minutes. You could have saved a lot of drama by waiting for the answer rather than running around alleging craziness. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you misstated what I said at the beginning of this dialogue and have not apologized for it. I never called you crazy and you well know that. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not do so intentionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 February 2010
Muggins, you did not call me crazy (though you did call my proposal crazy, which is not a very WP:CIVIL way to proceed), and I have not suggested that you did. The point I was making in the sentence above was that saying something is "crazy" is not a neutral way to phrase things. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem completely crazy" and "it's crazy" have two distinct and different meanings as anyone who reads this knows. If you were making a point you might better have done so by using the words that I did say rather than words that I did not say. Very well, you are not going to admit, much less apologize. It is what it is. I hope in the WP vernacular there is somewhere a place for WP:FORTHRIGHTNESS. Anyway, I have reading and research to do and I am sure you have many duties as well, and this discussion is getting us nowhere. Mugginsx (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Mugginsx, I'll try forthrightness, per WP:SPADE: You screwed up, multiply.
You didn't bother to engage brain before reading either the notification which you received, or the CfD discussion, and then you got all upset because you thought wrongly that an article was being renamed.
You then set out to engage in excessive cross-posting per WP:CANVASS by sending the same message to lots of editors
You also violated WP:CANVASS by sending a non-neutral message
When the WP:CANVASSing was on that, you vociferously denied that you had done anything wrong, even tho plenty of other editors noted the problem, and made heated complaint about being "false accused"
When I tried using a similar turn of phrase to illustrate the lack of neutrality, you didn't bother to think about the point being made about how the word "crazy" is not neutral, and instead got heated all over again
Now, I don't want an apology from you, and I'm not asking for one. You screwed up, and hopefully you'll learn from your mistakes ... but having done that, it's not a good idea to run around demanding apologies from everyone else. On this occasion you made a quite unnecessary drama out of your failure to understand some very simple things. Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muggins, it was your first sentence that made your message non-neutral. All you needed to do was omit it. And post to general relevant wikiprojects rather than selected people. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information and I have made note of it for the next time. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hanbury
Hi BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 019! An article you have created, edited, or contributed to, still has no refereces at all since being tagged in July 2009. As the article reads like an essay its lack of verifiable sources could suggest a blatant WP:COPYVIO which will result in the article being reduced to a one line stub, or even deleted. If you are able to help with these major issues please see talk:Hanbury, Worcestershire and address the various points if you can. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only contribution was to disambiguate a link. I know virtually nothing about the village, and have little or no interest in it. Good luck in fixing the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Vernon! I parked this as a do-it-later job, and only gone round to it now, but I see that Choess has already done it, and done a fine job as ever.
Do you mind explaining why you reverted "Loughinisland massacre" back to "The Troubles in Loughinisland"? The article is (and has always been) solely about the massacre and the aftermath of it. No other incidents are mentioned. I had proposed (on the talk page) ten days ago that the page be moved, and nobody had replied. You reverted the move without leaving any comment on the talk page or even changing the introduction. ~Asarlaí 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In a quick scan, I saw the sections headed by subsequent years, and sloppily assumed w/o checking that they referred to later events. I'll move it back. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. I've always had you down as a fairly even-handed admin, so it did seem out-of-the-ordinary. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. ~Asarlaí 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for being so calm and polite in the face of my stupid and inadequately-explained move! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox template
Hi BHG,
I was hoping you could comment to my response to HK about a combined UK-Ireland infobox. They're touchy issues (as well as practical ones) involved, I know, but from a WikiProject Ireland do you think it is worthwhile at all? Do you think it has any hope of passing with editors on "our" side of the Irish sea? (If no, I'm not going to send much time on it.)
(As an asside, I've been thinking about requesting adminship again (some time, not any time very soon). You opposed me last time - for well stated reasons - so I wondered if anything had changed.)
I hadn't realised that you used to be Sony-youth! Long time ago, that was.
Anyway, I think that in principle I'd be very happy to support you in an RFA, I you choose to look for a mop. You seem in general to be a thoughtful, constructive, level-headed editor with a good eye for trying to solve problems, and those seem to me to be excellent attributes for an admin. The fact that you made one error of judgement over 2 years ago is at worst water-under-the-bridge, but actually I think it has become quite a positive recommendation, because I was impressed by the mature way you accepted the criticism at RFA of that action and have striven to avoid that sort of error since. I say in principle as a slight qualification because I haven't scrutinised your editing carefully enough to say hand-on-heart that you haven't screwed-up since so I can't give a cast-iron guarantee of support, but unless there is something serious and unresolved which I have missed, then I'd say that an RFA for you should be uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments above. I'm quite flattered by them. I've replied to your post on the template page and am going to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. -- RA (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assist Considering your input here and here, do you think that virtually every subcategory of Category:Films_by_studio should be renamed (as they almost all contain the construction "X Films films")? And to what should they be changed? If you and any other users at CfD give support for this, I would nominate them for renaming. Please respond on either my talk or at those CfDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple accounts
Is it worth doing anything about the contributions of User:Arog and User:Arog? I just revert his spam link. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS, that's the same username twice. It seems that Arog inserted the same link twice, and although it does look like an inappropriate link, two insertions of it doesn't look to me like spamming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being a stamp dealer and adding his own blog seems like spam to me. His older edits don't seem to be spam at all but all seem to be unsourced. I have a low tolerance level so 3 times from one account and 5 from the other seem rather spamesque to me. I'll just keep reverting unless it gets out of hand. ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see two accounts, so I dunno where you get those figures from.
But I agree that an editor adding their own blog is out-of-order, and adding it from two accounts (if that's what is happening) is sockpuppetry. But I need some evidence of this afore I can do anything: evidence of the two accounts, evidence it's his blog. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more evidence to offer other than the feeling and his username starting with A and being Alex from Rockville which is not conclusive, so maybe we just have a seagull. ww2censor (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think, though, that there is enough for here for at least a bit of a reproach, albeit not for a full trouting. I'll post something in the morning. Thanks for doing all the spade-work! --02:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This must be the same guy: The Stamp Specialist, Alex Rogolsky, 6301 Poindexter Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 found at http://www.askphil.org/b37.asp even though it does not link back to the link he added. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Categorisation Barnstar
For tireless work on categories by century clean up, here in the 21st. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a page like 2010 general election required? (worthy to be in wikipedia?) Wikipedia donot seem to have articles on general election prefixed with any preceding years. Arjun024 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in relation to that it is cited further down the article. --candle•wicke 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I spotted that afterwards. But the claim in the article is much broader than that in the rather confused source. Micheál Martin was not the "1st western govt official to visit Gaza"; he was "1st western prime minister or foreign minister to visit Gaza since Hamas took power in 2007". That's a rather difft matter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, rather confusing indeed, well done on spotting it. I was trying to improve the article as much as possible in case it appears on the Main Page (ITN) and he's a Foreign Minister so he probably deserves an article with more citations anyway. Thanks for helping. :) --candle•wicke 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I'm a politics addict, and remembered David Mellor getting into a bit of a row when he went to Gaza in the 1990s, as a junior UK foreign office minister, so I knew it wasn't as claimed. Plus it was odd describing him as a "govt official", because official" is a term normally used for civil servants rather than ministers.
He's back again, right on March 1st, nothing has changed except for his obsession to play with the wiki. Actually not true, he's apparently getting in trouble moving around articles (can't someone direct him to PopCap Games?). Auntie E. (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on reverting legitimate recategorising. All are you doing is demonstrating is that you clearly no nothing about Irish football. Your reverting of my edits proves this. Your arrogance astounds me. Stop being so childish. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ruby Muhammad. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Muhammad. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian Settlement categories
Hi. I don't see any consensus. One person supported. WP:Brazil or WP:Cities were not even consulted it would seem. The reason I object is because very few other countries are categorized as "Settlements". If you broswe by city you'll see what the general standard is and by renaming the Brazilian places settlements they can no longer be accessed from browsing cities by country. I purposefully deleted the Cities in Brazil, Towns in Brazil etc cats too as the ordering was a huge mess before I took the time to organize them by state. Either we keep them as Settlements and change every other category naming system by country on wikipedia to conform with the Brazilian naming or I recommend that the category change is reconsidered and placed back to how it was before. I strive hard for consistency on wikipedia, and just because one editor supports the move that is not consensus. The Brazilian naming system is now contrary to 98% of all other countries on wikipedia. This is not good. I agree the naming is simpler but if we must move all the Brazilian categories I strongly recommend we do it by country and remove any city/town/village cats to avoid confusion.‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it looks you missed the prominent notice above the edit box, asking "Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message". Any chance of some links to the categories or the discussions? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2#Settlements in Brazil. The Cities, towns and villages cats were replaced by Settlements in. This against the standard naming convention... And if you click settlements by country you'll see most of them are sub catted as Cities, towns and villages in.. Either we overhaul the entire system and remove any category which has a city, town or village name in it, and replace every country as Settlements in ... or we restore the Brazilian cats to what they were for consistency sake. Do you follow? ‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I have been doing some reading and some thinking, and will reply properly later today. Sorry that this is just a holding message, but I think this needs more than a one-line reply, and since I have a few other things to do and don't want you to think I am ignoring you! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
OK, here we go, and sorry for the belated reply.
First thing is the CfD discussion. Yes, there was only the nominator and one other !voter, but that in itself is not evidence of inadequate participation. I would much prefer that all XFDs included notification of relevant wikiprojects and/or WP:DELSORT, but there has not been a consensus to require this.
Many CFD nominations are uncontroversial, and are nodded through like this with limited scrutiny: the general principle is that silence equals assent. I would much prefer greater participation in CFD discussions, but we can't conscript editors. When I closed that CFD after 7 days, it appeared to be one of those under-attended, but uncontroversial nominations ...however since now that turns out not to be the case, then I would support an editor who opens a new CFD with a proposal to move them back; there is a general principle that a consensus decision should be revisited for a few months, but in a case like this where the consensus is weak or involves only a few editors, a re-run is acceptable. If you want to do this, please let me know and I will do the work.
I had no opinion on the substance of this when I closed the CFD, but since your message I have done a little reading and have a few thoughts, for what they are worth.
However, those are just my thoughts now, after the fact. As I noted above, I think you are entitled to re-open the CFD if you want to, and if you want the discussion but don't want the hassle of setting it up, I am happy to do that for if you wish. Just let me know, and I'll do it as a bare listing: you can add whatever rationale you like.
Oh I'm not disputing that you'd like to have more people in discussions. I know the problem with TFD turnouts. You can quitely delete many redundant templates but somebody will always protest against one of them and it may oftne be unexpected. The reason why I perfer to put cities, towns and village in the same category is because there is often grtey terriroty over what consistutes a city, a towns a village or hamlet. Annoyingly I've seen many tiny villages in places in Africa categorized as cities. This is why I have been reorganizing them as one. I'd be very happy to merge all the remaining ones such as Philippines, United States, UK etc into the most commons naming but people unfortunately object to it. I just don't know why you picked Brazil specifically..‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing a crucial point: it was not me who "picked Brazil". I just closed a discussion opened by someone else.
However, I am a little puzzled by what you say that you have been reorganising cities towns and villages into the one category. Where are the CFD discussions where there was consensus to do that? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for interjecting myself here, but comments have been made on my talk page too, and it's probably easier to have a centralised discussion regarding this. I'm a little bit confused: isn't "settlements" just as expansive in meaning as "cities, towns and villages"? If so, nothing has really changed via the CFD, except the name of the categories. The categories can still house cities, towns, and villages, because they are all settlements. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Which is why I thought now might be a good time to suggests renaming all of the Cities, towns and villages categories as Settlements in..... I don't strongly object either way, I would just rather category naming was consistent, that's all..‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You added Category:Diseases with no known cure to our article Stupidity. I don't know if you did this just to make a joke, or to prove a point, but in either case this is not constructive and unbecoming of an administrator. --Lambiam 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that you have a "Barnstar of Good Humor" on your user page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must concur with User:Lambiam, editing an encyclopaedia is a serious business, there is no room for fun, japery, frivolity and witticisms here. This is wikipedia, please use the Vogons, as your role model! ;-) Snappy (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you did a cut-and-paste move, rather than following the instructions at WP:MOVE#How_to_move_a_page. Please leave the articles alone for a few minutes and I'll sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much,I really appreciate it i was also wondering how to sign at the end of my posts becuase when i leave the 4 tildas it never appears the link to my pages as suchDylant2011 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant2011 (talk • contribs)
Hi Dylan
It's all sorted out now. However, after I had done it I noticed that there is a bit of confusion here. The lead section of AC St. Louis says "Athletic Club of St. Louis, commonly referred to as A.C. St. Louis, but the article is now at AC St. Louis ... and the category is Category:AC St. Louis. You may want to correct the text of the article.
Also, I note that the article was moved last month from AC St. Louis to A.C. St. Louis, and I have just helped you move it back. I'm not sure which is the right place, but for future reference it's worth noting that in cases like this where there appears to be some disagreement, it's best to seek consensus by opening a requested move discussion: see WP:RM for details of how to that.
I am not sure what's happening with your sig. Have you changed the settings in your preferences? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt realize that it was originally at the other, but my reason for going with the one without periods is that the teams facebook page and official site never use the periods in their representation of the team's name. i discuss it on the talk page to see if there is any dissent there. I was just trying to make it accurate and i realized i had made a mistake by losing the history of the articles. Ill look into my settings about the signature,But i really appreciate your help, thanks for helping out the less experienced wikipedians bye! Dylant2011 08:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant2011 (talk • contribs)
Stub sorting
Hi, I tried to add a stub sorting renaming request to [1] but only succeeded in deleting yours, and thus have undone the edit. Can you asssit with how I get my request to show up (it can be seen in 'history'). Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for doing that. I just edited the date now. Not exactly a user-friendly process though, in my opinion. Would welcome any feedback you have as to whether what I am suggesting is reasonable, as I am aware the extra comma is a bit messy, but am keen not to imply nationality directly. Eldumpo (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Thanks for fixing the date.
You're right, it's a messy process, and it did my head in when I did it yesterday, so I knew it was much easier to fix this for you than to try explaining how to do it! AFD and CFD are much neater, but I guess that's because they are so much more heavily used that more editors have felt inclined to sort out the process.
I don't think I have any comment on the substance, but I'll take a look and see. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's an even better idea not to continue spamming the same message to dozens of users when you have been asked to stop. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize
BrownHairedGirl: First, I apologize for having used the word antisemitism; that was a big mistake on my part. Second, objectively I think it was a mistake to create the category; and defend the permanence of the category another mistake. For my part I conclude the matter and I devote myself to other subjects. For me you can delete the category when you want. Many greetings and again: I apologize.
(This is a copy of the text placed on the page for the discussion for delete.) Jgarpal (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jgarpal, thanks for the apology. We'll forget that episode happened :)
And don't worry too much about creating the category. I'm sure you did so in good faith, without knowing that this sort of category tends to be deleted, and it's all being sorted out at the CFD discussion. Count it all as a learning exercise!
Thank you for accepting my apology and also thank you for your good attitude. Another greeting. Jgarpal (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP Elements
OK. Thanks for the info and the that you contacted the wikiproject incharge. But what does CSD#R2 mean? (it is a redirect to a DAB which gives no info of the subject. You say that you deleted Native elements was this a template article redirect? Makes it not easy to find what do do.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Native element was a redirect to a category, which is not allowed, so I deleted it. It occurred to me that a native element seemed like an important enough concept, so that it should redirect somewhere, and I was just suggesting that someone at the project might find a suitable place to point it to, or maybe even write a short article. But I am no expert on science, so maybe I'm wrong and it's just trivia :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CFD
I tried to add a related discussion to your CFD nom [2]. I am not sure that I have got the syntax in the banner for Category:People from Runnymede (district) quite right: could you please check. The link is leading to the right page, but not to the right entry. This was more complicated than I expected when I started it. I hope I have not offended by doing this too long after your initial posting. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, Peter. It was a good idea to bring that category to the table, so you did the right thing.
Sorting out the banner links is far from obvious unless (like me) you are a sad cow who has done far too many of them, so I fixed it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History of Sinn Féin
Hi, BHG, I wonder if you could intervene at this article and try to solve a slow-burning dispute. To be honest, I don't understand what is being disputed, and Domer48 appears unwilling or unable to explain. If you look at this edit, and read over the discussion you might be able to work it out, though.
From my perspective, I would like both the list of PSF leaders and OSF leaders post-1970 to be similarly aligned, so as not to give the impression that PSF was the true successor, with OSF a mere offshoot. Domer48 wants to keep the PSF leaders aligned with the pre-1970 leaders.
The other dispute is about the name Provisional SF and when PSF generally started to become known simply as SF. I've provided two references, but Domer48 want a "dubious" tag to be added, without making clear exactly why. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I tried to get Scolaire involved, as he had taken part in earlier discussion, but he didn't wish to intervene. Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't want to get involved.
One of the curses of wikipedia is its inability to restrain groups of editors who operate en bloc to try impose a single narrative on contested histories where the reality is of competing facts and shifting claims to different sorts of legitimacy. This poison has spread itself across several widely differing areas of political or other conflict; sometimes it's just one team, other times its more than one, but either way, it becomes a complete headache-inducing waste-of-time for anyone outside those groups to get involved.
In many ways, those wikipedia conflict-zones are worst for an editor who does not have an axe to grind, because they end up in a no-man's land between the two armies of combatants, denounced by each side as a stooge of the other while diffs gets hurled in all directions. It usually ends up in a sterile flurry of conduct allegations which ignore the central problem: that there is more than one way of narrating any period of history, and WP:NPOVrequires editors the follow that policy. Unfortunately, that policy is rarely enforced, because anyone except dedicated partisans tends to stay clear, and all the enforcement processes focus on conduct rather than content.
So I mostly try to work topics where there is less conflict, and a greater possibility of trying to ensure that articles fairly treat a variety of perspectives. I dip my toe into the hot waters sometimes, but I usually find it a waste of time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're analysis is 100% accurate, as I have discovered. WP:Consensus trumps WP:NPOV every time. In other words, a sufficient number of determined editors can enforce a POV on an article via "consensus". Sinn Féin is where I learned that lesson. Mooretwin (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Native element
Why did you delete this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.74.83 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I completely agree that the removal of WP athlete seems to be the only consistent and logical solution, while still keeping random non notable athletes from appearing. As it is now, WP athlete is too lax for pros, and very few (if any) amateurs qualify for WP:Athlete that aren't already WP:GNG anyway (given that most Olympians no matter how obscure have media coverage back in there home region during Olympic time). So I agree with your proposal. It seems like everyone else in the small discussion agrees too, but removing a section is pretty radical, so we probably have to put in a call for comment. Would it be possible for you set up a new section with this proposal and a call for comment on this. ThanksMATThematical (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your msg, and great to see that we are in agreement.
Yes, I think your quite right that this is a big enough step to require an RFC, so I'll set one up later today. Can I rely on you to erect some high-security shields over my head to protect me from the deluge of incoming missiles? <grin> --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual shields perhaps. I think we are going to need them, as the sports community comes down on us with all their wrath. I think most will agree, but there will probably be some opposition. MATThematical (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Sig
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.
BrownhairedGirl,
My signature's been discussed and pared down already over here , and I am using subscript and superscript to place parts of the signature above the others. The signature is within guidelines (As I understand them) however I welcome any comments about my signature as well. Thanks
Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
RAND move
Something to consider I support your proposal to move RAND to RAND Corporation and I think you are free to propose page moves at any time, but is it really wise to propose a page move while the category is proposed for a rename at the same time? Especially since the rationale of that proposal is to match the name of the article? While unlikely, it is possible that both proposals will pass, and then the article and category will have a disjunct of name that have been flip-flopped. Again, please don't take this as a critique as much as food for thought. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your msg. I see the worry, but the convention is for categs to follow article names. In a case where there is concern at CFD about the appropriateness of the article name, the best solution is to resolve the substantial issue at WP:RM, and hold the CFD closure until that is decided. CFD is not the place to make decisions on article names, and it would be procedural silliness to rename the category on the basis of an article when there are serious concerns that the article name may itself be wrong. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again Do you have a citation for this idea that categories should follow article names? As you might have noticed, I appeal to this idea constantly, but I didn't have any policy/guideline support for it.
Also, I don't want to be rude, but it's only by happenstance that I saw this message. As I wrote above, I prefer responses on my talk page and the header at the bottom of this talk reads (emphasis added), "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere." If you want to keep all talk here, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Sig, II
BrownHairedGirl,
Again, my signature was adjusted by Xeno, to comply with guidelines. I haven't changed it since it was adjusted by Xeno.
I'm willing to remove the shadow effect, however, the "Aeria Gloris" goes with the first part of the signature (it's from
"Ghost in the Shell") it's no different from "Have a Gorilla", and other personalized text on the talk link.
Regarding putting all the text on one line, the signatures you pointed out as being compliant (specifically 1 - 4 ) show text on more than one line (using sub and super scripts)just as mine is.
I' m not trying to argue or prove some point here. I'll remove my shadowing , just as I said I would, but as far as I know (and have been told by Xeno) this signature is compliant as it is.
Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl - comment on the content not the contributor plesae. This is not acceptable:(WP:NPA, Refactoring, to name a few)
# 17:25, 9 March 2010 (hist | diff) m Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 5 (→Category:Wikipedians for IAR: remove ridiculous, disruptive formatting from KoshVorlon's sig) (top)
How that bulky sig looks on a page displayed with small text
KoshVorlon, I am replying in a separate section to preserve the section above as an example of just how ridiculously disruptive your sig is.
Fixes to it have been discussed with you on your talk page, and I suggest you follow some of those suggestions. Your sig is non-compliant in 3 ways: a) it uses a fixed size to make the text bigger than some readers default; b) it uses superscript to increase height; c) it does not include any text which in any way resembles your username.
Please remember that per WP:SIG, "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors". This one does inconvenience other editors. Please fix it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brown Haired Girl, My sig has already been found to be compliant by another admin (Xeno). He'd already changed the sig for that reason and I have not changed it prior to your'e note. I have removed the shadowing at your request.
I have to admitt to a bit of confusion over this. Xeno changed my signtuare to make it compliant, and it's stayed just as he changed it until your note. You're claiming the signature is not compliant. SO, I have two admins saying different things.
Which is it? I'm not interested in being difficult about my signature, but neither would I like to see it be entirely plain either. So, may I suggest a unified response from both of you? That way, there's no confusion on my end.
Thanks.
Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
PS I like the edit notice :)[reply]
Stop refactoring my signature, you're in violation of WP:TOC:
Others' comments
Shortcuts:
WP:TPO
WP:TPOC
WP:TALKO
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
Never edit someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.
Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comment.
[This discussion also states the same]
Altering anyone's signature is not acceptable --- Note this response on my talk page for taking a similar action
One last note, please do not alter other user's signatures, as you did to my signatures on this page. Such edits are completely unacceptable and may be seen as vandalism. I understand you are just starting to find your way around Wikipedia, but these type edits are not helpful. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If you post an unnecessarily intrusive sig which takes undue prominence and disrupts the flow of a discussion, contrary to WP:SIG, I will refactor it. If you object, you know where ANI is.
Xeno improved your, but it still has problems, as noted above. Rather than trying to only the make minimum changes required to reduce criticism, please do read WP:SIG and try to follow the guidance there on why a sig such as yours in unnecessarily intrusive.
I'll post a few versions below which fix some of the worst problems: a series of steps which fix the colours, remove the bolding which gives undue prominence, reduce the vertical height, and use less markup. It's still unnecessarily verbose and doesn't include anything which resembles your username (as recommended by WP:SIG), but it's a lot less intrusive. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
remove fixed font size, remove spacing, remove bolding, remove superscript & subscript, fix color of talk link, make talk link smaller, remove bolding from talk link
Brownhairedgirl,
Sorry, but per WP:TOC you CANNOT refactor because you think it's disruptive, please read the link pointing to ANI.
It has to be vandalism. Stop refactoring, an admin has already changed my signature to make it compliant. --User:KoshVorlon 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote above, and stop wikilwayering; instead, try per WP:SIG to take some reasonable steps to reduce the level of intrusion. Your failure to take reasonable steps to stop your sig being unduly promiment is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not wikilawyering. An admin has already adjusted my signaure. This is a fact. YOu are refactoring my signature against WP:TOC, this is a fact. This link also [states the same thing I am].
Also, stop commenting on my motives, comment on content. I have yet to make a comment on any of your motives, and wouldn't anyway.
Calm down, quit the wikilawyering, and fix your sig to make it less prominent and intrusive. There is no need to put a big bold stamp on a page whenever you make a comment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggests some relatively minor changes that might help. The most important being to replace <sup> and <sub> with CSS relative positions and to replace absolute pt dimensions for the font with percentage sizes.
Smaller:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus sed eros vitae dui aliquam convallis a quis sapien. Fusce a elementum felis. Cras dictum, lorem nec tincidunt mattis, sem mauris bibendum urna, eleifend viverra ante tortor at est. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donec enim lacus, vulputate ac egestas quis, aliquet ac neque. Proin dignissim magna ut leo aliquam eget egestas metus vestibulum. ...
With changes:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus sed eros vitae dui aliquam convallis a quis sapien. Fusce a elementum felis. Cras dictum, lorem nec tincidunt mattis, sem mauris bibendum urna, eleifend viverra ante tortor at est. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donec enim lacus, vulputate ac egestas quis, aliquet ac neque. Proin dignissim magna ut leo aliquam eget egestas metus vestibulum. ...
Smaller:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus sed eros vitae dui aliquam convallis a quis sapien. Fusce a elementum felis. Cras dictum, lorem nec tincidunt mattis, sem mauris bibendum urna, eleifend viverra ante tortor at est. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donec enim lacus, vulputate ac egestas quis, aliquet ac neque. Proin dignissim magna ut leo aliquam eget egestas metus vestibulum. ...
These changes would at least prevent line heights from messing up. -- RA (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bulky sig disrupting a CFD discussion RA, that's a bit better than the current version (see right), but only a litle bit. It's still bolded (which is an undue prominence issue), still exceeds the height of one line, and the markup is horribly bulky. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that. The embolding and the mixing of below line and over line text is not good. -- RA (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon, I think you need to ask youself: Should you make your SIG compliant only so far as is absolutely necessary? Or should you make your sig such that it promotes collaboration in a harmonious and collegial fashion? BrownHairedGirl says that your sig is unnecessarily obtrusive with her screen size settings due to the fixed font, the unnecessary prose in conjunction with the bold, and the fact that you do not mention your username in your signature. You've been using this sig for some time, and had many complaints about it including several ANI threads. Perhaps it is time for a change? –xenotalk 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even this would be an improvement:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus sed eros vitae dui aliquam convallis a quis sapien. Fusce a elementum felis. Cras dictum, lorem nec tincidunt mattis, sem mauris bibendum urna, eleifend viverra ante tortor at est. Naluboutes,NaluboutesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donec enim lacus, vulputate ac egestas quis, aliquet ac neque. Proin dignissim magna ut leo aliquam eget egestas metus vestibulum. ...
That's much better, RA, and I'd see it as a satisfactory compromise all round. Just two suggestions: a) setting font through the style tag rather than the deprecated font tag would trim a little markup; b) I thought the text-shadowing was going? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something will have to go, that sig is 285 chars (30 over the limit). –xenotalk 16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it in place above. Uses <span> not <font>, shadow is light grey (less noticable) and char length is 251. -- RA (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget BHG, you can eliminate text shadowing in your .css. Many other editors use text shadow as well, so you may as well nuke it if you don't like it (I don't either!). –xenotalk 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RA. Xeno suggested that yesterday, so I did it. It's still a bulky bit of markup, though, on a sig which is right up against the max possible. I'm not going to press the point, but it'd be better gone. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating Kosh's agreement to the above-suggested compromise I changed his signature page [3]. However I left the text-shadowing in - while I agree that it's 33 characters that wouldn't be missed - compromises involve give and take, so I also will not press the point. –xenotalk 17:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I saw your change. I have to admitt I'm a bit unclear as you set my signature that last time (and I didn't change it). However, I'm not about to start a war over the signature. I saw your compromise and inserted my name into it (as was suggested). I'm okay with it. Thanks!
Well the difference is between obeying the letter of the law vs the spirit (see my comments above at 16:11). Thank you for accepting the compromise. Please also try to refrain from putting your signature on a new line - especially when your comments are indented. It's peculiar and confusing. –xenotalk 18:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a solution! Thanks to KoshVorlon for accepting the change, and to Xeno and RA for the help in getting there. Group hug time :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Thanks
WikiThanks
Thank you for taking the time to explain the CfD process and actions at WP:CRIC, despite some heated opposition. Harrias (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this on the Village Pump and noticed you'd made changes to this template recently: mind having a look? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, these recent changes have caused various redirected categories to be populated that shouldn't be, for example Category:Czech which is a redirect to Category:Czech Republic; you can see more of the same at User:RussBot/category redirect log. Problem is, just because a category page exists doesn't mean it should be populated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take as long as you need. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Unfortunately, it may take 24 hours for the pages to refresh with the fixed template, so the glitches will be visible in the meantime.
Category:Czech was of course never intended to be populated; that was one of the things which I had inadvertently broken. :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. By the way, what do you make of this? One of the stranger proposals I have come across lately. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fun, that one. A bit of a classic, actually.
Hey, I was just reading the Ruth Henig, Baroness Henig article and I noticed that you started it off and contributed most of the original content, so, thanks! --Cyde Weys 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Long time ago I starting that one, and by current standards it lacks footnotes, so I should get to work there :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, thanks for the pointer, and it's now fixed. Tho if I spot something like that, I find that the quickest thing to do all round is to fix it, using {{ subst:unsigned | user name or IP | time, day month year (UTC) }} --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cool - got it SatuSuro 13:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Settlements in...
Go ahead and nominate every existing cities, towns and villages category for CFD. I honestly don't mind, but I actually think it is simpler to name them this way. Also most "settlement" categories are empty and just have the articles listed in the cities, towns and villages. But what I don't want to see is at a later date people recreating seperate town and village categories if there is no official government designation as it would undo my efforts to try to make the order consistent. If they are renamed settlement categories then this should be asserted all settlements are listed for convenience. When do you want to nominate them. I do think it is better to nominate them all in one go and notify some wikiprojects for discussion. But I am a little suspicious of Vegas wikian nominating so many of "my" categories and editing articles I worked on in close succession..‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will do a big group CFD, because "cities, towns and villages in" is just a verbose substitute for "settlements in".
Whether the by-country categories are called "settlements in Foo" or "cities, towns and villages in Foo", editors may or may not seek to create sub-categories for different types of settlements, so I don't see how this convention has any bearing on that sub-categorisation. I am indeed aware that different countries have different approaches to categorising settlements, and I know that in Ireland there is even inconsistency between counties; some of them use terminology appropriate to their own geography and history ... but all that stuff is a separate issue to the name of the parent categories.
I'm really puzzled why you seem to believe that Vegaswikian has done wrong, or why you believe that seeking consensus of some issues relating to your recent edits amounts to WP:HOUNDING. Vegaswikian is not harassing or intimidating you; he is just seeking consensus on a few issues, some of which may indeed be related to your recent edits. WP:HOUNDING specifically says that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". That seems to me to cover what you think Vegaswikian has been doing. Why not just discuss the substance of the disagreements rather than assuming that there is some attempt to hound you? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't think he is hounding or "out to get me". But I do think it obvious he came across my edits last night as his edits in rapid succession on articles/categories I've created is too much of a cooincidence. And yes I am a little intrigued as to why he would do that and nominate several of my categories in quick succession... And for the record I do think "Reportedly haunted locations" is subjective and I didn't create that category but I have done some work towards "haunted halls" and am currently writing one in my sandbox.....‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 12:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cause for surprise: he probably looked at your contribs list, and saw some things which he thought needed attention. That's an entirely legitimate use of a contribs list, and I don't see any grounds for complaint. He didn't edit-war, or say rude things about you, or rush around reverting your edits, or try to drag unrelated issues into any content disputes you might have in which you were involved; he just sought consensus for a few changes.
Please do remember, though, that your use of the phrase "my categories" does rather imply WP:OWNership. Other editors are just as entitled to work on those categories as you are, and Vegaswikian did not making unilateral changes, he is seeking consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I do wish you'd stop brandishing policies at me. The reason I added "my" (or had intended to with a " ") was exactly because I don't "own them" and was literally an indication of being "created by me" rather than being "mine". ‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm glad we cleared that up. So I'm sure you'll welcome that fact that we can now have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the categories, and you'll set aside any concerns about the editors who made the nominations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with the national categories. If there is consensus for that, we can do the next layer as a second step. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You'll find though that the majority are not split regionally anyway, such is our relatively poor coverage of the developing world...‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know: systemic bias is alive and well. :( In huge swathes of Africa, there are not even enough articles to sustain a category for a region, never mind create sub-categories for settlements, let alone anything else. Meanwhile, every round ball which has ever bounced in the developed world is the subject of scores of articles and lists, accompanied by more scores of articles and lists for anyone who touched the ball, looked at the ball, managed the people who touched the ball, or wrote newspaper articles on the people who managed the people who touched the ball, or once climbed into bed to practise making babies with the people who wrote newspaper articles on the people who managed the people who touched the ball. That's how it goes :)
Anyway, in some cases such as Slovenia, there are lots of articles but underdeveloped categorisation. However, splitting categories can be done independently of the renaming: it is neither dependant on it nor impeded by it. So both can proceed in parallel. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just sticking my oar in here in regards to the note you left on my talk page. The only reason I did as much categorization as I did was because I understood that the previous CFD ruling (whenever that was - it's so far back that I don't even know any more) was setting the standard for everything going forward. As that's no longer the case, I'll be holding off until I hear otherwise about the new CFD ruling.
The subpage looks pretty good from where I sit. This from my point of view has been a "credibility gap" for Wiki for some time, and all of the proposed solutions I'm seeing meet both our needs (for an efficient and non-cumbersome category structure) and those of readers (for names which make sense). Whatever we come up with should be solid down to "by country" level with no need for side duplication. I have no preference for where should be approached for ideas, although WT:GEOGRAPHY sounds good as they may have better ideas than we have had so far, given they work with the content side of things in this area. Orderinchaos 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) to Category:People from Birmingham District, West Midlands
Have you figured out how to fix the template? It's rather complex so I have not tried. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I looked at it too, and couldn't figure out what to do, so gave up.
I'll play with again, and see what explodes if I press a few buttons. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did it, but I cheated, by substing the template and then editing the result. Not ideal, but I could see no other way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, given the way I think the template works, it was either special case in the template or do what you did. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these categories use the template {{Fooian fooers}}, which doesn't add the category to Category:Stand-up comedians by nationality unless it exists. Howver, Category:Stand-up comedians by nationality was only created yesterday, and it can take a few days for the server to update its cached version of the categories so that they aware of the existence of the new category. I gave them a poke by doing much what you did, just any old edit to the categories, because that way the server reloads the templates, so now it's all uptodate. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. Shelley6148 (talk·contribs) has had two warnings, and has only made 6 edits in total. I think that's enough so far, but if the situation escalates then whatever admin is on the case can decide how far to escalate the response. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up all the loose ends on this one -- I'm often away from WP so I popped back to see if I could sort it all out and I see it's already been attended to :-) Fattonyni (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had your user page, User:BrownHairedGirl/nm/List of National Monuments of Ireland, on my watchlist to see when you started splitting it out. I noticed earlier today that you began but that you also split out the list from the lead. I don't really agree with the latter... It doesn't appear that the article about what a National Monument is is going to be expanded any more than it already is.. It's been like that for a long time. The size of the article would serve as an ideal lead to the list article IMO. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudemanfellabra
That was one of the things I was wondering about before I started splitting up the list, but a few things persuaded me to split out the lead:
There's not much point in splitting out the counties if the only link to the general concept is to whole 26-county list.
Keeping the full intro in the lead involves creating multiple copies of the same text, which seems to me to breach the principle of avoiding Wikipedia:Content forking. The reader ends up being confronted with the same text on many pages, it's a maintenance headache for editors
You're right that the lead isn't all that long, but to my mind it's too long for a list header. It makes for a rather short article ... but as weighing up the above, I thought I would expand it myself. So I hope it won't remain quite so stubby for so long.
If you could expand the lead, I would be a little less critical of the split since that is my main gripe. I do think, however, that the National Monument (Ireland) article should include links to all the county articles (as well as a link to the full list), perhaps in the same style as on the List of Mississippi Landmarks. A single "See also" link is often missed, so the TOC-style lists would be much more visible.
Also, some small criticisms of your userspace work:
The individual county lists are transcluding too many line breaks into the full combined list; they should be taken out of the include tags.
The county lists also don't need the "List" header.. it's just superfluous. The heading for each county should be moved up to an h2 IMO as well.
I can't really tell a difference in load time of the full hard-coded list as compared to the list of transcluded counties at the moment, but I can't say anything because I'm currently on a dial up connection (kill me now). Perhaps you should ask someone else to measure load times and report back to me and/or to the wikiproject? If the load time is essentially the same, I would support the splitting out of the lists. Thanks for your work! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt feedback, Dudemanfellabrah.
What you've seen so far is only a late-night first draft, so I know there is a lot of tweaking to do. I'm away today, but I'll work on it again tonight or tomorrow, and consider your suggestions then.
My thinking so far is that the head article and each county list should have a navigation template to facilitate jumping between them.
I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly it loaded, but when I have done a few more tweaks I'll ask other editors to do some wider testing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an experimental draft, covering only 4 counties so far ... but what it does is to remove the by-county sub-headings and make a fully integrated sortable list of all national monuments in Ireland.
At this point, I think it is the way to go. Dividing the list by sub-heading made sense before sub-lists existed, but once the sub-lists are in place the national list doesn't need to duplicate their county-oriented functionality, and the fully integrated list is more useful for anyone approaching the issue without a county focus.
I like what you've done with User:BrownHairedGirl/nm/List of National Monuments of Ireland. The TOC looks great.. not exactly what I had in mind, but I believe it's even better than what I was thinking. I also like the addition of the navbox to all the county lists; that makes it much easier to move between counties. This navbox should be added to the National Monument (Ireland) page as well.
About the fully sortable list, I think it's a great idea.. I'm just not so sure how to implement it. The links, as you explained, are unpredictable if the list is sorted differently than default, so I don't think it's a good idea to have them... The only way I could see this working is if we dropped the TOC concept all together (which I hate to do) and relied solely on the navbox.
Again, a few small criticisms:
I believe the "County" column in the fully sortable list should be next to the townland column.. It's more natural.
Also, you've lost the set width of the image column. Without setting the width, there's an ugly whitespace in the column that makes the table look crappy. I think I had it set to 10%, but it could even be set to 104px I think (100 px images + 2 px either side?)
Pertaining to the navbox, maybe using a color more closely related to Ireland would be better. There's a color scheme set up on Template:Designation that is used in {{Infobox Historic Site}} that looks like this: '| colspan=2 align=center style="border:4px solid
#BFFFBF;"|National monument of Ireland'. What do you think of that? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I think a list-style reply will be clearest
Even with the glitch around the ToC once sorted, I still think that the fully sortable list is the way to go. Without that, I can't see much point in the complete list, and the TOC is still there at the start -- it breaks only if the reader uses the extra feature of sortability, so nothing is lost
You're right about the county being better beside townland; it's a more logical grouping. So I am in the process of moving it.
You're also right about the image column being better as fixed width, since the image is fixed width. The other columns are best left for the browser to adjust, because we don't know what sort of screen the viewer will be using: it could be anything from a small screen on a iphone to a big 24" screen, and different proportions will be appropriate in difft cases. Browsers are designed to sort that stuff out.
The colour you suggest for User:BrownHairedGirl/nm/NMInav|the navbox]] looked like far too low a level of contrast, so I put the vales (FG=009B48, BG=FF7900) into the Colour Contrast Checker at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html ... and those values fail the test by a long way, so I have used white on dark green (FG=FFFFFF, BG =009966), taking the dark green from Template:YearInIrelandNav.
Hmm.. I see what you mean about contrast. Maybe I'll go change that at Template:Designation as well. I'll check the other color combinations as well. As for the other points:
I agree with you that the fully sortable list is the way to go, but I don't think the TOC should be on the page. If, however, you are unswayed, I think I may have come up with a compromise. The TOC of an article works by looking for any anchor with the specified name of that section... but if there is more than one anchor with the same name, it only finds the first anchor. What if we included, like you have in the first entry of all the county lists, the anchor in every single monument's table row? That way, the TOC would find the first listing in that county based on the current sorting structure. This would be much more useful than the current random method after a new sort is chosen.
I agree about all the columns being dynamic... except for one. The NM# column, I think, should be kept to 4em on any screen size because the number in the column will be no longer than that.. and if it is that means it has 2 NM#'s, and they will wrap to two lines.
The 4em width for the NM# column is a great idea. Like the images, that's one we can predict
I'll experiment with the multiple-anchor solution and see how that works.
Not sure how much I will be around for the next few days; I am in the midst of making some big life-choices, so pls bear with me if I disappear for a while. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all your suggestions, and have also simplified the markup by using some templates. (I may tweak those a bit more, and do need to document them.
At this point I think I am almost ready to start moving the whole thing to mainspace. What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks awesome to me.. I also see that you've gone ahead and moved the county lists into main space. I'm fine with moving everything else as well. Great job! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you would please improve this stub. He was far more intreresting than I have made him sound. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of "see also" sections
Discussion closed. If any of the parties involved want to discuss it further, please do so on your own talk pages and/or on the talk pages of the articles concerned ... but my talk page is not the place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You might want to have a look at some edits made by User:One Night In Hackney (aka "2 lines of K") on a handful of related articles. All of the articles in question are about incidents involving republican groups that took place during "the Troubles". Each time I and other editors have added a simple "see also" section, the user has removed it. This is despite the fact that the links added are directly relevant and aren't repeated in the prose. The reason given has been the same each time – "manual-of-style-ignoring disruption". In some cases it seems to be a case of ownership – four of the articles in question were started by the user (1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape, 1985 Newry mortar attack, 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, Downing Street mortar attack) and the rest are articles the user has been involved with. It may be worth pointing out that all are in this category and when the same thing has been added to articles in this and this category they've been left alone.
The most recent revert(s) can be seen here – one of the articles that was created by the user. About twenty minutes after I re-added the "see also" section, the user added the following to his userpage: "Why doesn't Wikipedia block fucking clueless disruptive vandals who destroy articles I write?". The user now seems to be getting help from an "ally" (see here, here and here – all articles that were created by the user). ~Asarlaí 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a disagreement with another editor, who has reverted your edits. So obviously, you tried to discuss that disagreement with other editor(s), didn't you?
... except that when I look at your contribs list, I cannot see any such discussion.
I'm not even going to try to assess the merits of the edits in question. You made a WP:BOLD change, another editor reverted it, so per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking_and_editing, the pair of you should discuss it. It seems that you didn't even try discussion, but instead asked me to intervene. Sorry, but that's not the right way to go about resolving a dispute. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my edit summaries I asked the user twice to explain his reasoning:
Revision by ONIH (14:30, 15 March 2010) - rv the usual manual of style ignoring disruption
Revision by myself (14:43, 15 March 2010) - revert: please point out where Wikipedia says "see also" sections count as "manual of style ignoring" and "disruption"
Addition to ONIH userpage by ONIH (14:54, 15 March 2010) - Why doesn't Wikipedia block fucking clueless disruptive vandals who destroy articles I write?
Revision by ONIH (15:02, 17 March 2010) - rv the usual manual of style ignoring disruption. Since you don't even read edit notices never mind the MOS, I'm not wasting my time explaining it
Revision by myself (01:09, 19 March 2010) - revert: again, point out where Wikipedia says "see also" sections with valid links counts as "disruption"
As you can see... the user immediately assumed that my edits were done in bad faith and meant only to cause "disruption". In other words, he saw me as a mere vandal. Of course, I have read WP:SEEALSO and it would suggest that my edits are wholly acceptable. When I asked him to clarify he just repeated the same message and added "I'm not wasting my time explaining it". ~Asarlaí 14:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what has just been said it is not Superfopp and other editors, it is just Superfopp who is lacking in clue and continually adding redundant "See also" sections, adding them in the wrong place and moving templates to the wrong place in articles. I'm glad Bishopsgate bombing has been brought up, as you can see the diff in question here. This editor has been told repeatedly by me to follow the manual of style, one such example was in
August 2009 and there have been others. Moving a template from where it belongs (at the end of the article) into a newly created "See also" section is a violation of the manual of style, one I have have to revert many times across dozens of articles by this terminally disruptive editor. Per WP:SEEALSO (which Superfopp doesn't understand, otherwise he wouldn't keep adding redundant links or say "it would suggest that my edits are wholly acceptable" when they aren't) a well written article doesn't even need a "See also" section, and I'm of the opinion that the articles in question don't especially when the links are largely duplicate ones. Then of course there's his edit to Bloody Sunday which spectacularly ignored the manual of style (and the whacking great edit notice at the top saying not to add links), and his ignorance of what the problem is. When I've told someone repeatedly to follow the manual of style, I'm not in the business of wasting valuable time explaining it in great detail when the editor is too blind/stupid/disruptive/other (delete as applicable) to read what I've said in the first place.
I'll deal with the Newry mortar attack now. "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common". So which links are being added in a "See also" section? Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles which is linked in {{Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles}}, Downing Street mortar attack which is also linked in the template, and Timeline of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions which is in my opinion redundant navigation-wise when Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army actions is on the article since it contains that article and many others, so in my editorial judgement (having written 1 FA, 6 GAs, and countless DYKs compared to 0, 0 and 0 for Superfopp?) it doesn't need to be there especially if it's the only link in a section. The same principles apply equally to the other articles mentioned,
As for the helicopter escape, when making this edit Superfopp clearly hadn't even read the category description that he was changing to - "This category is for attacks of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, from 1969 to the present day" (my emphasis). A prison escape is not an attack, so I applaud RepublicanJacobite for reverting that clueless edit.
To sum up, Superfopp would be better off ensuring his own editing is of the required standard, especially when editing good articles, before criticising others who clean up his disruption. I've told him countless times about the manual of style, I shouldn't have to spoon-feed him information from it. 2 lines of K303 14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
National Monument Categories
In case you missed it through the sea of recent watchlist edits, I replied to your thanks at my talk page with a question about your method.
I also have a favor to ask. I see you created Category:National Monuments of Ireland.. Every national monument article should be in that category, but there are so many that it would take forever to do manually. I have a Mac, and I can't use AWB, so I was wondering if you could go through all the articles that List of National Monuments of Ireland links to and add the cat. Maybe a bot would be better? Idk. If all else fails, I can go through manually. Once again, thanks for your work! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I was thinking of doing that, but I'm going to subcategorise them by county, so I'll work off the county lists.
I normally use Linux, but booted up Windoze the other day for an AWB job, and found that the latest version seems to work OK (the last one I tried, last year), was broken. So I'll see if AWB will do the job for me, but I think it'll probably be as quick to use WP:HOTCAT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok that's fine by me about the county categories. And I had always wondered what HotCat was when I saw it on my watchlist haha.. never took the effort to look it up. Pretty nifty! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hotcat's great for that sort of job. It has a few minor flaws, but it really speeds things up ... by checking categories as you type them, it reduces error rates. If you havena got it already, get it now! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem Editor
Hi BHG, when you have time can you take a look at the following editor who is POV pushing their own politicial party on the constituency pages for the forthcoming UK election. The person edits as NatDemUK when logged in and 194.80.178.253 ip when logged out. Despite being informed of the current ballot paper order policy by several editors they have continued placing one party at the top of the info boxes for the past few months. Not sure of the best way forward, hence bringing it to you, Thanks - Galloglass 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Galloglass
I had noticed that, and also noticed the discussions about ballot paper order at WT:UKPOLITICS. I don't have the energy at the moment to get much involved myself, but I suggest that the best way forward is to open a WP:RFC/U. It's a fairly simple process, and hopefully it will succeed in persuading this editor to accept consensus ... but if not, it provides a way of collecting all the material needed to bring a case to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that BHG. I'll try and do that in the next few days. Cheers - Galloglass 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single-issue account / check-user?
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.
Hi, I'm suspicious about this recently-created account - User:Iamstiff, which appears effectively to be a single-issue account, i.e. going through all the Irish football articles to remove reference to "Northern Irish" (although he has also made some edits about New York) - see here. Can you advise whether I should and how I can get a check-user done? I've been to the WP:Requests for checkuser page, but I don't understand it. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin has a content dispute with Iamstiff ... so the next step is simply to go Iamstiff 's talk page and try to discuss their differences. I don't think it's good behaviour to ask another editor to intervene without having tried to discuss it directly.
I have looked at the disputed edits, and FWIW my own view is that:
Iamstiff is right to replace "Northern Irish" with the more neutral "from Northern Ireland"
Iamstiff has unfortunately mangled some grammar along the way, which needs correcting
Both Mooretwin and Iamstiff deserve an early bath for edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, let the politically-motivated campaigners, who have failed to achieve (or even seek) consensus on the issue, get their way - even by way of a possible sockpuppet. To challenge the edit is to edit-war, therefore I'm the bad guy for challenging them, and the edits must stand as they cannot therefore be challenged (funny how it never seems to work that way when I make an edit that is challenged). I've attempted to discuss this issue with the campaigners in the past (first Vintagekits (now banned) and then BigDunc - all to no avail. I've sought mediation - completely ignored. I suspect a discussion with Iamstiff will be futile. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, when the term "Northern Irish" was discussed here, the consensus was that it was an acceptable demonym and, indeed, is listed as such in the Northern Ireland article. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I am saying at all.
You can of course challenge an edit in the usual way, by discussing it with the editor concerned. But simply mass-reverting without any attempt at discussion is edit-warring. The correct cycle is set out at WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. Iamstiff was bold, you reverted; now discuss.
You may be right that a discussion will be futile, but you won't know unless you try. It might, of course, be best, to try a centralised discussion at (e.g. at WP:IECOLL or WT:IMOS), in which case the best option is to leave a note at User talk:Iamstiff pointing to that centralised discussion. This is a question which need to be addressed in WP:IMOS. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, under BRD, the onus is on Iamstiff to discuss his proposed edits after he has been reverted! What you're saying, however, is that Iamstiff should be rewarded for ignoring BRD, and the onus actually falls on me(!) to discuss his edits. If I engage him in discussion, all he has to do is ignore the discussion, or disagree with me, and the edits remain. If I revert, then I'm edit-warring. So his edits stand - his refusal to play fair is rewarded, my valid and reasonable suspicions about the account are ignored and my attempt to keep politics out of these articles is perceived as disruptive. Wonderful stuff. Before your reply, by the way, I had already started a centralised discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, come on, stop this before I break the wall from banging my head against it.
Consensus can only be reached if both sides discuss the disagreement ... so you both have an obligation to discuss the issue.
I'm glad to see that you have opened a centralised discussion, so I am going to close this discussion here. If it goes on any longer we're at risk of being joined by all those TV camera crews who hang around outside Stormont waiting for news about whether there will be talks about talks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Some unfortunate heat - but perhaps inevitable, though no less unfortunate, when two groups of passionate editors clash over the same issue.
I was wondering something (based on the link you posted, praising my comments in an archive). When Cats change, watchlists do go crazy and there is bound to be trouble from time to time, not just with our own WikiProject, but others too (I'd lovehate to see the results of a change to an Palestine/Israel Cat, or some such.)
I was therefore wondering whether you guys have ever considered some kind of mandatory approach to posting notifications to relevant WikiProjects? In fact, couldn't a bot do this relatively easily? --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your latest post at WT:CRIC. Never heard of Article Alerts before. Looks useful. I'll take a proper look at it when I find some time. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for a very belated reply. Been a bit addled the last few weeks :(
There was some discussion at WT:CFD about this late last year, and there was some support for the idea, but it's not always practical.
Some cases are simple enough, because they involve only one WikiProject, and if it's a major change then I usually insist that a project be notified. However, my experience is that most WikiProject notifications produce no response at all, and those that do get a response usually attract only one or two editors.
I think that a bot is the best idea, and Article Alerts already does a lot of that for wikiprojects which want to use it. --22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Cahir
It really needs its own category? Isn't a little over the top? Wouldn't a disambiguation page have sufficed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tfd closure
Hi there! I believe that the closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_27#Template:CB-support2 was very premature. Did you read the discussion in the template talk and considered that no new arguments were presented as per "Any request for undeletion should provide new arguments, rather than simply asserting that prior consensuses were wrong, or it is likely to be closed speedily."? --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read it. Did you notice that this was not actually a request for undeletion? It was a request to delete.
This issue is such an old chestnut, with numerous previous deletions upheld at deletion review, that there is no point whatsoever in wasting the time of editors in discussing it all again. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I did. That's where I copied the sentence from. I think that, if you can apply a deletion guideline about a former template to delete these ones, I think you can apply the exclusion rule it mentions, don't you think?
Well deleting your own userpages was one such case too, but I brought that up once again and now it is being implemented. That is yet another way of improving wikipedia. We are not to use these guidelines as dogmatic.
Additionally, there were new arguments in this case and I think it should be given at least a chance to be discussed before it is dismissed. Too much hard work (not mine) was put into this.
Thanks in advance. I like your hair! --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so friendly about this: I know it's frustrating when your hard work goes up in smoke.
In situations like this, I would usually consider to letting the discussion run a bit to see if there really is any chance of a consensus to do something other than delete .... but I think that the history of previous deletions and deletion reviews means that this one is very clear-cut, probably one of the clearest I have seen. I'm sorry, but I am not going to change my mind on the closure, and I think that any further discussion of that point will get us no closer to agreement. Having quite properly taken the first step of trying to persuade the closing admin to change her mind, and failed, you are of course free to open a request for deletion review if you want to.
Wikipedia:Method for consensus building is a great idea: having used consensus-based decision-making techniques for nearly 30 years, I think that a deeper understanding of consensus-building tools and techniques is long overdue on wikipedia, so huge congrats to you and others who have worked on that page. However, after so many rejections of the idea of using templates to denote positions, I think that it was a mistake to put energy into creating such templates. I hope that this deletion is not mistaken for criticism of the rest of the valuable work of explaining how to build consensus. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel the need to copy arguments from the previous 7 discussions. As I pointed out, there was no substantial difference between those templates and the ones that have been deleted in the past 5 years. Where were the new arguments? I started the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Method for consensus building hoping that someone would provide such arguments and start a new discussion to use them, but got little more than non-arguments (consensus might have changed, what's wrong with them) and flat-out refusal to start a wider discussion before using them. I've said several times what you need to do if you want to use these templates in discussions. Mr.Z-man 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, I didn't actually contribute to that project by any means, yet still I feel kinda sad for the guy who did and will probably get frustrated by this. Plus, I really liked the idea of having graphical voting templates, which in essence are not different in any other way from the de facto ways of consensus building, we are currently using. It is beyond me how using support or oppose is any different from using a visual aid to do that.
Mr.Z-man, for a start, one argument was that such a template would be a drain on resources, was not valid. In any case, what would be wrong in allowing editors to use them and see if they gain popularity? If not, they would become deprecated by the community itself.
Anyway, I'm not even the creator, I'm not going to pursue a different outcome for this any more. The creator can if he wants. See you both around. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JokerXtreme, it need not remain beyond you why this sort of template is deprecated: just read the many previous discussions on the subject, some of which are linked from the latest TFD discussion at latest TFD discussion at. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your presently online, check out CAT:CSD. ;) Dlohcierekim 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overcategorization
Ciao! How can I try ot stop user:Monegasque to add his microcategory including just one person (see his last additions)? Thanks for help and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop naming calling. I will do it your way if this is the way you want to be, but I really wonder what you had hoped, or do hope, by doing it all this way. Carlaude:Talk 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carlaude, it's really simple: wait until a nomination is complete and then discuss it on its merits.
I didn't call you names: I just described your actions as disruption, which they were. If you don't like that, don't try disruptive spoiler tactics.
I don't know what you mean by "doing it all this way". A group nomination of a number of related categories is standard practice at WP:CFD, because it allows similar categories to be considered together rather than repeating the same debate dozens of times. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you did a bit more than that. Like calling them "patently disruptive," etc.
Do you even care what I mean? Carlaude:Talk 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to explain your meaning, do so; if not, don't. But stop using my talk page for pointless whining and silly rhetorical questions.
I called your actions "patently disruptive", because that's what they are. If you don't like that, don't try disruptive spoiler tactics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sorry tale...
Hi BHG,
Welcome back (again). Was away myself but am now refreshed, fired up and ready to rumble. However. In my excitement that the former "British Isles" geograph project changed their name I moved the article to Geograph Britain and Ireland. So far so good. But the divil got the better of me and for some reason which I can neither recall nor fathom I then moved it to Geograph Great Britain and Ireland. Which is wrong. But not being an Evil Admin I can't move it back to Geograph Britain and Ireland. But you are and you could...so... maybe you would? Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah
How could the divil ever get hold of you? You being such a saintly person and all that. :)
The only plausible explanation is that someone wicked spiked your tobacco. I have referred the matter to the Moriarty Tribunal, and expect a conclusion in double quick time ... or, err, more than 13 years.
Anyway, not sure why you couldn't move the page back again; it should be possible for a move to be reverted. But since I'm a nice admin, not an not an evil admin, I have done it.
And well done persuading Geograph to change their name to a real place rather than a fiction. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta nice BHG! I'm loading photos to geograph by the dozen (so to speak) - have pinned three empty squares already :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just figured I should drop you a note to keep you up to date on the latest Cydebot update. See User talk:Cyde#CFD and soft redirects for the details on the change. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, thanks for the categorization "Ships of the Royal Navy". Looking at the category, do you think it would make more sense for me to change the category "Hired vessels of the Royal Navy" to "Royal Navy hired vessels" to increase congruency with the other categories? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I found an uncategorised category, and put in the right place.
I'm not sure about renaming it. Category:Ships of the Royal Navy has 28 sub-categories of the form "Royal Navy x ships", and 18 sub-cats of the form "x ships of the Royal Navy", so a wider cleanup is needed. I may do a group renaming request at WP:CFD, but I'll need to investigate what form is used elsewhere in the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religious leaders by gender ... it's funny how one tends to think of PastorWayne when editors create categories without seemingly engaging in any prior cerebration. And here is one of his, aka EstherLois. Occuli (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Bus routes
Bearing in mind what I said about WP:London Transport redirecting the non-notable London Bus route articles rather than deleting them, and that it has been discussed that people are going to go through and weed out the non-notable ones, I don't think it is a good idea to just go around PRODing the articles. It just confuses the matter. If you really think it's not notable, redirect it to List of bus routes in London, though some knowledge of the subject may be required so you don't kill off the notable ones? Arriva436talk/contribs 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that discussion. It has been going on for over a week, and there are still 300 articles on bus routes.
I just took another 15 bus routes, and found only two with even a suggestion of anything which might possibly be stretched towards marginal notability, so I PRODed the 13 duds.
I have a degree of knowledge of it, having lived in inner London for 10 years in areas without tubes, but no specialist knowledge is required to see that an article has no evidence of notability per WP:GNG, and not even an assertion of notability.
It should only take a few hours work to quickly assess the rest, and then PROD or redirect them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while some have no evidence of notability (they should but don't), they are notable. i.e the 73 which you PRODed. As I say, redirecting would be better than PRODing as that's how the first lot of really rubbish ones went; it would keep things consistent. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of the 73 being notable, so I have AFDed it.
Anyway, redirect if you want to, but a redirect can be created after deletion, with less chance that someone will simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I've commented on the AFD itself, but I really think you ought to reconsider this one; the 73 is not only the busiest bus route in London (and I think the busiest in Europe, although I can't find a source for that) but the test-bed TfL and its predecessors traditionally use for new technologies (automated announcements, bendy-buses, GPS…); it really isn't appropriate to try to shoehorn it into a bullet-point on List of bus routes in London, as its entry will be 20 times larger than any of the others. – iridescent 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some evidence of notability, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the AFD; I've provided coverage of the route itself (as opposed to mentions in more general articles about buses) from a host of undoubted RS's (BBC, Guardian, Independent, London Daily News) and am only scratching the iceberg as I only checked Highbeam back for a couple of years (and haven't even delved into the murky world of "…in popular culture" yet—as the route that connects the media heartlands of Islington, Oxford Circus and Soho the 73 tends to be the bus used to illustrate pieces of drama set in London). – iridescent 21:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we kinda crossed in the post: I have just withdrawn the AFD nomination, after seeing your links. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for withdrawing; I agree that it's a poor quality article but it does deserve a decent quality one, and a successful AfD would set a precedent should anyone want to recreate it in a better form. (While I'm here, could you do me a favour and unprotect User talk:Iridescent/Editnotice? There's no need for it to be protected any longer.) – iridescent 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection done. But what happened to your admin bit? I thought you used to be an admin, and indeed when I looked at the page log I say that you had protected its yourself, but I see you no longer have the admin flag. Were you court-martialled for failing to salute some sockpuppeteering edit-warrior? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dramatic story; I'd argued for quite a long time that adminship/cratship should be like Arbitrator status and follow a fixed term followed by a compulsory reconfirmation process if they want to keep it. I think the longer an admin has had admin status the more likely they are to make weird calls; a lot of admins become "professional admins" and don't get involved with the content-and-categories minutiae, and thus judge things by how they were done five years ago rather than how they're done now. After two years, I resigned to prove a point that losing admin status isn't the end of the world and there's nothing to be afraid of. (I honestly can't say I miss it.) – iridescent 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still showing as protected - could you try it again, the system seems to have lost the unprotect. – iridescent 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, looks like I just pressed "go" without actually changing the settings. Looks OK now, but do lemme know if there is a problem.
I know what you mean about "professional admins"; it's a hazard. Term limits might be a good idea, but RFA has become such a cautious process that we'd soon have no admins at all. Some ppl would say that's a good thing :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that…
If I were in charge, I'd have a simple reconfirmation process along the lines of the rejected AOR process; every year one's automatically added to a "reconfirmation list" for a week, and if within that week (say) twenty users with at least 1000 edits over six months each sign their name to a "no confidence" motion, you're desysopped. That would get rid of the trigger-happy blockers and the ultra-deletionists (not naming names, like), but hopefully protect against random people with grudges. If 20 long-term users think you're doing a bad job, you probably are. – iridescent 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl - I already prodded a load of West Midlands bus routes the other day but they were all deprodded and claimed to be notable. You might have better luck AFD-ing these London ones. Aiken♫ 21:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a peep at those West Midland routes you PRODded, and so far don't see any grounds for keeping them. I'll AFD a few of them, and see what others think. --22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Why don't you redirect the bus pages instead of deleting them? C.bonnick (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The titles can be redirected after the deletion of the articles, so the two steps are perfectly compatible. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a lot of work to source these articles. Much of it may have been misguided as the sources aren't always reliable (I felt unreliable sources were better than no sources), so I don't have a major problem with you nominating deletion, but can you please stop linking to my comment praising London Buses route 187? I now accept that this was incorrect, so I would appreciate it if the link was removed from the AfD nominations. As an aside, I voted Redirect on route 187's AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— ξxplicit 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 019! An article you have created, edited, or contributed to, still has no refereces at all since being tagged in July 2009. As the article reads like an essay its lack of verifiable sources could suggest a blatant WP:COPYVIO which will result in the article being reduced to a one line stub, or even deleted. If you are able to help with these major issues please see talk:Hanbury, Worcestershire and address the various points if you can. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
