User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 023

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

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

Stearman OSS and aero-web.org

Hi there, I saw your tag added to the reference on the Stearman XOSS page. I agree that aero-web.org probably wouldn't meet any standards for WP:RS for citing facts, but for referencing the aircraft's specifications (simple numbers) I assumed that would be OK. If I was wrong I can always zap it. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just writing a note on your talk this, but you beat me to it, so I'll drop that and reply here.

As noted at DYK, I don't think it's a critical problem in DYK terms, since there are two sources for that section. I can see a few possible remedies:

1. remove the source
2. raise a query at WP:RSN about the source
3. Move the source from a ref to an external link

My own preference would be to do both 2 and 3. It'll probably be useful for other articles to clarify the reliability of aero-web.org, but it's quite common to use not-entirely-RS sources for handle-with-care external links, and I frequently do so myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll probably go ahead and do (3) now, and I'll get around to doing (2) at some point in the not-too-distant future. Finding RS's for these obscure aircraft types can be a pain, but is rewarding. Thanks for the review and the help! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Compact election box - reversion of Witney

You may have an opinion :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wereon#Reversion_of_Witney Cheers. Crooked cottage (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RFA :)

Your "oppose" at GiantSnowman's RfA made me chuckle. Reyk _YO! 10:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a bit naughty, but I couldn't resist. Really, it was a damned-whatever-you-say situation, and a lot of the responses didn't acknowledge that the whole area is a minefield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Electorate

I started to engage my brain after looking at your comments on electorate on my talk page. The figures I am using (and I assume others are too) a) do not quote a place to verify the source in List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies b) are rather old. So I started searching. I can't find the original reference but this is not that surprising to me as a lot of the referenced data on the election pages to the Boundary Commission site has gone. They are not an archiving site so fair enough.

What I did find though is this spreadsheet which gives 2010 electorate figures which could be referenced: this solves the issue of old and unverified data on the constituency pages in one. It might also be interesting to use these 2010 figures on List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies with a Change since last boundary commission decision column. This isn't perfect (as we have no reference for the statement 'The electorate figures given are those used by the Commissions during their reviews. These electorate figures date from the start of the review in each country: England, February 2000; Scotland, June 2001; Wales, December 2002; and Northern Ireland, May 2003.' but it is a start and it would be thought provoking.

Your thoughts?

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My goodness! I hadn't expected such a thoroughly-considered response, but I probably should have known by now that when faced with an issue you do your homework and look at it all thoughtfully. Great stuff!

Anyway, my initial concern was that the lack of a date on a variable figure is kinda flaky; I thought if trawled we'd end up with a bit of a hotchpotch of some constits having figures grabbed from assorted sites of varying reliability, so I'm impressed to see that you are aiming for a higher std.

As an aside, I do find it very frustrating that so many public bodies do not retain archive material of their websites; it costs v little, and can be v useful to lots of ppl. When I used to work professionally on public policy stuff it was v frustrating to find that documents would just disappear.

However, that spreadsheet you have found looks like a brilliant source. I thought it might have been produced as groundwork for the proposed constituency equalisation exercise, but since it was created March 2009 and last updated April 2010, it may predate that. I can't determine from the spreadsheet what it actually means by 2010 electorates, and although I presume that it was based on the 2010 electoral register, it doesn't explicitly say so. I think, though, that unless we assume the BC's methodology is away with the fairies (a bad assumption, I reckon), that it has been compiled in some consistent fashion, so I think it's good data to use.

I think that it would make a great source for adding dated and referenced figures to constituency articles, and I like the idea of having it on the list of constituencies, where it would be good to have figures from the same date, esp one close to the election.

I'm less sure that it's a good idea to compare it with the other figures there, because they are a) unreferenced, and b) of variable dates, so I'm inclined to think that it might be better to just replace those figures with the 2010 data.

Not sure on that, though, and extra input would help.

Would you mind if I copied this discussion to WT:UKPC and asked for more input? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, go ahead. The spreadsheet is England only (obviously) but I'll see if I can find the equivalent work for Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland.

What I would really like to do is to find the source that data from 2000 for England because without it any reference to it any article showing changes relative to it has no value. There is good reasoning here behind what I am doing - these relative statistics are not available as far as I can see. But I'd hope everyone would welcome an up to date and sourced version of the electorates. Crooked cottage (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern American Weapons CfD

Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined my unblock

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I promised to not vandalise in any way, not vendettas and comply the rules. I didn't repeat no more vandalism in any IP since this discussion refered in admin's noticeboard/incidents. So my objective here is to work in good for Wikipedia, like before the discussion with Black Kite. I'm waiting for my unblock but I can't wait no more weeks because I promised some users to update determinate pages (with respect of rules) and I can't wait the unblock from admins that are delaying my unblock only for punishment. Excuse me if my message doesn't like you. If my user is not unblock at Wednesday, I will register a new user for make good collaborations. I decline gaming between admins/users and other forms of punishment just for bitching to people who have already apologized only to punish only a little more. (User:Raul-Reus) 15:06, 16 January 2011 (CET)

Not a clever response to a request to read WP:NOTTHEM.

I have blocked the IP address you used to post the above comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Frewen

Materialscientist (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy category renames

I've opened full cfds for the children of Popes and Bishops->bishops categories here and here. I tried to briefly summarise your objections, I hope I have done so accurately. Tassedethe (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ceredigion

Hi - not sure if the history goes back that far somewhere on an archive thread, but I'm trying to determine the logic behind Ceredigion and Pembroke North redirecting to Ceredigion, Gainsborough and Horncastle redirecting to Gainsborough, and Ebbw Vale redirecting to Blaenau Gwent. Yet Pontypool does not redirect to Torfaen when the change was a lot less than the incorporation of Brynmawr into Blaenau Gwent.

With Ceredigion and Pembroke North being one constituency, it made a real difference: Fishguard is much more English speaking than Ceredigion (where Welsh is more often spoken in the shops) and is far less inclined to vote for Plaid. While Lincolnshire is very blue (outside Lincoln and what was in Humberside, at least these days: Boston wasn't after World War I, but that's another story :)) and the boundary change to add Horncastle to Gainsborough made little electoral difference, I still think it would be useful to be able to trace via the info box and the MP box from Horncastle to Gainsborough and Horncastle to Louth and Horncastle.

But there may be a good reason for the way things are with these three constituencies. Any thoughts?

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are brilliantly thorough, as ever!

The basic principle adopted at WP:UKPC (somewhere in the archives at WT:UKPC in about mid 2006, cos the archives are complete) is simply "one constituency name per article, and one article per constituency name".

There are a few necessary exceptions:

1. Where the name is translated, we keep them in one article, as with Western Isles/Na h-Eileanan an Iar and Anglesey/Ynys Môn
2. Where the constituency was known by more than one name at a time, we keep one article: e.g. Mitchell/St Michael or Salisbury/New Sarum
3. We haven't fully resolved what to do with the Scottish alternating constituencies such as Buteshire and Caithness
4. We haven't entirely agreed what to do when a borough prefix is added or removed, as with Govan/Glasgow Govan (one article) and Deptford/Lewisham Deptford (two articles)

So, on that basis:

• Gainsborough and Horncastle should be a standalone article. It should not just be a redirect to Gainsborough, even if the boundaries were identical
• Ceredigion and Pembroke North should be a standalone article. It should not just be a redirect to Ceredigion, even if the boundaries were identical
• Ebbw Vale should be a standalone article. It should not just be a redirect to Blaenau Gwent, even if the boundaries were identical

The firm 1name←→1article rule may sometimes produce apparent inconveniences, but if we don't do that we get into even worse tangles, which is why all the major publications follow the same 1←→1 relationship. Huge boundary changes can and do occur even without a rename, but we can describe those in the articles ... and if we don't do that readers get misled about what the name of the constituency was at any particular time.

One example of the convention in use is Eastwood/East Renfrewshire. There were boundary changes when East Renfrewshire was abolished in 1983, and part of the area went to Eastwood ... but in 2005 a new E. Renfrewshire was created with the same boundaries as Eastwood. The only solution that works there is to stick to the official name at the time, and not to jumble the names around.

So the examples that you give should all be split.

Hope this helps! If it's OK with you, I'll propose the split and drop a note at WT:UKPC. (If you want to discuss it further, that's fine too!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, entirely agreed: it's confusing as it is. Creating a new article for translations would be wrong. Likewise name clarifications (for instance Montgomery to Montgomeryshire) don't need a separate article. Please drop a note at WT:UKPC.

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your help, please (Portlaoise/Port Laoise)

Hi, BrownHairedGirl, how are you? The Portlaoise or Port Laoise article needs to be discussed somewhere and since Wikipedia is a rat's nest of detailed procedural bureaucracy, it is not immediately obvious to me where I should take the discussion. Since you are an administrator, I thought you might know the back alleys of procedure well enough to advise me where to launch an inquiry to make a definitive ruling on the question. The article has been renamed by MOVE four times in the past, not counting a move (revert) I performed today to rescue the article edit history from an IP user who did a botched cut-and-paste move on January 11th; he lost the entire edit history in the process. I have added a note today at the bottom of the article talk page describing contradictions about the name of the town in official Irish sources. I am entirely agnostic, I don't care what they call it, as long as some agreement can be cobbled together. This yo-yo renaming introduces instability and potential screwups like the recent one. Thank you. — O'Dea 04:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi O'Dea, hope I can help a bit!

Well done reverting the cut-and-paste move. Fixing that was the crucial first step, and you did the right thing there.

Since there hasn't (yet!) been a move war, I don't think it's appropriate to protect the page against further moves, at least not at this stage.

Like you, I'm agnostic on the name, and I agree that it's best to try for some stability.

So I suggest that the best thing for you to do is to open a formal WP:RM discussion, and try to get a consensus for one option or another. Full instructions at WP:RM, and the technical bit is quite easy (tho ask me for help if you want). It'd be a good idea for you to try to set out in the RM what you know of the arguments for each usage, so that editors are better informed ... and also to drop a note about it at WT:IE to try to involve more editors.

If there's a consensus for any solution, that should stop further moves without a fresh RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I put my thoughts on hold for a while until I figure out what to do. You proposed I do WP:RM but my thoughts stalled on that approach because I have no way of knowing if I should request a rename to Port Laoise (which it is now) or to Portlaoise (why that one?). I did a little more original research and typed my non-conclusions at the Port Laoise talk page, which might amuse you very faintly: both names are official in Portlaoise iteself! On discovering how the County Council does things in a muddled way, I confess I lost some sympathy for them. I'll think about this again later; have a look at my latest paragraph on the Talk page. I'm having fun doing Mayo stuff now: more satisfying. — O'Dea 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant to say was I didn't feel a request to rename was the approach I needed, really, because I can do that myself, and in making a formal request at WP:RM (which is for rename requests) I would need to know at the outset what I was requesting a rename to, d'ye see, when what I want is to create a debate about what it ought to be called. I thought originally about posting a question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, but that page shows no sign of activity since October. I don't think anyone goes there much. — O'Dea 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to see road miles being discussed at Kilkenny. When car miles are too precise, road miles is your only man.

On the Portlaoise RM, the two options seem to be "Port Laoise" or "Portlaoise". Since the article is currently at Port Laoise, an RM should propose that it be moved to "Portlaoise".

I know that you could do the move yourself, but the point in this case is not to move the page: it's to have a discussion on the name, to establish consensus. An RM discussion is the way to do that.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland is active, but the discussion on the talk page, at the link I posted above: WT:IE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion from December 2010 cleanup

Thanks for doing the untagging. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin phrases

If you happen to know, can you point to where in the MOS it says Latin phrases should be italicized? I noticed that {{italicstitle}} had been added to numerous articles, like Memento mori, and I am wondering why. I understand that, in print, such phrases are italicized, but is this required by MOS? These are not titles, in the strictest sense, so is this template being misused? Thanks, as always, for your time and efforts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Non cogito ergo non sum ... but it looks like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign_terms is your man.

Beyond finding that guideline, I'm as lost on this as you are! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've now read that three times, and am no better for it. It simply does not address the issue of article titles, which is what I need. I am not about to go around and revert all of the articles with Latin titles (it seems that {{italicstitle}} was added to a bunch of articles last November by Cybercobra with no discussion or explanation) unless and until I find good reason to do so. At this point, I do not know what the correct answer is. Thanks, though, for your help. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it WP:ITALICTITLE confirms that foreign language phrases as titles should be in italics, though I haven't dug round to check whether that's old-established or a new change with or without consensus. PamD (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pam! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That does seem to settle the issue. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The_Seventh_Coin

Could you do me a favor? Could you help me write a summary for movie The_Seventh_Coin? Here's a summary from this site: http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html but I was wondering how to write in my own words. Can you help me? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Ahmad

"Ahmad is the third Muslim life peer for the Conservative Party in the House of Lords". Is this true? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Labour has several (Alli, Ahmed), but the only other Muslim Tory peer who comes to mind is Baroness Warsi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is wrong and have added a cn to the quote. The quote itself is horrendously phrased. Maybe we need a category cross-referencing Muslim with Parliamentarians. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the phrasing is hideous, and you were right to add a {{cn}}.

I would probably oppose a Muslim Parliamentarians category. Politicians-by-religion categories were heavily trimmed a few years, because they were being misused as casual intersections, rather than being reserved for those who political activities were directly founded in religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Sheikh. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Belfast West

Hey BHG :)

I have rushed ahead on the news of Gerry Adams' resignation to start Belfast West by-election, 2011. Just to give you a heads-up doktorb _words^deeds 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup.

So far, there's no sign on the HM Treasury website of an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds, but I guess Osborne doesn't sign such things overnight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin help needed re over-written image, I think

Hi BHG

In my gnomish stub-sorting I've come across Manuel Junction. Among other problems, the image has no copyright licensing - other users have pointed this out on the editor's talk page. I looked at the image's data, and found it was used in two articles - the other being Man Parrish, an American musician. It seems there is a long-established link from that article to an image called... you guessed... "manuel.jpg". In Commons there is a different image, called "Manuel.JPG", of a different person.

It looks as if the inexperienced editor of Manuel Junction has uploaded an image into Wikipedia, over-writing a long-established image of the musician!

Could you pleaes either rescue the former image, or point me to a more appropriate place to ask? (Just coming to you as a friendly admin who is often online!) Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pam, I am just about to grab some breakfast, and will take a look once I is fed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was slow getting back to you on this, but have now looked into it.

Yes, there was a previous image. It was uploaded on 1 September 2009 by Terencecope (talk · contribs), who linked to it from the article Man Parrish. However, that image was tagged for speedy deletion 30 minutes later by ESkog (talk · contribs), using {{di-no source}}. The file was deleted on 8 September 2009 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs).

So this latest upload is not overwriting anything. The existing link to it from Man Parrish should be removed.

That just leaves the licensing issues to be sorted out wrt the current image. I'm not great on image licensing, so I'll leave it you follow that up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - so the Man Parrish article has had a redlink to the image since Sept 09! I'll remove the link. PamD (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please rename

Baron Walton of Detchant to John Walton, Baron Walton of Detchant and Dolar Popat to Dolar Popat, Baron Popat per MOS. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you do the move, or open a WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't. I tried; I am not an admin. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Walton was a case of duplicate articles, with a much better one at John Walton, Baron Walton of Detchant, so I have jsu redirected Baron Walton of Detchant.

Dolar Popat, Baron Popat redirects to Dolar Popat, so can only be moved by an admin. You may want to open a WP:RM discussion on that one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elsa Moberg

The article Elsa Moberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110121233043

I see that the PROD was contested, but it looks very AFDable to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been AfD'd. David in DC (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Category created

Category:People from Uganda - but you are the category queen. People from Kampala? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen? I don't hold with crowns, so thanks for thought, but it'll decline the title :)

I don't really like the look of that category; it doesn't seem to fit in the convention for such things. It seems to me to be overly pedantic to implicitly restrict Category:Ugandan people to citizens. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not attached to it! Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Occuli#What_about_... Kittybrewster ☎ 16:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Qurban Hussain

Was his Lordship once Labour Lord Mayor of Sheffield or was that a different chap? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Is this the same man as this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see a Lord Mayor at all in the parade. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't spot that the URL remained unchanged when I clicked on the link to video No.11: "Raja Qurban Hussain addressing the". It's in the list on the r/h side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Taylor

Hi, I removed the disputed cat you adding during the discussion - please wait until the consensus has arisen and the discussion is over - I then went to look at your content addition and was going to edit it and after a degree of looking at it, even though it was cited, it was not adding anything informative at all, just attacking a living person against our BLP guidelines and I removed it, please don't replace it without consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the quote added noted how Taylor had once been a significant rising star. What part of WP:BLP is breached by a referenced quote which notes verifiable facts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Its just a worthless attack, not informative or educational at al against a living person. If you want I will open a edit request for your desired addition at the BLPN, or you know you also can - I will do it if you insist- Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that you are now claiming at WP:BLPN that you don't even approve of applying the word "fraud"[1], despite its widespread use in reliable sources. At this point, it seems that you are engaged in some form of POV-pushing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take care not to misrepresent me. My comment was - "As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. note - adding Category:Fraud is not my idea of specific for a politician that had to repay 700 pounds on his over claimed expense account." - if John was convicted of fraud in a legal court then if someone wants to add a reference to that then there can clearly be no objections. Also - please ease up with the capitalized opinionated edit summaries Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. POV is an acronym, and convention capitalised.

Also, check your facts: Chaytor was convicted of "false accounting totalling just over £20,000." Taylor was convicted of false accounting totalling £11,277. Illsley fraudulently claimed more than £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.

All three have been convicted by a court.

So your £700 figure is a misrepresentation of the facts. Either have you expounding heatedly on a topic where you haven't bothered checking the core facts, or you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation. Which is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Its neither, my comment was non specific and clearly presented as such - an example. If you have a specific request , offer it, request it, at the BLP noticeboard and we can look at it there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at BLPN is about three specific cases listed above. When we have three real cases under consideration, it's mischievious to try to mislead others by implying that their fraud was an order of magnitude smaller than it was, and that they were not convicted in a court. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Somers-Cocks

Hi BHG, I hope the new year is treating you well. I don't pretend to know anything about British MPs, but I've just written a stub for Thomas Somers-Cocks. The reason is that I've set up a Category:Members of the Canterbury Association and he's one of them (and one of the more important ones, it would seem). I thought I'd draw this new article to your attention, as you might want to pretty it up and bring it in line with other articles about MPs. If you have a handful of good sources, we may even get up it to DYK standard. Let me know if I can help. One of the things I wasn't sure about is the defaultsort. I Would have thought it's Somers-Cocks, Thomas, but the source that I have used suggests that it's Cocks, Thomas Somers. Schwede66 01:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven;t gone to the newspaper archives, but I have added the bare facts of his political career.

Not sure on whether his surname is Cocks or Summers-Cocks. Craig and Rayment disagree, bur Craig never seems to use double-barrelled surnames, even when all the other sources use them. I'd go with whatever the London Gazette used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, saw your contributions - thanks! I've found a Cocks family history online (all of 225 pages). So that clarifies the surname issue. Schwede66 05:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fraudsters

User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#Fraudsters. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, we err on the side of caution with BLPs. Please keep that in mind. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, we do indeed err on the side of caution with BLPs. In this case, please bear in mind that we are discussing people who have been convicted by a court, and whose conviction has been headline news. Most of them were relatively obscure as politicians, and are now best known for their convictions. The WP:WEIGHT concerns which you and some other editors have been displaying here are completely misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Allen Stanford has not yet been convicted. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Top 100 US Federal Contractors

Hi User:BrownHairedGirl, I see you added a couple of tags to the Top 100 US Federal Contractors article. In particular about it being primary source dependent and needing more reliable secondary sources. I think the primary sources are the contracts/invoices, and the United States Government's Federal Contractor Database is about as reliable a source as one might be able to find. While it would certainly be good to have others flesh out some commentary, I don't know whether flags suggesting unreliability or contravention of policies are the most helpful. If you agree, please could you remove them. (Also wasn't there a category that was deleted, after I failed to check for a couple of days after there had been no response to the counter arguments I was making for a week or so; don't know whether it's possible to alert interested users before rushing through a deletion). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

Singling out someone's comments at CfD as particularly "poor" compared to the rest is neither productive (since it advances no argument) nor particularly civil. I would very much appreciate it if in the future you considered not making subjective and demeaning evaluations of another editor's arguments, and instead focused on the substance of your disagreement with them. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion is to make a reasoned decision, for sounds reasons. One part of that proces of resolving differences of opinion through civil discussion is to politely point our perceived flaws in a suggested rationale. Two of the reasons offered appeared to me to be logically flawed, and I pointed that out civilly, without making any attack on the contributor.

I would very much appreciate it if in the future you considered the importance of examining the rationale for a proposed decision, and refrained from making bogus allegations of incivility in response to a reasoned reply. You may wish to read WP:CIVIL.

Thank you for your co-operation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You may not think that my arguments are reasoned, and that is fine, you're welcome to that opinion. The purpose of the discussion is, however, to make arguments and counter-arguments and not to make evaluations of other people's arguments as "poor" compared to others. Simply state your disagreements or agreements. It isn't that hard. And yes, it is rude to say: "I have seen some good arguments in favour of the 'people convicted of' formulation, such as TheMightyQuill's comment below, but this pair of reasons looks poor." You know I responded to the "reasoned" aspects of your reply point by point. I also responded to the demeaning evaluation, though at no point in that response did I call your demeaning evaluation "uncivil". I did that here, on your talk page. So please don't suggest that I need to do something that I already did "instead", of something I did not do. Have a good day.Griswaldo (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's not complicated. I thought that your rationale was a poor one, so I said so, and explained why. I stand by that assessment, and I accept that you disagree. There may be further discussion of the substance of it, but if you find that characterising an argument as "poor" is demeaning, then I cannot take responsibility for your hyper-sensitivity. All of us make poor arguments from time to time, and if you don't like having an argument of yours assessed in that way, then you may wish to consider sparing yourself the trauma of participating in discussions.

Meanwhile, you are splitting hairs. Your post here was made in response to my post at CFD, and that is what I was referring to ... so your claim that this is something you did not do is jesuitical drama.

Please don't post here again on this topic. I am interested in discussing the substance, but I am not in indulging your apparent desire to make a meta-drama out of a disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive number of redirects to

Special:WhatLinksHere/Anne_Jenkin,_Baroness_Jenkin_of_Kennington. Please reduce if / as you think best. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of them, largely because someone has chosen to make redirects from the various forms of her name ... and then duplicated them for Jenkins. This seems like a legitimate redirect, because it's a plausible mis-spelling, and it doesn't seem to be creating any problems. I'm not sure that I'd have created so many redirects, but that may just be laziness on my part.

I don't see that the redirects are causing any problems, so AFAICS there is no reason to delete them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New category

Hi again, you were most helpful the last time in advising me about a category. I wonder if I might trouble you for some advice again? I was wanting to create a category for Nicholas Gilman, his brother John Taylor Gilman, and a number of descendants of the family who all have wikipedia entries. All descend from a common ancestor, Edward Gilman of Exeter, New Hampshire. I didn't know whether the best and most appropriate category would be: Gilman family of Exeter; Gilman family of Exeter, New Hampshire; or Gilman family of New Hampshire. I'd prefer Gilman family of Exeter, but wanted your advice on which category would be best as a locating tool. Many thanks, again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marmaduke

The convention in categories these days is to disambiguate placenames. Even if one of the usages of the term is a primary topic, the consequences of ambiguity can be more severe in category space, so we include the dismabiguator. In this case the town of Exeter, New Hampshire is disambiguated, as is the eponynmous Category:Exeter, New Hampshire ... so I'd say that the choice is between Category:Gilman family of Exeter, New Hampshire and Category:Gilman family of New Hampshire.

The choice between then depends on how closely-bound the family is associated with Exeter. If the notable descendants of the first Edward Gilman mostly associated primarily with Exeter, then I'd suggest "of Exeter, New Hampshire"; but if were more closely associated with parts of NH other than Exeter, then I think it'd be better to use "of New Hampshire". I think I'd visualise it like this: take a a map of NH, and for each Gilman stick a pin in the map at the place they were most closely associated with. If the pins are clustered around Exeter, go with that ... otherwise use the state.

Sorry, that's a a bit verbose. But I hope it helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is very helpful, thanks. I appreciate the backgrounder on it, as it will prove useful in the future as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic dioceses - courtesy note

You may or may not be interested in the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne#Requested move. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RM

I think HM The Queen should redirect to Elizabeth II. Is that controversial? If so, how do I open a discussion on it? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on first glance that your proposal is a good idea. HM The Queen currently redirects to Queen regnant, presumably because it could also refer to other queens (Netherlands? Denmark?).

So I suggest listing it at WP:RFD, explaining that you want to redirect it somewhere else rather than delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see you've just gone ahead and changed it.

I think that a discussion would have been better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That definitely looks like a bad redirect now it has been changed. ww2censor (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it for now. KB may want to open an RFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have opened one (I hope). Ww2censor, your post is ambiguous. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (another one!) I don't see it at RfD! But googling on "HM the queen" -elizabeth finds the phrase used for Queen Sirikit on the first page of hits, and "HM the queen" netherlands shows a lot of usage there, so I suggest that redirecting to QEII is not wise. Perhaps the article at Queen Regnant needs a more prominent link, or hatnote, to point to the current biographies. Or even make HM The Queen into a species of dab page? Interesting to see that HM The King redirects (inconsistently?) to Monarchy.

@Kittybrewster, you changed the redirect with edit edit (now reverted) and I thought it was a bad redirect. How could that possibly be ambiguous? ww2censor (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree it is a bad redirect. And wikipedia uses HM The Queen to mean Elizabeth II, never Queen regnant. But I can't find the discussion page at redirections for discussion 31 January. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 31#Elizabeth_II. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie

has renamed three articles so they have a comma at the end. They are subject to move discussions but have to be wrong. Sue Nye,, Peter Hennessy, and Maurice Glasman,. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There are redirects to tidy up as well, I've done Sue Nye, and will now do the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

William McKenzie is William McKenzie, Baron McKenzie of Luton. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointless trying to reason with her if she just removes stuff like this. We need a WP:RFC/U to prevent further page moves, and maybe more as she clearly shows no desire to engage in reasonable discussion about the numerous sloppy edits she's made. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect a reasoned response, but thought it was worthwhile reiterating the message.

It's not just the sloppy age moves; she has also been moving pages from their stable names, and then seeking an RM to move them back again.

I'm not sure that an RFC/U is needed; I think that a WP:ANI proposal to ban her from page moves would be more appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, in the first instance, AN/I could be sought to block her from editing. In the longer term, RFC should be used to get a solution that would benefit Wikipedia. I cannot believe allowing her to move pages to actually grammatically incorrect titles should be allowed to continue at all, ever. And yes, moving from stable to unstable titles without discussion is poor form too. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a complete block is needed, tho that could be done as an immediate solution if she resume botched moves.

However, since most of her disruption is page moves, the first attempt at a solution should focus on that aspect. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The disruption is caused by page moves, so preventing that is essential. I'm staggered that her errors today don't make her realise she needs to take more care, but there you go, what can you do? Her page moving tendencies have caused far more problems than they've solved (my opinion) so you're right, that's where we should focus if this disruptive and erroneous editing pattern continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The way BHG has gone about talking to me in a constructive fashion is sensible and useful and has been fruitful. As the moves which have been made incorrectly have been sensibly pointed out to me by BHG, I have learnt form the sensible comments made by BHG. If you are fearfull of future page moves I will make then you shouldn't be because there is nothing to fear. I believe that if constructive comments and discusions continue such as those carried out by BHG, we can all move on together with minimal if any problem and only content disagreements. As for other issues you have with me these have to either be taken as water under the bridge or you need to talk with me constructivly in the same manner as BHG. Finally claiming there is no hope of reaoning with me is mildly offesive and not helpful to future discussions and sensible collaboration on Wikipedia. Just my two pence on a discussion regarding me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, TRM did talk to you constructively, by pointing out the problems caused by your botched page moves, and telling you to fix them ... but you simply refused to acknowledge the problems.

Don't try claiming that I am being constructive and TRM is not; I fully endorse all that TRM has written to you about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on LM's edits from now on, and if need be will instigate an AN/I myself to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. This cannot be allowed to continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories and projects

Hi BHG, My head is spinning over various interactions with Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art. As a Categories guru, could you have a look at Category:WikiProject Public art articles? I'm not sure it ought to exist as a category, but if I say so I'll undoubtedly be accused (again - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Public art) of harassment! It seems very self-referential, and something better achieved by project template on talk page etc. What do you think? (I only came across the project in the first place when stub-sorting a dog's breakfast of an article produced as part of a student project: this was what a graduate student felt OK to leave as a publicly accessible WP article!) PamD (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pam, I'm v tired and will be heading to bed after finishing up work on a few open tabs. I'll take a look in the morning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore it - I think I've got myself confused. Sorry. PamD (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Faber

I moved David Faber (politician) to David Faber (schoolmaster), before you moved him back. Frankly, I don't think he can be called well known in any connection, but my reason for the move was that he had given up politics while still a fairly young man and had moved on to other careers. As it happens, he was a very part-time politician, although of course having been in parliament is what makes him notable enough for an article here. I find this quite tricky. As he is still alive and has given up politics, do we go on calling him "politician" indefinitely? Perhaps there's a neutral way to dispense with the word, avoiding using an occupation in the article title? Moonraker2 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, the issue here is what descriptor is most closely-related to his notability. I see no evidence that he would pass WP:GNG in relation to his role as a headmaster, but there is a significant amount of coverage of his political career. It may be that at some point in his life he will be notable for something else, but so far his nine years in Parliament is by far his most significant role.

This is not an unusual situation. There are many many examples of people whose parliamentary careers were relatively brief, and whose life was mostly composed of other activities. However, readers are most likely to search for them with terms relating to the activities for which they were most notable, and in Faber's case that's still politics.

This may change in the future, but for now his role as headmaster is much less notable than his time as an MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all that, but do you think it's necessary to include any occupation in the article title? If his name were Dorian Faber, for instance, it wouldn't be there. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thee aren't any other Dorian Fabers, but some disambiguator is needed because there are other people called David Faber. The question is what disambiguator, and WP:QUALIFIER says "the disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being". It also says "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)", so it seems to me that "politician" is the disambiguator which fits most closely with the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Mayor of Liverpool

I notice you changed Mike Storey from the Category Lord Mayor of Liverpool to Mayor of Liverpoo. Since 1897 it has been Lord Mayor. It it appropriate to common up this cat.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please examine the edit before commenting on it.

Note that I did not change the category: I added one. Before my edit, Mike Storey was not categorised as a Mayor.

There is no Category:Lord Mayors of Liverpool; it is a redirect to Category:Mayors of Liverpool, so when I entered Category:Lord Mayors of Liverpool using HotCat, the software automatically converted it to Category:Mayors of Liverpool.

It would be possible to create Category:Lord Mayors of Liverpool as a substantive category, but since there currently appera to be articles on about ten Lord Mayors of Liverpool and the same number of Mayors of Liverpool, I don't think that a split would help navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Bearing in mind that more of the Lord Mayors are alive than Mayors and that the number of Lord Mayors is still increasing, it may be better to make the category: Lord Mayors.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they are alive is irrelevant: the issue is whether we have articles on them.

It would be wrong to categorise those before 1897 as Lord Mayors, since they were not Lord Mayors ... but at all of them are Mayors. So the current category is fine unless there are enough articles to justify a split, but as noted above, we are not at that stage just yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Croydon North East

Hi, I note the update to use compact election box on Croydon North East (UK Parliament constituency). When we've used it before (see Bradford West (UK Parliament constituency) for instance) I don't think we've ever kept 'Election in the...', although we have for obvious reasons split the box to denote the activity of a previous constituency. To avoid diversifications of standards, are you OK if I fill in the gaps to the 1950s and remove the decade headers? My opinion is that the decade headers are only necessary because the old election box is so verbose. Also the decade headers create variable width boxes which I don't think work. Thoughts??? Crooked cottage (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on! I'm still adding more elections, and will sort it out once that's complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So I see. At least I'm awake...Crooked cottage (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No prob, and good idea to check.

Once all the results are there, I plan to split them in two sections: 1974–1992 with six elections, and 1955–1970 with 5 elections. That's about a screenful in each case (at least on my laptop). How does that look to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks great to me, and a sensible split point as some constituencies will appear/disappear in Feb 1974. I think the 1992 swing should be Con to Lab though :) Crooked cottage (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So it should! Now fixed, and thanks for spotting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry about WP:BOTS

Hey, BrownHairedGirl, I've put a quick snippet of code together for your request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#External_link_to_UK_Parliament_website, but since I haven't made a bot for Wikipedia before, I just want to make sure I've coded it properly. The code checks to see if the article allows bot edits, but I was wondering if there was more rules I need to abide by. Are there any coding conventions which bots should strictly follow? Should the bot attempt to do all ~124 articles in one batch? Or should it sleep() for some time between edits? Thanks, ^Noom _talk 16:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Noommos, thanks for doing the coding!

If you are creating a new bot, I think that a request should be made at WP:BRFA. The folks there will usually specify a sleep time between edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the task specified sensitive enough to require a larger consensus, or should I got ahead and add a bot request? ^Noom _talk 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the task itself is just housekeeping, and I can't see any way in which it would be controversial. So I suggest just go to WP:BRFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request Y Done, updated the link on 124 pages. Noom _talk ^contribs 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's brilliant.

I hope that it wasn't too much hassle for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the premature closing of the WP:RM discussion about David Gold. The thread is Premature close of RM proposal.The discussion is about the topic David Gold, Baron Gold. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't get a chance to reply to your message before it was archived so I thought I would do so here. Your message copied for context as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, please check the wider history. I will collect more diffs later, but this came in the midst of a long series of RMs where Lucy-marie moved an article away from its stable title, using the edit summary "When was this discussed?" and then opened an RM demanding that a consensus be sought to move it back again: for example she moved Rita Donaghy, Baroness Donaghy away from the title at which the article was created 7 months previously. In this case we had slightly different situation: a newly-created article, which no other editor had edited. It seems to me that there is no substantive difference between 1) creating an article named X and promptly moving it to Y; and 2) creating the same content at Y. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay I agree there might not seem to be a big difference between creating an article named X and promptly moving it to Y and creating the same content at Y, but with regard to our established norms there is an important distinction. Once created, moving it is the same as boldly moving any article, which may be reverted and then discussed. And anyway, how would you define "promptly"? What if it were 5 weeks instead of 5 days? It is simpler to stick to the established norm rather than pursue such an argument, in my opinion. In the other situation you describe above, moving an article after 7 months and starting a requested move discussion: I would have to agree that this seems rather disruptive. But that is not what happened here, as far I can see. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, Martin.

I see your point, but I still take the view that an article less than five days old is still in creation. Five days is, for example, the period regarded as "new" for WP:DYK purposes. When only one editor has worked on it, as in this case, I think it's fair to treat that editors' contribs as the stable version. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, but Ill bear your view in mind if this arises in future.

I do think, tho, that it's important to view this in the context of the wider series of move-and-then-open-RMs which Lucy-marie had engaged in: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6], and her series of botched moves to pages with trailing commas, which I had to clean up because she refused to do so.

That, plus B2C's gaming of the system by using multiple discussions to pursue exactly the same fundamental point against the naming convention. What we ended up with was the pair of them jumping up and down in protest at the one point of perceived weakness in their antics, and insisting repeatedly that none of the rest should be considered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St Albans by-election, 1904

Hello! Your submission of St Albans by-election, 1904 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. I have added the refs, and responded at DYK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation

Template:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Albans by-election, 1904

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

St Albans

Hello there, I added a bit on the ships. Do you need any more? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, I think that's enough. What you've done is great, and many thanks for it, but I think that including more about the ships would probably be giving undue weight to what is basically a part of a background issue.

What's there now looks just right: enough to give the reader the basics, with links to allow them to read more if they want to.

However, it occurs to me that it might be relevant to add a brief note on the political consequences of the sale (i.e. triggering two by-elections) to some point in the articles on the ships. I think that rather than including identical material in the article on each ship, the best place would probably be in the #background section of the Swiftsure class battleship article. What do you think of that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 7 Feruary 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and that would be the correct section to add it in. One of these days I'll get around to finishing what Mdnavman started and nom it for GA or A. :-) Thanks so much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll get to it once I've finished the St Albans by-election. Odd things, those old by-elections; they could be very bitter, and there's often a lot more to be told about them than appears at first glance. I started off thinking it'd be a rather pedestrian story, and now I find that there are two warships, plus an egg-splatted Welsh Wizard being hounded out of town with the police unable to protect him for a Tory mob. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the best part about Wikipedia? I thought Lain American warships would be boring until a guy named Le Deluge made a comment that lead me to create Minas Gerais (later moved to Minas Geraes), and now I'm completely obsessed with them. The Minas Geraes class alone participated in four revolts, two World Wars, and caused the entire world to catch their breath when Brazil ordered them. Crazy stuff. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right: the interconnectedness sparks all sorts of new avenues for writing.

I got into St Albans by accident. I was entering the election results for Bradford Central, and as a matter of course I always check whether any of the candidates also stood somewhere else. Vicary Gibbs turned out to previously been MP for St Albans, so I got to work on tidying up that article ... and have revisited it a few times to write the by-election articles. Each of the three has been in DYK, which I'd never have thought.

I'm glad you posted here, because it reminds me to go and add the material to Swiftsure class battleship#Background. I'll do that now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks—yes, that was it. I was too lazy to hunt it down unless someone chose to propose that option. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No prob. The lack of visible archiving is one of the deficiencies of speedy renaming process, and sometimes it takes a lot of detective work to figure out why a speedy took place. In this case, it was easier, because with the original categ still in place, I just looked for the timestamp on your removal of the speedy deletion tag, and looked in the history of WP:CFD/S for en edit around that time.

As a general thought, I think it would preferable to move to some form of archiving of speedy categ noms, to reduce the future need for this sort of burrowing. If speedy noms were archived, they'd be traceable through a simple whatlinkshere. I have an idea on how this could be achieved, and will suggest it at WT:CFD/S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. If it could simply be automated, I don't see why it shouldn't be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Duguid Baronets and Baron Duguid

Hoax from New Zealand. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Fooians

Hi, sorry, I somehow missed your comment on my talk page. I seem to be flat out these days on other stuff. I support what you are doing with the categories for people educated at UK Schools. I hope my compromise will work because it is neutral. Otherwise, I still support "Old Fooians", because if we can not agree on a neutral way, then we have to go back to what people actually call themselves. Keep up the good work. There is no need to reply, but if you want to, please do so here. I only came here rather than reply on my page because it is so long since you put your comment there. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs about the delay. Soon after I posted on your talk, Timrollpickering did the group nomination of the lot of them, which made my msg redundant. Your good work in devising the compromise had created a solution which didn't need such careful handling as I had thought, and it's interesting that there seem to be no takers for my notion of leaving the original nine aside for separate examination.

I do hope this one goes through, because as you rightly say, the compromise solution you devised is neutral, and it's also self-explanatory. Well fdone ... so let's see what happens :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

third opinion

Hi I've viewed your input and consider you a fair person. I have a dispute with an individual who appears fixated with editing his way and does not want to compromise. If you have an email I can give you further details assuming you are willing to give a third opinion as an administrator. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truesayer (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, send me an email. The link is in the usual place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Windsor

Evening. Like you I'm extremely impressed with the work done to create Windsor (UK Parliament constituency). However, because the article is so different to any I've seen, I'm struggling a bit. I've tried to backfit Rayment to be an inline reference (like hundreds we have done between us without issues, at least in my case), but we don't have the usual break at 1660 so my backfit doesn't really work. I don't want to reference every MP from 1660 individually nor to split the Windsor (UK Parliament constituency)#Burgesses_in_the_English_Parliament_1510-1707 section in two just for convenience as to what Rayment references. Any thoughts?

Also this article is very long now and is crying out for compact election box. This really gives an opportunity to represent the data as a lot of the constituencies would look if all the election data were in place. I'm quite prepared to do this next weekend. Do I have your support?

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi CC

I'm not sure what to suggest wrt the pre1707 MPs. I agree that it would be inappropriate to split that section as it stands, tho if and when somebody adds more from before that period, it might be appropriate to split at the Long Parliament as usual. I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to add a Rayment ref to that section, so I'd just leave it be ... but if you can think of a better solution, I'm sure it'll be a good one.

It would be great if you could concert the election results to compact election box, tho obviously only since it became a single-seater. If you have the energy to do that, you have my full support! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Compact Election box done. Saves a lot of space as one might expect. Let me know what you think, as I may need improvements to the automation program. Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great to me, and I can't see any glitches. Well done!

I'm interested to hear that you have some sort of automation at work here. Can you tell more? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Basically it's a Java program plus a few helper classes which parse the input from a flat file and create the correct output. If you look at the edit history you'll see the process I followed before running the converter, and you do need to do this - basically it must be split into the year ranges before you start, and all notes and references brought inline. It preserves in line images. Limitations at present are that the start box must be split over three lines exactly, the electorate isn't supported yet, candidates in bold (I suspect) need the apostrophes either side removing, and the input title isn't respected (it is always set to ==Elections==). None of these are a big deal and I will fix them next weekend. Also it hard codes the input file name which is a bit amateur. I've no issue with sending the source through by email once I've made these changes and tested them. Would you be interested? Crooked cottage (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

bang bang

i have found a photo of bang bang on the internet i dont know how to upload it send us ur email address and ill send it on to u if u wanna put it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitserscolt (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Electorate - revived

Hi BHG, you will remember this conversation I'm sure. The spreadsheet (possibly amended?) is now here. The Isle of Wight (UK Parliament constituency) article now makes reference to the fact that the Isle of Wight will be split into two constituencies, but references both a 2000 and a 2004 electorate figure. What I will do is to reference only the 2010 figure in the article quoting the reference spreadsheet above as I think it is important to use up to date info here - but I still think that it is worth opening the debate about bringing the figures up to date in List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies as you suggested.

I have added the source for the English electorate data to the constituency list article. In the meantime I'll have a look for the equivalent data in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, both for up to date figures and for what the article is referencing. Crooked cottage (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Coppinger

Hey, I noticed that you made a number of edits on Ruth Coppinger's page relating to her being an MEP. Currently she is not an MEP and I've removed all edits that suggest so: I've outlined my reasons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruth_Coppinger BOZG (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi BHG, user:CorkMan has done alot of cut and paste moves on Irish govt. departments, and made quite a mess. I have reversed them back to the original but can you help moving them to their proper locations. Tx, Snappy (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Irish politicians

Hi BHG, the List of Irish politicians is out of date and needs to be either deleted or divided into sub lists, as its just too big to maintain. The intro says it is supposed to cover all "public-representative office-holders in Ireland, elected and appointed since 1918 up to the present day, in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The offices covered are TDs, MEPs, Presidents, Councillors, MPs, Stormont MPs, Members of the Sunningdale Assembly (as Mem.NI.Assmb), MLAs, Senators, Commissioners and Members of the Irish House of Commons (as Mem IHC). Holders of other offices, such as Kings-representative (i.e. Governors General) or historical offices such as High King of Ireland are listed in the Others section." Wow, thats quite a list then. I haven't seen other countries maintaining huge lists of all offices holders for nearly a century. See List of Australian politicians and List of German politicians. The main article should point to Lists of party politicians or List by office. What do you think? Snappy (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree. The all-inclusive list is a legacy of the days when we had very limited coverage of politicians, but as coverage grows it cannot possibly accommodate all the types of office-holders it seeks to include. The complete list would probably have well over 5,000 entries, which woukd be utterly unusable.

I did some work two years ago splitting up some of the sub-lists, but even if we split it further to one section-per-letter-of-the-alphabet, those sub-sections would still be too large in most cases, and the overall list would still be far too big.

It's a pity in a way, because a complete and integrated list would be a lovely thing to have ... but I don't think it can be done with wiki technology. That sort of a job requires a database structure, which won't happen here.

I think that a list-of-lists structure is probably the best we can do, as with the Australian and German examples ... but maybe someone has another idea. May I suggest an RFC on it, just to see if there is a better idea out there? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, an RFC is a good idea. I'll do that soon. Snappy (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Please lemme know when it's ready! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

I'm having a conversation with Laurel Lodged on my page, and I didn't ask for your help. You are a polarizing figure to Laurel Lodged, and I am not yet. So please remove your comment, and let me handle this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment removed. I was trying to help, but since you reckon my comment was unhelpful, it's better gone. Good luck with your dialogue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your desire to help. We'll see if I get anywhere. If not, and the action continues toward ban-worthiness, I will need your help in a much less desirable way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I'm very glad that you are trying, because sometimes the involvement of a previously-uninvolved person can help to unravel a problem. It has gone on for so long now that formal moves towards a ban may not be far off unless something changes, but I do hope that this can be sorted without bans or blocks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We shall see. It's worked before, but this seems like a particularly thorny case.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And this comment suggests that the thorniness has not diminished so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

LL does not seem to understand consensus. Anyway, regarding the Gov of Ireland cats, what do you think should be the next step, in trying to get them in order? User RA had some interesting points about naming, i.e. government/governance and ..in/..of. Snappy (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

'fraid there seem to be a number of things beyond LL's understanding :(

Anyway, I thought that your suggestion at CFD solved it quite neatly ... but RA does have a point.

I think that two problems arise. The first is that "Government of Ireland" is indeed the title of the govt, it is a highly ambiguous phrase, and per WP:IRE-IRL it should be disambiguated as "Government of the Republic of Ireland". There is no other IMOS-compliant way of disambiguating it.

The second is RA's thoughtful point about the distinction between government and governance. As it stands, I'm not quite sure that it's a workable basis for categorisation, but it may be worth exploring further. Maybe we should discuss it at WT:IE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Intersection of Profession, Religion and Gender on Wikipedia

Hi BHG, I'm posting this to you because I noticed you participated in an old series of CfD discussions and are familiar with it.

In the process of reviewing the situation involving the various articles on Islamic scholarship Islamic mathematics, Islamic science, Islamic metaphysics etc. -- which have been subject to extensive edit-warring and outright deletion or stubbing in the case of some articles by two groups of editors broadly labeled Islamophiles and anti-Revisionists -- a third group of people who might be termed Irrelevantists as they were unfamiliar with the subject and considered it non-notable due to religious content (which the anti-revisionist historians do not; they merely are vehemently against any unusual or obscure claims to the article) referred folks to the old discussions that led to the deletion of the "Professionals by religion" Category, e.g. CfD:Astronomers by religion and CfD:Mathematicians by religion.

The vast consensus of those two discussions were that religion was utterly irrelevant to the personal or professional life of those professionals and even asked "when would it end?" Much cracks were had about how religion was once relevant to scientists' lives but is now a historical curiosity. However the discussion boiled down to it being a non-intersecting and "frankly absurd" means of categorizing people.

A third discussion, Cfd:Jewish mathematicians, oddly caused much more controversy, with people who were unwilling to keep the other titles apparently weighing in.

What I find interesting is that the same policies could be provided for Category:Women by occupation and yet no one has ever proposed deletion of that entire (huge) category tree, and in fact insisted on the exact opposite arguments, despite the fact that some women actively do object to being labeled as a "Woman scientist", whereas no astronomer has ever objected to being labeled religious despite the disingenuous claim made in the above CfD.

(Caveat: The only deletion ever proposed for the gender categories that I can see is that "Women" is non-grammatical, which I disagree with -- it sounds better than "Female" and is commonly used even in cases where it is a neologism, such as "women earth scientists" - grammatical but ridiculous) -- the latter is a prime case of what I'm talking about. If it had been "Muslim earth scientists" or another religion, it would have been deleted "with extreme prejudice" and some vitriol by "science vs. religion" types. But the rationale used would have been that it was non-intersecting and an article couldn't be written about it, which seems to be being selectively applied by Brightists on this site. (Some of these categories, an article could be written but that doesn't mean a category should exist, as one person on the "Female" CfD noted. Especially since the women-in-science movement is very divided about whether women professionals should be categorized as such.)

Full disclosure: a close family member is both a woman scientist and the past president of a graduate women in science professional organization, so no bias here. Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for your help

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I have no idea if this is the right place for this, but I am hoping you can help me. I found your entry for Mary Brigid Ryan (Irish TD) and am wondering where you found your information on her. Mary Brigid Ryan was my paternal grandmothers half sister, and I would love to find as much information as I can about her for my dad, I just have no idea where to start, apart from the hope that Fianna Fail might possibly have some old photos that they might be willing to share (I live in hope with this one!) I have to say it was lovely to find something about her here, thanks Fiona — Preceding unsigned comment added by FionaMcK (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fiona

Thanks for your message. I know the pleasure in finding that there is something online about a relative, because a few years ago I noticed a wikipedia article appearing about one of my ancestors. It's a wonderful thing, and I am delighted to know that I played a small part in giving someone else some of the same pleasure.

The sources I used for the article were as listed at Mary Ryan (Irish politician):

• Centre for Advancement of Women in Politics (Queens, Belfast): http://www.qub.ac.uk/cawp/Irish%20bios/TDs_2.htm#ryan
• Oireachtas Members Database: http://oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=12&MemberID=1018&ConstID=167
• ElectionsIreland.org website: http://www.electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?ID=2179

Since then, I have found another source, which I meant to use to expand the article: McNamara, Maedhbh (2000). Women in Parliament: Ireland 1918-2000. Wolfhound Press, Dublin. pp. 99–100. ISBN 0863277594. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). If you would like a copy of the text of the two pages on her, use the link on the left to email me, and I will send it to you.

If you are keen to find out more, I can suggest that you may want to try the archives of The Irish Times website. http://www.irishtimes.com/ --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Athletes by gender

Hi, BrownHairedGirl. I've posted a question for you at the "Athletes by gender" Cfd asking if you might modify your recommendation slightly. Cheers! Location (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have replied at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding RM & CFD

Can you take a look at this RM which has had silence for 12 days now and in turn this CFD which is still open awaiting the RM outcome? TIA. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will transport(ation) myself there pronto :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have closed the RM discussion and left a note at the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Group

In 2009 you marked an article on the APPG Flags & Heraldry Group as "The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline." I wonder if you would now consider removing this "badge". The committee has now been going for three years, survived a general election and new government, and just this week held a formal reception in the House of Lords which was attended by over 100 MPs, peers and guests, and at which the Lord Speaker gave a speech, along with Admiral Lord West, Andrew Rosindell and Malcolm Farrow. The event was to celebrate the permanent flying of the Union Flag from the Palace of Westminster, which the Committee had pressed for. It has also published, in association with the Flag Institute, a guide to British Flag Protocol, "Flying Flags in the United Kingdom", which has been adopted by HM Government, the Armed Forces and local government.

With all the above taken in I believe the Committee now forms a lively and important part of our parliamentary system and meets the notability requirements,

GrahamPadruig (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, thanks for your message.

Yes, I tagged All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee as having notability problems, because it did not at the time meet either the general notability guideline at WP:GNG or the notability guidelines for organisations and companies at WP:ORG.

It's important to stress that the concept of notability on Wikipedia does mean fame, importance, or liveliness, or anything like that: it means simply that the topic has "attracted notice". This is nothing to do with your opinion of the merits of the topic, or my opinions or those of any other Wikipedia editor; it is about whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a form of tertiary publication. We do not permit original research; instead what we do is to publish a summary of existing coverage of a topic, using secondary sources rather than primary sources. So the result of those principles is that unless a topic has already been adequately covered in secondary sources, we cannot have a properly-sourced article on it.

I have just done a few searches for substantial coverage of this topic in secondary sources, but cannot find any. So I will now nominate it for deletion through Wikipedia's Articles for deletion process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude

Regarding the discussion on Jimbo's talk page: it was not my intent to be rude or disrespectful to you, and if I have been, I sincerely apologize. 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, I didn't think you were rude to me, and I hope what I wrote to you didn't come across as rude either.

It's clear that we strongly disagree, but that's a difft matter, and civil disagreement is essential to resolve differences. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. :) Yes, it doesn't look like there's much chance of us coming to an agreement on the issue being discussed, but I have no doubt that I'll find plenty of opportunities to agree with you on other matters in this big, wide 'pedia. So until then... best, 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Compact election box

Being somewhat of a Wikipedia newbie I hope you do not mind me asking you a few questions. I want to use the {{Compact election box}} for elections results in the USA and I have been learning how to use it in my sandbox. I do not have a need for and cannot find a way to eliminate the ± column. I realize I can just leave the information blank but the column still remains and looks unnecessary. I thought about trying to make a new template version and took a look at the code but decided it was beyond my level of code understanding. I tried to find some forum to ask about this but could not find one (direct me to one please, for the future). I see you were the creator of the template and was hoping you had a simple solution. If not - How difficult would it be to make a template version without the ± column? I really like the look and layout of this template, you did a great job.
I also do not like fractured conversations so I will watch your talk page for the duration of this discussion. Thanks,
--RifeIdeas Talk 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want, I can put a new a copy of the template in my sandbox so we can play with it. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi RideIdeas

Glad you like the look of {{Compact election box}}. It was the product of a lot of discussion at WT:UKPC, so I can't claim credit or the design -- I was only the code-monkey :)

It would be quite easy to modify it to omit the eliminate the ± and I would be happy to create such a version for you if really want it ... but I would also discourage you from doing that. Why do you want to omit the ± column? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well where do I begin? First thanks for the link to WT:UKPC as I read that thread and also linked to tale created in the Blackburn article so now I have a better understanding of the how and why and I also looked at the Wiki style code in the Blackburn article (this I somewhat understand). I noticed this article does not have the ± column. Now for some history of how I came to your talk page. As a reminder I am a newbie (October 23, 2010) and a discussion was started right after the USA elections between myself and two others in November 2010 at WT:IOWA/G#Vote_count_formats_in_articles. After a mostly resolved discussion the editor who was going to follow up with making a alternate version of {{Compact election box without ±}} became very busy in his school studies and this idea went on the back burner. Since then I had learned a lot about Wikipedia coding and decided to try to attempt this on my own, that is how I came to your talk page. The part of the conversation on WT Iowa/Government Vote counts (very long) that I want to draw your attention to starts right after the Bruce Braley's electoral history which uses a {{show}} template. Especially follow the link to Template talk:Election box#Change column. Also beside that conversation there is also the desire to simplify the coding of pages like Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2008 which used many of the various versions of the {{Election box inline . . .}} templates which a newbie like me does not understand the documentation where as the documentation for {{Compact election box}} is easy to understand.

The short answer (at last huh) is with American elections the change in party turnout is just not used. The {{Compact election box}} has a better look and much more simpler to use than the other election templates that I have seen.
On another note is there a search application that will return a list of articles where a specific template is used?
--RifeIdeas Talk 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you forgot / got busy elsewhere / decided not to help?
I have since learned that the special page "What links here" will find what pages use a certain template (answered my own question). I also realized the Blackburn article that I looked at was an old version and that it has since been updated with the new Compact election box template.
As before I will watch your talk page for the duration of this discussion.
--RifeIdeas Talk 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alerting you to a CfD

Following the rename discussion about Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2007–, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 29#Parliamentarians by term. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It's ridiculous that this recurs at CfD periodically, requiring a re-run of old debates which the nominator is apparently unaware of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Seoun Middle School alumni

Hi BHG. I was looking at Category:Seoun Middle School alumni and was hoping to delete on the grounds of the general silliness of considering middle-school affiliation as defining an individual. Is there any precedent for this? There has to be since Category:Alumni by educational institution contains no middle-school or primary school subcat but is this written down anywhere? Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All-party parliamentary doodaa

I'm embarrassed that I supported it in the first place - its such a promo for Andrew whatzit. I will feel better if it is deleted. Mark^Dask 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark, there's absolutely no need to feel embarrassed. Quite the contrary.

You made a judgement based on what you saw at the time, and then you listened to the rest of the arguments and weighed them. That's exactly what a thoughtful editor should do, and it's an essential art of forming a consensus that editors listen carefully to arguments and be ready to change their mind if that seems appropriate. Thank you being one of those who does who does listen to a discussion.

As Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Girl. Mark^Dask 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has been deleted - all hail Brownhairedgirl. As a novice Wikipedian, this Afd was very instructice for me - thank you for the education. Mark^Dask 14:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak for a few weeks

I is on wikibreak until late April 2011. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Boyle, County Roscommon

Hey there, I have noticed a couple of recent edits to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle,_County_Roscommon regarding a Red link issue with Lough Arrow, there is no internal link for a page for Lough Arrow, but yet I have corrected this twice now. I am a complete newbie, and it's probably one of your bots. Just thought i would let you know, keep up the good work : ) I have just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDLINK and am wondering are you creating a page for Lough Arrow? I would like to help. Agent4776 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not bots; those edits were all manual and intentional.

Per WP:REDLINK, it is a good idea to have links to notable topics on which an article should exist, but has not yet been created. Lough Arrow is notable as a very good fishing lake, so we should have an article on it ... and the redlinks are both a reminder of its absence and a handy way to start creating the article.

I will now restore the links.

No, I'm not at present working on a Lough Arrow article. But hopefully somebody will create one soon, and the more redlinks the sooner it will be created :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed that although are a new editor, nobody has welcomed you yet! Sorry about that, and nice to have you here.

How's this for a suggestion: would you like to make a start on the article on Lough Arrow? We've all gotta start somewhere, and I'm sure there are plenty sources available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that BHG, im just getting to grips with wikipedia, I will definitly take a look at creating a page for the lake (caught my first fish there) lol, thanks for the input : ) Agent4776 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent4776 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 31#Category:Jewish American businesspeople

You participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#Category:Jewish-American businesspeople in January 2007. There is currently a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 31#Category:Jewish American businesspeople. Has the nominator of the DRV indicated that the 2007 discussion is no longer relevant or accurate? Cunard (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to check me on something

A couple of editors have questioned my actions on Talk:2011 Libyan civil war, and so I'm hoping to get a couple of unbiased admins to take a look at what I did and tell me if I did something wrong. There was a very long debate about changing the page's namehere, which I closed in the way I did because 75% of the votes were in favor of some form of "civil war" name. Then the page was relisted for change here, and after a week in which the oppose votes significantly outnumbered the support votes, I closed that one as no consensus. Two editorsobjected that since I closed the first nomination, I shouldn't have closed the second. Since I don't want this to be about me, can you look at it and see if you would have come to the same conclusion on the secondnomination? Even if you wouldn't have, I'd like to know about it. Also, if there are other admins you know that might be willing to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:WikiProject Cheers

Category:WikiProject Cheers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award BrownHairedGirl with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Rees (racing driver) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Rees (racing driver) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rees (racing driver) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The-Pope (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

John Wischart Stuart

Please would you sort out this MP. You have great sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

There are several sections in WT:SBS where your input would be appreciated—some date back to December, one is relatively new and another is an ongoing discussion. Apparently, the damage was partly caused by the fact that our WikiProject looked inactive. Waltham, The Duke of 22:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.

Have commented on one of them, and will try to catch up on the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Take your time; recent (and not so recent) circumstances have forced me to take mine... Waltham, The Duke of 00:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing BrownHairedGirl a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I checked, and find that I have been an admin for five years. Maybe I'll get a pension soon :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Drumcar House

Hello Brown Haired Girl. How are you? I was wondering if you could give me a hand with this. I think I'll merge to an article on Drumcar about the parish. I was wondering if you could help start a few M'Clintock articles, particularly John M'Clintock. Do you have any information or can you find some for anything related to this? There's a very interesting coverage here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Spring Baronets

I believe this page may be set up as a sub-hoax to help with the proposition that Michael Spring is a de facto Baronet. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreating deleted Category

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I see you are on a wikibreak. I am putting some order in Uruguay topics and needed to start Category:Governors of Montevideo. Well, here is what I found: 18:05, 22 December 2009 BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Governors of Montevideo" ‎ (C1: Empty category). I guess this means you deleted it because it was empty and not because of any other problem. I can't find any discussion page, so I will recreate it until you are back, and if you have any reason to the contrary, please let me know at my talk page. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Category:Royal Governors of Montevideo is wrong. This title never existed. You can check here es:Categoría:Gobernantes de Montevideo. Hoverfish Talk 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:English landowners

Please help populate this category, one also exists for Scottish landowners.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former pupils of Kilmarnock Academy

Category:Former pupils of Kilmarnock Academy, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Foobar-unreferenced

Template:Foobar-unreferenced has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A Woodstock query

See Talk:William Spencer (poet). I incline to the view that information has become garbled: that Woodstock was regarded as a 'family' seat by the Spencers, and that William Robert turned it down in favour of a sinecure. But it would be good to be more certain that he was never an MP. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

I created a series of Categories:Reportedly haunted locations in [USA] etc. That particular one is up for cfd. It makes no sense. They should all be up for cfd or none of them. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Huzza!

Look what Santa left for us: History of Parliament Online. Choess (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant!

The History of Parliament publications are a wonderful resource, and their free availability online is long overdue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.

Looks like the old tantric wheel is still turning :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign, we're interviewing as many of the very active and productive Wikipedians as we can to broaden the range of appeals we run come November. I wonder if you would want to tell me more about your experiences editing and writing here? If so, I'll ask you your personal story and I'll ask you some general questions about Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interesting by emailing amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 023! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Legal system

I am bothered about categories and you understand them. Should there be a Category Law in the United Kingdom divided into 3 categories, Law in England & Wales, Law in Northern Ireland, and Law in Scotland, with sub subcategories split between them as appropriate? --Kittybrewster ☎ 16:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In principle, yes. However we seem to have a convention of using the adjectival form a country's name ("Fooish law" rather than "law of Foo"), so the relevant country categs are Category:English law, Category:Scots law and Category:Welsh law, plus Category:Law in Northern Ireland‎ since the adjective there is too problematic.

We don't seem to have a Category:Law in England and Wales, which maybe we should have, but the distinction between that and Category:English law would be a nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fires by year

Template:Fires by year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Fires by year

A tag has been placed on Template:Fires by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( <noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds

Hi, I need help because I have found a wrong link in 1751 to 1800 for Daniel Lascelles (have been busy disambiguating) but it is beyond my low-level ability to fix on this particular article (v puzzling). Link should be to Daniel Lascelles (1714-1784). (I think some Christmases may be allowed to pass before anyone else is likely to notice!). Hope you've had a happy absence. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Done!

Hope that helps, and thanks for the good wishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:British National Party/meta/abbrev

A tag has been placed on Template:British National Party/meta/abbrev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a subpage of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." - in this case parent page exists but is completely unreleted

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I should do that

If the templates should not be deleted, then I should restore them, not you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and restore them.

(Note: this refers to the discussion at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Templates_restored.2C_and_no_barnstar_from_me).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate an example of their use. I checked quite a few to ensure that they did not link to anything, so I'm not quite following how they are useful. Which isn't an argument for their deletion, but if I run across another template not used by anything anywhere, I'd like to know what red flag should be raised. (But I will begin restoring them immediately)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See the link on your talk to {{compact election box}}, and the brief explanation accompanying the link. I don't have time to write a fuller explanation now, but will be happy to do so in the new year if this still concerns you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

PS The red flag you were looking for is simple. If a meta template is a part of a series, don't speedy it.

All of these were demonstrably part of a series, because they end with /abbrev, and they were all in the same category.

If you finds what appears to be an unused series of templates, please ask the creator and/or the relevant wikiprojects ... and allow a reasonable time for a reply. (50 minutes on the day before xmas eve is not sufficient!).

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the archives, some permalinks, in case this issue of the /meta templates is revisited:

• My posts on User talk:Sphilbrick
• restorations and deletions of the templates, in the deletion log of User:Sphilbrick
• Note to Bulwersator, who tagged the templates for deletion

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

Was there a consensus for this move? I saw nothing but "oppose" but move went through anyway? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, but I don't have time to help right now.

I can look again in January, if that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

Until this year, Wikipedia has largely relied upon personal appeals from founder Jimmy Wales to drive our annual fundraising efforts. Now we seek to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me, either over the phone, by Skype, by facebook, by email, or any means you like. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

PS - I recently took a trip to Ireland and I liked it very much, you can see some of my photos on my userpage- user:victorgrigas vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Victor

Thanks for your message. I would be delighted to help, and will be in touch in January.

Would you like to send me an email with your contact details? Or should I just use the address above? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Birmingham Aston (UK Parliament constituency)

You said that you were going to split this article and yet you havn't. I am trying to clear a backlog of split tags. How do you wish me to proceed? 1) you will do 2) you would like me to do it 3) you would like me to remove the split tag

Op47 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Same for List of Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures Op47 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder.

I have just split Birmingham Aston (UK Parliament constituency), creating a new page Aston Manor (UK Parliament constituency).

I will also split the Vanity Fair caricatures list, but that is a rather more complex job which will take a few days to complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205

Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of List of Scottish National Party MPs (2005–2010)

The article List of Scottish National Party MPs (2005–2010) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is small piece of List of Scottish National Party MPs, which is already a short list. Page is not necessary.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Prod contested, and rationale supplied in the edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Francis Arkwright

Hello BrownHairedGirl, happy new year to you. I've come across Francis Arkwright (politician), who was an MP in the UK and a Member of the Legislative Council in New Zealand. I've started to expand the article and I wonder whether you'd be interested in doing some work from 'your end'. You might have some good sources for what he did as an MP. If we can, I'd like to nominate this to DYK once done (has to be done within five days of an expansion starting). The main source that I'm using says that "we presume that Francis had a short spell as an MP for Hampshire". I've had a quick search on leighrayment, but couldn't confirm this. Schwede66 03:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Berkeley

See Reginald Berkeley (which you have contributed to) for my proposal to merge the two articles as I am certain that Reginald Berkeley (politician) and Reginald Berkeley (writer) are the same person, as confirmed by the obituary of Captain Reginald Berkeley in The Times of 1 April 1935 page 9, which refers to his plays and also to his career as an MP (presumably not an April Fools Day hoax!). Could you reply on the article talk page please, as I have asked several people for comments. Hugo999 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

O'Donnell article

Hi. Long time no hear. Happy 2012, belatedly. I just edited the O'Donnell article and removed a lot of POV. Whatever your personal feelings on the history in question I know you always uphold the rules and regs designed to make Wikipedia the great encyclopaedia it is. I am pretty sure certain users will seek to restore the POV and unsourced text in question. I was not seeking out this article but wound up there after starting at the Molly Maguires article, which I also de-POVed. Anyway I am going offwiki for a while and given my past disputes with some other editors and the fact that I am seeking an objective third party, I was hoping you could watchlist the two articles in question. By all means review the article diffs and if you think I rv anything I should not have, please fix as necessary. As you are an admin I assume this request is not untoward. If so, I apologize and plead ignorance. Thanks. Quis separabit? 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Your wikibreak "until November 2011" appears to be outdated. Also, I just realized you might not remember me based on my new signature (same username), but it's me, Rms125a. I really hope the sig is not offensive to you, but given the refusal of ANI to require other editors with (what I consider) even more provocative usernames/usernames-signatures to change them, I felt this was the only possible response to allow me to edit with integrity. Didn't want you to think I was not being straight up. Yours, Quis separabit? 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Upper_tier_local_government_areas_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Hi BHG, given your recent nomination of Template:Local administrative units of Ireland at TfD. I would like to draw your attention to this new similar Template:Upper_tier_local_government_areas_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland created by the same editor. It appears to be currently unused. Snappy (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CfD notice at WT:INB

Is there any reason why you have posted a CfD notice at WT:INB when the issue has already been mentioned there & the CfD discussion has been linked already? I am finding this entire thing more and more confusing, and less and less relevant to Wikipedia's purpose. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the links to both the WT:COUNCIL and WT:INB simply by adding a comment to each page, without reading the page first, because that's the quickest way of doing it. After reading your msg here, I looked at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#A_curious_category, and I see no direct link to the CFD discussion (at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 4#Category:India_articles_with_comments or even to the day page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 4 ... so I hope that the direct link will help edittoes to find the discussion.

Sorry you find this confusing. The assessment process is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment, where you will find a note on the comments in the first section of the page, labelled Frequently asked questions. I know that it does initially seem a bit complicated, it is done for a purpose: to monitor the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and co-ordinate improvements. D=Different projects use the assessment process with varying degrees of attention: some don't bother at all, and some (such as WP:MILHIST) appear to follow it very closely. Tracking the quality of article seems to me to be highly relevant to Wikipedia's purpose, but maybe we will have to agree to differ on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is linked, and it is reversed linked from the CfD nom. Yours is better but I thought that perhaps I had done something wrong in the procedural sense (as with ANI notices, for example).

Anyway, that aside, have you actually looked at many India-related articles? I am unconcerned with how the category may or may not be used elsewhere: my query related entirely to its use within the India context. Now that has been explained, I can basically go back to the India project and say "let's bin this feature in the project banner; we do not use it because we have no maintenance program & no recognised assessors. Furthermore, our articles are mostly crap and will always be crap because of literacy problems, copyright issues, pov pushing and dodgy sourcing. Those that are not will hit GA or FA, which are the only markers that matter after 'stub'." So that is what I will probably do :) Sitush (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But I am not aware of other projects having "recognised assessors". Like most things on WP, assessment is done on ad ad-hoc basis by editors who want to do the job, and who work with the consensus set out in guidelines. There is clearly some WP:INDIA assessment work being done, and I can see no benefit in deleting it. It's up to the project to decide what action to take, but why not start by discussing your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Teachtaí Dála

Just wondered, is there a reason for placing TDs directly in that category when all of them are in specific subcats such as Category:Members of the 31st Dáil? Valenciano (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The logic is that this creates one category of all persons who have ever been a Teachta Dála (TD). This makes it easier to look for a particular person than would be possible if we had to burrow through sub-categories.

I don't support this practice, because I think that it creates unnecessary category clutter, and there are better ways of finding an individual TD than scrolling through 1,200 entries. However, the guideline WP:DUPCAT does suggest that there is a wider consensus for this form of categorisation :( ... and the TDs-by-numbered-Dáil categories do seem to fit into WP:DUPCAT's notion of non-diffusing subcategories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you about the category clutter and it is a shame in this case that we don't follow the way British MPs are categorised (Relevant subcats only) but as it stands, I'll leave it be. Valenciano (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures

I had to do the split in the end, someone had removed the split tag against concensus. It isn't my neatest piece of work I have to admit, but at least it doesn't lock ones computer up. I trust this is ok and when you get round to it, you will be able to do what you really wanted. regards Op47 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hi -- re this -- there is now an RfC in a different place on the (very large) talkpage. If you want your view to be considered by the person who closes the RfC, it might be better to add it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Fooians

After initial misgivings, I have been supporting your nominations to rename Old Fooians. However, I think there will have to be a point at which we will draw a line on this. I will oppose renames on Old Etonians, Old Harrovians, Old Salopians. and those for other major public schools. My object in writing this message is to try and agree with you where that line should be. It seems to me tha tthe starting point ought to be the schools of the Public Schools Act 1868, but I suspect that there are a few major public schools that have been founded since. Membership of the Headmasters Conference is too widespread to provide a satisfactory criterion. Any ideas?

I have bookmarked your talk page, but it might be better to have the discussion on mine, which is likely to rather less active than yours or on some project talk page. However, do not involve other regular contributors to the old fooian deiscussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Peterkingiron#Old_Fooians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category advice requested

Hi, would you be able to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#english copyediting ? Some advice from people who are familiar with category issues would be useful. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Craven

Hope you didn't mind me "borrowing" some of your phrases in my above nom. The "forest of references" term was too good to leave out and I thought you stated the other arguments better than me. ClaretAsh 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm all in favour of recycling. :)

And thanks for your hard work in raising an important issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Business_people. I reached a different conclusion to the one you initially proposed, but I wouldn't have got there if you hadn't opened up the topic and discussed it so openly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong expatriates CfD close

You closed this with the comment that it was a mistake to say the creation was done by a sock. The IP was blocked as a sock, that is not a mistake. It may still be no consensus, but that part of the rationale should be corrected. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, sorry if I got it wrong. Please can you post me the relevant links, and I will see what sort of correction I can make.

Thanks for alerting me! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI/Instantnood, most recently archived. HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP 218.250.159.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that was the primary opposer (and category creator, which is a speedy delete reason (G5)). After discarding the IP sock and SPA contributions and considering the speedy delete option, I think this may change from no consensus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

W. G. Nicholson

Hi, can you find this person and his dates of being an MP and add neccessary cats? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr B!

See William Nicholson (distiller) -- same person, so I have tagged for merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

W. G. Nicholson died in 1942, not 1909. I think he is the son of the above?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. See William Graham Nicholson. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for that. Hope you are well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Quinn move request

Hello, you previously commented on a Paul Quinn (rugby union) move request that was subsequently closed with 'no consensus'. I have restarted the discussion on this and invite you to participate again. Schwede66 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Withy

Hi again, I've just come across a rather long article for Edward Withy that needs wikifying. In it, it is claimed that "he had previously been a member of the British House of Commons". I couldn't find an electorate that lists him; could you possibly shed some light onto this? Schwede66 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

NB: The standard reference for NZ MPs, Wilson's NZ Parliamentary Record does not mention that he was a British MP, though Wilson does say that Cathcart Wason and William Allan Chapple both were. Possibly he was an (unsuccessful) candidate in England? Hugo999 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hugo & Schwede, I'm sorry for being slow in getting back to you -- my reference books were not to hand.

I have just checked F. W. S. Craig's authoritative British Parliamentary Election Results 1832-1885, which covers the whole of the period from Withy's birth in 1844 until his departure for New Zealand in 1844. Craig has a comprehensive index to all candidates, and no person named Withy appears therein. There's a "Wise" mad then a "Wodehouse", but nothing in between.

For my purposes, I take that as a conclusive "no", so I have removed that sentence from the article in this edit. (Craig is reputed to have made a very few mistakes, but despite a lot of cross-checking against other sources, I don't recall finding any).

Assuming that the sentence originated came from source other than a Wikipedia editor, I can see some a few possible explanations. Apart from simple error or sloppiness, it is possible that a) Withy or some of those associated with him had exaggerated his status in England, and given such an the impression that he had been an MP; b) that he had some function in England which related to Parliament, such as being a parliamentary agent or a an official in the Commons (both highly unlikely, given that he was running a business on Teesside); c) that he had some involvement in politics, presumably with the Radicals (given his support for Alfred Russel Wallace's idea of Land Nationalisation), and that this got misunderstood.

Hope that helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Great to have that one resolved. Thanks for making the effort and looking it up; that's much appreciated. Schwede66 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)