User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 031

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

Acceptable user signatures

Regarding your opinion here; would "Pretty Boys" be an acceptable signature? --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. It seems a bit attention-seeking, and will probably make some people a little uncomfortable.

I'm not sure whether I'd want to ban it, but I would discourage it.

My main concern is that in a collaborative environment, editors should be trying to remove impediments to collaboration rather than pushing to try to find a limit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you met User:Bishonen? She's one of our more highly respected women editors (in fact, she was the first user to ever get over 100 supports to be an administrator), and that's basically what her user name means. Also by its existence bringing into question any suggestion that "Women don't usually engage in this sort of innuendo-laden humour." Another might object to the use of "Girl" in a user name, since it is often used as a derogatory reference to women that tends to reduce their perceived authority. Yet a third might complain about anyone named "gruban", which, when you come down to it, means "rude" in Russian, even if it should happen to be someone's first initial and last name. We open a deep can of worms when we question any but the most obviously offensive user names, since so many can be interpreted so many ways by someone looking for any possible offense. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: I think we partly agree that with anything like this, there are dangers in setting hard-and-fast rules. Where we disagree is on what to do with problematic names.

Taking the criteria at WP:USERNAME#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames, the first criteria is profanity, which is easily enough policed. Same with "clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia". The next criterion is personal attack, where, I would be be quite restrictive; best not to use a name to refer to others. (IhateJimbo is clearly a no-no, but NotaFanOfJimbo is also unnecessarily negative).

The final criterion is "seem intended to provoke emotional reaction", where my own view is to give more scope to self-deprecation than to names which appear to comment on others. For example "Pretty Boy" may be self-deprecation, but "Pretty Boys" appear to express a sexual preference for other or possibly comment on them. It doesn't help.

I would try to place the name on a rough scale. The most extreme cases are easy ("KillJews" should be banned on sight). Short of that, some names need a little consideration, others would benefit from a bit of a warning ("DontLikeJudaism" is gonna make Jewish editors uncomfortable, and that sort of editor should be asked to reconsider), while some may not quite be instant block but should be given a chance to change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please. Tell Bishonen that her user name appears to comment on others, so should be changed. I'm sure she will enlighten you. She's very good about that sort of thing. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The only meaning I am aware of is that Bishonen. It appears to be solely a comment on herself, and whether she intends it seriously or whimsically or satirically is none of anybody else's business. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anybody's really worried about me, but I don't mind explaining. The reason I used a dubiously gendered account name when I started editing Wikipedia was that I was new, not only to wikipedia but to the internet, and had a timid or fearful idea that it was important to be very private and unknown and that my gender, for instance, was nobody's business. Being an ordinary-looking lady of mature years, "pretty boy" seemed just right as a misleading handle, and I also liked the lilt of "bishonen", as a word. I'm no longer so privacy-obsessed, and have freely shared some information about myself (gender, nationality, place of residence, line of work) with my wikifriends when they've asked, even though I still tend to have an impulse to keep such details in e-mail rather than on site. So what's the reason I still use that silly account name, you may ask? By the time I thought better of it, the name had stuck, my alter ego Bishzilla had become something of an IRC personality, and, as GRuban reminds me (hello, G), my 2005 RFA had been unusually well-attended. In hindsight, changing the name round about 2005 or so would have been unproblematic. People change their usernames all the time, I have now learned, and soon the new name feels natural to them as well as others. But I didn't know that then, and also I still liked the lilt. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

It's undeniably a cool lilt. :-) Don't change it, please. You're quite right, it wasn't about you specifically, simply that you were the first I thought of when reading "Women don't engage in innuendo-laden humor", which I had thought would have been left behind in the Victorian era, with "all men are rakes and scoundrels". Also your experience and respect gives you a sort of armor; I had hoped that someone who could stand up to Jimbo Wales wouldn't be deeply scarred by being mentioned on a talk page. Anyway, BHG, looks like I didn't convince you, and you still think that a man signing "Devils in Skirts" (a reference to fighting Scotsmen, actually) is still inherently different from a woman signing "Pretty Boy". So it goes. I bow and retire. --GRuban (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. Would you care to comment at this RfC for the article Artpop? It originally started as a proposal to remove an unverifiable statement decided upon by editors in a previous consensus but has moved to a similar proposal titled "Agyle's proposal". If not, feel free to ignore message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Dan56.

The topic isn't really my area of interest, so I don't want to put the time into reviewing the sources myself. Withoiut doing that, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment substantively.

However, I have read the discussion, and it seems to be going well, with a consensus developing around what appears to be a fairly cautious interpretation of the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

who are you :)

- Sachein91 - Talk Page - 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sachein91! I like kittens :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambig/AWB

Hiya. I saw you disambiguate a link on Mick Fleetwood with AWB. Firstly thank you. Secondly, may I ask how you have your AWB set up to repair these links? I know and understand the ways to do it on the manual, but what way to you find works best? I have used several different ways, like using what-links-here to load a list from a disambiguation page and then going through using the link fixing tab on AWB, and I find the disambig page from the long list that Wikiproject: Disambiguation maintain - do you think this is the best way? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SGGH, and thanks for your msg.

Some time ago, I tried using the built-in disambig feature, but I found it very clunky. I can't recall exactly what it was that I disliked, but I haven't used it again.

So now I use AWB only for disambig only in the sense of fixing links after I have moved a page. I do that using the simple search-and-replace feature, and if any page turns out to be a false positive I just skip it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Systems development life cycle

Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the Systems development life cycle. -- Mdd (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdd

I was just closing a move discussion at Talk:Systems development life cycle#.22Lifecycle.22_vs_.22Life-cycle.22, and what I usually do in such cases is to move the page (plus subpages and talk pages), fix any templates which link to the page, and leave the bots to fix the double redirects.

But just for you, I have fixed them all in this case :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. -- Mdd (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tricolor move

Please see my comment at Talk:Tricolor#Bad move. jnestorius^(talk) 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:People's Republic of Hungary

Can you please move this category in line with Hungarian People's Republic, per the recent requested move? Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Now nominated for speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI Reply

I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>

I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: thanks for your msg.

I see your point, but I think that there are two types of block. One is handed out quickly in response to a clear crossing of a bright line; the other is a response to a pattern of behaviour which may not cross the line quite so starkly in any individual instance. The latter type often results from an ANI discussion.

In the case of Skookum1, it's the latter. The ongoing disruption is the low-level personal attacks, the complaints that editors who disagree with him are being disruptive, and the massive verbosity at so many discussions.

A 1-week block would prevent that happening for a week, and give Skookum1 a chance to reconsider their modus operandi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers Doc talk 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "cherry-pick a diff". I looked at the pattern throughout a whole discussion, in the context of other similar discussions. If I were to collect diffs, there would be a dozen from that discussion alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. Doc talk 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never had any engagement with Skookum1 on a substantive issue, and do not edit in any common areas; I have no stake in the issues he edits on. My sole encounters have been in an administrative capacity.

Per WP:INVOLVED an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers Doc talk 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording use in a close

I just saw this. I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current discussion. My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See Kwamikagami and JorisvS for a couple of examples. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi CBWeather

My concern was that the way your comment was worded appeared designed to convey the message that the guideline justified the move. As we agree, it supports either title, and it would have been much better for your !vote to acknowledge that explicitly.

There is a wider problem here, in that the specific guidelines on naming this type of article are repeatedly contested, so they do not appear to represent a community consensus. An RFC is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right I could have made it clearer. There is a bit of a problem with starting a RfC. It would be required to cover two different but related guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), as both are causing problems and can't be seperated. Second, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues #2 says "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article." But from my point of view the problem is how the guidelines are being applied and I don't see a need to change them. And of course at this point I'm just not sure that I could "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@CBWeather: if there is no consensus on how to apply the guidelines, then then they ain't working. Or if they are being applied with some consistency in a way you dislike, then they need to be updated to reflect actual practice.

There is no prob with an RFC addressing an issue which relates to multiple guidelines. In fact, an RFC is the best way to address that sort of issue. If you don't think you could draft one neutrally, why not find an editor who disagrees with you, and work together on a draft which you both feel is fair? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

List of successful rickrolls AfD

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls as "merge selectively". Would you explain why you chose merge over delete? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan

I saw no particularly strong policy-based argument in favour of any particular option, but the arguments against keeping it did seem stronger than those in favour of keeping it. The deletionists and mergeists broadly agreed that the list's scope was unclear, and unfixable.

With !votes split roughly evenly between the 3 options (7d, 9m, 8k, counting those who supported more than one option), that left a choice between merger or deletion; either option would uphold the same position that we should not have a standalone list of rickrolls.

The arguments in favour of deletion rather than merger were twofold: a) that the list title was an implausible redirect, b) that a previous set of examples was already present in the history of the page rickrolling.

Neither argument seemed very persuasive. The question of whether to just restore rickrolling#Examples or port across some of the content from the list can be resolved by normal editorial processes; deletion simply removes the option of copying across any material added to the standalone list, and I saw no particularly strong argument to justify cutting off that option. I accept that the list title may be an implausible redirect, and if created as a redirect it would likely be deleted; but keeping it as a record of the history of the list does no harm.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree with your analysis (less a quibble with your vote numbers) up to deletion argument (b). It was not just "a previous set of examples", but exactly the same list with minor edits to two items (cross-page diff, no material changes; diffs copied from my initial comment at the AfD). The misleadingly large diff in Barack Roll was caused by a heading correction/spacing change combined with a minor view count update. Two unsourced examples were added and removed: a Bill Nye death hoax (removed in 1.5 months) and "Full Screen Pokemon" (removed in 23 minutes). No one besides me mentioned them, much less argued for their inclusion. If someone had, I would have recommended that they add suitable sources to Rickrolling directly. My argument convinced Ansh666 (diff) and Spirit of Eagle (diff) to annotate or amend their merge recommendations. Gongshow, who also recommended merge, had no complaint with my restore from history approach. I feel that you counted merge opinions as opposing deletion (addressed by these comments) and that you overruled the small consensus (plus BDD) that the history should be deleted. I disagree with a page history having near-zero value being kept at non-zero cost. List of successful rickrolls technically violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia because its creation edit summary does not wikilink Rickrolling. I will have to add a dummy edit and {{Copied}}s to fix it. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Flatscan: Thanks for that explanation. You have persuaded me that I should have given more weight to the argument that there was nothing worth preserving, so I have changed my close to "delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

New closure as delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking the time to consider my comments and for modifying your close. Happy editing! Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 block

BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now appealed your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the Chipewyan people RM in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cúchullain

Sure. I had been closing a large bunch of backlogged RMs, including a cluster of discussions which had been opened by Skookum1. The Chipewyan discussion was a particularly severe example of the sort of disruption which had been ongoing for months. I can collect diffs if you like, but I hope that you can take the time to read the discussion yourself.

The unblock does not acknowledge that there was a problem with his conduct in that article. Do you agree with my assessment of that discussion?

Secondly, the battleground behaviour has not stopped. Look at some more recent diffs:

12 April: referring to those who he disagrees with as a "faction"

11 April: repeating a misrepresentation of policy The two-word Duwamish River title is not a valid candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC for the standalone term "Duwamish". The reality is that it depends entirely on the topic; in some cases a partial match may be used for something more fully referred to by a longer name. Variants on this comment have been spewed into countless debates. It is perhaps more of a competence issue than a conduct one, but when repeated so often it is highly disruptive. (See for example more of this at the Modoc People RM and at Nisqually People RM where he simply dismisses the other alternatives without checking the evidence. In the latter case he pronounces that "doubleword titles - never mind four barrelled ones like the National Wildlife Refuge are not in the running'")

9 April: dismissing yet another complaint about excessive verbosity `I mean what i said - people having difficulties with reading longer passages of text need remedial reading, period. Others do not have this issue and are able to understand me without complaint."

There is a real, ongoing problem here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your assessment that his behavior in the RM was problematic and part of a pattern of similar problematic behavior that is potentially disruptive at RM and elsewhere. My concern is that your rationale suggests you blocked him for something he'd done 11 days before, which doesn't really sound like a preventative measure. Understandably, his unblock request focuses on that, arguing that he's toned it down since that RM.

I won't be unblocking him, since it's clear the real problem isn't just his comments in that RM, but a pattern of behavior (which you touched on initially with the "fork in the road" remark, and gave examples of here), and he hasn't shown much sign of addressing that. I guess we'll see if another admin thinks differently. Thanks again,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you vote in the ANI thread BHG? Why would it have been closed by you? By the way, can't blame someone for becoming disruptive in response to fly-by voters on RMs that had diddly knowledge in what they were talking about. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: We can't control what others post. Everyone has a choice about how to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tintin RM

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at Tintin as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains {{subst:rm bottom)}}, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, Matty.007 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to review the discussion. Best, Matty.007 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Skookum1 again. Thank you. — The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Thanks for the notification. I have left a lengthy comment in the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your premature noticeboard closure.

The 2 editors involved should use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the substance of this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 20 April 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.

---

With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section ([1]). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning I'm being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: On the evidence presented, you are mistaking a complaint about sources for a criticism of you. I haven't tried to assess the merits of those sources, or the validity of EllenCT's description of them ... but even if she is wrong about the sources, that's a content dispute not an attack on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your mistaken view is understandable since you aren't familiar with the disputes or the fact that I haven't added "statements" from the source in question, but what about my request that you admonish her to at least be clear about her accusations, since I posted proof that her claims, at best, can be taken by others to mean that I'm being paid? She's proved that she'll ignore my admonishments, but she might listen to an admin. who asks her to clarify that she's not leveling such a charge. Isn't that a reasonable request? VictorD7 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think that you would do better to let it go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what you should be telling her? She's the one engaging in the repeated behavior, making a false personal accusation (false in either interpretation). If that continues unchanged I guess my only remedy would be to bring it back to the noticeboard, and hope for a more satisfactory hearing. VictorD7 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened when you posted to her talk page to ask for the clarification? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So it only counts if it's on her talk page? She ignored multiple opportunities to clarify what she meant when I gave her specific warning elsewhere, as my noticeboard links showed ([2], [3]). The last time I posted on her talk page (apart from giving her notice about this report) was a few months ago when I asked her to justify a blatantly false claim she made about a source by providing a single quote supporting what she said, and she completely ignored me, never answering ([4]). BTW, that's despite the fact she was already discussing me before I showed up. I was the "he" in the above posts in the diff. She was upset that another editor who shares her politics was acknowledging that I had made legitimate points and was admonishing her for her insulting and excessively partisan posting style. This isn't an editor prone to reasonable, productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible? When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: @VictorD7: I don't want my page to become an ANI substitute, so I will make one more comment and then close. (It's my talk page, so I get to decide who gets the last word here.)

Both of you should take a deep breath and consider that the way this is going is likely to end up in some sort of situation where sanctions may be applied, to one or both of you. You both need to resolve the *substance* of this dispute, rather than arguing about each other's motivations.

Have you considered WP:3O or WP:RSN? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 20 April 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.

You've got mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

v/r - TP 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - TP 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks to you both (Adjwilley & TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - TP 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - TP 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry :( back on the case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...again ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, just letting you know I intend to close the discussion this evening barring any last-minute objections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Category:Polish victims of Stalinist repression‎

Hi, are you interested in leaving your opinion regarding the above category CFD, particularly given the category's similarity to other categories which were deleted way back when (i.e. [5], [6]). Yours, Quis separabit? 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

v/r - TP 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Null edit

Please explain Is there some CSS display problem that lead you to do this? Please use {{Ping}} if you respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: No. It was labelled as a null edit, to indicate that it was intended to have no effect.

Its purpose was to purge a transcluded template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Null edit Is there a reason why you didn't use &action=purge? Does this null edit revision do something that cache purging wouldn't do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A purge doesn't seem to update the cached version of the page which is served to IP users, whereas a null edit does.

That means that whatslinkshere reflects changes to the template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Capture of Eat India Company vessel Nautilus

Please accept my apologies for pre-empting the formal closure of the move discussion on this page. I was impatient with the creator of the page, with whom I (and other editors on subjects relating to the War of 1812) have become exasperated for POV issues, failure to provide citations of edit summaries and general disruptive behaviour. This editor began edit-warring on this and other pages, using sockpuppets, which I have reported to the admins. As I believe I would have been justified in a unilateral move without need for discussion (as "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate") I did so, prematurely, out of impatience. Incidentally, the present title follows the naming conventions with regard to most naval conflicts of the War of 1812. I believe that, while including the USS Peacock in the title might be strictly correct, but unwieldy. HLGallon (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@HLGallon:

A WP:BOLD move is often appropriate, provided that you accept per WP:BRD that it may be reverted, in which case a discussion is needed. Move wars tend to get stamped on.

However, having chosen to open a discussion instead, the bold-move option is gone. It makes no sense to have a discussion if the proposer is going to do what they wanted anyway. Thanks for the apology for pre-empting the closure; I have reverted the move, and the discussion can run its course to whatever outcome. It was a minor thing, now sorted.

I am not going to discuss the substantive merits of any of the titles; that's not an admin's role. Those points belong in the move discussion.

I know that it can be frustrating to deal with some editors, but the two most important things that I have learnt about editing here are:

1. There is no deadline. Getting it right doesn't mean that it has to be right, right now.
2. Don't let the frustration get to you. Wikipedia is a complex social environment, and impatience or frustration always damages an editor's standing, no matter what the perceived provocation.

Hope this helps. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and forbearance. As an aside, the sockpuppet and edit-warring situation seems to be resolved. However, I will probably take a break from editing, for a few weeks at least, to avoid rash behaviour on my own part. HLGallon (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hi - just wanted to thank you for participating in the close of this move request. I don't need or want to know what went on behind the scenes, but just wanted to say that as someone else pointed out, this is volunteer work and sometimes other responsibilities here or in real life take precedence, so no apology for any delay was needed. We appreciate that the three of you were able to get through this one, and of course I am pleased with the outcome. But I would thank you for taking it on even if the outcome had been different. Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, for your kind words.

What went on behind the scenes was more detailed analysis of the discussion than I have ever done before, and a lot of chewing over of some finer points where various aspects of policy intersected. At the start of the analysis, I had no idea which way my assessment would point, and it was hard work weighing all the arguments.

And then Stuff Happened™ in various aspects of my life which left me thinking I'll do more writing tomorrow when I have fewer things on my mind and can give this full concentration ... but it took rather too many tomorrows for me to get to that point. In my absence, TP & AJ did a magnificent job in writing up our conclusions, and taking the decision to post it rather than waiting for me to get my act in gear.

There was never going to be any close her that would satisfy everyone, and it looks like there may be a move review. If so, we'll see what uninvolved editors think of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HRC Requested move

Hi BHG, I was just wondering if you will be saying anything about the requested move. Some people seem interested in "Move review", but I advised waiting to find out if you had any comments. Cheers.

P.S. Should we call you Brown Haired Girl, or drop the "Haired"?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant

Sorry for my silence; some explanations below. As you may already have seen, I have posted my endorsement of the closure. So whether or not anyone agrees with the close, I hope there is no doubt that it is very much the conclusion of all 3 of us.

Not sure about the haired anymore. I pulled a lot of it out this week while trying to figure my way through various conundruma online and offline, so I am thinking of changing my name to Sinéad. ;)

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for participating in the MR closure, though I probably would have come out with a different result. (I fixed the wlink above to your endorsement.) Take it easy and relax ("NoHairedGirl" just doesn't sound right, though I'm not doing so great in that department so probably should not talk about it). Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

11th-century

Hi BHG, for info, I tinkered with your close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_7#Category:11th-century_in_the_United_States, removing the hyphen, and tidied up afterwards. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, FL. I hadn't spotted the glitch in the nominator's format, and it was kind of you to sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw that the Commons equivalent also needed sorting out... and some Wikidata... Don't ask me why I like the knotty ones! – Fayenatic London 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Persecution

Hi. Since I believe we share similar opinions regarding subjective terminology in categories, I was just curious if you think the term "persecution" is appropriate or not for this CFD, although to be honest I can't think of another word that might fit, so my opinion/suggestion on the thread didn't actually change that word. Still curious though. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your kindness and attention. I will stop bothering you. I know you're a busy lady. I just wanted to get an idea of how to recognize and, if possible, tackle the issue of subjectiveness (or is it subjectivity?). Thanks, Quis separabit? 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. You're always welcome to ask. If I'm too busy I'll either say so, or be rude and ignore the post :)

And in this case I was glad to get a heads up on that discussion. The parent Category:Persecution is is a bit alarming, in that its selectivity seems to confer "persecuted" status to a few groups but not others. I'm sure that the selectivity arose unintentionally, but it looks bad. We need some more neutral way of grouping this sort of article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, I noticed the same thing. I did neglect to check and see if that category was part of a larger category, which it is. I have to get into that habit since piecemeal is not the way to go, as you pointed out. The term is subjective, IMO, although understandable and I am not sure what word I would use in its place. I don't want to be a hypocrite given all the other categories deleted in those old CFDs for the same reason. But not today.
Also, there may be a special wrinkle with the Persecution of LGBT people category given that this topic is highly provocative to many and any attempt, even in good faith, to alter it can produce what I can only describe as heated and negative environment. There was an AFD on the Brendan Burke article (which you can see and read for yourself here) several years ago regarding the (non)notability of the article as the subject acquired notability mostly through his tragic and untimely death after coming out. Anyway, what I can only describe as a flashmob of single-purpose, newly created editors besieged the thread, which was acknowledged by the closing admin who decided to keep the article despite a decidedly mixed and irregular debate and dubious consensus. (Just like a US presidential election!) It created a very uncomfortable and accusatory tone. So, while I hate to acknowledge that outside interests can intrude on our inner sancta here on Wikipedia, it can occur. Ah, well, we'll see what happens. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

CFD/W

I notice that you fully protected Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: Sorry for not replying. I had read your message, and wanted to think about it, and forgot to get back to you.  :(

I see that you asked at WP:RFPP and got the answer that since CFD/W isn't a template, it shouldn't be protected as if it was. I support that conclusion.

You may have noticed that I have just made a proposal (permalink) which will have the effect of unprotecting part of CFD/W. I hope that may help a little. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: Note that the proposal mentioned above has been implemented. The list of discussions awaiting closure is now at WP:CFD/AC, which is an unprotected page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ciara Durkin

Hi. I updated and notability tagged this article. Just wonder what you think re notability and the cruft I rv. I don't want to be accused of being antigay or whatever. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Thanks for asking me.

First thing is that I'm not sure I can be impartial on it. The whole business of an Irish woman ending up killed in an opaque sideshow to someone else's war feels v sad to me, and that's not an objective judgement.

However, it does seem to me that the refs so far do give a prima facie claim to notability. She's the sole subject of a decent piece on CBSnews, and of several articles on Boston.com. The latter appears to be the work of the Boston Globe (see The Boston Globe#Website), so it looks like a WP:RS.

I have two concerns. First, there is not much notable to her other than her unexplained death. That suggests that the article should be moved to Death of Ciara Durkin, and possibly restructured a bit.

Secondly, the article stops with material from years ago, when various US Senators asked questions about her death. What happened to those questions? Were they ever answered? Did anyone pursue the issue? That makes for a rather unsatisfactory article, and an update would help.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. Those were the same concerns I have. If you think there is a prima facie case, I'll see if I can expand it. Quis separabit? 00:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, let me just ask. Do you think I should move it on my own using the "move" option or if it might be contentious how should I go about moving the article, as per your suggestion, to Death of Ciara Durkin? Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a bold move. If it is reverted, then try a WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Death of Ciara Durkin -- I checked the family-maintained website and her family appears to have accepted the suicide verdict. So not much to add to article and notability unclear. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little unclear where her family stands. The website doesn't say that they accepted the suicide verdict, but nor does it say much else. If they were still contesting the verdict, I would expect more about unanswered questions etc, so I guess it's somewhere in the "not contested" territory. If it all just fizzled out, there may not be enough more material to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Songs about

Hi I am happy to accept your recommendations, would you be kind enough to merge these three (abortion, loneliness and buses? (Rain should remain separate as the comment by one editor is what started this). Depending on your response I am happy to add the other "songs about" categories, or continue and do the group nomination properly when the present noms are closed. Thanks for your help. I shouldn't edit until I am awake. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: OK, will merge the Apr 26 discussions as a first step.

But that still leaves us with another discussion on Apr 25, and many similar categories not included in the discussion at all. It would be massively better to to have one centralised discussion about the principle of all such categories. so I plead with you gain to withdraw all the current nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussions merged[7]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have seen your note on rain and it is obvious we do not agree on the correct steps to take - I would suggest the reason for this is linear, at the time of nomination for rain I had no intention of listing all, it was the prompting of one editor that made me consider all. Shame I messed that up, but I did. So as far as I am concerned my mess has been cleared up and all is as it should be. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Glad to help. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was somehow accusing you of being intentionally disruptive or anything like that. I just thought that you were pursuing a well-reasoned objective in good faith in a way which had some adverse effects you hadn't foreseen, and I am sorry that I didn't stress my assumption of good faith. As you say, all cleared up now.

At this point, I wonder whether way ahead is through a group nomination or an RFC. I would be inclined to suggest an RFC, because it seems to create a more reflective discussion if editors don't feel an immediate urge to defend against a deletion. If you like, I would be happy to help draft an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed that there was no inference of bad will - on either side. It was my intention to list them all this morning :(. So let's move on, I do accept your offer of help for an RfD. There is some notes I have made for myself at User:Richhoncho/Songs_by_theme and I already have a list of every "song about" category. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Senate CFD

Hi, thanks for the ping regarding this. Yes, I can still do the split. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Good Ol’factory

That's great. You seemed to have a grasp of the topic, and it's better done by the editor who knows it than by the closer. You may have spotted that I also listed the categs at WP:CFD/enwiki/w/M, so maybe you can also remove that listing when done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mid Armagh by-election, 1918 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• [[Category:Politics of County Armagh]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bracketbot. Now fixed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton II

What happened to you? You made a commitment to be a part of a three admin closing panel and then just stopped communicating with the other two admin. I for one would really like to know why this occurred.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I see it above. Real life happens.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Hey, BHG,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I noticed that you had done some editing of this policy in 2013 and I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Liz. I have add a comment to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read your contribution yet, BHG, but, in general, I think it's important for a discussion not just be a difference of opinion between two editors but have input from others (whatever that opinion might be). Then it turns from a situation of "me vs. you" into a proper conversation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of John Green (MP) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Green (MP) 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/John Green (MP) 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. James ^{(T • C)} • 10:42pm • 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have added a comment to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of a joke?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3ALiverpool_docks&diff=606553455&oldid=409881035

Or Eric's? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, a little AGF goes a long way. A quick glance at my contribs would show you that it was part of a long AWB run of all sub-cats of Category:Greater Manchester. Collecting all subcats usually brings in a few extraneous categories, and I had already spotted Category:Peak District as bring lots of Derbyshire into the set. I had also spotted that the Manchester Ship Canal brought into some other topics outside GM, and hoped that I had spotted and removed all the extraneous material from the list. It seems that I missed that one.

Thank you for spotting and fixing this one. But it was unnecessary to use an edit summary to suggest that I was trolling.[8] :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was a genuine mistake then I'm sorry, but if you're looking for where AGF went, ask Wikipediocracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't bother with those review/critique sites. It's up to each editor to decide for themselves whether to assume good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	About a month later, your move of Crowned Crane and friends has been vindicated. Thanks for making this tough close, and thus taking the first step in putting a contentious issue to rest at last. BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BDD! Much appreciated.

For me, the point at which I was vindicated was Guy's close of the move review as "moot", pending the RFC. I only just spotted that closure now, after your message, but that's what finally got the whole issue out of RM, into the territory of being resolved by a centralised discussion.

I guess that the final outcome of the RFC will be disappointing for some bird editors, just as it will please others. But that's how this was always going to; only one side was going to be satisfied.

Personally, I had no stake either way on the capitalisation, and would have been happy with any clear outcome. I just wanted an end to the long low-level war of the central principle being rehashed at countless individual RMs. The main thing now is that a clear decision has been made, and I hope that DGG's impressively well-reasoned close provides the basis of a stable consensus. DGG is well-respected even by those who disagree with him, and I hope that helps editors from all aides to accept the outcome.

On a broader note, I wish that we had more of this sort of centralised decision-making. It's a much better way of making decisions, with much less of editors time taken away from creating content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats

Thanks and congrats on your well-deserved admin barnstar. Quis separabit? 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Published in Fars

Hi, you might want to rename this one! Category:Persian Magazines also should be Category:Persian-language newspapers...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bon Secours Hospital, Tralee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:

• {{{Ireland-hospital-stub}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You go, girl!

I hope I never have to read another Skookum1 tirade. I suspect I am not the only one who feels this way. Most of the time, I can't even figure out what it is he's screaming about. I'm sure it's ten times worse when you are the target. Uniform cunieform (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Uniform cunieform

Thanks for your message and for your support. However, I am bit surprised to see that it was your 7th edit to Wikipedia, less than 24 hours after you created your account. Did you previously edit under a different name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. There's no chance that this is their first named account - and it's another throwaway at that. They will not disclose their previous accounts. This one reminds me of a banned editor from long ago. Cute name! Doc talk 10:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: It could be someone who has edited as an IP. I know that some of the debates Skookum1 was involved with included IPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Skookum's the real reason for them posting here. Their third edit indicates a level of involvement on the project beyond any newbie who's used IPs to this point. I think it's an indeffed or even a banned editor with little involvement with Skookum. They will either abandon the account or they will attempt to explain that this is actually their first named account. It should be interesting. Cheers :) Doc talk 11:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Maybe. We'll see. But don't forget that some editors do use IPs for a long time, before registering. Dunno why they do, but I have previously encountered some who have a done a lot of good editing that way ... so I don't assume that a former IP is necessarily trouble. Still, something about this none needs more explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, anon IP editors are very important. I definitely support the ability for people to edit here using as many IPs as they want as long as they are helping rather than harming. If an editor decides to create a named account after being an anon, that's their choice. And, BTW - no hard feelings on anything we disagree on, obviously. Cheers :) Doc talk 12:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC

@BHG and @Doc9871: Uniform cunieform has been blocked as the umpteenth sock of site-banned editor Kauffner. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Doc9871, you were right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers :) Doc talk 23:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You cannot impose anything

An editnotice is displayed whenever anyone edits this page. It says "if you post abuse, I will probably close the discussion without making a substantive reply.
I am quite ready to accept and discuss criticism, but Maleko Mela has chosen to be abusive ... so this discussion is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 6 May 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.

---

Sorry, but no. You cannot impose a moratorium on moves. Period. You are not the Wikipedia dictator.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it odd that when you make a commitment to be a part of a three admin panel to decide a consensus you are suddenly unavailable abd then when you close another discussion you make decisions you have no right to. Something is seriously wrong here.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I am not a dictator. That's why I raised the moratorium at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, where it has been supported.

I don't intend to enforce it myself, but I'm sure that other admins will do so.

I have already explained what happened over the Hillary Rodham Clinton closure. If you are not happy with my actions in either of these cases, feel to open an RFC/U ... but you could also consider trying some WP:AGF. --01:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Try not assuming all kinds of crap. I am not. You made it clear you think you can impose a moratorium and no....admin will not enforce it as it wasn't a consensus discussion. You made it clear you just did it and were not asking if anyone supported. it. That is, in fact, dictating to others. I don't care what your excuses are. One minute you fail to stick to your commitments and the next you run rough shot over the project. That is unacceptable.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Enough rudeness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 6 May 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:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland

Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland, 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) 02:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just remember

You volunteered to handle the mop :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

True! And 95% of the the time I am glad I volunteered. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I should state here (and of course feel free to remove it) that I feel I was harsher to you than I wanted to be. I believe I was overreacting to my perceptions of two very differing approaches to two very controversial closings. You have not lost my support and if anything I said truly made you feel bad, offended or upset you I am sorry. That was not my intention. You certainly have not done anything that has lost my support as an admin. I hope I did not ruin your evening.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maleko Mela. That's very much appreciated.

I didn't our earlier exchange was going to lead anywhere productive for either of us, and from experience the last worst way I have found to respond when things get off on the wrong foot is to close the discussion firmly and quickly. Don't worry, you didn't ruin anything, so let's let's just mark it all down as water under the bridge. :)

If you do want to open a move review, feel free. I don't want to change my assessment of that discussion, and haven't anything more to add on the close ... but since it's at least part of it is seen by some editors (including Jimbo) as ultra vires, a move review doesn't need any further preliminaries. There is a case for not duplicating the discussion at AN, but its best if others decide how to handle that.

Good luck, and thanks again for coming back here to post again. Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the actual close. So for me to start a move review would be slightly uncomfortable for me. While I am a Pagan I also don't like anyone trying to claim anyone's faith as a "myth". I have never really understood what was wrong with the term "Narrative" which is defined as "A narrative (or play) is any account of connected events, presented to a reader or listener in a sequence of written or spoken words, or in a sequence of (moving) pictures." I can't see how that is claiming anything as an absolute fact. My hope is that the discussion on the article page will simply support the same thing by the community. Even if no one adds anything else...it seems the current consensus there is for a 1 year moratorium. I used the same length of time you mentioned.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Hi Thanks for your edit at my user page: User:LZNQBD/Alphabets. I will thank you if you sometimes guide me friendly at wikipedia. Please don't leave me alone. with best regards. LZNQBD (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad to help :)

Feel free to ask me a question if you need help. I can't guarantee to respond to everything, but if I have some time and energy it's good to be able to help editors make sense of the strange ways of Wikipedia. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

200.104.47.188

200.104.47.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not an account. Did you mean to give them a temporary block? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for semi-protecting Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. I was getting very concerned that the 2 IP's were engaging in a battle over controversial material. The IP that begins 109, was adding context that is a clear copy/paste from its original source. Whilst the IP that begins 37 was removing the copyvio text.

The other issue that is of concern is the fact the warring is taking place on an article that is currently in the public eye as the Eurovision Song Contest event itself is currently in progress and concludes on May 10. Upon reading the advice at WP:ROUGH, it states that if vandalism is related to a current event, the semi-protection should be lifted after the event is out of the public eye. As the article is relating to a current event, and the content that the warring is regarding is also in relation to the voting pattern of Azerbaijan, I am wondering if 2 day protection is going to be enough? Are there any other prevention steps that you may be able to advise me of that may help to keep the warring down to a minimum, without having to extend the semi-protection? Thanks in advance. Wes Mᴥuse 23:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know

Hello, when you pinged me about Steve Kerr, for some reason it did not notify me. I thought I would let you know since you are an admin. Perhaps there is a problem with that feature right now?Hoops gza (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoops gza.

In this case I think that problem was that I screwed up. In my first edit[9] I screwed up the ping by pasting the wrong text, and then I made a second edit[10] to fix it. I think that there may be some safeguard against tweaking an existing ping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I'm glad we worked that out. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

List of monastic houses in Ireland

Hi. Somehow I wound up on the above-referenced article (list). It was interesting but the first thing I noticed is that the text size is way too large (enormous), and the length is, IMO, ridiculous and makes the article hard to navigate. I left this note on the article talk page. Anyway, just curious what you think. I think the provinces (not by county or ROI/NI) is the best way to go. Dividing the current article into 4 (Leinster, Connaught, Munster and Ulster, of course) would be fine, I would say. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Updated talk page thread here with what passes for a colloquy. I didn't understand every point User:JohnArmagh was making, although I am sure you wouldn't have any problem. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a comment to the discussion on the Irish list. Did you want me to comment on the English one too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for interceding. You made the case perfectly for dividing the list by county. I am sorry to have had to bother you but JohnArmagh made it clear he had no intention of listening to myself or any of the other editors who had raised the issue, and the length was getting crazy out of control and not even finished yet. Since it's Irish subject matter I thought you might have a special insight or interest. Thanks again, yeoman work as always.

"Did you want me to comment on the English one too?" -- no thanks, unless you think it necessary. The "sister articles" to this List are much smaller and don't seem to be particularly problematic. Yours, as alway. Quis separabit? 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad that helped. I'm sure you know that if I am asked to intervene, I won't always agree with whoever asked me to do so ... and as you see in this case, I disagreed with your preference for a by-province split.

I can see where User:JohnArmagh is coming from. He has put a huge amount of work into creating this wonderful list, almost (maybe entirely) single-handedly, and is naturally concerned about anything which may disrupt that work. There are definitely reasons to prefer one big list, but unfortunately there are technical limitations which make that a bad idea in this case.

I am a little concerned that if John doesn't engage more positively with the question of how to split it, and into what chunks, then somebody will just split it crudely and he'll be even more fed up. I hope he will see the benefits of working with other editors to get this done well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have credited him with yeoman work on his labor of love. I respect it and told him so. That doesn't allow him to ignore the rules or dismiss other editors trying to engage with him. I don't know if you watchlisted the article, so here's his reply to you.
(B'fhéidir gur féidir leat a bheith croí a chroí leis an dúchais Ard Mhacha, LOL!!) Yours, Quis separabit? 00:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied again to him, and noted that it's 6 months since the pages was tagged for a split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I just came across this comment of yours where you refer to me in a way I'm not sure I appreciate. I've been nothing but civil and polite towards you and I've actually enjoyed our discussion so far, which is why I don't think I deserve comments like "it attracts editors like the one above". What do you mean by that? Because as far as I can tell all I've done is disagree with you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaba

I am sorry if that appeared as uncivil, or as a personal attack; that was not my intention. I think that my aim is clearer when the words are read in context: it attracts editors like the one above who pronounces that any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction.

I was trying to criticise the POV approach you take to your editing, not to attack you as a person. My point is that you are one of a number of editors who sincerely and honestly holds to a particular philosophical view about the nature of knowledge. That's fine of itself; we all bring different views to our editing. But as I think will be clear from our lengthy exchange, I do regard the insistence on incorporating that POV into the category system as a form of POV-pushing. In discussing this with you, it has seemed to me that you regard your POV on this as the only legitimate one. That may be unfair, but it's the impression I have repeatedly got from our lengthy exchange.

You are not alone in this, but while I admire the hard work of those editors who monitor the cranks who uncritically push fringe theories, I do find it alarming in any context that some editors push a binary view of good guys/bad guys, and that's what appears to be happening here. A significant number of editors who support keeping the category want to use it as a sort of scare-label, which is always a dangerous sign. A wider group, of whom you are one, appear to dismiss all the scholarship in the history and philosophy of science which challenge the notion that studies can be easily divided into science and non-science, or science and pseudo-science.

I find that whole CFD remarkably similar to previous CFDs about categories for homophobes and terrorists. Both are widely-used terms, with a depth of scholarship behind them; but both are partisan terms with contested definitions. The article terrorism notes that definitions are disputed and unstable, and describes the term as "politically loaded and emotionally charged". A quote often attributed to Bendan Behan (tho I have never seen a source) parodies its use to denigrate one side of a conflict: "The terrorists are the ones with the small bombs".

Similarly, homophobia is contested in definition, and used by one side of a debate as a pejorative term against the other.

I can readily agree in all cases that the thing exists. Most ppl can agree that in this world there is terrorism, there is homophobia, and there is pseudoscience; but how the boundaries are drawn, and who applies those labels to who are matters of significant philosophical dispute. That's why we have a policy about these words to avoid: that per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV they should be attributed.

Coming back to my comment where I quoted you, my concern is that you express a form of fundamentalist scientism which permits of no grey areas, and that you appear unwilling to acknowledge that this is a POV. Pejorative categories which incorporate the ideology and philosophy of one set of partisans do tend to be used by editors who push a POV, which makes them risky of themselves; but when they are also subjective, the result is a set of intractable disputes.

The reason I include you in that group is that as I noted in the CFD, you had been supporting the categorisation of Ken Ham as a pseudoscientist one the basis of him being labelled that way in highly-partisan book. There is no way that is a neutral source, and its attempted use is a highly partisan move. I dunno whether Ham is a pseudoscientist; I haven't looked at the arguments, and I am quite open to the possibility that he is. But when I see that sort of source being used to justify the label, I see POV-pushing. As Mandy Rice-Davies famously noted, "He would, wouldn't he?".

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me BrownHairedGirl and thanks for clearing up the meaning of your comment. We obviously disagree since I don't think I am editing from any particular POV other than a neutral one and always backed by reliable sources. As I stated in that discussion I base my position not only on that one book you mention, but on the fact that we have many sources describing creationism as a pseudoscience, a category nobody argues with. Thus stating that its main proponent and defender is a pseudoscientist seems only logical to me and not at all a form of POV-pushing as you seem to believe. You seem to be arguing that since he never referred to himself as a pseudoscientist we shouldn't either because it can be used as an attack. Of course, he is never going to admit being a pseudoscientist, but then again neither will most murderers or rapists. That doesn't mean we shouldn't categorize them as such if WP:RS are in place.

As I also stated before, I do not ignore nor dismiss the demarcation problem, I just don't see it as an issue in this particular case and I don't think that such a broad and vague discussion is reason enough to not have this cat.

I do believe that whatever construction incapable of being falsifiable can not be considered science and thus falls in the category of a fictional construction (all religions included almost in their entirety), but that is another (quite large) discussion. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing the endless move discussions at Genesis creation narrative and explaining the closure effectively. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert!

That's very kind of you. As you can see, the close has not been universally popular, but I hope that it will be one step on the path to some resolution of that interminable dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The close is not universally popular because some editors are stubborn, and don't understand that no consensus means to leave it unchanged. It isn't the worst title controversy. As you may know, the title controversy over Sarah Jane Brown has gotten to the point where an unregistered editor has requested arbitration, without submitting actual evidence of the conduct issues that are the scope of the Arbitration Committee. In the case of Ms. Brown, the problem is that she isn't normally called Sarah Jane Brown, but Sarah Brown. However, adding her middle name is one of two ways to disambiguate her from other Sarah Browns. The alternative is "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)", which is also unambiguous, but many editors (including many male editors such as me) think that is sexist, and that she is notable in her own right. The arbitrators are in the process of refusing the arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

True, some ppl object because they want to keep on discussing the same thing endlessly. That may be well-intentioned, but its effect to create a war of attrition. However, others objected to the unilateral nature of the moratorium, and that group included some supporters of the status quo. This is far from the first such such moratorium, so I hope that there can be some consensus on how to handle these cases in future.

I think that the Sarah Jane Brown cases is rather different, because whereas the Genesis discussions have been a split between two preferred positions, the Brown discussions have been about a choice between two options which few editors really think are particularly good. It's basically a tusssle between two least-worst options, which does suggest that a review of new alternatives is needed.

But I'll stay out of that one! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I was coming here to add a barnstar for the same reason, so I'll just second this one. Keep on Wikiing. I hope you didn't get discouraged, some of the chat got rather nasty and personal. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jsharpminor! A bit of the chatter got heated, but not too much. Most of it was WP at its best: robust disagreement with plenty of AGF, and hopefully some ways forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Another another barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For one of the bravest and wisest admin actions I have encountered during my time here. Bravo. Irondome (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Irondome! That's very kind.

I wasn't intending to be brave, just trying to do what seemed right, although some recent decisions have not exactly been flak-free. But accepting criticism is part of the job, so as long is it's not criticism of the cation and not abusive, it's all part of the process.

Divisive questions can bring out the best and the worst of Wikiedia's editing community, but I have been pleased of late to see how much of the best there is on all sides of these debates. These very welcome barnstars are an added bonus :)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please Delete User:LZNQBD/Code/1.js

Dear User:BrownHairedGirl, I want to delete my subpage: User:LZNQBD/Code/1.js. Please guide me.

Thank you. LZNQBD (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've deleted the page for you. For future reference, you can use put the template {{db-u1}} on any of your user subpages to request deletion. It might not display on .js or .css pages, but it will place the page in the appropriate category so admins who patrol speedy deletions will find it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that, Thryduulf, and for explaining the {{db-u1}} template.

I am lucky to have so many helpful talkpage stalkers :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The National Party

Hi BHG. Just in response to your comments that there has been no discussion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in that debate, although I suppose it wasn't mentioned by name, two contributors to the debate clearly stated that they didn't believe there were any other parties by this name (and none of the other participants contested this). Does this need to be pointed out again on the talk page with reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or will you reconsider your relisting? Number 57 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, and thanks for your message. Please note that I took care to actually quote the relevant section of the policy, which does not rest on whether there other entities of the exact same name. That passage I quoted is frequently presumed to mean something quite different to what it actually says, so please may I ask you to re-read it?

I could have drawn more pointed attention to the misunderstanding of policy, but thought it more civil to leave a general note rather than pointing fingers. Maybe more directness would have better :(--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		For surviving the most grueling and relentless AFD (Pseudoscience) I've ever seen without even losing your composure. Quis separabit? 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I just wanted to let you know that your arguments are dead on! This is a category nobody understands and rightfully so, since it is logically impossible to define. When one looks at who is classified as a pseudoscientist, it is just a meaningless jumble of quacks, philosophers, frauds, etc. The category pseudorscience is no better. Some of the things listed in it are actually hot main-stream topics of research. Anyway, I deeply admire your thoughtfulness! I am One of Many (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's hard enough to robustly define who is an X, but then problem is multiplied when trying to define an anti-X or pseudo-X. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, talk about the CFD that (almost) never ended!! Quis separabit? 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

CFD, not AFD :) (*Whoops, fixed! Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC))

And still open, after 8 days. I have suggested a panel of admins to close it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

please pass it along

 JLDW  talk  03:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

COI

Hi BrownHairedGirl. My background is in marketing and I do a lot of work helping companies, non-profits, BLPs, etc. contribute to their own articles following COI best practices, usually bringing them up to GA eventually. I am in a position of needing a lot of collaboration from other editors, since WP:COI requires that I propose edits on Talk and another non-conflicted editor review them. I was wondering if you had the bandwidth to collaborate on a few articles where I have a COI now and then.

For example, on a pro bono basis I'm helping Bev Perdue's biographer correct some errors on her Wikipedia page, but the corrections I pointed out were un-answered in the Request Edit queue for two months. I posted a couple more corrections a week ago and could use some help making corrections in a manner compliant with WP:COI. CorporateM (Talk) 05:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories for indigenous peoples

Hello, BHG,
A while ago, I found myself in a dispute with another editor about whether Category:People of Jewish descent (via associated categories like Category:People of Semitic descent) should be put under the parent category for Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia. I believe that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of who was classified as "indigenous" but the debate was left as a stalemate. Looking at the Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia, it looks like it contains every ethnic group living in this geographic area which is not what indigenous means. So, it seems like the categories are being used if all of these groups are "native" and, therefore, have a right to territory.

That's where things stood until I came across List of indigenous peoples which states:

Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of".

And the article includes a lengthy list of indigenous peoples and tribes across the world. The article is actively edited but it isn't well-sourced. I'm looking for some UN and NGO reports to use as reference but what I've found so far are country-specific reports. I'd really like to have the categories concerning indigenous peoples reflect the list of indigenous peoples. But this involves removing a fair number of ethnic groups and I expect there will be some pushback. I'll continue looking for a generally accepted directory but I just wanted to run this move by you and see if you had any thoughts about it. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Right now, aside from going through 200+ UN country reports, the most accessible source is going through, country by country, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs site. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: there are some discussions on this topic at Category_talk:Indigenous_peoples. I think that we would likely be best served by taking a UN definition of indigenous groups and applying that accordingly - we can simply state in the category lede that we are using UN definitions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Obi-Wan Kenobi, but I've gone to all of the relevant UN sites (on Indigenous People, Human Rights, Human Development and Statistics) along with six different NGOs focused on indigenous rights. There are about 3 definitions that are consistently used but no list of indigenous groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Liz, and sorry for a slow reply.

To be honest, most of the time my thoughts are that life is too short and sanity too precious to engage with much to do with questions of Jewish or Palestinian identity. It's not just that it's a minefield of competing narratives and competing ideologies; those topics are also plagued with groups of highly-partisan editors, many of whom are unable or unwillingly to set aside the deep passions which these topics arouse in them. There have also been off-wiki canvassing groups which add to the heat; something gave one of them the impression that I was on "their side", and I got lottsa emails for a while. There many other contentious areas on Wikipedia, but that one seems to be one of the most consistently fractious.

My initial reaction to this is that UN definitions are probably going to be the best starting point ... but then again the UN is not well-regarded in Israel (to put it mildly). Keep those flame-proof overalls on :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rethinking the whole thing myself. I've been doing research all afternoon and the situation is not clear-cut. None of the UN agencies or NGOs has a list of indigenous groups, in fact they provide several different definitions of who could be considered indigenous. Their estimates are between 3,000-5,000 indigenous groups so Wikipedia will never have a complete list because none exists, anywhere that I could find. I think that List of indigenous peoples is likely to be accurate (the group listed looked right to me, with what I know about indigenous cultures) but it's no wonder that the article is not properly sourced. I'm just surprised the article has lasted this long.

I'll continue to look for sources because I think there is a great value in having the article on Wikipedia and I'll contact some of the major editors to find out where they got their information. It could be editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups helping out. I appreciate your counsel, BHG.

By the way, two editors, Matt Evan Carey and 209.6.136.237, came out of nowhere today and their first edits were to revert changes I had made to some Jewish descent categories. This has been an area of contention but I think it's really unusual for an editor's first edits be to categories. So, I'm pretty sure they are socks of editors involved in this debate but I don't know what to do with that suspicion. I tried to engage with them both on their talk pages but I'm not sure how long they will be around. Advice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have asked at least one of those new editors; good idea. Beyond that, all I can suggest is WP:SPI.

As to the indigenous categories, you have clearly done a lot of research. Sounds like a very difficult topic to pin down with any reliability. Do groups like Survival International give any pointers to other resources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

As for SPIs, I have suspicions but they don't run SPIs based on suspicions so I'll just see what happens. I didn't know about Survival International, I'll check out that site. The primary issue here is that most groups that are focused on indigenous people are focused on human rights and pragmatic concerns (economic development, housing, mortality, etc.) so they are activist in orientation, not focused on data collection or research. Since cultural appropriation is such a huge issue, most of the groups state that even with the accepted definitions, indigenous groups must self-identify as indigenous peoples. So, while there are general criteria (a minority culture within a newer, dominant population, a separate language and culture, and such), the UN and NGOs aren't going to spend their effort fighting ethnic groups that claim they are indigenous but are probably not. There still might be some university institute or center that has put something together but now I'm searching in order to save the article from deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion on this list at User talk:Crock81#List of indigenous people - Israelites where it is also mentioned that there was an attempt at mediation regarding List of indigenous peoples, particularly regarding indigenous peoples in the Middle East, that was abandoned. So, unknowingly, I am walking into an article that has already been the subject of dispute about 18 months ago. I still will look for sources but this is more of a minefield than I expected! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! It does sound horribly complicated and contentious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Conchita

Could you help by adding a photo of Conchita Wurst at her ITN mention that has just been added. I have now placed a photo in the ITN nomination. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I am unsure why you thought I would be interested in that topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Siddapur, Uttara Kannada

Hello, I saw your comments on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada. You have recommended maintaining the page to the earlier stable version. It is to be noted that this page was created as Siddapur on March 04, 2007. User Imc [the same user who is requesting the move now] moved Siddapur to Siddapura, Uttara Kannada on January 29, 2011 without initiating a discussion. Kindly have a look at the log here. The fact that this article is about a small place in Karnataka state in India, many Wikipedia users do not come across this page. Since the page was moved without a discussion earlier, it should not be treated as a stable version. Moreover, many editors who have done fewer edits cannot move the page even if they know that the move was incorrect. Also, please note here how many pages have been unilaterally moved by the user Imc without discussion. I request you to come back to the discussion on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada after you study this background. |*| Anand.Hegde|*|^{Talk to me} 04:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anand.Hegde, and thanks for your msg.

I have no opinion on how the page should be named. I reviewed the discussion when I considered closing it, but I decided that a relisting might bring in more editors and have a better chance of reaching a consensus. If there is no consensus, then the page will revert to its last stable title, which as you pointed out in the discussion is one it was only recently moved from. But it would be much better if a consensus formed around evidence of common usage of a title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for highlighting "their own POV" of few editors in 2002 Gujarat riots article. I struggle for a year to explain that to them, our fellow Wikipedians. :) Vatsan34 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Vatsan34. Much appreciated :)

To be honest, though, there was POV on both sides of the discussion. I thought that the first part of [your own comment was straying in that direction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is nevertheless a spontaneous, action-reaction event that happened(not pushing my POV). The problem with that article is complex. There is a long gap between the books written by foreign authors and newspapers which carried events as it unfolded. Books seemed to have not covered deeply/left out the burning of Sabarmati Express, which ultimately led to the riots. The Banerjee Commission which spoke of fire by accident was turned down by courts and the apex court of India absolved Narendra Modi of being complicit with the riots. Now, read the article. ;) - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Guru

BrownHairedGirl - wanted to thank / commend you suggesting / promoting a discussion on a possible quick delete for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai page category.

In two minds about this - Hong Kong Anglicans are loud and proud to call themselves Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (and Wikipedia seems to accept this as the approved name). Japanese Anglicans seem to be only ever referred to as the Nippon Sei Ko Kai in Anglican Church literature, [11] but the Wikipedia main page for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai still operates under the banner of Anglican Church in Japan.

My gut instinct is that Nippon Sei Ko Kai is the name that really counts (and what the church would prefer to be known as internationally), but I haven't been able to find a way to successfully rename the main page. A marginal subject of debate at best, but your wise counsel would be much appreciated. Aw1805 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aw1805, and thanks for your message.

I was just tidying uncategorised categories, one of which was Category:Nippon Sei Ko Kai. Once I eventually figured what it was about, I saw that its head article was Anglican Church in Japan, and since a category name should match that of the head article, I nominated it for speedy renaming.

I have no view on which title is more appropriate, only that they should be congruent. You know a lot more about the topic than I do :)

If you want to make the case for renaming the head article, the best thing would be to start a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican Church in Japan, setting out the policy-based reasons for the change (as you can see in WP:AT, it's not simply a matter of what the church prefers). You may want to discuss it first at WT:WikiProject Anglicanism, to weigh the evidence and policies which you would cite in the nomination. Otherwise leave a neutral note there after you have opened the RM, so that the project is aware of the discussion.

You are probably right that it is a rather marginal subject of debate on Wikipedia, where the most attention goes to the aspects of popular culture which appeal to our overwhelmingly young, male editor base. But a major Christian denomination on Japan is not a minor topic, and it's great that there are editors who are more keen to get that right than to document every ball kick by a footballer :)

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - thank you for your considered and good humoured reply - will proceed as suggested. Talk:Anglican Church in Japan indicates that a Wikipedia Senpai had similar idea circa 2008, so a rename might be overdue. On WP:BIAS, recent BBC News article on the Natalie Smith Henry article creation really highlighted this issue. In editing articles on church history very aware how often source materials fall short in documenting the contributions of the many who do not fall into the white male Bishop with impressive Victorian sideburns category .... The future will be different! Aw1805 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Leonard Outhwaite

Hi. You recently moved the above named article to a new page titled R.L.Outhwaite giving the reason that he was "known as...". When I created the article I made the point of including this "known as" is the first line. To me, this seemed the most correct procedure to follow having seen what had been done elsewhere. I have not been able to identify any guideline and assumed since you had made the change, you were following one. If so, I would be grateful if you could direct me to it as I think this would help me in future biographies that I create. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graemp, I just followed WP:COMMONNAME, and took you at your word about how he was known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

jackie washington

Hello my name is justin st. Pierre. Jackie Washington is my great uncle. You can trace my family history back if un believed. My father is Charles thode my grandmother was Brenda thode. Her mother my great grandmother was Marion washington. Im sitting here with my uncle Michael washington. Jackie was his father. We read the article you wrote, and were quite upset with what we read. You wrote that he was abused by his wife and son, we would like to know what son you are talking about seeing how micheal is his only son we take strong offence to that. Micheal was there as much as he could be suffering heart conditions and now recovering from heart surgery and now reading this is over upset from the information given to you. We would like the opportunity to meet with or chat with you to straighten this up. If not the next step will be getting lawyers involved. Whatever information you have regarding personal family life is clearly inappropriate and offensive. To not only my uncle micheal but me as well, as well as the rest of the family. If you wish to further discuss this matter you can contact me through email.

Justinst.pierre199343@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.19 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pending move review notification

Per WP:MR - "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." - This is notification on your talk page that resolution is being sought over the closing of the Hillary Clinton RM7 discussion in which you were involved. The "issues" with the closing are obviously extensively discussed on the Hillary Clinton talk page. Do you feel you can offer resolution to the issues discussed? Thank you. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NickCT

The closure was made after very extensive analysis by a 3-admin panel consisting of me, User:Adjwilley and User:TParis. Nothing that I have seen in the subsequent discussions persuades me that our analysis of the debate was flawed, or that the result should have been other that what we concluded.

You are of course quite entitled to disagree with the closure, and to open a move review if you so wish.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid feedback BHG. While there was some dissent to the closure, I think everyone appreciated the time and attention you paid to it. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NickCT. I don't think that any close of that discussion could have avoided dissent :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably true. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not true. People were insistent about Yogurt/Yoghurt being unresolvable as well, but once that title was changed to the [only] one that had strong basis in policy, that 8 year long conflict was resolved. We have a very similar situation here. If the panel had not failed to recognize and appreciate that HC is favored by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (70% of participants), WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:CONCISE, and that HRC is not favored by any policy or convention, the opposers would have no policy grounds upon which to dissent, and this conflict would have been finally resolved too.

Seriously. Imagine that the panel had not made these errors and had moved to HC accordingly. People favoring HRC would definitely not like it, but they would have no policy grounds on which to dissent. The issue would be finally resolved, instead of continuing to fester. --В²C ☎ 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

B2C, there are policy-based arguments in both directions. You are entitled to disagree with the closer's analysis of the debate, but have the courtesy to acknowledge that it was not one-sided.

Let me say this bluntly: some day, I hope that you may develop an ability to understand that editors who disagree with you often do so for reasons well-founded in policy. Until then, you remain fixated on one aspect of naming policy, and assume that everyone else is simply expressing a personal preference. It gets very tedious.

Please do not reply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

liked your AFD suggestion of redirect per wp:PRESERVE

I can't find your AFD comment now, but within the last few weeks I came across an AFD that was tending toward "delete", where your late suggestion of redirect carried the day. You had a nice suggestion that was respectful to the article contributor(s), perhaps relatively new contributors, and you cited WP:PRESERVE, and the close that implemented that was far nicer than delete. I thought that was relevant just now and cited PRESERVE at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital. Thank you for making a good example! :) cheers, --doncram 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was curious about which AFD that might be, and the possiilities I saw were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development Planning Unit (DPU) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls, but neither quite matches yoir description.

Anyway, glad to have helped! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not one of those 3.... oh, now i remember: it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London from back in January, which I found while considering ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Uruguay, London. I guess you've played that role before; i haven't been very active in AFD for very long. It was my first time seeing mention of wp:preserve. Again, thanks, have a nice day, over and out. :) --doncram 16:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Hillary Rodham Clinton

An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Sorry for the delay! NickCT (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Scoble

thanks for the additions to the Andrew Scoble page, and the re-directs from variations on his name - very helpful! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, you're welcome.

I was using Catscan2 to do some category-checking to identify articles for maintenance, and that newly-created page popped up in the list, so it was good to be able to tweak it a bit.

Well done creating the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ford North

Hi, I've done another article on another British judge, Sir Ford North. Would appreciate any comments or clean up you may have on it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz

That's another nice bit of work :)

I have done a few small tweaks: removing a redundant category, adding a missing category, and a light copyedit to the opening paras to bring them in line with WP:MOSBIO. If any of those seems puzzling, I'd be happy to explain.

I am unclear what the postnomial letters "FRMS" mean; FRMS is a redlink. Can you clarify? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! looks good. As for FRMS, there you have me. I don't know either, and wasn't able to find it when I was researching it. It's listed in the obit in The Straits Times (footnote # 1). Unfortunately, I can't link directly to that, because there's a copyright consent that you have to agree to, before it will take you to the article: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19131014.2.68.aspx Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It could be "Fellow of the Royal Medical Society", but I can't see how a barrister would become a fellow of the RMS? Unless it were some honorary thing? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it might be an honorary thing, but it would be unusual. I did some searching, and the only other possibility I found was Royal Microscopical Society, which seems a bit obscure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cory Bell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commission (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) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Wilson

Another day, another judge. :) Comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Tablid-bait.

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: More good work! All I could see to do was to add a few categories.

If you find the judges a little serious, see one of my latest creations: Lord Edward Thynne. Tabloid-bait. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Hoary old reprobate indeed! and he actually got horsewhipped - I thought that was just a dramatic device for Victoria novellists! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please restore this category

You recently deleted Category:Television series by DHX Media, creating a very large number of redlinks. Please restore it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic: I deleted it because the category's creator had blanked the page on the day they had created it, which is taken as a request for speedy deletion. Feel to create the category again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP:G7: "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Please note the "other than a [...] category page" part. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody changed it, tho I am not sure exactly when. Checking back, it used to apply to any page outside userspace. Thanks for the update. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to restore the category, or are you planning on changing (or discussing changing) the criterion? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, the categ page was blank, so there is nothing to restore.

As I meant to write above: Feel free to create the category again. I accidentally omitted the word "free", and am sorry if that was unclear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Was there anything of note in the history before the page was blanked, though? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If it a category, there shouldn't be anything other than parent categs and a link to the head article. Maybe a portal link too.

Please, just go ahead and re-create it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the change in G7 criteria, I just found this in the CSD archive: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_50#G7_Category_exclusion – Fayenatic London 21:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)