User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 029

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

Missing preposition?

Shouldn't User:BrownHairedGirl#Currently_working_on, July 2010 bullet 2 be:

• Tidyup the 100 sub-stubs... What possesses people to create so many pages in such a pitiful state? Wellset (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably. And your point is? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out a typo on your user page, where it's rather visible. I hoped you would appreciate it: you might have been trying to set an example of well-written text. Humble apologies if I misjudged. Wellset (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My user page is not encyclopedic content. It' just a few notes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category Appropriateness

Hi! Thank you so much for weighing it at the CFD on acussations of Piracy. Could you please apply your experience and help us editors weed through two issues at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society? 1. When is it appropriate to put an organization's wiki article into category Eco-terrorism? Do we need notable experts to say they are EC? Do we need courts to say EC? Do we look at FBI definition of EC and apply it liberally? Do we never put an org there? 2. When is it appropriate to place ArticleX in category 1 vs. CatArticleX in category 1? For instance, if category Eco-terrorism is appropriate for article SSCS, and if category Eco-terrorism is appropriate for category SSCS how do we determine which one to use? Some editors want it to be visible, some editors want it to be less visible. Can you please give us some wisdom on the talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society? Thank you in advance. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, there has been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society since The IP started making disputed edits to the article. The discussion has centred on adding the article to Category:Eco-terrorism while Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was already in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism, which is a subcategory of Category:Eco-terrorism. The article is currently in Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism but, with that category up for deletion, there are questions as to whether Sea Shepherd Conservation Society should be included in Category:Eco-terrorism. Your opinion on this would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your messages. I have been watching the discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for a week or so, since someone alerted me to it. I was considering whether to comment there, but had been thinking that the best option was to delete Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism. I was going to open the CFD nomination myself, but someone beat me to it (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 28#Category:Organizations_accused_of_eco-terrorism), so I was happy to support it.

The discussion on the article's talk page is a brilliant example of how not to resolve a question such as this. Firstly, it is far too long, largely because an IP has been posting huge screeds of text to repeat the same point, viz that several sources apply the term "Eco-terrorist" to the SSCS. That fact is undisputed, so the deluge produces no real benefit ... and it floods out other voices.

Secondly, it contains too few voices. When a disagreement is as severe as in this case, it can only be resolved by a wider discussion, such as an RFC. One more voice won't be enough.

So I see no value in joining in such a dysfunctional discussion.

At this point, I think that the first step is to wait for the CFD to close. If it is kept, then the question is answered. If not, then the question remains of whether to categorise SSCS or any other organisation under Category:Eco-terrorism.

That is a broader question of principle, which should be considered as such, rather than by taking a nrrow focus on one particular case. There are several other organisations in that category, such as Animal Liberation Front, Animal Rights Militia, Earth Liberation Front, Environmental Life Force, as well as numerous individuals. Whatever decision is made should be applied to all such topics.

I believe that we should follow the principle adopted for Category:Homophobia. It is used for issued relating to homophobia, and not for individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. The same principle should be applied to categories based on other pejorative terms, such as "Eco-terrorist".

This should be discussed at an RFC, to seek wider input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't believe "Homophobia" is a category that the FBI uses in the same way as "Eco-terrorism". I think a closer analogy (if you should stick with Homosexuality) would be "Hate crimes" which is quite quantifiable. If you care to look at Category:Hate crime we see some very heinous and notable instances of homophobia. Similarly, if using very specific definitions used by law enforcement agencies, courts, etc.. you've got the list that already exists in Category:Eco-terrorism. So shouldn't the question be, what level of notability and objective quantifying is necessary for such a label? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought that the discussion had been about how to categorise topics in a NPOV encyclopedia, rather than how to adopt the terminology of one particular police agency.

What Wikipedia policy or guideline gave you the impression that the point of view of the FBI (or any other police force) is a neutral POV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see misunderstanding, allow me please to try again. I was not talking about adopting FBI terminology as automatically NPOV and you were not inferring that well defined designation is the same as pejorative street slang. Terms like "Hate-crime" are very well defined and terms like "Homophobia" are more loosely used. The same is with any emotionally charge action. My statement above was simply to suggest that the FBI, as noted on Eco-terrorism has provided us with an objective and well defined definition. From looking at that page would you agree? 1 Crimes which were 2 committed in the defense of ecology. Very much analogous to usage and definition of the term "Hate Crime" which are equally well defined correct? This is why I suggest the similar term as a more analogous comparison. You are by far the more experienced though and I am happy to learn from you if you think I have misrepresented anything. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So the definition you want to use is "Crimes committed in defence of ecology".

That would mean that the symbolic cutting of a piece of fence would be labelled as "terrorism" if it was done in the name of ecology. Similarly, damage to a piece of machinery would be labelled as "terrorism" if it was done in the name of ecology.

Do you seriously claim that is an NPOV definition??? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

None. I meant to point out that the definition they provide however seems quite "NPOV" and objective. Do you agree? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As above, your idea of NPOV is very strange. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"So the definition you want to use is "Crimes committed in defence of ecology" Ha! No, not at all. That was my quick attempt to summarize, not definitively qualify. The FBI definition of Eco-terrorism is far more and objective. The same way that Hate crime is a legal term in many countries and is more objective than Homophobia.

The way we treat ET (government term for crimes about eco) should be the same as the way we treat HC (government terms for crimes about sex pref. and race) and NOT Homophobia (catch all term for those who don't like gays). The latter term is simply not analogous. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And to answer the other question, the FBI def is about violent actions, not cutting a piece of fence. I imagine blowing up a ski shack or someone's boat with a mine or a fire bomb most definately would qualify, where as removing a barrier or a peaceful protest wouldn't, but I am not the notable expert and such matters should definitely be left in the hands of notable experts. And if a notable expert, such as a judge or a government official says, "Because they blew up that boat, they are eco-terrorist", why would we not want the notable expert POV as part of wikipedia? (Interesting discussion by the way, thank you for indulging me with this education) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your "notable expert POV" should of course be included in Wikipedia, according to the established principles at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please do read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; it is critical to this discussion. The principle is to include all POVs in proportoion to their weight in the sources, and to attribute them. So it is not a fact that "X is a terrorist" (it's an opinion); it is a fact that "Y says X is a terrorist".

That is best done within an article, where all such viewpoints can be precisely referenced, and any nuances discussed. This is not possible with categories, because

1. There is no nuance. An article is either in a category or not in it
2. Categories permit no attribution (i.e. they don't take references).
3. Categories cannot accommodate opposing viewpoints, and there are widely differing viewpoints about what constitutes "terrorism". That is why the word is specifically deprecated in Words to watch; see WP:TERRORIST

The cliche is that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"; if you want an example, consider Nelson Mandela. When applied to ecological issues, one view is that sabotage of machinery which would destroy the environment is criminal behaviour; another view is that it is undertaken to prevent crimes against nature. At a more extreme level, some people consider destruction of the environment to be a form of terrorism; others apply that term to those who take action to halt or impede the destruction. This is explained in detail in the article terrorism, which note the lack of any stable definition of the term, and that " concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state)".

That's why the principle of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is so important. This is a highly-loaded, POV term, and it shoukd be used with a caution and attribution not possible in categories.

For that reason we do not have a Category:Terrorists or a Category:People accused of terrorism. No reason has been offered to make "eco-terrorism" an exception to this principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I thank you for the education. Kind of a parallel question, do you think that in Eco-terrorism there are multiple notable view points? I see one minor viewpoint, akin to a "You called me that, well I call you that!" From my estimation the definition seems relatively stable and consistent, but in pop-culture we definitely see a third use, the pejorative use, which has taken a life of it's own. I suppose it makes it difficult when quoting to know if a notable person is agreeing with the application of use #1 or just stirring crap up with use #3.

One more question, if you don't mind. If the word "terrorism" were not part of the label "eco-terrorism" lets just call it "labelX" and labelX carried a definition (the FBI definition for Eco-terrorism for the sake of discussion) would you feel the same way? I guess I'm asking if your views are related more to the term "Terrorism" being so POV charged or to the content of the FBI definition. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If another label is on the table, and there are reliable sources to justify its use, then we can discuss its neutrality. However, I am not going to engage in a hypothetical discussion about an unknown term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Honorary fellows categories

Hey, I was looking at these categories with the idea of nominating them for deletion per WP:OC#AWARD along the lines of the recently-deleted honorary degree recipient categories but in reading through several of the articles and some cursory research it appears that there may be something to being an honorary fellow beyond being a ceremonial honorific. I'm hoping you can enlighten me as to the reality? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please can you link to some of the relevant categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Honorary Fellows, I suspect (and missing the ":" in the category link above didn't help either (now added for you!). I'd agree that it's not defining and that the way forward is listification (if the lists get to look as nice as, or better than, List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford, then so much the better). HFs are often distinguished alumni, distinguished former fellows or college heads (where a mere "emeritus" badge isn't enough) or occasionally some mark of favour to someone famous/well-connected - see the Jesus list for examples of each. Being "the Welsh college", Jesus has sometimes given HFs to distinguished Welshmen from the time of Lloyd George through to Bryn Terfel. Formal obligations are minimal-to-nil, as are the formal benefits - but the informal links/favours and reflected glory, for both sides, is no doubt what matters. Previous CFDs include (but may not be limited to) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 14#Honorary Fellows (no consensus). Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, did I miss some punctuation? Sorry bout that. Thanks for your feedback, Bencherlite, I'll look at putting together the nomination in the next day or two. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hello BHG. Could I please be granted rollback? If as an active admin you are unable to install this facility then do you think you could guide me the right direction, thanks. The Big Hoof! (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hooooooof

I wasn't aware that my admin tools included the ability to grant this right, but I have checked and find that they do.

However, I think it is better that you make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, where it can be reviewed by admins more used to assessing these things. Please can you make your request there?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure will and thanks for replying as well as for the direction. I figured there was a procedure but I didn't know quite where to look. Best wishes. The Big Hoof! (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Expert Insight Needed

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I am new to Wikipedia so apologies if I make some rookie mistakes. Please don't make me listen to Barry Manilow!! First off, I am super impressed by your tireless involvement in the Wikipedia community. I would love to talk to you about what it means to be such a prolific contributor to an online community.

Here is a little background. My name is Martin and I am a member of the User Experience team at Knewton. You can find more about Knewton at knewton.com.

We are currently working on a product to provide anyone with the ability to create differentiated learning experiences using our Adaptive Learning Platform. Our platform will be built upon content that is either created or imported by our community of users. By graphing knowledge we are trying to democratize education by giving everyone the chance to have personalized learning.

I think your point of view would be really valuable in our product definition process. User interviews are a key part of Knewton’s User-centered Design approach. User-centered Design seeks to provide end users with interactions that focus on their needs, motivations, and goals.

If you are interested, we would love to speak over the phone sometime next week. The interviews usually take approximately an hour. No prior preparation is needed. We will just ask questions about your role and needs as a content curator within a community. We are happy to compensate you for your time with some Knewton Swag.

Please let me know what time would be best for you. You can email me at martin@knewton.com or send me a talkback. If you have any questions or need any clarification please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you in advance!

MPHighley (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Would you like to email me with details of how much you are willing to pay for my time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Noel Derecki may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• dementia, HIV-dementia and 'chemo-brain' have in common?".]</ref> Trends Immunol. 29 (10): 455–63.]]. , ''"[[Rett syndrome]] and other autism spectrum disorders—brain diseases of immune malfunction?"
• research entitled "Wild-type microglia arrest pathology in a mouse model of Rett syndrome".<ref>["http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10907.html""Wild-type microglia arrest

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Pat Woodell

Could you please have a look [1]. Pat Woodell is clearly female, so that I can correct this myself, but you might have also added these categories in other articles, and it would be difficult for me to investigate. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, and thanks for the fix.

I have been double-checking the lists before getting to work, and I guess that over a few thousand articles there are likely to be some false positives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User page help

Hy Admin.I kinda Started Editing Wikipedia and its working fine,but i wanted to know in which format do we create our own pages I mean User pages like in what Method. Thank You Mutaal98 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mutaal98

You don't have to create any user pages unless you want to, other than a talk page which is needed to interact with other editors. I see that your talk page already exists. For guidance on how to use talk pages, see WP:TPG.

For info on other user pages, see Wikipedia:User pages.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Packs of actors

Category:Packs of actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Another discussion of acting categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome your thoughts on this if you want to weigh in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See my comments at CFD 2013 November 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:National presidents

I saw you created this category but it remains unpopulated. What were you trying to do with it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it was populated, tho maybe not fully.

The purpose was to separate Presidents who are head of state from the many other sorts of president. The title of "president" is also used for sub-national entities, which is why Category:Presidents is not a subcat of Category:Heads of state. That's silly.

In hindsight, the title might be improved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. How about an alternative - as most of Category:Presidents is indeed presidents-of-states. What if we moved everything that wasn't "head-of-state" out of that category. Otherwise, Category:Presidents would be mostly empty. In other words, change the inclusion criteria for presidents - then if necessary a Category:Presidents of non-state entities could be created to hold those which aren't heads of state.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's back-to-front.

People such as the Spanish Regional Presidents are presidents, and should be categorised as such. Sub-types of president should be broken out into sub-categories, per usual practice, so the Category:Presidents of non-state entities should be a sub-cat of Category:Presidents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Also plz weigh in here Category_talk:Princesses if you like.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

response

I responsed to your !vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_10#Category:Women_by_province_or_territory_in_Canada - please take a look and let me know what you think. I think they are duplicates of extant cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the nom to be a merge per your suggestion. I remain concerned about the implications of this scheme if it survives due to WP:ilikeit. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AGF, please; it may also survive to group articles per our categorisation guidelines.

So long as it remains a set of {{container}}s, what's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If they're only containers, then they are duplicative of the Category:Women in Ontario cats and similar and should be merged accordingly...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Merge rather than delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't propose a merge at first is b/c I didn't think we should merge the individual women, only the categories (and there was only one), so I figured it was easier to just move the actresses cat and delete, but if you want to call it a merge that's fine with me, and I changed the nomination already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, "selective merge" would be a better description. I'm not concerned how that is implemented, so long as it is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I was just wondering how you put the icons of good articles you have helped create in the top right hand corner of your user page. I can't seem to find the source code for it... Cheers Farrtj (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Farrtj, I use {{GA user topicon}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Is there a way to separate GA icons from DYK ones? Like have GA icons below DYK ones? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I haven't checked out what formatting techniques are used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Farrtj (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of St Patrick's College, Dublin

Hello,

I am requesting your feedback on the recent speedy rename of Category:Alumni of St Patrick's College of Education, Drumcondra to Category:Alumni of St Patrick's College, Dublin. On the one hand, it appears to be a standard case of the category title reflecting the current name of the institution. On the other hand, SPCE was an associated college of the National University of Ireland whereas St Patrick's College, Dublin, is a linked college of Dublin City University. In your opinion, should we have separate categories for the two, or does association not matter too much when categorizing alumni?

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

CFD templates

Hey, while filling in some category gaps I noticed that the templates from your withdrawn CFD for LGBT state legislators were still on the categories. I deleted the ones from the categories I was working with but I thought admins might have a tool for doing them faster? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. All now done, using AWB (which non-admins can also use). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shops in England

Ran into Category:Shops in England and some related ones. Shop is ambiguous, is there some specific type of shop for these? If not the category probably should be deleted as grouping by like named. Vegaswikian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 13 July 2013‎

@Vegaswikian:, I am sorry that it has taken me nearly 5 months to reply :(

Category:Shops in England is part of Category:Shops. Feel free to propose renaming of the whole tree, but I don't see any reason to single out one of the two dozen or more sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

About Zamboanga

Zamboanga is the name of the article, not Zamboanga City, as per WP:MOSPHIL. There is no discussion necessary. Can you revert it back now? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can, but I won't.

Feel free to open a WP:RM discussion for a move which you are now aware is controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that a discussion has been opened at Talk:Zamboanga City#Requested_move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical societies

Please check back to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1. I'm disagreeing with your statement, although not because of your proposed solution, or because of your reasoning. My disagreement is with the situation as it's existed before the CFD started; I would appreciate your support for my position or your response and explanation why you think the current situation is good. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Clement Meadmore

Please would you kill this otiose category. Best wishes. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 7#Template:Aranda and others. 213.144.224.123 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AWB category updates

Hi there. I take it this was accidental, but if it was a script it needs a little work! Fixed now anyways . Nikthestunned 10:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was an accident; my selection of articles is manual. But thanks for the fix, and for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:People associated with cinema

Category:People associated with cinema, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

General election

Hello BHG. I'm slightly confused with regards to your claim that the legislative elections in France and Ukraine are general elections. As you yourself pointed readers to the general election article, it notes that general elections in countries with presidential systems include the election for president. In the case of France and Ukraine, neither election referred to included the election of a president.

I was mildly amused by the Amerocentric comment given that I'm British and have only spent around six hours in the US in my life! My concern is that "general election" has different meaning in different countries, so if we have less ambiguous alternatives (i.e. "legislative elections"), then they should be used rather than confusing people from one set of countries. Cheers, Number 57 22:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi #57

Sorry for mistaking you for a merkin. But you seemed to take the view that only a mixed election was a "true" general election, which seemed v American to me.

As to France etc, I wondered if I explained that right. My point is that the French and Ukrainian systems do not have general elections in the American sense, the UK usage is unambiguous there. By contrast, the US and Zimbabwe (IIRC) do have simultaneous presidential/legislative elections, and in those cases "general eln" is ambiguous.

I too would prefer a less ambiguous alternative. "Legislative elections" sounds good, but I see 2 probs: doesn't it include byelections? And also sub-national legislatures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No problems. Just to clarify, I don't take the view that only mixed elections are general elections (after all, I vote in British general elections), I just think that we shouldn't use the term in the sense in which it applies to ourselves when there are others to whom it means something completely different.

I don't believe that "legislative elections" includes by-elections, and I think the context of the title does not infer sub-national elections. It may not be perfect, but I think it is more so than "general election". Number 57 23:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My edits

Well, I interpreted [2] as meaning this company designed a stadium which had been around for years where it actually meant that they are responsible for its current look. Since my edits are all nonconstructive perhaps you'd like me to revert myself here. 24 hours a minute (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@24 hours a minute: If you had read the linked article Stamford Bridge (stadium), you would have seen what was meant. There might have been grounds for tweaking the wording, but you just removed the text without checking.

The long list of warnings on your talk page shows that similar carelessness is abundant in your edits, which is why you are now on a final warning before being blocked.

Your facetious suggestion that you revert yourself here doesn't bode well. Are you here to help build an encyclopedia? Or just to play silly games? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Marina Rodina"

I have no intention of undeleting the "Marina Rodina" redirect, as it is a clear WP:BLP violation. The problem is not that there are lack of policies justifying speedy deletion, but that there are too many to choose from. In this case, an editor has claimed, without reference to any reliable sources, that the redirect term is an alternate name previously used by a living person when that person was supposedly working as a bikini model. If this material were added to an article without reliable sources, it would need to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. If it were created as a separate article, it would be deleted under CSD:A7. Allowing that to be circumvented through a redirect is opening the system up to be gamed by anyone who wants to defame a living person by associated them, without reference to any reliable source, with a different and non-notable name. In this case, the error is compounded by the fact that the underlying page was moved, and the redirect was pointing to a disambiguation page, thereby impugning every living subject on that page. Since the redirected title also fails WP:DABMENTION, it has no business pointing to a disambiguation page at all. bd2412 T 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@BD2412: You are quite entitled to stand by your action if you still feel it is correct.

You make a good case above the deletion. It's a pity that you didn't make it as well at ANI, because then there might have been some support for your view. I just closed the discussion as it was, not as it might have been. But either way, there was no ANI issue there.

If the complainant does open a DRV, I'm sure you will make a good case.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comics lIsts

It looks like this merge was done to the lesser favored category from the discussion. Most of the list categories seemed to be "Lists of" format. It makes this Category:Comic_lists_by_franchise have a little less sense now. Not really a big deal, but the close looks like it's against the reasoning discussed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Elaqueate:. The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 4#Category:Lists_of_DC_Comics was a bit confused, but there was a clear consensus to merge, and on balance the preference was for Category:DC Comics-related lists. Your own contribution to the debate wasn't a !vote; it was a commnent in which you suggested "maybe it should be merged". That word "maybe" led me to attach less weight than to the two explicit supports for merger to Category:DC Comics-related lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait a bit

Could you plz hold off on deleting the Muslim general and associated categories. I want to make sure the contents are otherwise categorized. This may take a little while as Xmas is approaching. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: For some reason the bots have been slow today, so I think you are in luck.

I moved the categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple_merge_targets, with a note that they are being assessed manually. When you are done, please move the entry to the Ready for deletion section of the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: Moved it down to the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Other section, because it's not really a "Multiple merge targets" case. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Armbrust, that's probably a more appropriate location. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

You recently seem to have created a page consisting solely of a redirect to itself; am I missing something? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Anne Katharine Krigsvoll fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That was clumsy of me :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_5#Category:Modern_impact_events

Hi, you closed this and I have a quibble: the name of the Earth should take an initial capital, says MOS:CAPS#Celestial_bodies. —rybec 08:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct. My mistake -- I will fix it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and nice response. —rybec 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :)

It's how an admin is supposed to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Soft redirects Cfd

Regarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3#Soft_redirects this closure. You must have forgotten that I was there on Cfd when you made your first contributions there (which I remember quite well). :) I know very well how to nominate categories. I just came to ask a question. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten. :(

My first CFD contrib was a looong time ago, back in early 2006, so you have a good memory :)

Anyway, a question like that would be better asked at WT:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not your first edit. But I do remember being active on WP:CFD, posting on most proposals, and I do not remember you. Then around the time I became less active on WP:CFD, you had started to contribute there extensively, and very constructively, I remember, and indeed not with the air of a novice. Must be that you became more active in the area of WP:CFD at that time, if you say that your first edits there were in 2006, or perhaps you resumed a previous level of activity. But you are right, the question was better asked at WP:CAT. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I started editing in January 2006. I have a few miles behind me in life, with professional experience of news-handling, so I guess that was why I appeared not so much of a novice. But I do know that I had a lot to learn here.

Sorry again that I had forgotten about your long history of very constructive participation in CFDs. I was trying to work fast to dent the huge CFD backlog, and neglected to engage brain about who I was talking to. It probably appeared very condescending, which was not my intention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. See you around. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sir John Sullivan Harmood-Banner, 1st Baronet

Hi Brown Eyes

I have updated the above article on your user page. Do you think it can be added as an article? If so I leave that to you Plucas58 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plucas58, and thanks for the message.

Well done expanding the article. I have now moved it to Sir John Harmood-Banner, 1st Baronet.

Happy Christmas! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Nina Sosanya

I think Nina Sosanya would prefer to be known as female. Merry Christmas.JMcC (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JMcC. I am sure you are right. I goofed when recategorising her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from cfd

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

---

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I originally placed that comment wrongly; it should have been in response to the comment where you had just shown me WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL which, you must have known to be provoking! Yes, I vented a little steam in closing my original comment, I have my reasons for being steamed. You chose, under less stress, to provoke, and I think that is poor judgment from you. I'll rest myself with that, but I am containing some animosity that needn't have been manufactured.—John Cline (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline: please calm down. My comment intended no provocation, and offered no provocation.

You complained that XFD was being used as an alternative to collegial discussion, and I pointed out to you that XFD is bound by exactly the same rules of collegiality as any other discussion forum on Wikipedia. If you chose to read that as provocation, I suggest that you take a wee break from your keyboard until you feel less "steamed". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your points, mine have gotten past you. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your point is that you have chosen to allow yourself to get "steamed". That is your responsibility, not mine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not my point at all! My point is that you will not allow yourself to not provoke a person. Yes, I allowed myself to get steamed, and I think I'm handling it just fine. You've absolutely miss my point.—John Cline (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

John, if a statement to the effect that "this is a collegial venue too" is interpreted by you as a provocation, don't blame me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a statement like "this is a collegial venue too" is provocative, I think it's a bit disingenuous when answering whether or not it should be the first recourse. I think tempelating me as a caution against being uncivil was provocative; and much is already written on Wikipedia, about it, like wp:dtr for example. I'm just telling you, I felt the impact, and it was not. Above your comment, I mentioned wp:xfd, untemplated form, out of respect; in keeping wit wp:dtr. You yell back with XFD at me, saying it's just as good as a talk page. I disagree with that line.—John Cline (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

John, stop being silly. I didn't template you, and I didn't caution you; I just reminded you that the collegiality you seek also applies at XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend being silly. It's not impossible that I am. I did somehow miss the benevolence you apparently intended. Good luck as you spread your good cheer.—John Cline (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing BHG Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with deletion, please

I wrote an article in my sandbox, and moved it to the main Wiki. However, a copy still sits in my Sandbox. How do I delete it? User:Shipsview/sandbox and MacLean_of_Ardgour Shipsview (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shipsview

There isn't actually a copy in your sandbox; there is a WP:REDIRECT.

I have just edited your sandbox to remove the redirect code. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales! Thank you, Shipsview (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

Please check - David Lloyd George page - are references OK? Thanks so much Cheers M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.64.119 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed it.

Please take a little time to read Template:Cite news to learn how to use the citation templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

JB Smoove revisions

Hi there!

JB Smoove currently co-stars on CBS's The Millers with Wil Arnett and Beau Bridges . Thanks for you do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2680:2A9:8DAF:2BF7:199A:A98F (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 2601:E:2680:2A9:8DAF:2BF7:199A:A98F

When you wrote that message, did you see the note at the top of the screen: Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message?

Please link to the pages you are referring to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI assist

I'm coming to you about this because you're an admin, and because you were involved in cat diffusion at Paul Reubens. A disruptive editor has undone your change, twice, under two usernames, and I want to make sure the SPI against him gets traction before he causes more disruption. Apparently he's been at this since November across scores of articles. Any suggestions? — Brianhe (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brianhe, I have commented at the SPI.

In the meantime, I have left a note in the discussion at User talk:Edenc1#Jewish_american_actors, and left a comment at Category talk:Jewish American actors about respecting consensus.

I am WP:INVOLVED, so cannot use admin tools. However, if the disruption persists, I suggest a post to WP:ANI seeking restraining action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Me again I still find it hard to check refs. I will get my wife to help soon !!

Plesae check references fro page - Bertrand Russell Cheers again and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.216.152 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I will check it, but please can you do a few things to help?

Firstly, register an account. It's quick, protects your privacy, and makes it much easier for other editors to interact with you. Not required, but a good thing for everybody.

Secondly, please sign your messages on talk pages. All you need to do is to add the following characters at the end of each message: --~~~~.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Western (genre) film actresses

added, obvious inadvertence. --Cavarrone 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC) ...and obviously this message was also a suggestion to rearrange your comment there: as the point you made was taken into account and the CfD is now fixed your keep vote now needs a pertinent rationale. My best, Cavarrone 14:14, 8 January Cavarrone]], I have replied at the CFD discussion, and notified you of that response by using {{ping}}. This new device is a quicker and easier way of notification than a talk page message, and it's more useful to the recipient than a message such as the one I am replying to which includes no link. (See my editnotice which was displayed to you when you posted here: Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions... could you close the discussion there as "speedy kept/ withdrawn by nominator"? As you wrote, it was not a thought through nomination. Thanks. Cavarrone 15:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cavarrone: done. Thanks for being so nice about it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Goggins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Historians without doctoral training

Thanks for your message. I have not started many categories, and thus am not expert about it. Your rationale seems very expert, and I will consider it carefully, thanks. In the mean time, would you please advise whether this might be appropriate as a list instead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant, I know it's not fun having your work nominated for deletion, so thanks for being so nice about it. The CFD process may appear a bit intimidating, but it's just another consensus-forming discussion bound by the usual rules of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc ... so it is good to see you join in the discussion. The main ground rules for categories are at WP:CAT and WP:OCAT, but inevitably there are now quite a few subsiduary guidelines as well.

As to whether it would make a list, my view is that it probably wouldn't.

My undergrad studies were in history (in Ireland), so I know this territory a bit. AFAICS, in Ireland and the UK, until the early 1970s the majority of academic posts in history went to people who didn't have a PHD. In Oxbridge, for much of the 20th-century a PhD was a regarded as a sort of brash and ungentlemanly Americanism, almost as bad as buying a new suit more often than once a decade or (heresy!) wearing brown shoes in town. Instead of a PHD thesis, an upcoming academic would write a scholarly book for publication.

I think that things have been different in the USA, where the PhD has been a near-compulsory part of the pathway to tenure for a lot longer. It may be that a more focused list might work better (e.g. "20th-century American historians without doctoral training"), but it feels to me like a rather trivial list. YMMV :)

If you would like a 3rd-part view, I suggest asking at CFD, or making a WP:30 request for this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasant surprise to see that Wikipedia has an article titled "Piled Higher and Deeper".  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I wasn't too disruptive today.  :) Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I dared risk appearing to patronise someone who has been editing even longer than myself (and in Wikipedia terms, we are both of the era before Noah took up shipbuilding) ... I'd say no, you haven't at all. You created a categ in good faith, and when it was nominated for deletion you argued a case for keeping it, WP:CIVILly and without any WP:OWNership or complaints about the process. You engaged with the arguments of others, and took them on their merits rather than being defensive or combative.

That's how consensus formation is supposed to work.  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cydebot can do it

Hi, thanks for this tidy-up at CFDS, but I found some time ago that Cydebot seems to cope fine when the rationales are left in, e.g. as in the "old" edit here. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, FL, you are right. I didn't notice that until I saved the page that the links which had been blue were all red when the saved version loaded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, BHG! Happy to save you some future work too! – Fayenatic London 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clergy and priests

I saw your new discussion section at WT:WikiProject Categories, and am writing here to avoid muddying the water if it would not help.

Can this discussion also help us remove unnecessary levels of religious leaders > clergy > priests/ministers/etc (see CFD 2013 May 19)? In particular, do we need Category:Anglican clergy as well as Category:Anglican priests? If not, perhaps we can deal with that at the same time.

On the other hand, I don't want to make an already intricate discussion intractable. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:, thanks for your message.

Those are good questions, but I would prefer that they were kept for a separate discussion. The priests categorisation question can be resolved without any impact on the points you raise, and I hope it will be. After the unsuccessful CFD, I think that a focused RFC is most likely to answer that question.

Personally, I have never been clear what the "religious leaders" categories are for. Are they for anyone in any leadership role in a religion? Or only for those who are some sort of overall top dog? Their actual usage seems to imply both, which is a mishmash.

Within the Anglican context, I think that priests are not the only type of clergy, but I wouldn't swear to that. I think that a separate RFC will be needed to unravel the clergy/RL mess, which is much broader than Anglicanism. Do you feel like starting one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me jump in here. I was going to close one of the discussions, likely the one you did, with an appeal for some type of guidance discussion. So your starting the RFC should provide some guidance and I support that effort. I too am not sure how this should be broken out. My gut tells me that we are going to see differences by religion, so there may not be a single cut and dried solution what we can just apply. We still have the top level question as to what we call all of this. Is it religious leaders, clergy or something else? I do hope that the RFC produces a strong consensus in some direction so we can move forward, even if it is only on the by religion v by nationality question. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have in mind to finish renaming Methodists, Congregationalists, Salvationists and Pentecostals first. After that might be a better time for an RFC to pre-authorise a grand merger of Christian religious leaders / clergy (/ priests?) esp for Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans, but It might be possible to continue piecemeal without an RFC. Note that the Category:Islamic clergy tree has already been upmerged/renamed to RL. The CfD linked above sets out my game plan for Christian leaders.

I think you both note that this de-layering is a separate agenda from the nationality question, although they do interact. For example, we could categorise Anglican clergy by nationality, just at the clergy level and not e.g. Bishops. I'm still meaning to give this more thought before offering an opinion at the current RFC. – Fayenatic London 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Category:Anglican clergy contains a small sub-category of Category:deacons, who are not priests, and an even smaller sub-cat of non-ordained ecclesiastical officers, which is probably not needed. We may need to keep clergy as a head cat for deacons as well as priests, but probably all the detailed cats should end up under priests with no detail at the clergy level... Except perhaps nationality and century. – Fayenatic London 00:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Soling class Olympic sailors

Hi, Thanks for your support on the Soling class Olympic sailors discussion. I still have one question... When will the dicision on this matter been taken? Regards NED33 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NED33, CFD discussions have to remain open for 7 days, except in a few special circumstances which allow early closure. None of those circumstances (e.g. WP:SNOW, WP:CSK) apply here.

However, owing to the massive shortage of admins on Wikipedia, there is a huge backlog in the closure of discussions generally (see e.g. WP:RMB and the requests at WP:AN/RFC) and it is particularly severe at CFD: see WP:CFD/W#Discussions_awaiting_closure.

So maybe we will be in luck and see the Soling discussion closed soon after the expiry of the 7-day period at 08:47 on 14 January ... but I fear it is much more likely to take several weeks :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you advise...wait or reconstruct the other classes as well.NED33 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi NED33, Creating a new set of categories similar to a set already under discussion at CFD is not a good idea. If there a consensus at CFD to delete, then the newly-created categs require a fresh nomination to delete them (and they probably will be deleted); whereas if there is a consensus to keep, all that has been lost is time. On Wikipedia there is no deadline, so it is best to await the outcome of the test case.

I know that this is a bit frustrating at the best of times, and even more so when there is a huge backlog. Just as a backlog of court cases pre prevents people and businesses from getting on with their lives, the backlog of discussion closures is stifling the development of Wikipedia. Sad, but there we are.

In the meantime, how about creating more content? Categories are useful, but they are only a means of navigating between content pages. The content is what really matters.

Wikipedia's coverage of sailing is pretty poor. It shouldn't be hard to expand it significantly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, One thing I'm buzy with the last few years is the coverage of the Olympics. So far I structured 1900 - 1992 and a bit of the remaining 5 Olympiads (the rest will follow soon) as well as the Vintage Yachting Games. Last weeks I added/structured the stubs of all dutch Olympic sailors. The categories came up in the intersections of the topics.NED33 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A new day begins

I apologize for bringing my discontent to your talk page. For what it is worth, I am going to take that break you advised; for the best of all. I am glad you reverted my last edit, as you did! Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline: thanks for your message, and sorry for being so slow to respond.

Wikipedia can be stressful. Any work that any of us does here can be challenged by anyone, edited without mercy, and nominated for deletion. That's part of the price editors pay for the benefits of writing in an open, collaborative environment, but it ain't always easy. I find that two things are particularly helpful:

1. assuming good faith at all times. Sometimes that can be very hard, but most disagreements arise because someone has seen something we have missed, or weighs things differently. Much better to ask ppl to explain themselves than to beconme defensive or hostile.
2. Get away from the keyboard the moment I start feeling angry. Posting when angry or upset is never a good idea. Really, never.

We all have days when we aren't at our best. I look fwd to working with you again in better times :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish cheeses

Category:Northern Irish cheeses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

good piece

Thanks for your careful analysis in the C:WRONG RfD case. Of course me liking it is easier because it has my own conclusion, but still the arguing reads being thorough, looking wide, and written from a true closers position. -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DePiep. It was a difficult discussion to close, so I took some time to try to map out the arguments and issues for myself, so it seemed best to spell out how I reached the conclusion. Especially when editors feel as strongly about something as the two sides did in that debate, it's helpful if the closer can put in the time to explain their resaoning; in those circumstances, a black box closure can be very frustrating.

Closers don't always have the time to write at such length, but in a case like this a detailed explanation may actually save time, by avoiding a deletion review based on a misunderstanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Lupton

Could you please check that the references are OK for Professor Sir Arnold Lupton? cheers and thanks mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Brown Haired Girl Could you please check the reference fix for page "Arnold Lupton". Thanks for your help so far cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.96.225 (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. Please take a little time to study the working of {{cite web}}. It is not complicated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

hi Brown haired girl Please could you check (last time I promise!) the page - Arnold Lupton -and also James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce. spelling etc Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 January 2014‎

Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there could you please, please, check my hopeless references for 1) Martineau Family 2) Henry Herbert Southey

YOu are so good to me! Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have tired not to bother you - you have been so helpful in the past. could you please check refs for 3 pages 1) Martineau family 2) James Martineau 3) Philip Meadows Martineau Thanks again so much - I am trying but I get confused Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike 101.160.17.244, I'm sorry, but I give up :(

You don't seem to be learning the real basics of how to edit here. Signing your posts and linking to the pages you mention are both really easy to do, and both are specifically requested in the editnotice displayed with a big blue border when you post here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Women and Wikipedia: Any interest in doing an interview?

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm a PhD student currently working on a research project about women and Wikipedia, and I'd love to interview you if you've the time and willingness. You can find a description of my project and see RCom approval via my Wikimedia project page.--Mssemantics (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Commercial

Do you mind if I ask for CFD participation from one WP:NRHP member who's a professional architect? Please respond at the CFD page, not here. I'm asking you because it's potentially running the risk of votestacking, since the person in question has (if I remember rightly) been generally in line with my position on discussions like this one. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: It would be a kind of votestacking :(

Rather than selecting someone who favours your view, why not use {{subst:cfd-notify}} to leave a neutrally-worded request on the WikiProject talk page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduced fish

Hi, as I was checking backlinks after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_17#Category:Introduced_saltwater_fish I found Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country. What do you think? Should those be nominated as well?

Also, although the opinions were to delete, can we as closers impose an outcome of Merge rather than delete? IMHO most of those fish should have been upmerged to Category:Fish of Ukraine (I have just done so). – Fayenatic London 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi FL

I think that given that a consensus was reached on one category of introduced fish, the same result would likel apply to other similar categories. (If not, the first consensus was flawed). So I'd say good idea to nominate them.

As the closure as merge rather than delete, I'm not sure what the wider view is. My take is that where the discussion has considered merger and rejected it, then there is no room for closer discretion.

OTOH, if the discussion has not considered merger even tho it was a possible option, I regard the decision as incomplete. Ideally, the discussion would be relisted with a request for clarification: Yes, you want the articles removed from that category, but do you also want them removed from the parent categories?

However, with the reduced participation in CFDs and the backlog of closures, I have sometimes decided that this wouldn't help, so closing as merge is the least worst option. Can't remember how many times I have done that, but guess about 3. It has never been taken to DRV, so I dunno how it would be seen there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi BHG, thanks for this helpful advice.

On further inspection, the introduced fish are part of a larger hierarchy Category:Introduced species, which nobody mentioned in the discussion, and seems to undermine the rationale. Does that make it eligible for DRV? To avoid bureaucracy, may I suggest undoing the close? if you'd be prepared to do that, I would be willing to reinstate the categories and pages concerned (they were processed by ArmbrustBot), after which the discussion could simply be continued. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

FL, thanks for that pointer.

After reading your comment, I did agree that the existence of a wider Category:Introduced species merited a relisting.

However, I see now that Category:Introduced species was previously deleted at CFD 2007 May 23, and that I closed that discussion. It's probably too long ago to G4 the lot, but it seems to me that they should be discussed as a whole.

So how do we get from here to a discussion of Category:Introduced species and all of its subcats? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_26#Category:Introduced_species seeking to keep the existing categories, restrict some of them to containers, and reinstate those for saltwater fish. I think that covers it. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

new categories

Hi, I remember your name from category discussions so wanted to get your eyes on two new ones recently created: Category:Transgender and transsexual gay, and Category:Transgender and transsexual lesbian. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Failure to observe ANI policy

WP:ANI has rather few rules for reporting "incidents", and one of the few rules is that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to any effort that you made to reach out to me to address your perceived grievance? Your claims would have more credibility if Wikipedia policy were observed in the process and you appear to have violated policy requirements here. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn, regardless of the merits of this claim, if I were you I'd be more careful in my word choice. Sure, "silly" may not be directly a personal attack here (and your putting it in quotes is silly), but it indicates a rather combative attitude. Just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In defense of AS, BHG is a big fan of the word "silly" and uses it rather frequently, so I think he was just returning the favor. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FATCA

Hello. I am reaching out to you since you are an admin and are experiencing the same attitude from Ottawahitech as I am. My issue has been the addition of FATCA to various Canadian Bank's pages, the addition of National wikiprojects and fear mongering via edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=591292379. Since I do not want to violate 3RR could you have a look at Scotia Bank as I have not been able to get them to provide a rationale on any of the talk pages as to why they want to include this information. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mrfrobinson

First off, I am aware of that legislation, and see it is an appalling piece of bullying by the USA. So I share Ottawahitech's horror at it.

However, Wikipedia is an NPOV publication, and it is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The fact that an editor feels strongly something is not a valid reason for using Wikipedia to promote that view. The post you linked to was pure soapboxing, and is a misuse of a noticeboard. Similarly, spamming the material into a whole series of articles is soapboxing, and Ottawahitech was warned about it on their talk page. By all means, ensure that FATCA is covered in its own article. It might also be appropriate to mention it in an article such as Banking in Canada, but spamming boilerplate text across a series of articles is a form of campaigning. If people want to raise concerns about a public policy, Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Go start a blog or march in the street or whatever, but editors should not use Wikipedia as a campaign platform.

I am beginning to see a pattern here of a repeated failure by Ottawahitech to understand how Wikipedia works. Since I am WP:INVOLVED, I will neither revert nor use admin tools. But I will post at the thread on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Your comments on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board (FATCA)

Hi,

I realize you do ALOT of good work on Wikipedia, however you have also made some public accusations against me. Please see my response at: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#What_sort_of_edits_are_acceptable_on_Scotiabank. Thanks, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Community settlement (Israel)

Could you explain why you moved this page to a title that contains unnecessary disambiguation? Thanks. Number 57 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: I explained it when I reverted your move. See Talk:Community settlement (Israel)#Page_move_reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all that categorisation work that is oh so boring. I happily navigate through categories to find what I need, and frequently find oddities, but thankfully people like you fix such oddities! Nice work. Harrias talk 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sailors at the 1984 Summer Olympics - ...

Thank you very much for helping to save this useful navigational aid for looking up Olympic sailors.NED33 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Daniela Navarro

Oh, it does not set me right on that, excuse.--GeorgeMilan ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Māori plant common names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rātā, Tutu, Puka, Miro, Ponga, Karaka, Kawakawa, Horopito, Kiekie, Heketara, Māori, Koromiko, Tarata, Hangehange, Houhere and Pōkākā

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

October cleanup

Can you look at Category:Categories for discussion from October 2013, particularly the two British discussions? Did you notice a discussion on these? If a speedy is OK, can you relist. Otherwise renominate and list for a full discussion. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: Thanks for the pointer. Both the pages (Category:British politicians by nationality and Category:British writers by location) were tagged as speedy, but I can find no trace of either ever having been listed at WP:CFD/S. (using Wikiblame: [3] [4])

There is no way that either meets any speedy criteria, so I have simply removed the tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Now that just leaves the manual tagging of 500 talk pages. Yea, probably should ask for a bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: I don't follow you. What 500 talk pages? Anyway, don't even think of doing it manually. Bots are good at that, and one did a large batch for me yesterday: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#WikiProject_tagging (permalink). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was the one I was manually doing. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories on American actors by city

Thank you for finishing what I started with the recategorization of these categories. I'm sure you already know but I will point out anyhow that Category:American male actors by city should be deleted once you have finished the switch.Hoops gza (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be made into a redirect.Hoops gza (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: Thanks for the reminder. I have proposed[5] its speedy merger, and agree that once merged it should become a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:American male actors by city now merged and redirected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub category redirects

You have created the following "stub category redirects": Category:Bacs-Kiskun County geography stubs, Category:Bekes County geography stubs and Category:Csongrad County geography stubs. They, however, are completely redundant, as stub categories should only be populated through stub templates. I think they should be deleted. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Armbrust,

I did wonder about that after creating them. I reckoned that while the downside was an increased risk of manual population, security through obscurity is rarely a good idea; and in any case, most stub cats are vulnerable to this without redirects. The benefit is that the redirects make it easier to find the categories, for maintenance or other purposes.

On balance, I thought the pluses were a little ahead. Do you disagree? (I'm open to persuasion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Creating categories

Hey, BHG,
I just noticed a new user Tranquility of Soul creating a lot of similar categories on fictional entities. I'm not sure if it's a previously blocked editor but creating categories isn't usually the first kind of editing new users do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Lots of category editing, wnd indeed a number of new categories. Some of them seem very narrow (e.g. Category:Fictional Yupik people), and a lot of them seem to be left empty, but have already been tagged for speedy deletion. Let's see how it works out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Populated places in Hungary by county

• Request for help: All inside Category:Populated places in Hungary by county need the form Foo County, not Foo county. Some quick tagging possible? Androoox (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Androoox: All tagged, and listed at WP:CFD/S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing RMs

Hi BHG, and a big thanks for helping with the RM backlog. There's a real admin shortage over there. Quick note, though: when you close RMs, make sure you remove the {{requested move}} tag, or the request will still be listed at WP:RM. When I close, I just replace {{requested move}} with {{subst:pot}} or whatever. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD

I have just helped clear some of the huge backlog at WP:CFD/W, so I was looking for somewhere else to help out. The shortage of admins is only getting worse, and I fear that we are going to see a lot more backlogs. So thught I woukd use some spare time to help out there.

I had wondered what to do with the {{requested move}} tags, and hadn't seen any guidance. I now see that I can just deleted them without losing the info on what the discussion was about. Should have spotted that before, but thanks for pointing it out to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

BHG, thanks for helping with the move backlog. In your closure at Egyptian Constitution of 2014, when you said 'consensus has been reached here' about Constitution of Egypt did you mean to say 'consensus has *not* been reached here'? On the matter of taking out the requested move template, this is usually fine to do unless it's a multi-move, in which case to might need to add 'tlx' or something to the existing {{requested move/dated}} template to keep the multiple moves clear in the result. An example is at Talk:PET-CT#Move? EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Sorry, I meant to say "no consensus" on Constitution of Egypt, and have now corrected the closing statement. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Any {{old cfd}} for redirects?

Hello, can I ask a spot of advice? Do you think I should do this to category talk redirects, or put {{old cfd}} on the redirect target talk page, or leave no {old cfd} at all? I think no {old cfd} at all is adequate for this kind of thing... Splash - tk 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Splash, so far as I am aware the usual practice has been not to tag with {{old cfd}} if a categ is deleted. At least that's how I do it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sounds good to me. Splash - tk 23:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Protect WP:CVU

Hi. After Special:Contributions/86.144.46.233's vandalism on the WP:CVU page, I noticed that it wasn't protected. The IP attacked the main page and two other subpages of CVU; even after reverting all three, the main page still is displaying the damage. I assumed it took time to update or something, and it was fine later. Would you kindly indefinitely semi-protect all of it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Ugog Nizdast, but I think no.

AFAICS, in the last 12 months the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit page has been vandalised 7 times, by 2 registered accounts and 4 IPs. I don't think that's enough vandalism to justify any protection, semi-protection would have stopped only 4 of the 7 vandal edits.

I think that there is even a little bit of an advantage to leaving that page vulnerable. It is heavily-monitored, so any eejit who chooses that as their place of vandalism will be caught and dealt with very quickly. Better that they cause their mischief there rather than on some little-watched BLP.

You may well have good reasons for disagreeing, and of course I'd be happy to discuss them. But I think that to ensure scrutiny of any such decision, a request should be made at WP:RFPP rather than on an admin's tlka page.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought such a specific page in the WP namespace was maybe exempt from WP:RPP or something, and even from the usual reasons for protection. I see that you want to leave it as a sort-of decoy, that's a different way of looking at it; I suppose that's fine then, not a matter of urgency anymore. Thanks for your prompt response. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I don't think that the protection policy applies any special consideration to project pages (i.e. those in the "Wikipedia" namespace). I was just trying to apply the general principles of the policy, and added my own notion of a little decoy value. I may be wrong on both counts, but them's my thoughts.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Flow test

BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea that Flow wa sso stupid to "substitute" pages instead of "transcluding" them. Normally, if that tool worked allright, you wouldn't even have gotten a notification, let alone crash the system. My aim was simply to take a rezasonably large page to see how the display reacted, nothing more. I'm sorry that this caused so much problems, but the test was not intended to or expected to have this result at all. Fram (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fram, sorry if my comments were a bit growly.

I agree that Flow is badly broken, and that the result was not your fault. However, I do think that your test was ill-considered, and that the hassles for so many editors could have been avoided by better planning of the test, wihch would have been achieved by discussing it beforehand.

When testing transclusion on a very raw piece of software, it would be much better to use a page which could be blanked. A copy of one of the database reports would have done the job nicely.

In this case, it seems that the developers knew in advance that such a big transclusion would fail. So it wasn't even an appropriate test.

AFAICS, Flow is deeply misconceived at many levels, and I hope that it is soon disabled on en:wp. I will add my support at Wikipedia:ANI#Flow_needs_to_be_stopped_NOW.21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In a nice twist of fate, Echo is now broken for me, your "ping" of me raised the red number from "3" tot "4" :-) No idea if it is Flow-related this time. And if it is true that the devs knew upfront that this would fail, then they are hugely irresponsible. Any vandal could have transcluded WP:ANI, some RFAs, and one of two other pages, and Echo (and thus the "new messages" functionality would have been disabled for most of our active editors and admins. If they knowingly let such a problem linger (while a fix was eithe ready or easy to make), and made it even more easy to exploit by introducing Flow, then that is worse than incompetence, it is malicious neglect. But I think I have done my part complaining about WMF and its devs :-) Fram (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: I don't entirely blame the devs. AFAICS, they are working in a vacuum of strategic management, and without a coherent framework for trying to develop software to support the community. WMF funds which could have been used for much-needed software development (and particularly the planning of software) are being squandered on a massive scale by funding vast bureaucracies of largely ineffectual "chapters" in various countries.

Sorry to hear that Echo has broken for you. Have you tried disabling Flow in notifications?

Anyway, I have added my comment at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Flow works again, no idea why (I did email a WMF person this time, if he or she solved it, thanks, that was swift!). I use "devs" as shorthand for the whole team; the main responsability for the mismanagement is with the project managers and those above (individual errors may have a whole range of culprits, but the overall problems are too large to ignore). And don't get me started on chapters... Fram (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Muslim generals

You closed a discussion on Category:Muslim generals as delete. However there is still a notice of being under discussion at CfD on that category, and it has not been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other (permalink) and User talk:Obiwankenobi#Muslim_warriors (permalink). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JPL; your assistance is welcome in emptying this category, sorry just haven't had time to do the research to figure out where all of these guys should be categorized yet. I'm going to ping wikiproject milhistory as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

JPL, you're hired :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dragon's Crown

The talk page was left behind in the page move. I tagged Talk:Dragon's Crown with {{db-move}}, if you can take a look.  czar ♔ 23:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was clumsy of me. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Thanks for your help!  czar ♔ 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Parishes of Latvia

Maybe you can help at Category:Parishes of Latvia: several "Foo parish" categories exist at that level (no subcategories), while the corresponding articles are "Foo Parish". I already put all Foo municipality to CFD, to be changed to Foo Municipality. Androoox (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor review suggestion

Editor review seems to be geared towards reviewing editors' contributions to article space. I don't do much of that. I don't see a good fit there. Am I missing something? --B2C 01:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

B2C, see Wikipedia:Editor review: "Before requesting a review, please understand the following:
* Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia"

I don't see anything which restricts it to article space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Renaming and moving "Sharavathi" to "Sharavati"

I have provided additional links supporting usage of the spelling "Sharavati" pdh 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuttuHegde (talk • contribs)

Name change

Discussion closed. I have expanded my closing rationale, and don't see any point in further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

You made mistake at Srbica - Skenderaj article. The name of the place has not been changed. Albanian and Serbian language are official languages on Kosovo since end of WWII. The name of the place on Serbian language (official language on Kosovo) is still Srbica. Also, you stated that "no editor demonstrated any flaw in their methodology" which is another big mistake. I pointed to the problem of GBS hits in my comment. Please be so kind to correct your mistakenly closed RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed your comments before closing, and noted for example your misleading Google Books results (where you failed to exclude Wikipedia results). So I stand by my close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice Google Books results where User:In ictu oculi failed to exclude Wikipedia results?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See my additional closing statement at Talk:Skenderaj#Requested_move_2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You should follow WP:RM/CI and determine consensus by evaluating arguments presented by participants in the discussion. You failed to do it properly, and renamed the article:

• although there was no consensus for the move
• by citing wrong wikipedia policy (the name of the place is still Srbica on one of two official languages)
• based on incorrect GBS results, mistakenly claiming that "no editor demonstrated any flaw in their methodology"

When I pointed to your mistakes you made even worse mistake and with your "additional closing statement" you created even worse problem. You got yourself involved in the discussion and supported renaming by presenting post 2012 GBS hits.

Please be so kind to correct your mistakenly closed RM and allow uninvolved administrator to close the discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to point to arguments used in discussion which are grounded in wikipedia policies and served as basis for your closure?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Category Gaelic Athletic Association clubs by region

Since you're a bit of a category expert I wonder if you could help out? To what does this Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs by region refer? Or maybe the better question is to what should it refer ?

Is it geographic regions such as Asia , Ireland , USA, in which case Britain and Ireland are subcategories of Europe and London a subcategory of Britain or is it GAA regions such as Asia GAA , New York GAA ,British GAA Gnevin (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

unarchived to allow reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

US Civil War stamps: some advise

Discussion moved to User talk:ww2censor#Civil War history on stamps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I noticed that User‎:TheVirginiaHistorian was working on an article in their sandbox but it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Civil War history on stamps‎. Before the page move I had some concerns about it and was going to do the review but have some questions. Despite all the hard work done by the editor, in my opinion the topic immediately fails Step 2; notability. I have not found any sources that verify the topic itself. It certainly does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the only thing I can find [6] refers only to the issuing and listing of the stamps in stamp catalogues, which does not suffice. For Step 3; suitability. While reasonably written it really appear to be a directory of the stamps issued a long time after the US civil war, so appears to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1. It also seems to merely be a collection of information, all of which is available in the individual articles, about each of the individuals and events illustrated with stamps. In fact it is just a nice way of making another gallery of stamps, a bit like A Gallery of U. S. Postmasters' Provisional Stamps, 1845-47 which I think should be nominated for deletion per WP:NOTGALLERY, but he has put in quite a lot of prose to not make it appear to be a gallery. Your thoughts are appreciated. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi ww2censor. Long time no see. I hope you are keeping well :)

I see your point. How about converting it to a List of US civil war stamps, with a section for those issued during the war and for those issued after it which related to the war? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm good and thought you were rather low key these days. I do some other things to ask but at another time. To me a List of US civil war stamps would imply they were from the civil war era when they were issued quite a long time after, so perhaps List of US stamps commemorating the US civil war would be more descriptive but is an ugly title and even that implies commemorative stamps only and not definitive stamps! Essentially most, though not all, of this ground is covered by US Presidents on US postage stamps, Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States and the civil war section of Postage stamps and postal history of the United States and other paragraphs of that article. While I am a philatelist and promote that project, using articles as basically an excuse to illustrate a large number of stamps is not wiki's objective which is also why I mentioned A Gallery of U. S. Postmasters' Provisional Stamps, 1845-47. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice of the discussion. This is my first effort at initiating a stub, having taken stubs Pauline Maier and Battle of Fort Pulaski to B? class articles. Rjensen, Ghwillickers and another editor at Talk:American Civil War suggested this topic as an article as a subsidiary article to American Civil War. Stamps from the Civil War period are not seen as primary documents by some editors to be included in the ACW article itself.

The only comment to date is "I think this is a brilliant idea for an article and the scope of coverage is impressive." But, 1) must have inline citations before mainspace 2) work on images. --- Now it is not to be an article, not a gallery and not a list? I would appreciate your help in crafting the stub for mainspace. Can it be a summary of the Civil War generation, a biography article of significant American personalities who were involved in the Civil War --- and commemorated in stamps for either Civil War or other lifetime achievements. Thanks. (wp:significance?) 11:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian posted on this topic on my talk page. Would you like me to move it all there or can we continue to discuss it here? I'm interested in you latest views on the topic. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Sorry about my lack of response here. I had looked at this thread a few times, but didn't really think I had much to add. I meant to post to say that, and I'm sorry for not doing so ... but yes, best to copy it to your talk page. I'd prefer that you copied it rather than move it; just lemme know that you have done so and I will archive this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The above post has been copies to my talk page at: User talk:ww2censor#Civil War history on stamps. You may want to follow it if you are interested further. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

Dear BrownHairedGirl: I just found out about the deletion discussion for this category this evening. I started to make a posting, but was interrupted. When I returned, I finished my post and saved it, but in the mean time the discussion was closed. I am not sure if I should remove the post or not. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne

Thanks for your message.

Yes, please do remove your post from WP:CFD 2014 February 4#Category:Articles_created_via_the_Article_Wizard.

A closed discussion is supposed to be kept in the state it was when it was closed. Your comment would have been a useful addition to the debate if it had been made while the discussion was still open, but you were too late. The discussion had been open for the full 7 days since its relisting, and for a total of 20 days since it was first opened, so the closure was not premature. It's just how things go sometimes: we don't always spot a discussion we might have been interested in joining. :(

My closure of the discussion did add the standard notices about it being an archive of a closed discussion, complete with a sentence in red: Please do not modify it.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done that. My posting after closure was accidental and I wasn't sure if I should modify it again or if you should do it. This is my first experience with "Categories for discussion". I know that when the deletion of an article or other page is being discussed, the nominator is supposed to notify interested projects (in this case Wikiproject:Articles for creation). Is this not the case with categories? It wasn't just me, it seems that almost no one from Afc weighed in until Technical 13 left us a heads-up a couple of days before closing. From the wording of the closure, it seems likely that the category will be "discussed" again, so I plan to start a thread about it on the Afc talk page so that next time we'll be ready with information about what effect (if any) removing the category will have on the various Afc processes and statistics. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne. Anyone could have removed it, but I think it's best if removed by the poster. That leaves a record in the page history of your good faith :)

I didn't start the discussion, but the category was tagged with the CFD banner, so any AFC people using it will have seen it. When it was relisted, I noticed the lack of responses and left a note at WP:CENT. That's unusual; I don't think that I have ever before seen a CFD listed so prominently.

As to directly notifying a WikiProject, that's suggested but not required. I used to do it with most CFDs, but the resposnse was so poor that I decided it was rarely worth the effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for taking the time to add the listing to WP:CENT. That appears to have attracted the attention of an Afc participant, who later posted it on the Afc talk page. As I said, I have not been involved in this area up to now, but I am surprised to hear that category changes are not usually announced, since Afc can't be the only project which depends on categories to organize their work. Perhaps it's not usually a problem because category discussions are usually initiated by those working in a related subject area, and others who work in the same area have the proposers on their watchlists. This doesn't appear to have been the case here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants). Anyway, your posting was effective and if this category comes up for discussion again the Afc participants will hopefully be more prepared to discuss its value or lack thereof. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Most projects now use WP:Article alerts, so they get an automatic notification if their banner is on the talk page. But to be honest, most projects seem pretty moribund these days :(

I didn't know that there was a Wikiproject:Articles for creation, but reckoned this was big enough to go to WP:CENT. Glad that it came to your attention somehow, just sorry that it was late in the day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Want!

Hi! Could you withdraw your decision at Talk:Want (Berryz Kobo song)? It wasn't "moved as nominated" cause it was nominated like this: [7]. The proposal was to move to Want! (Berryz Kobo song).
The nominator confused everyone by changing his proposal at a later date. You see, he changed it just the day before you closed the nomination, on February 10: [8].

1. The IP supported the move to Want! (Berryz Kobo song): [9].
2. I decided not to vote against the original proposal. You see: [10]. I would have voted strongly against any title without the exclamation mark and I didn't even have a chance to notice the switch. (Cause it was only there for less than one day.)

Please withdraw, could you? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Changing the nom like that was sneaky and unacceptable behaviour, but it doesn't alter the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Two votes for Want (Berryz Kobo song) and one vote for Want! (Berryz Kobo song) is not a consensus. If I saw it coming, I would vote against immediately. What should I do now? --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 3 to 1, because the nom's change of mind is effectively a !vote for that option. (For: Richhoncho, nominator, -Cúchullain). That's a consensus.

Feel free to open a move review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know move reviews existed. (I will certainly do it when I have time.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you are quite entitled to open a review if you want to. But I suggest that before doing so, you set aside your regret at not getting the outcome you wanted, and take a careful look with a closer's eye at the support and reasons for the various options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right... Formally the closure was correct. This is what I get for letting the nominator have it his own way. He wanted to move the page so much that chose to move it to a completely senseless title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: The nominator behaved quite wrongly, and I will warn them about that. However, I strongly recommend that you don't call the new title "seneseless". Other editors offered reasons why they thought that title was better, and while you are quite entitled to disagree with those reasons, please have the courtesy not to call them "senseless". You have your view, and they have theirs; none of you is senseless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It was just a figure of speech and my emotional assessment of the resulting title, just my emotional reaction. I didn't call the editors "senseless" :) I am very sorry if it sounded like that. I simply thought the present title was wrong.
I just want to explain. I see the reasons provided. But, for example, Richhoncho suggests that "the sources don't agree", which is incorrect cause the single by Berryz Kobo has not been mentioned in any reliable English-language sources as far I know (Billboard publishes the Japanese charts, but the charts from a year ago are not available online, so there's no way to check) and Japanese sources never omit any punctuation marks in titles (absolutely never). So there was no valid reason to remove the exclamation mark. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Thanks for that apology. I have been an editor here for more than 8 years, and have made hundreds of thousands of edits across thousands of articles and tens of thousands of discusisons. If there is one overriding piece of advice I would give to other editors, it would be to set your emotions aside when contributing here. Emotion never helps, and it often leads to disagreements escalating into disputes or worse. If something here upsets you, take a break from it until the upset has passed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Noted, but in fact Moscow Connection I agree with you I would prefer ! was retained (minor issue) in addition to the more important issue of recognizable titling by artist name. Thanks again to BrownHairedGirl for having tidied up. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Muslim generals

Any reason Category:Muslim generals was not deleted after you closed as delete? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian.

See above: #Muslim_generals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We probably should consider a {{cfd manual cleanup}} to flag these, but are there enough? Probably not. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: I think it would be a good idea, because at any given time there seems to be several such categories waiting for attention. It wouldn't be very heavily used, but it would save a lot of confusion on the few categories for which it is used, because they tend to linger in the queue for a long time.

I will doodle something, but wondered if the name couldn't be shorter. How about {{cfd manual}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually take a look at User:Vegaswikian/template:cfd manual. Fell free to doodle. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: That's great! Please move it out of userspace so we can start using it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

{{cfd manual}} Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Cop"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_15#Template:Cop about the second nomination of Template:Cop in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Non-free video game cover is broken

Your latest edit on Template:Non-free video game cover broke it. See for example: File:Godfather.jpg. If there are multiple platforms listed it doesn't display them correctly. --Mika1h (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just fixed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 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/List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna 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/List of people assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented at AFD. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Androoox

Check [11], is it fair? OccultZone (Talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) I removed the template, as the page is part of a set. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorted out. OccultZone (Talk) 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wprk"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk about the nomination of Template:wprk in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Works edited by Maxim Jakubowski

Maxim Jakubowski edited several New Wave science fiction / fantasy anthologies in the 1970s / 1980s. This category will increase if the other books are detailed. This will be a way to link these works together. That is the reason this category should be kept. If there is another title for this kind of category that is standard in Wikipedia, then I am alright with it being used Hotspur23 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hotspur23

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#Category:Works_edited_by_Maxim_Jakubowski. Please can you comment there? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Heads-up re RM

If you were to change your vote at Talk:HR 7722#Requested move 09 February 2014, I'd then consider it a candidate for an immediate close (but not by me as I've now voted - perhaps I shouldn't have). Have a look at the evidence. Considering the backlog, the early close may not happen, but IMO it would be good to leave the possibility open. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look, but ...

I strongly dislike your suggestion that I should be swayed by the prospect of an early close. I will make my decision based on the evidence. And if that results in the discussion being relisted, what's the problem? WP:NODEADLINE.

I am also unimpressed by your implication that you might have been better not to comment. It kinda implies that the closer's discretion would not have been used impartially :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither that suggestion nor that implication was intended. I apologise for not being clear on that, it takes two to communicate and I have obviously failed in this, but I think you are perhaps being oversensitive, frankly.

You should of course vote as you see fit. I did not ever expect anything else.

You were right to oppose. I thought I had clearly implied that. Would you like me to clarify it on the page? Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)