User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 015

CfD nomination of Category:Clubs and societies in Canada
I have nominated clubs and societies in canada for merging into organizations based in canada. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Double Blue (Talk) 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern
Hi BHG I didn't put the tags on the article. They were on it, but not displaying correctly so I just fixed them, I have no problem with the removal of the tags. BigDunc Talk 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dunc, I should have checked the page history more carefully :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

VK
I have posted the conditions on VK's page, but I don't know how to do collapse, or know how long they have to remain in full before collapse, so can I leave that to you or Alison? Giano (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Giano, I see that Alison has already collapsed it, and sensibly put it in a template at User:Vintagekits/terms. I tweaked the CSS slightly, and as noted at User talk:Alison I suggest that the terms be protected once any tweaking is complete. I'm happy for the terms to be collapsed from the outset, if that's OK with you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy for them to be collapsed too, I just was not quite sure what the final agreement there was. I very much hope that this will be the first such scheme of many, which will help former editors who having seen the error of their ways are keen to return to their specialist fields. Obviously though it does very much depend on an acceptance of previous mistakes and a true desire to reform, but I think there will be quite a few candidates. Giano (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there was clear agreement on whether they were to be collapsed from the outset, so I think best to err on the side of don't-rub-it-in.
 * I think you may be right that this will prove a model for further such rehabilitations, but that will depend in part on how well this one succeeds. If this turns out to be yet another final-final-final chance that gets blown, then it wouldn't set a good precedent for repeating all that effort. I hope it will work, but I'm not placing any bets either way. When Vk was unblocked after arbcom, an editor who was a supporter of Vk emailed me to say that while he thought the unblocking was a good idea, it wouldn't last, and that Vk would rapidly walk back into trouble. The pessimism proved to be well-founded on that occasion, and we'll have to wait and see whether the collective optimism at ANI is right this time. Fingers crossed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsure
Im not sure where I have come. I was looking up something and ended up here. Please explain to me.

Look forward to hearing from you Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.175.97 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008
 * I'm not sure what you want explained, but I have left a welcome message on your talk page, and I hope that helps -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Members of Dáil Éireann by session template
Thanks for d star!! I removed the template as it seemed the correct thing to do - though for T.D.s who have been elected on numerous occasions it possibly makes sense to add it. However, it seems that the accepted usage is not to add it - I didn't see it on other pages belonging to T.D.s, for example. There is a similar template for Senators - that's the reason I added it initially. Dneale52 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gaelic_gamesGnevin (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
I would politely request that you refrain from reverting the damage I have undone to your edits to articles concerning Irish football. I think your stance on the notability of the Leinster Senior League article confirmed that, with respect, you have little expertise in this field and should refrain from casting aspersions (for such is the effect) on the work of editors who do. One of your edits demanded a citation for an article which stated nothing other than a player's name, club, and date of birth - these are matters of public record, one might as well tack a citation notice on an article proclaiming "A" the first letter in the alphabet.

You'll note that, unlike cricket biographies which benefit from a comprehensive statistical archive, no sources beyond those which would be considered "primary" are available in support of many footballers' biographies. You'll also note that I didn't revert edits which I considered warranted (such as where subjective statements were apparent.) I apologise for accidentally reverting at least one valuable edit, I did my best to avoid this but the task of manually undoing what, frankly, amounted to a mass campaign of script-based vandalism was onerous and laborious; but I think the net effect was beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Once again, I would appeal to you to refrain from mass editing articles on this subject and necessitating further intervention. Thanks. DublinDilettante (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, someone who thinks that tagging an unrefererenced article with unreferenced is vandalism. :(
 * Replied at User talk:DublinDilettante, with pointers to WP:V and an explanation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your lengthy and punctilious response. It is obvious that I'm urinating into a hurricane if I expect any common sense to be applied to this situation. As my admittedly paltry contributions have been declared worthless by so eminent a personage, I won't bother making any more. I would, however, like to continue to use Wikipedia (if that's okay) so please refrain from deleting the entire encyclopaedia in my absence. And if someday you come to the realisation that the dissemination of information to the previously unreachable masses is more valuable than adherence to the strictest interpretation of arbitrary rules, so much the better. Cheerio. DublinDilettante (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:DublinDilettante. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For blocking User:Iamheretodamage. I wonder what I did to annoy them? I appreciate it. Best, --John (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, by the time I had applied the block notice, someone else had done block, with a delicious reason supplied (go look!)
 * I dunno why you were singled out, but I suspect it's someone's sock. I think it's a fact of life on here that most of us are bound to annoy someone from time the time (my own latest outraged-innocent is above), so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
 * Anyway, glad to help. And while the vandalism to your userpage was annoying, at least you weren't vandalised as severely as the other John ;) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that. That was funny. --John (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it you didn't mean this? Or do you mean nobody has yet served up my head on a plate?! --John (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that nobody has yet served up your head on a plate, thank goodness! At least any spats here are just words on a screen and don't usually have real-world consequences, though there some folks like Rockpocket who have paid a real-world price :( I once had a dose of serious real-world harassment, and it's a horrible thing to have to go through. When it's on-wiki, we can look after each other, but once it moves out of here the victim is on their own :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Crewe
You reverted my edit for Crewe (UK Parliament constituency) - I'm not up to speed with the arcane rules - but the link was to the town of Crewe, the link in the lead paragraph is to the modern constituency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD
The related Category:German Christian Democrat politicians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. --Soman (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Article without agreement
BHG, pl check Great Britain and Ireland asap; some e-warriors are trying to merge it despite an active discussion which is not concluded. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BHG, I see Sarah777 has notified User:Bardcom and User:Domer48 about this, which appears to be a breach of WP:CANVAS. Discussion has been ongoing there for 5 days and there is a definite consensus to merge or redirect. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. In fairness, I was already aware of this article and was contributing on the Talk page.  Sarah777 was letting me know that another user had moved the article before the discussion was completed.  I don't think that's canvassing per se. --Bardcom (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus - a "vote" was taken by a cabal without informing any of the interested parties from the "other side". As active participants I would have expected Domer, myself and Bardcom to have been notified. This is blatant edit-warring and abuse of procedure. Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I'm getting dizzy (with the back-and-forth page moving). GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, its been ongoing a week, the page is on your watchlist, and Bardcom has already voted. What's blatant here is the duplication and PoV fork. Excluding the anon IP's, and including the 'oppose' who provided no context, its still 7:3 in favour of merge/redirect. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Batsun, a common mistake these days, but a consensus is not a simple vote count. I posed some questions on the Talk page that are still unanswered to the point of being ignored.  I'm not against merging, but I genuinely believe that there's nowhere to merge it to.  I've added to the article so you can get a clearer idea of where I believe the article will end up.  It's still a stub. Give it a chance. --Bardcom (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Edit Warring by User:CarterBar
BHG, pl note that this British editor has moved the article while discussion is ongoing. Are you going to do anything?????? Sarah777 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BHG's currently away - see the note at the top of the page. You might want to try Alison, who's usually quite good at mediating Ireland-related editwars. —  iride  scent  14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A little request
I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this and this. If I'm going to be blocked I don't really want to have it happed 3 days later like the last time, but I reckon I have a reasonable defense. Then again it's not up to me.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A sockpuppet report makes sense only if you have evidence (or at least reasonable suspicion) that of who the sockpuppeteer is (see WP:SOCK)
 * As to the 3RR report, I don't think it makes much difference whether there were sockpuppets involved ]]; it maybe that the sockpuppeteer has also breached 3RR, but it doesn't alter whether you have breached 3RR. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it's clear that someone else is bedind the IP account. I can't prove who that is beyond unsubstanciated suspicions of at least 3 editors.  The history of the account shows that the edits were designed to be contentious in order to provoke me to break 3RR.  Doing so with your own account is clearly not a smart idea, and so a sock was used.
 * Anyway, could you deal with the 3RR report? I'd rather get any block out of the way.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be better dealt with by someone who hasn't been involved with Irish issues. Whatever action I took there'd be someone accusing me of acting of out of bias, so I think it's best left to an editor with no history of editing in this area. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't someone just get on with it and block me? It's not reasonable for it to happen 2 or 3 days after the event.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a job for me then....Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the blocking of course TU - I don't do those.....Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And more and more.....
Latest attack on the "years in Ireland" series from Tim Exclamation Mark. I guess we just roll over again, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Teachta Dála category
Hi BHG, the user:Lapsed Pacifist has removed the Teachta Dála category from Michael McDowell claiming that because MMcD was already in the Members of Nth Dáil cats, he was covered by this. See Talk:Michael_McDowell. I pointed out that all current and former TDs are in the Teachta Dála category, all 729 of them. Since you're the most ace categoriser that I know of on Wikipedia, can you cast a cold eye on this discussion and sort it out?, Tx, Snappy56 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

David O Doherty article
Hi, I was hoping to undertake the task of redoing the david o doherty article. This will be my first major undertaking, I was wondering what it is that is wrong, and maybe you could give me some advice please? thank you, o and could you reply on the DOD talk page? Paul5121 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your msg. I will reply alter at Talk:David O'Doherty. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sound Paul5121 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh... Any chance of that discussion? Paul5121 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Khalid Kelly
Hello, on May 13 you deleted my article on Khalid Kelly. Please can you give me the article text that was in the article on my talk page so I can work on it properly. Mny thanks. User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

UK parliament responsibility for foreign affairs
Just created the below template to include on various pages to show the history of responsibility for foreign affairs. Any thoughts or opinions?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephennt (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 May 2008

The version that I see now looks better than the one I saw yesterday, because it has a more logical grouping of departments.

However, it is completely wrong to describe these as "Parliamentary Offices": they are government departments run by minsters of the crown, and they are definitely not "Parliamentary Offices".

The template is also rather bulky. It should be restructured to be collapsible. The navbox template may help. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've made a couple of changes which I hope address your points. Stephennt (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)
I used your close of Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) as an example of good practice when I was talking to Jehochman recently. That was one of your finest moments, if I haven't already said so. I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at this, if you have a moment? Very best wishes to you, --John (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi John, sorry I missed this when it was timely, but it looks like things have now moved on wrt that article. Thanks for your kind words about the list of masactes AFD closure, but I'm not sure that it would be an easy trick to repeat.  I was lucky enough to spot that there was a solution in that case which might be workable, but it was touch-and-go how it would pan out afterwards.
 * Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

reply to you on my talk page
i havn't signed in for a while, hence not able to reply until now. The first point to be made, is that the "no surrender" comment should be viewed in context, it was a direct quotation and not an expression of opinion on my part. Secondly the repeated need for me to revert edits, is BECAUSE those people have decided to reverse MY edits rather than use the article talk pages in the way you suggest to find consensus. There you go. Do not reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulster Vanguard (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on User:Matt_Lewis
Can you have a look at Talk:Association_football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland and User:Matt_Lewis comment if WP:CANVAS,WP:Point or WP:Vote has been breached ? Gnevin (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom
On the article City status in the United Kingdom(which is currently undergoing a FA status review), user:GSTQ is throwing a fit about information I added regarding Derry. Since I have no intention of talking around in circles with him on the talk page where he left a very long post, could you maybe take a look at the issue in question? He seems to have his heart set on getting into an argument/revert war over an edit that I think was very minor. Thanks.  ʄ! • ¿talk? 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hey Brown Haired Girl, I hope you're doing alright. Last August you indefinitely blocked a user named Klaksonn for repeated incivility and disruptions, among other things. I believe he is now trying to evade that block via a sockpuppet account; it is currently being discussed here. This new account (both he and I happen to be Muslim) has called me a pusher of "9/11 Wahhabi Islam" on the talk page of another admin, very similar to all the "wahhabi fanatic" comments that originally got Klaksonn in trouble. Since you were the blocking admin, I thought it would be interested to have your comments. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Change needed in criteria for List of events named massacre
Hi BHG... Could you pop over to the list's talk page... we seem to have consensus that we need to slightly ammend the inclusion criteria (which is protected) to include only events that involve deaths ... this came about due to the addition of the Saturday night massacre... which involved Richard Nixon firing a lot of his staff after the Watergate scandle became public. Many of us think such events are not within the intent of the list... but they do fit the current criteria. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have offered a suggestion there. Hope it helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to allow further discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute that there is consensus. Opening up this can of worms again just before you are about to take a break seems improper.  The proposition has not been on the table long enough for a consensus to be established and there was not a clear consensus about the change - some editors wanted a title change and I agree with them.  Please revert your change to the inclusion criteria if you will not be around to follow this matter through. And enjoy your break :). Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the discussion: it wasn't me who opened up the subject. It would be helpful if you could assume good faith.
 * I did not mean to suggest that it was you that had opened the can. My point was more general - that, given the fraught history of this article, changes to its basis need careful deliberation before action is taken.  Thank you for reverting so that we may take more time over this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Doireann Ni Bhriain
Hi! I'm dropping a note to all the fairly recent editors of the Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard.

I have just started writing an article on the journalist Doireann Ni Bhriain and I am calling for interested editors who would like to dig for some more sources on her career, her birthdate, and perhaps to find a usable picture for WP. As of yet, there is no section on her lengthy career with RTE, and that's something I would like to rectify soon. However, what I can find seems to be just a vague overview. I'm American so perhaps I don't know where to look for the best sources on this...this is where you come in! Please contact me if you'd like to help. Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:British Occupations
Thought you might find this one of interest (especially in light of my remarks vis-a-vis Northern Ireland). Cgingold (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank MacDermot
Just to let you know - I've corrected the spelling of Frank MacDermot's name! (the Dail records are incorrect.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwhyte (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people
Hi BHG! May I pick your brains on something? I understand why the rule is to collate all such names as beginning with Mac, but why treat the rest of the name as though it were all in lower case? Maybe there's a reason, but I can't see it, and it means that Ernst Mach looks like an interloper between all those McGregors and McIntoshes. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lowercase and capitals are sorted at opposite ends of the alphabet. So the order goes ABC...XYZ then abc...xyz. So Mac(CAPITAL).. would come before all the Mac(lower).. names. Maybe this is what we want, maybe not. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

John Samuel Martin Fonblanque
Please could you look at the TALK page of this article? We seem to have got the wrong John Fonblanque, the father was MP for Camelford, mot the son. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware...
...of what is going on: User_talk:Sfan00_IMG? 91.107.44.68 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

...of Para's continuing obsession with removing links to Wikimapia? 91.104.140.248 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminism Task Force
Hello! I've seen you around Wikipedia and I just wanted to let you know that you might be interested in this. Hope to see you around more and happy editing! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Scouting in Northern Ireland
Earlier you raised issues about articles on Scouting in Northern Ireland. I have now bundled all the County articles into a single article that covers both Scouting Ireland and the Scout Association. Please have a look, if you have time, and see whether I have the nuances of NI right. --Bduke (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Emigration category
I'm wondering why you redirected it to Category:Human migration. Immigration is a separate category, containing a main article and "immigrant" categories, but emigration, which has its own article and is equally common and has about the same number of people involved in it in any given year, is not a separate category, so that the article and the top emigrants category are all sitting up there with immigration, a level above the immigration article and the top immigrants category. Was there any discussion? Robin Patterson (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Dear BrownHairedGirl,

I've recently been involved in a prelude to an edit war *embarrassed cough* and was hoping you could help mediate between myself and User:Skoojal. The article in question is Conversion therapy and the difficulties we've been having are documented on Talk:Conversion therapy, User talk:Conmalone and User talk:Skoojal.

User:Joshuajohanson has also been involved peripherally (User talk:Joshuajohanson).

The main problems are: 1) An edit I made adding a pseudoscience tag to the article: I backed up my claims with definitions and 2 sources but was rapidly reverted... I still feel it's appropriate but backed off early to avoid 3RR/edit war. 2) Edits I made to the lede to make it clearer: I'm not sure the exact reason for the complete reversion of my edits - those listed included nonsense/ridiculous/too long, etc. Maybe I'm just a bit slow today. I was trying to improve the syntax and also to clarify a previous edit which at first seemed incorrect to me but later proved correct, per interpretation of ICD-10. Skoojal thinks I'm plain wrong. 3) Edits I made to Medical Consensus paragraph text. This, I feel, is the most serious problem.  Other editors had edited out "biased" text and replaced it with text that was biased, POV, factually incorrect and misrepresentative of the sources it referenced.  I re-edited it, in as neutral a style as I could come up with, but it was reverted over and over.  I'm not sure what I did wrong or why I seem to have annoyed people - I did my best to compromise, compliment, etc.  And I referenced and quoted as much as possible.

I'd also appreciate your input on Talk:Exodus International where Skoojal posted a reply to something I'd written. I'm assuming good faith but would hate for another edit war to sprout there too. I'm always open to advice, constructive criticism and help, particularly if I've gone against etiquette or policy.

Thanks in advance for helping heal the rift. Conor (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you're still on a wikibreak, we're going to ask User:Anthony.bradbury to help out. Please do check in with us when you're back though - I'd appreciate your input.  Conor (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary tool
Hello! The "my edit summary usage" section on your user page links to a tool at http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=BrownHairedGirl. However, unless it is a computer-specific error, that tool appears not to exist, and causes an "Object not found!" error. I just wanted to let you know so that you could keep your user page up to date. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Waltons Guitar Festival of Ireland
An article that you have been involved in editing, Waltons Guitar Festival of Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Waltons Guitar Festival of Ireland. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? I edited the article to make it less purple. Eastmain (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ballinderry, East of Java
I was amused to see a Wikipedia tag on Google Earth located on the wrong townland: the pointer for the entry Ballinderry is plonked on top of Lower_Ballinderry, a meagre hamlet which is a couple of generations away from having a Sinn Fein MP. 62.136.140.15 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Welcome back!
It's not been the same without you... Good to see you'd been working on something really impressive as your "comeback edit". – iride  scent  20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi there BrownHairedGirl I was reading some other pages when i came across your user page, I'd love to have a chat if you feel like it :D StopVandals Now 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wick Burghs
I hope you have had a nice break, despite the weather.

You seem to be the editor who put a 'citation needed' tag on the Boundaries section of Wick Burghs (UK Parliament constituency), in October 2007. I just noticed this today. I have added some additional books and specific notes about the paragraph you seemed to be concerned about, which can now be found in the reference section of the article.

I have supplied boundary information for quite a few historic constituencies, usually using the same or similar sources as in this case. I usually cite the books in the reference section of the article, but do not do specific notes for each part of the information. Do you think I should start doing specific citations generally for this sort of information or is the problem just that Wick Burghs is a bit unusual as a constituency?

I am a little hesitant to delete the tag without referring back to you. It would be helpful to me if you could kindly have a look at what I have done. If you think I have dealt with the problem, you could either delete the tags yourself or let me know that I should do so (unless there is a policy about this which I have not come across before). --Gary J (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish inventors
Hi BrownHairedGirl: On 10 March 2007 you voted to delete Category:Jewish inventors and it should have been deleted per the results of the CfD at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 31 October 2007 by User  who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 10 March 2007 or it should have been taken to Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American lawyers
Same problem here: On 2 May 2007 Category:African American lawyers was supposed to be deleted and merged into Category:American lawyers per the results of the CfD at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 25. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 23 April 2008 by User  who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 2 May 2007 or it should have been taken to Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian-American actors
Same with this: On 13 August 2007 Category:Italian-American actors was supposed to be deleted per the result of the CfD Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 5 July 2008 by User  The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 13 August 2007 or it should have been taken to Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi there. I sent you an e-mail a week ago (14th August). I was hoping to hear back from you, but haven't heard anything so far. Would you be able to say if you received it or not? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO
My, my, I"m still coming off the wrong way. Let me just put at it that this, I promise that I shall not interfere in your talkpage again, but I would appreciate it if you would discuss somethings with me on my talk page so I can make ammends and we can work things out. I'll explain things there, sincereley--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted some previous stuff.--Robert Waalk (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-awards
Template:S-awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Massacres in Scotland
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Massacres in Scotland, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Massacres in Scotland has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Massacres in Scotland, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Someone arranged it so that Category:Massacres in Scotland, and probably others, have been deleted without any discussion. The person in question has removed all such categories (Massacres in Scotland, Golf in Scotland, Golf in Wales etc) from articles, seemingly unilaterally. Looks objectionable to me. What do you think as the category's creator? Punkmorten (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories should be proposed for deletion at CfD, not unilaterally depopulated/blanked (beacuse that leads to their automatic deletion without discussion, as in this case). I have restored Category:Massacres in Scotland, and you may wish to restore the others. I will leave a note for . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bottom-scraping navbox
Do you remember the box, much akin to the one at the bottom of this very page, that you have charitably created to substitute my proper navbox for talk pages? Well, I have located an interesting alternative that allows one to stick anything to the bottom, including large pictures and poems. I saw this use on a user talk page (I don't remember which) and through that I discovered this template. There seems to be a problem with items sticking out of the base of the page, but extra padding can solve that (also an idea I got from that talk page). To solve the problem with my collapsible template (which when collapsed revealed a white area behind it—the aforementioned padding), I modified it so that in the specific page I could use a parameter to keep it expanded and remove the "hide" link.

All this I tell you in case you are interested in a change here; I see your little box covers part of the text. I haven't yet experimented with Interiot's template itself—maybe tweaking its contents might solve the problem. The results of all this experimentation described above are to be found on my talk page; I haven't yet expanded usage of this new solution (when I do, "navbox tiny" will fall out of use, but it has served me well so far, and I thank you for it).

PS: I now look at the coding of both templates, namely your box and Interiot's general-use one, and I see many similarities. Maybe this whole post is pointless. It's not like I can tell the difference between the coding approaches. (wry smile) Waltham, The Duke of 02:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your Grace. Interiot's template looks much more sophisticated than my crude hack, but at the moment I'm not sufficiently plugged into wikipedia to play with it. I'll have a proper peek when my wikibreak finally ends! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Red box
Can the box move down a bit please? It overruns the text. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to BHG – if you don't want to fiddle around with coding, just removing the line break (as per the one on my talkpage, which was cut-and-pasted from yours) will fix this problem) – iride  scent  15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You;re right, that's got it! Thanks :)
 * Sorry I'm not around much. My wikibreak looks set to continue until October. Places to go and all that sort of thing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Block of Pastorwayne
Hello BrownHairedGirl I was looking at the userpage of Pastorwayne and I noticed you blocked him. His block was a awful descion. He did nothing wrong. He helped a bunch of articles. On wikipedia i've noticed this campagain that targets Christians for contributing and the accusers are not Christians. My question is are you a atheist? And is that why you blocked him? Plyhmrp (talk)Plyhmrp
 * No. He was blocked for miscreation of categories, disruption and ignoring concensus. BHGs religion, if any, is irrelevant. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Pastorwayne created so much chaos, distortion and sheer deliberate misinformation in Christian biography categories most of us would have seen him banned from wikipedia long before BrownHairedGirl gave up on him as well. She gave Pastorwayne and his many sockpuppet accounts every chance to end his disruption and sabotage and it was with obvious regret that in the end, she had no other option but to remove him. - Gallo glass  10:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the comments above, I had to go look to confirm, but to clarify, I blocked the user in question. It had nothing to do with anyone's religion. It had to do with exhausting the community's patience in several ways and instances. - jc37 11:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Might it be worth doing a checkuser on User:Plyhmrp? - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so.  Enigma  message 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a guess, but I think this is more likely a meatpuppet, than a sock. At the very least this seems to be someone who is POV-pushing. - jc37 02:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked the user for 3 hours due to incivil comments here (which I've removed). - jc37 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That block was totally unfair.Plyhmrp (talk)Plyhmrp


 * Not apparently according to the two admins who rejected your request for unblock.
 * That aside, I hope you will please move beyond this. Continued issues may lead to further sanction. Which I don't believe any of us wish. - jc37 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead
Hey, do you know why you divided it into the particular pre 1850/1850-1900/so on bits? I've Got it up to featured review after completing the lists and it hass been raised as a question. Ironholds 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done brining it so much further!
 * I thought that it would me more useable if divided up, and that general elections marked the logical dividing points, but that a section per Parliament was both too fine a division and too uneven. So in this edit I tried to choose elections which would divide the list into roughly equal chunks.
 * Where possible, I also tried to use elections which of themselves marked some sort of turning point, hence 1979 (beginning of the Thatcher era), 1918 (end of WWI, big extension of the franchise), 1885 (another franchise extension). Some points where a section break seemed appropriate didn't offer quite such a clearcut historical turning point, and 1900, 1931 and 1950 are not such clear points. I'll try to explain why I chose the dates I did, but I know that there was no clear standout date in those cases:
 * 1900 election wasn't of itself anywhere near as critical a point as 1906, but I chose it as the turn of the century and because it split the 1885-1918 period more neatly.
 * Some split was needed around 1930, leaving a choice between 19229 and 1931. Of the two, 1931 seemed marginally more significant as a change of era, because it ushered in 14 years of national govt.
 * Therefter, 1945 was much more of a political turning point than the alternative split point of 1950 general election, but 1950 privided a more even split. It a handy round number, but it also marked a major set of boundary changes, which seems relevant to MPs
 * Hope this helps! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks! :). I'm going to be working on the Chiltern Hundreds list in a bit, see if I can't get that to Featured List as well. Iron</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 09:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are up to it
You might like to frustrate yourself for a while, if you are becoming active again, by reviewing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force and the previous seven weeks of ROI/Ireland IMOS discussions. Unfortunately totally destructive waste of time that takes away from real editing. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Local councillors in County Sligo
Hi, have you any thoughts on this? -- The.Q (t) (c) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I have left some comments at Category talk:Local councillors in County Sligo. Hope this helps :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF at over the Ireland disambiguation taskforce.
RE your wanting to delete the Ireland disam taskforce (wP:IDTF - I am genuinely upset by the lack of AGF in your reasoning! It was not created to forum shop. It started with a poll that had not been made before, and if you read the through taskforce you will see the huge of work put into it (especially in this usage table here). I've done the best I can to make it fair, and have taken a huge amount of personal abuse for doing it. The atttude in the prior debate was negative and even getting ugly - polling for making the taskforce would have been a disaster. I was already getting abuse for wanting to debate the issue past the point where certain poeple felt it they had the right to say "enough" to it. What right have a group of people got to close debate on a subject?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BHG, welcome back! I agree totally with Matt on this one. Sarah777 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah, thanks for the welcome! I'm only back briefly before going walkabout again, so pls forgive me just a quick reply to Matt.
 * Matt, I do appreciate the huge amount of work that you have put into this, and as I have just noted at deletion debate, there was something in there which could have been useful: tidying up the correlations of usage, and your table could have been very useful in doing that. The problem is that instead of starting from the status quo, your non-forking proposal simply reopens the renaming debate, which has already been run at six-monthly intervals or so over the last few years, always producing the same outcome.
 * In nearly any project, whether it's a company boardroom or a parliament or a trades union, there is a general principle that the same issue cannot be raised repeatedly: if a proposal fails, there needs to be some gap before it is bought back again. That's not a matter of censorship, it's a simple matter of practicality: that if too much of a group's energies is put into issues where there is no resolution, then there is less time and energy available for other tasks and there is also a serious danger that the one point of disagreement ends up damaging the atmosphere and thereby making it harder for ppl to work together on issues. You ask "what right have a group of people got to close debate on a subject?", but you could equally ask the inverse question, which is "what right does a group of people have to insist on repeating a debate continually until they get the answer they want?"  It's a bit like taking the Lisbon treaty referendum, having another five referendums on the same subject over three years, and as soon as the last one is closed then starting another mechanism to try to produce the "yes" answer which one side wants (this is what happened in Fiji, which had a nuclear-free clause in its constitution and was repeatedly asked by the USA to keep on voting until they produced the required answer). That's why, in common with other projects, wikipedia has a clear rule against forum-shopping.
 * The arguments for and against renaming have not changed in several years, and are really quite simple: one side prioritises disambiguation and the other side prioritises legal precision. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support their case and plenty of wiki precedent, and this is one of those issues where we have to choose between sets of wiki principles which can usually exist in harmony, but which in this case conflict. I think it's a real pity that there are repeated allegations of political motivation, because the dividing lines here are not necessarily political -- people can land on either side of the issue regardless of political persuasion, and the political faultlines are not neat (for example, it seems to me that since a purist republican viewpoint vehemently denies the legitimacy of the 26-county state, that calling it "Ireland" should be unacceptable; the logical conclusion of that view is to all it "Ireland (statelet)" or "Ireland (free state)" or "Ireland (26 counties)"). It seems to me that the reason we haven't reached a consensus on this is simply that well-established principles conflict, and that depending on how one weights them, they can be legitimately and honestly applied here to produce very different outcomes ... and I see no reason to believe that further debates will resolve the question.
 * Anyway, I'm sorry that that you see my response as a failure to WP:AGF. I'm quite happy to accept that the forum-shopping was unintended good-faith development of another idea, but please can you take a moment to consider how the effect of section headed "non-forking proposal"] does amount to forum-shopping? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl| Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a mistake starting the taskforce with the proposal, which I had had in my mind for a while. I explained why I did it on the afD page. With hindsight of course, I'd have kept the proposal back until the TF had settled in. hindsight.. As for the recent debate, only one side considered it closed (and maybe GoodDay on a bad day) - I honestly wasn't dredging up anything people had allowed to settle - which is what eventually happens, but hadn't happened when I did the taskforce. I asked people to wait and they patiently waited. I don't want ownership at all, but we all know its a lot quicker and easier when one person does the initial donkey work.


 * This message to me has come out of the TF, which is no bad thing at all. You are right to say people are entreched, but there more than two groups of people, as Scolaire recognises in the message I've linked. IMO, the two most entrenched groups as those who want to blend in NI in with Ireland (ie have a political island of "Ireland" article alongside the ROI one) - with the motivation of presenting a single Ireland, and those who simply want "Ireland" to be the name of their country. With NI unionists I find it hard to judge them - and I get very suspicious sometimes, I can't help it. Someone who is genuinely British should feel appalled at the way so many of the Ireland subs ignore NI via various routes. But I would imagine that some NI people feel both Irish and British, and are happy with three political articles (ie the never-happy 'status quo'). I suspect that some dodgy editors from both sides may just be happy with the disruption, as they see it as either better than an alternative, to somehow helping their cause. A situation we often see in the 'real word'. Some people assume the British are responsible for them not having an Ireland (as a state) article - but like you seem to say yourself, I think the problems are more the Irish disagreeing amongst themselves. As for the 26 counties - do that many go that deeply into it? I think the unclarity of the current Ireland article (and hence the subs, all of which I find cringingly embarrassing for Wikipedia - especially with the piping malarchy) is the key here - some people are happy with the muddle (it might even equate to their emotional sense of "Ireland"). But is a muddle good for Wikipedia? I would suggest that many Irish articles have not been properly advanced because of it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, it seems to me that muddle is a very useful term. I think that there may be a view in some quarters that that this situation can be distilled to great clarity, but it seems to me that the very essence of this problem is that the terminology has multiple accepted meanings. Ireland can mean the island, the pre-1801 state, the post-1922 26-county state, or the 32-county state to which constitution aspires and to which most Irish people aspire (though with many vehement objections). That's the essence of the situation, and it seems to me that we will fail if we think that we can somehow resolve the muddle; I suggest that instead our objective should be try to present the muddled reality with as much clarity as possible. In saying that, I'm not trying to disparage those who seek precision, which is an equally laudable goal; I'm just just to try to stress that I don't think wikipedia can take precision as the only goal, because we also have to consider the ambiguities on the ground, where the term "Ireland" can be used in many different ways.
 * As one example, it has been very helpful that some editors have clarified the usage of "Ireland" v "RoI" in international organisations ... but taking that usage alone doesn't resolve the problem, because those international organisations only have the task of disambiguating between current states. The International Postal Union, for example, is faced with only state claiming the name of "ireland" and so does not need to distinguish either between the island and the state, or between the current 26-county state and the pre-1801 state, but wikipedia does need to make that distinction. (Where more than one state claims the same name, international organisations have had a big headache, as with China, where international organisations have to choose between offending both sides by using PRC/RoC or offending one side by calling the other plain "China").
 * This matters in all sorts of articles. For example, any article on local government in Ireland could either describe the situation in the 32 counties (with 2 difft systems of contemporary local govt and a shared historical legacy from before 1922), or it could describe the situation in the 2 counties. An article can explain its own context and clarify an ambiguous title, but that's much harder with categories, where the category name should be as clear as possible, which is why the category tree currently has "Foo in Ireland" containing subcats of "Foo in Northern Ireland" and of "Foo in the Republic of Ireland". Despite the technical imperfection of name, this works in providing a consistent category structure. There may of course be a better way of doing this, but while I accept the legitimacy of those who want a greater precision of name, I wish that the discussions could proceed with a similar acknowledgement of the legitimacy of of those of us who prioritise the use of a clear and unambiguous terminology.
 * That's why I think that taking all proposals off the table and concentrating on principles is the only way to unravel this. Before we can make sense of what should be done, we need to make sure that everyone understands the different concerns which others bring to the problem; only then we have a realistic chance of reaching any agreement about which of the many possible outcomes is the best of a bad job. My hope would be that such a discussion of principles could lead us to some solution which nobody has yet considered, but I may be a little optimistic :)
 * I disagree on one pint, though: I don't think it's the terminological muddle that holds back wikpedia coverage in Ireland, it's the lack of editors concentrating on content creation. Sarah, for example, has done brilliant work on roads (with many substantive articles) and has created squillions of stubs on villages; I have created squillions of stubs on politicians, and Snappy56 is a zealous creator and refiner of politics-relaed lists. But both geographical and political coverage both remain shallow (lots of width, not enough depth) because there are far too few editors working on either area ... and I don't think that a lack of clarity about the name of the state is what leaves us with stub articles on so many midland villages or so many of those who have served in crucial positions as cabinet ministers in Dublin. We just need more people! --02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I joined Wikipedia I have believed in its article-writing guidelines. Without them this place would dissolve. When debating this particular issue however, I have found many arguments surrounding it to be, in my eyes, not just anti-guideline, but anti the actual fair-but-encyclopedic spirit of Wikipedia as I see it. I have encountered the argument that, because Ireland is seen as 'ambiguous' to many people, Wikipedia (the citation-driven encyclopedia), should somehow represent that (cue various clichés on pigeon holes, square pegs etc). I find the argument - always more hinted at that fully spelled out - as appealing at Scottish mist. When we have ROI and NI main articles, why on God's green earth are there so many articles that merge the two as they do? One or two perhaps - but we have scores of them. Why? Because the "Ireland" article, which should be geographical only, forks information from the ROI and NI articles: ie it is structured to allow people to do it. And often NI gets lost in the edit too. It has got to stop. I've seen this kind of "POV forking" (and that is what it is - pure and simple) screw up subjects on Wikiepedia since I started editing on it. You should see the tactics that are used to keep the status quo on this. Moving a little more in line with Britannica is seen as the equivalent of some historical atrocity, it would seem. And I take editing and this encyclopedia, by the way, as seriously as it is possible to take it. All the current problems on these matters are easily solvable in a few different ways, but Wikipedia happens to be consensus driven. It's the only thing that has stopped progress in this matter. I cannot stretch my AGF to assume that all consensuses, and their compoundingly strengthened 'status quo's' must naturally be a good thing! Sorry if I appear to be a bit cynical – I’m actually here because I can’t move elsewhere over the Irish naming matter. I normally (just as an editing preference) tend to avoid non-Welsh UK articles, unless they are particularly British in context. So NI is normally out of my range, and Ireland is not normally on my path either.


 * I certainly agree that WP needs more people. I wonder how many get put off? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, part of the difficulty is that some subjects are best written about on an all-Ireland basis; for example, all three major churches (Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian) organise on a 32-county basis, and so does rugby. Other subjects, such as taxation or soccer, clearly divide neatly at the border, while others (such as tourism or transport) have both all-Ireland and partitioned aspects to them.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by subjects that are screwed up or that there are POV forks; maybe you could provide some examples?
 * I'm also unsure about how to read your comment about representing the ambiguity. If we agree that "Ireland" can mean different things, are you saying that articles should ignore the ambiguity which this creates, or that they should clarify the usage, or what? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the cross usage tables, and look in List_of_Ireland-related_topics. It begins with Architecture of Ireland... Castles in Ireland. Do you see my point? As for the genuine dual articles (a lot less than half of them), they should say "Ireland and Northern Ireland" IMO. We can so easily cut out the ambiguity. And nobody can say the ambiguity and inconsistency doesn't have political overtones. On top of this, look also at the "Ireland" articles which are ROI-only! And the ones that claim to be "all island" but leave out NI sometimes completely!


 * RE: 'POV forks' - they happen especially on political articles (I was talking about over Wikipedia, not specifically Ireland). I've been part of a number of AfDs - they are always head counts. Wikipedia is littered with articles it doesn't need. The highly-POV "Obama madrassa controversy" was linked to from the main Obama article! (I fought to get it deleted), US journalism scandals (when there is a much more guideline-based List version), British Isles naming debate (info is in both articles) are a few I've seen - the fork on BI is used to structure the main article (which is always locked over the issue), and was actually created as a consensus couldn't be found. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and help please
Hi.

My name is Michael Farrell. I am a son of Peggy Farrell's, about whom you originated a biography entry. I'm amazed at how much you've got in such a small article. Inevitably, there are errors, ommissions - not least of which is that she died on 17th January, 2004. I want to edit and update the article and correct a few mistakes if that's ok? As you appear to be a trojan worker, can you just give me a quick pointer to the right thing to do please? Should I just create an account and 'get tore in' or as a newb should I pass it back to you as administrator for insertion? Is there a biog you would recommend I should take as a pattern of all that's good in biog writing to guide me?

You can reach me at 100115 punc 3602 at compuserve punc com. I'd appreciate your deleting this to save a ton or two of spam. Thanks for all your work, and this bit in particular.

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.99.220 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
Your recent intervention and implied offer of structuring a discussion attracted support from both sides of the fence; although I am not sure that is the right description, its more or a morass with toxic pools! I think such an involvement (or a nominated mediator with enough knowledge of the politics) would make a difference and prevent yet another attempt to create a controversial edit summary up front. Fully understand if you don't want to get involved, but some indication would be appreciated. -- Snowded  TALK  12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

James Myles
References on this article say he was a senator. Can you confirm or deny this ? Djln--Djln (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Cruger, MP

 * Dear BrownHairedGirl,

At your leisure, please review the biographical entry on Henry Cruger (18th century MP from Bristol) and determine if it should retain its "stub" status. If so, please advise me what else it might need.

EK Albany, New York

NYencyclopedist (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I'm writing to you because you are also a girl. User Sticky Parkin has been very helpful to me. May I have you as a pal and a resource to sound ideas off you? Sticky gives good advice but occasionally, I might benefit from a 2nd opinion. Thank you.

About me, I am a responsible person. At times, there have been some conflict because I wanted a rule followed (such as no copyright violations) but I have disengaged and pondered ideas, too.

903M (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Archtransit. – <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"> iride scent  14:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

N4 Motorway
Any chance you can help me to fix a mistake I made in trying to add more info to the motorway junctions box in the article on the N4. I'm not good at the technical stuff on creating the boxes. Thanks PS if you could reply to my talk page also it would be great. Rigger30 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Master of Commerce
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Master of Commerce, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the dated prod notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Master of Commerce. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't give a jizzmonkeys if you delete it or nay. Beanbag2000 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion
Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are so wrong about Jim Murphy - but then unreconstructed Trots like you always are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.23.138 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

YearinIrelandNav template
Hi BHG - been doing some work on Years in France and Years in India. Is there any easy way to access and amend your template, so that we could get versions developed for these two countries (and others as we move forward). Don't have much skills in this area myself, but know you are busy and don't want to ask you to do this. Any views/help appreciated. Ardfern (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pastorwayne
Is PW banned in all incarnations, or is he allowed to edit under other names on condition that he's not disruptive?HeartofaDog (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Sports clubs in Ireland
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Sports clubs in Ireland, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Sports clubs in Ireland has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Sports clubs in Ireland, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Athlone and Coosan?
Are you from Athlone or Coosan? Whereabouts?Zu Anto 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it matter if I was? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Finnish Green League politicians
The category Category:Finnish Green League politicians is the only party-specific subcategory of Category:Finnish politicians. What is so special about the Green League? It's only the largest of the minor parties. Why are there no categories about the three major parties, the Social-Democratic Party, the National Coalition and the Centre Party? J I P | Talk 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I created Category:Finnish Green League politicians as one of several similar sub-categories of Category:Green politicians, which athe time was overpopulated.
 * The other categories don't exist because nobody created them; I haven't looked to see whether they would be appropriate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Master of Commerce Proposed Deletion
Master of Commerce

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Master of Commerce, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the dated prod notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {tl|{db-author}} to the top of Master of Commerce. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears I won without doing anything, doesn't it?? Mwhahaa! Please see my own personal policy on what wikipedia is not for, i.e. jerkwads messing up other people's stuff. Beanbag2000 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please, and stop your vandalism. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Irish people in World War II
As you have contributed to this list, you might have a view on this: Articles for deletion/List of Irish people in World War II. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mom! Need some of yer expertise!
I was expanding the Gettysburg Battlefield article and add photos and text. In particular, I expanded the tourism section and added the visitor center and photos. Another editor seems adimant that it is not appropriate for inclusion within the article. Can you take a look and tell me if I'm out of my mind? I think that it is quite relevant and increases the depth of the article. Thanks fer yer help!--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Roger Ivie"
Hi, My name is Roger Ivie. I am writing because I am just curious about a deletion of "Roger Ivie" that I was told about recently.

It appears that I am somewhat less than "notable", and true, I may well be.....However, I am a bit confused since, what I read seems to say that an article is noteworthy if an artist has song/s charted in publications such as Billboard or Cashbox.

The article deleted references those chart singles and allmusic, while not having hardly any of my songs listed, does have my name, as does BMI and Ascap.

All the statements in the article are true and accurate, yet the page was deleted. True, I am not Bruce Springsteen or Johnny Cash, but it does seem that the article meets Wiki guidelines.

Can you please tell me what is required to reinstate or republish or whatever so that it would not get deleted.

Sincerely, Roger Ivie Roger at Meltonlawoffice.com Nashville, TN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ivie (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Archie Doyle
Your name appears under the history button of an article on Archie Doyle Can you help me please? I am trying to make contact with the author of the article and anyone else who might have more information about him I am not familiar with Wikipedia methods or protocols Can you give me any advice on how I should proceed?Realmcd (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just ask Adam keller, or any other editor, a question on their talk page. You can see how active a user is by going to their talk page and then clicking on the "User contributions" button at the left to see when they edited, but BrownHairedGirl is not very active these days either. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Holidays!
Hey! I know that you haven't been all that active here lately but here is some holiday cheer when you come back on! Merry          Christmas! --Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 16:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

image listed for deletion
An image you uploaded has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cape Verdean American sportspeople
Hi,

An on-going discussion is taking place regarding sorting people with triple intersections of nationality, ethnicity and occupation. You took part in a discussion regarding German American sportspeople and I thought you might be interested in the current discussion, which can be found here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:SmallHarpIcon.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SmallHarpIcon.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SmallHarpIcon.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SmallHarpIcon.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

James Hinton
In editing James Hinton you demonstrated awareness of James Hinton (historian), for whom i have put together a 1-screen-long stub which however fails to explicitly "indicate why its subject is important or significant". I'm delaying my creation of the article, lest it fall prey to an a7-speedy before someone in a better position to judge gets a chance to add a sincere claim of notability. Might that be you? --Jerzy•t 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

John Blennerhassett
Hi - you created this page with a birth category which doesn't seem right (I've corrected that) and a death category which I can't source. I wasn't sure whether just to delete it.Dsp13 (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BHG is seldom around these days. John Richard Blennerhassett is listed here born in 1930 and an Irish senator but there is no date of death, so he is likely still alive but I can't confirm it anywhere I looked. If I am reading this newspaper archive correctly, it would seem to indicate he was still alive in 2007. Unless you can source it, perhaps it would be best to delete the category, but maybe BHG will check in and confirm one way or another. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this, CP; I can only think that the category was a mistake on my part. Ww2c's sources look as good as we're likely to get unless someone does a lot of trawling through newspaper archives. I suggest that 1930 and living are appropriate categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak template
Do you think it's time to either change the date of your Wikibreak template, or bite the bullet and replace it with semiretired? (Or come back "properly", of course…) We're (ahem) well past September now. –  iride scent  01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right, that template was well out-of-date! I'm not quite ready for bullet-biting, so I have changed it to "indefinite wikibreak" rather than semi-retired.
 * Thanks for the message, BTW, and hope you are keeping well. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But we miss you! ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ww2c, that's very sweet of you. Wiki had begun to take up too much of my time, and  despite the presence of lots of good folks there was too much entrenched POV-pushing, and I felt a need to unplug from it all.  I may try just dipping in more often to see if I` can find a way of being a regular contributor rather than a manic one :)  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland
Great to see you back here, and a great post. I don't plan to get involved in that on myself but have been following it at a distance. You sum up the problems very well. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing from an article
Greetings, BrownHairedGirl. On May 17, 2007, I believe you added to Amahl and the Night Visitors. The article now has 15 citations from seven sources, some of which I added myself. I think the notice asking for more inline citations can be removed now. Are these notices followed up automatically? How many sources is enough? Can I remove the notice myself? --Thomprod (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A gentle nudge, in case you overlooked my post above. --Thomprod (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me help answer this as BHG is only occasionally here. Strictly speaking there is no correct number of citations but a reasonable rule of thumb is 1 or 2 per average paragraphs and certainly one for each statement that could be questioned. So, I see one paragraph, to do with the Christmas special in the 1951 section, that has no citation. It also states that bootlegs were made. In the 1978 section, I see the statement: "The 1963 recording of Amahl was the first recording of the opera made in stereo". BBC versions has 1 citation only. The Synopsis section has none at all. When reading it as if you had never read it before and knew nothing about the subject, do you see any statements to which you would say: "where did that info come from, do we have a source for that." Get the idea? It is not bad as it stands but imho could still do with more citations. When you feel it is properly cited, yes, you can remove the notice, but someone else might reinsert it, so try to avoid that happening. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the advice.  This should probably be documented somewhere, at least as a guideline.  If someone places a tag on an article, there should be a clear process for how to resolve the issue. --Thomprod (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of members of United States student societies
This category was *not* created in error, I am in the process of breaking down Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies and was doing lists of chapters first. Thank you for your attention though. (I see that you are taking a wikibreak and thought that my initial comment was too strong.)Naraht (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are on about. If you look at the history, it was me who created the category back in April 2007, and I deleted it myself 21 minutes later, correcting my mistake.  At the time, I didn't feel it helpful to split the parent category, but the numbers may be very different nearly 2 years later.  If you feel it is now appropriate to recreate the category, that's a different matter, and it's one on which I have no opinion.  Please do check your dates before complaining. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Now I understand. I'd created that one without category as a mistake and then tried to figure out why it wasn't there. I did break it out, it was up to 99 pages.Naraht (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies
I have proposed that the Category be deleted and since you created it in the first place, I thought I should make sure you were told.Naraht (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

PW
I left a message on User:Jc37's talk some days ago re whose behaviour mirrors that of the inimitable Pastor Wayne (and must therefore be PW). Jc37 seems however not to be editing. Any ideas? Occuli (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehead
would like too talk about the trobles in whitehead,1975 hugh mcveigh an david douglous any information on it would be very helpful.please email me at troy-lee-rfc@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.184.172 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BNP/NF election results
The pages British National Front election results and British National Party election results were deleted last summer. As someone who contributed to one or both of those pages, I thought you might be interested in supporting their recreation. The grounds for deletion were that they were unreferenced (correct, but easily put right); they were unencyclopaedic (??? - no reasons given) and that they violated BLP policy (ridiculous, but which, by implication, means that any page that names an election candidate should be deleted). The deletion debate is at Articles for deletion/British National Party election results. No contributors to the pages were consulted.

I asked the admin who deleted the pages to reconsider, but he refused. I have belatedly requested a Deletion Review (see Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1) to which you may wish to contribute. I eventually managed to obtain copies of the deleted articles and have now referenced the entire content. You can see them at User:Emeraude/British National Front election results and User:Emeraude/British National Front election results. Emeraude (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I have added my comment at the deletion review. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BNP results - again
Thanks for your comments in the debate to overturn the BNP election results page. I recreated it and now find it has been nominated, on extremely spurious ground, for deletion again!! You might want to contribute at Articles for deletion/British National Party election results (2nd nomination). Emeraude (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaaargh! Thanks for the heads-up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. rdunn PLIB  11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a bit rude to such a prolific contributor. I do so hate the red box that obscures your messages. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disambiguated about 20 links to the disambiguation page at Stephen Moore, and one of them I clicked the wrong Moore. Rdunn was right to revert to revert my mistake, but I see no grounds for the vandalism warning: a good-faith edit is never vandalism. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KB :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

my apologies then. rdunn PLIB  10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rdunn :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Patrick McFadden and Michael Óg McFadden
Hi BHG, you created the Patrick McFadden article back in April 2006. You added the categories for Members of the 5th and 6th Dáil, stating in your comment that Oireachtas Database is wrong here. According to Oireachtas DB, it was Michael Óg McFadden who was a TD for Donegal in those Dála. ElectionsIreland.org also gives Michael Óg McFadden as the TD at that time, and it also list the constituency results, see and. Where did you get the information about Patrick McFadden which says he was a TD then and not Michael Óg? While neither Oireachtas db or ElectionsIreland.org are infallible, they are usually reliable and its unusual for them to both be wrong (as you claim). Tx, Snappy (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Snappy
 * Great to see you still so diligently on the case.
 * Assuming you mean Patrick McFadden (Irish politician), that's a good question, not least because my referencing for that edit was poor (i.e. non-existent). My guess is that the source was probably electionsireland.org, simply because I can't think of any other source to which I had access at that time ... but note that both the Oireachtas database and electionsIreland are works in progress, so probably don't say now that they said then.  I have had correspondences with both them over the years trying to unravel inconsistent entries, and one source I may have relied on is the Dail debates; the official report lists all the TDs at the start of each session, and I may have used that data.
 * I now have some books which may help, and I'll dig them out and get back to you, but if both electionsireland.org and the Oirecahtas database are now in agreement, I think they will probably be correct. But can you hold on a bit while I try to find the books and do my check? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no rush, I'll wait until you til you check it out. Snappy (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Snappy, I have just been checking Walker and he confirms that you are right: Michael Óg McFadden was the CnaGTD for Donegal in the 5th and 6th Dala. Patrick McFadden did contest the June 1927 election, but lost his seat. Here's the citation:
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I've updated the relevant articles. Looking at your recent edits, are you back from your wikibreak? Snappy (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really sure. I'm certainly taking a break from my wikibreak, but I'm not sure how long I'll be back for.   I decided to expand and improve the articles on 19th century constituencies, and I suppose I'm about half way through what I had planned in that area, but I'm not sure how much I'll do thereafter.  I don't want to disappear entirely, but I also don't want to return to the volume of wiki-editing which I did until last summer. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really sure. I'm certainly taking a break from my wikibreak, but I'm not sure how long I'll be back for.   I decided to expand and improve the articles on 19th century constituencies, and I suppose I'm about half way through what I had planned in that area, but I'm not sure how much I'll do thereafter.  I don't want to disappear entirely, but I also don't want to return to the volume of wiki-editing which I did until last summer. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pat Muldowney
I see you have previously had experience of this editor, in particular his use of primary sources. I am having similar trouble at Irish War of Independence‎, in particular the selective of quoting of ambiguous primary sources (including one example where a quote that did not appear in a censored manifesto is used in a misleading context). Any help would be appreciated, thank you. I have asked for assistance here but received no reply as yet. O Fenian (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry O Fenian, but I don't want to get involved. Muldowney is a man-on-a-mission, using wikipedia single-mindedly to write articles which convey his view of events rather than a multiplicity of views.  He is insistent on his selective use of primary sources and on squeezing out other material, and when I tried challenging this before I found that I had little support and was beating my head against a brick wall in trying to oppose Muldowney's use of wikipedia as an extension of his campaigns on indymedia and elsewhere (such as the Aubane Historical Society).
 * That experience was one of the things which prompted me to take a prolonged break from wikipedia, and I don't want to waste more of my energy trying to move an immovable object. I wish you luck if you persevere, but at this point I have to conclude that wikipedia has not found an effective way of dealing with this sort of determined POV-pusher and that editors who try to uphold wikipedia policies in such circumstances it will simply waste their time and energy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:1766 riots
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with db-author.

--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with wikipedia's category system is that there is no way of telling whether the category has always been empty, or oif not how and why wait became entry. So I now have no idea what articles were in that category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Me neither. If the articles were upmerged, you might find them in Category:1760s riots or Category:1766.  Otherwise we can just wait until someone runs across the article(s) in question, if they still exist. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Irish TD table by-election"
A page you created, Irish TD table by-election, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Techman224 Talk  01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's you told. Now don't do it again. Incidentally, if you're still creating your MP stubs can you knock one up for Ernest Noel (Lib, Dumfries Burghs 1874-1886) – he's a rather glaring redlink on my of Noel Park? Please? –  iride scent  02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn hyperactive bot has been on the caffeine again. :(
 * Will have a go at Ernest Noel, but probably not until I dig out my sources later in the week. And well done with Noel Park; thanks to your efforts, it's a lovely article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Annoying red thing
Hi I fixed your annoying red thing Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't say such things in public, because it might lead people to draw conclusions about the nature of our relationship; ;)
 * Seriously, tho, thanks. The red thing is a bit of a black art, because different browsers handle these things differently, and the with so many people still using all the thoroughly broken versions of Internet Exploder, it's a wild guess as to how it'll render for those readers.  What you've done looks OK to me, but I have no idea whether it will cause problems for others ... but if it works better for you, that's a good start. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops just seen how that reads :). Seem to render ok in IE. It's better that nothing Gnevin (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S if doesn't render right in someone else browser, just increase the negative em in the template Gnevin (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Bing told me to eliminate the negative. ;) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * :D Gnevin (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rayment
May I invite you to help please with  - Kittybrewster   &#9742;  23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We now have fewer than 90 left to do. I hope they may have been done correctly. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we now regard that as done? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

POV intervention
Please revert your edit warring at Gweedore immediately. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, please don't say silly things. One article move is not edit-warring, particularly when it is restoring the status quo ante pending a consensus on an issue where I have not taken a view either way. Your personal attacks don't help either. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely expressing a view on the demerits of your intervention isn't a personal attack? Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Expressing views on the intervention is one thing. Ascribing it to political prejudice is another, particularly when you repeat an earlier attack. For goodness sake, Sarah, I am not opposing your view here, just saying that you acted prematurely in moving the article.  Why the rush to ascribe that to political prejudice?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I'm paranoid?? Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart
BHG, please stop User:Blowdart edit warring on the importance for a POV article currently called the Dunmanway Massacre. If you don't act, I will. Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's done it again. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have just driven 500 miles this evening and am too tired to deal with it now, but will intervene as my first task tomorrow. Meanwhile, please everyone remember that WP:3RR is a hard limit. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But I would walk 500 miles
 * And I would walk 500 more
 * just to be the girl who walked one thoosand miles
 * To fall down at your door
 * -The Proclaimers
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2009
 * An old favourite band of mine, who I had the pleasure of doing a feature-length interview with in their heyday after the success of Cap in hand (video), which I much prefer to the title track of that album.
 * Anyway, back to Dunmanway. See you there, after a quick diversion for a pint or three in that gorgeously marbled French-cafe-style bar in Timoleague. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambig
FYI, when you changed Elections in Ireland from a redirect into a disambiguation page, it would have been helpful if you had made a similar change in Talk:Elections in Ireland. I was trying to comment on the disambig page and mistakenly put my comments on the Talk:Elections in the Republic of Ireland page, instead. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment at what is now Talk:Elections in Ireland (disambiguation). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Elections in Ireland
Hi, I don't know why you felt it was a good idea to preempt the work of WP:IECOLL by engaging in contentious page moves, but I've reverted what I could and asked an administrator to revert the rest. Please behave - you know that contentious page moves must be first discussed! --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is rather silly, and I'm disappointed that soneone would claim the move was contentious when it conforms with the status quo. The opening words of the article Elections in Ireland are "The Republic of Ireland elects", and whatever names are eventually agreed for the article on the 26-county state and that on the island, some disambiguation is needed.
 * If you didn't like the dab page being at Elections in Ireland, then the place for a dab page per wikipedia conventions (see WP:DAB) is Elections in Ireland (disambiguation), not at the construction you used of Elections in the island of Ireland (which is not currently used anywhere else).  So I have moved Elections in the island of Ireland to Elections in Ireland (disambiguation) to allow better disambiguation, not least because more articles need to be added to that dab page per the discussion at Talk:Elections in Ireland (disambiguation) to allow for elections before 1801 and from 1801 to 1922.
 * My concern here is simply to allow readers to most easily find the relevant articles on the subject within the existing naming conventions, whatever changes may be agreed in future. I'm disappointed that benefit to readers seems to have been low on your list of priorities. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Note that Elections in the island of Ireland has no incoming links other than from this talk page. What made you think that this was a good way to handle disambiguation? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BHG, not too long ago, a move of Flag of Ireland was overturned because the island doesn't have a flag, the state does. For the very same reason that it is obvious that the island doesn't hold elections, it is therefore obvious that someone looking for "Elections in Ireland" can *only* be referring to the state.  Until the work on WP:IECOLL has completed, it would be wise to observe the status quo on articles (in that the status quo refers to leaving things as they are for now) and wait.  I hope this explanation is sufficient and that it no longer appears silly to you the reasons for my objection, but I was equally disappointed when I saw the page had been moved.  --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the flag is a deeply misplaced comparison which ignores the issues in respect of this article.
 * First, the title is not "elections under the jurisdiction of X", the the title is "elections in X". That includes:
 * Since 1922, elections under all state and other powers, including those under the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland; those under the the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish government; elections to the European Parliament, which are held under a hybrid of state law and EU law
 * From 1801–1922, it includes elections under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, both the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to local councils which were established in Ireland under the law of the United Kingdom
 * Before 1801, there were elections to the Parliament of Ireland, under the jurisdiction from of a state called from 1542 the Kingdom of Ireland, and before that the Lordship of Ireland.
 * So we have 700 years of history to consider here, to at least 7 parliaments under more than five states. You may, like me, regard the pre-1922 elections as having been conducted under a brutal military occupation, with flaws in franchise and execution to add to all the est of the injustice.  But they did happen, and they all fall under a perfectly reasonable reading of the heading "elections in Ireland".
 * It may be that the answers WP:IECOLL will devise a naming convention which will rename some of these articles (as well as many others), and I will abide by the outcome. But whatever is eventually decided there, the thing that saddens me most about your actions here is that you have not rejected just that ambiguity, and instead you took a step which completely removed all disambiguation links, and removed my attempts to ensure that anyone aware of the longer history could find from Elections in Ireland articles on anything other than the current 26-county state.  If we follow your logic that "Elections in Ireland" can mean only the 26-county state, then all the articles on elections between 1801 and 1822 should be merged to the relevant UK articles, because according to the logic you apply here, the phrase "in Ireland" can be applied to state-related things only since 1937 (from 1922-1937 the state was not called "Ireland", it was the Irish Free State, so that materaol shoukd be excised too).  Is that sort of writing-out of Irish history really what you want? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, and if the article aligned with your response above, you'd have a good point. But since (as you've also pointed out) the article deals with the Republic of Ireland as stated in the lede, and since it concerns itself with post-1922, the same argument used for Flag of Ireland holds.  It's unfortunate that you were saddened by my rejecting of the percieved ambiguity you attempted to introduce into this article, and all I can do is advise you to cease correcting articles on your own.  It will in all likelyhood result in happier periods for you.  --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That flag parallel remains a red herring, and your failure to accept the ambiguity here is very puzzling. So in case I have misunderstood something, let me try clarifying exactly what it is you are arguing.
 * We agree that the article deals solely with post-1922 elections under the Irish Free State and its successors. Do you also agree that
 * a) there continue to be elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland?
 * b) there were elections in Ireland before 1922, before the formation of the state now called Ireland?
 * Those are two fairly simple statements. Do you agree with either or both of them, or not?
 * I probably would indeed have an easier time if I simply accepted the desire of some people to claim that a word with many meanings must be taken on wikipedia to mean only one of those things. But if I simply wanted to take things easy, i wouldn't bother editing in the first place. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya. I think the flag parallel is spot on.  Anyway...  What elections are not held on the authority of the government?  As to the pre-1922 elections, it might be better to put that information into an article entitled "Elections in Great Britain and Ireland" or some such....  I think you'd have an altogether easier time if you just called things by their correct names rather than looking for, and helping to create, ambiguity.  --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Epiphany (maybe)! You're arguing that "Elections in Ireland" might refer to the island and not just the state? No?  If so, I refer back to the point I made earlier that since islands don't hold elections, people are most likely searching for the state, regardless of whether they're European elections or not.  In any case, my main point is to hold off on moving articles back and forth from using "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" until the work taking place on WP:IECOLL has finished, and then I'll happily follow whatever is decided.  Making changes in the meantime is just not a good idea.  Let's agree to move on until then.  --HighKing (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're ducking the point. Of course Islands don't held elections, but you seem to be unaware that elections do happen in Islands.
 * You still haven't answered either of the two questions above, so I'll try agai
 * a) Do you agree that there continue to be elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland?
 * b) Do you agree that there were elections in Ireland before 1922, before the formation of the state now called Ireland?
 * c) Do you agree that Northern Ireland is in Ireland?
 * Those are fairly simple questions. I'm quite sure that you can answer them without too much difficulty ... if you actually want to resolve this problem. --02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Reminds me of a school teacher I once had - not you I hope?  I could be a smart arse and answer your questions along the lines of It saddens me that you continue to ignore the parallel with the Flag of Ireland and I'm sorely disappointed that you continue to use a condescending and belittling attitude with comments such as you seem to be unaware that elections do happen in Islands.  No doubt you are aware that's a red herring, as is your general line of questions where you seem unable to use the term "Ireland" in the context of the state.  That's your problem, probably as a result of listening to too many British broadcasts, but thankfully not shared by most of the planet.  You are ducking the issue and attempting to introduce ambiguity to a subject where none exists.  Perhaps when you make an attempt to acknowledge some of the points *I* made, rather than taking an obscure line of questions, we might actually end up with a 2-way conversation.
 * But I won't. Too crass and bordering on the uncivil if you ask me.  Especially all that matronly disapproving language.  It's a cheap trick and just comes across as condescending.
 * I could even respond by saying that I did answer your questions. For a), I asked you to clarify which elections are held in Ireland that aren't held on the authority of the government.  For b), I've responded that the article doesn't discuss pre-1922, so why are you introducing it here?  And for c), since it's a new question, I'll answer it now even though it's a another pretty condescending question which makes me wonder if you've taken a look at AGF recently.  Of course Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, but again you are creating ambiguity where none exists.  If someone searchs for "Elections in Ireland", they are not looking for information about "Elections in Northern Ireland".  Which brings me back to the discussion on "Flag of Ireland".
 * Finally, I'm pretty done with this squabble. If you want to entrench in the view that the only decent use of the word "Ireland" is for the island, that's something you don't have to foist on the rest of us.  Personally, I've prefer to always use the correct term in the correct context, whether that's for Ireland, Republic of Ireland, British Isles, whatever.  In this case, I've asked that articles are left alone until the work on WP:IECOLL has finished, and I've asked that perhaps we just agree to move on.  Still asking....  --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * HighKing, despite all your allegations of British bias and all the rest, this isn't at all complicated. The State of which I am a citizen is called Ireland, and that's what I call it.  But in some contexts, including this one, the word "Ireland" is ambiguous, and I am astonished that you are so determined to wipe out so much history in your fixation on the idea that "Ireland" must be read to mean only the state.
 * Apart from the crude British propaganda smear, your latest gambit is to resort to a crude straw man trick, by falsely and mischievously attributing to me the idea that "Ireland" must mean only the island. That is not what I am arguing, and not what I have ever argued on this topic.  My point is that in many contexts "Ireland" can quite reasonably be read to mean either the island or the state, and that this is ambiguous ... and in wikipedia that requires the disambiguation which are you determined to deny to the reader.
 * You are not even prepared to consider how to address the ambiguity; for you, the ambiguity is non-existent, a manufactured idea produced by someone exposed to too much British propaganda. Taken to its logical conclusion, your extremist stance would even separate out elections in the Free State as extraneous matter before the "year zero" of 1937.
 * Your replies are a studied exercise in evasion. You say that you asked me "to clarify which elections are held in Ireland that aren't held on the authority of the government" ... but omit that I asked about "elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland".  The answer is, of course, all elections in Northern Ireland, and I don't know what to conclude from your inability to answer that question for yourself.  Do you think the elections in Fermanagh are not talking place in Ireland, or that the 24,348 people who voted for Gerry Adams in Belfast West will have been shocked that in his Ard Fheis speech on saturday he spoke of Antrim as "the best county in Ireland"?
 * You insist that 'if someone searches for "Elections in Ireland", they are not looking for information about "Elections in Northern Ireland'. Why?  Why do you assume that a reader fresh to the subject will know the precise date of partition, that they will know which areas are which side of the border, and that someone from the far side of the world will even necessarily be aware that the island is partitioned and the state of Ireland doesn't cover the whole Island?  Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for those who already have the background knowledge.
 * Take the very simple example of the article on the 1880 UK general election in Ireland. This is a subject which can be (and is) studied separately from that of the wider UK general election, as are other general elections such the crucial 1918 general election.
 * If we take you line that "Elections in Ireland" unambiguously refers only to elections to the independent state called Ireland, then there should be no route for the reader to the be directed from Elections in Ireland to the 1918 election to the First Dail, let alone to the earlier elections in which the Irish Parliamentary Party became the major political force in Ireland.
 * I'm clearly not going to persuade you to allow yourself to consider the slightest possibility that someone looking for say the January 1910 or 1918 elections in Belfast might look under "Elections Ireland" and expect to find a way from there to the relevant material. But thank you for setting out so explicitly how determinedly you are prepared to allow fixation on the notion of Ireland=only-the-state to impede the reader's ability to find related material. This thread will be a very pertinent piece of evidence at WP:IECOLL. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow again! I feel like I've been standing in front of a hosepipe of matronly scolding.  I'll just shrug and move on.  I've already made my points, and you have made yours.  You can stomp your verbal feet all you want, but in this context we'll just have to agree to disagree.  --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Riots in Argentina
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with db-author.

Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Here we go again :(
 * I created it 18 months ago, and I wouldn't have created it if there were no articles to place in it, though after this time I have no recollection of what articles were placed in it. Unfortunately, the lousy way in which categories are implemented allows for no easy method of tracking how and when it became empty.
 * So I did it the hard way. I looked at the creation date of the category, found my contribs for that period, found one of the articles which had been placed in the category, noted that no reason was given for its removal from the category ... so I restored the category and added the article back to it.
 * Why couldn't you have done these checks too? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I could've, but it would've required me to assume that you were the one who populated the category, and that you did so around the time you created it. Anyway, it's a good tip, and I'll keep it in mind for future situations like this.
 * If you're motivated to do this sort of research, perhaps you could figure out who depopped the category and take the matter up with him or her. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Irish by-elections v. List of Irish by-election winners
Hi BHG, we have 2 very similar articles 1) List of Irish by-elections and 2) List of Irish by-election winners. The reason, as far as I recall, is that sometime back you wanted to change No. 1 into one single sortable table, and I objected, so you created No. 2 instead. The result is 2 similar articles and every time a change is made to one, it has to be made to the other. Looking back now, I'm not sure why I objected to the single sortable table because now I think it looks better and is more useful. Therefore I propose copying the single table from No. 2 into No.1 and make No. 2 a redirect to No. 1. One small problem needs to be fixed, the sort on the Dail column doesn't work correctly, something to do with the numbers less than 10. What do you think? Snappy (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Snappy, I can't find the original discussion, but I think that your recollection matches mine. We had a phase where we unfortunately seemed to rub each other up the wrong way, but whatever the reason at the time I'm not sure that my creation of something close to a content fork was really an appropriate solution. :(
 * Anyway, if you are happy to merge the two and keep the sortable table, I think that on balance it'd be a better situation than having two very similar articles. Thanks for pointing out the broken sort on the Dail column; I have now fixed it (by using the padleft magic word on the sortkey in Irish By Election Result4).
 * My one hesitation about merger is that for someone looking for example for "by-elections in the 1940s", the unsortable version is easier to use because it gives a direct link from the TOC to the relevant section. I can't see any way of keeping that in the sortable table :(  The ideal solution would be to have sub-heads which disappeared once a sort button was pressed, but we don't have sufficient access to the javascript to enable that, and if you're OK with losing that benefit for the other benefits of sortability, I'll go with that.
 * There is one consequential issue to check for: incoming links. I have created a redirect for every by-election, so that e.g. Galway East by-election, 1982 points to List of Irish by-elections.  I have used ID tags in the list of winners to create the same anchors, so those redirects will all still work after merger, and I have been through every article on an individual TD to make links to specific by-elections point to foo by-election, year, so those will all be fine.  However, I haven't checked every other link to the by-election list, but a casual peek just now found one which I fixed: see this edit to History of Fine Gael.  If you go ahead with the merge, we'll need to check for any more incoming links to the complex TOC-derived anchors such as List of Irish by-elections, cos those will be broken by merger. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine with me. Let's go ahead with the merge and then check for broken incoming links. Tx, Snappy (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Is it OK if I leave it to you do the spadework? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm on it! Snappy (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers
Hi BHG, I presume you still have your admin powers. Would you mind semi-protecting Brian Cowen and Batt O'Keeffe for a week or two? They are the subject of constant vandalism. Most of the recent entries are just vandalism and reversion of same. Tx, Snappy (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. 3 months for Brian and 1 month for Batt. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind protecting Alex Rodriguez? It's at RfPP and WP:AN but it's being ignored. I'd say at least three months. Thanks,  Enigma  msg 03:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody got there before me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A shame. Thanks anyway and welcome back!  Enigma  msg 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Snappy (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

John Lynch
John Lynch (governor of New Hampshire), is always known only as John Lynch, not John H. Lynch, and is by far the primary topic, which is why he was kept at John Lynch. See his website. The discussion seems to have been lost. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. First, he is not the primary topic: he is possibly more notable than any of the other Lynchs, but there are plenty of other highly notable people listed at John Lynch.  There are lot of incoming links to the governor because of wkipedia's bias towards coverage of recent current issues (and because his name has been included in lots of templates), but that does not make him the primary topic.
 * If you feel that John H. Lynch is not the best way of disambiguating him from the other John Lynchs, then the article could of course be moved to another title such as John Lynch (New Hampshire). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John Lynch (New Hampshire) would be much better, thank you. Whenever NH is in the news, such as when Lynch was going to have to appoint a successor to Judd Gregg, the hits go through the roof. In general it has been about a 2 or 3 to 1 lead over any other link, but some of that may have been due to people typing in John Lynch in the search window instead of clicking on a link. I believe that most people get to articles from links instead of from typing. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

batt o keefe
As soon as batt o keefe's page loses its protected status i am going to vandalise it again--86.42.184.114 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no you aren't. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cfd
UK MPs re-revisited. Occuli (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection
Hi! In March 2008 you indefinitely protected Template:Inuse after someone had added a PROD template to it incorrectly, and you also stated that it was a high-use template. Right now, it is transcluded on less than 50 pages, so I was wondering if you could unprotect it (or change it to just be semi-protected), so that users can edit it without needing to go though the whole editprotected process. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only in use for 50 pages at any one time, but that's because it is added and removed quite frequently. It often appears on quite prominent pages, where abuse of it could cause mischief, and for that reason I'd prefer to see it remaining protected. I know it's a little tedious, but I think it would better to use the editprotected process. If there's a particular change you want to do, I can implement it if you like and want to avoid waiting for someone else to turn up.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; I'll make my idea in one of my sandboxes and let you know here. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, drop me a note here when you are ready and I'll take a look. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My idea is in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 2. Basically, it shortens the template (getting rid of a lot of the small text in the process), and adds a timestamp to the template itself so that you can see when the template was added without looking through the page history. With this version, adding the template to a page would use, automatically signing the date and time into the template (documentation would also need updating for this). I have a live sample at User:Drilnoth. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally good, and I'll implement it if you like, but I think it's a mistake to remove the bit about replacing it with the underconstruction (which is particularly valuable for new articles which get abandoned). Do you want to reinstate that, or should I go ahead with the version you have just made? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've done some rewording so that everything still fits. If you still like it as-is, I think it's ready to be "live". -Drilnoth (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, in this edit. I also left a link to this discussion at Template talk:Inuse. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great; thanks! I've updated the documentation. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

otherpersons
Hi BHG, a quick question, why are you replacing otherpersons2 with otherpersons template? See Daniel Corkery (Irish republican). Otherpersons2 points to Daniel Corkery, while otherpersons points to Daniel Corkery (disambiguation) which in turn redirects to Daniel Corkery. Why the unnecessary redirect? Snappy (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Snappy, I'd like to see otherpersons2 deleted, because it facilitates bad linking practice. Disambiguation pages are a special case: see WP:DAB.  The reason they are one of the few hard exceptions exception to the general rules on bypassing redirects is that direct links to disambiguation pages are something to be avoided, so to save editors from checking whether the link is an accidental one needing disambiguation it's best to link to foo (disambiguation) to make it clear that this is a deliberate link to a dab page.  You may have noticed that Daniel Corkery (disambiguation) includes R to disambiguation page, which allows the bots to ignore that item when assessing incoming links to dab pages to produce Disambiguation pages with links and other such lists.
 * Of course, not all other redirects should be bypassed either. Redirects are cheap (almost zero server effort), and can be more useful than a direct link.  The most notable case is where a redirect could be expanded into an article.  So, for example, 5th Dáil should not generally be bypassed to Members of the 5th Dáil, because a full article could be written on the politics of that landmark Dáil.  Same for the Cork City by-election, 1979, one of two by-election defeats on the same day which hastened the demise of Jack Lynch; there's a full article waiting to be written there.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for clarifying that. Snappy (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

poor state of reportage of academia
A colleague of mine not so long ago wished for current scientist trading cards... Ick! "what sane person *wants* to be a celebrity" I wondered in response. I'd rather have a %1 increase in popular understanding of science for a 10% increase in the pop culture status of scientists. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Corry
Why have you moved the Martin Corry article to replace it with a disambiguation page pointing to one other example? Would it not have been better to add a template pointing to the Irish politician? How many of the 100+ articles linking to this page are for the politician? noq (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of the links to the rugby union player are generated by templates, all of which I have redirected to Martin Corry (rugby union). However, it takes some time for the database to be updated to reflect those changes in the what-links-here listing, but the links point to the correct place if you view the articles. I will check again over the next few days and correct any remaining links which are not generated by templates (I have already done a dozen or so).
 * The fact that the rugby-playing Corry has been included in several highly-used templates does not make him the primary topic, it just means that there are plenty of incoming links, all of which are easily maintained by the templates.
 * Martin Corry (Irish politician) is an unusually long-serving member of a national parliament, who was elected repeatedly over more than 40 years, and was a founding member of Ireland's largest political party. As coverage of Irish politics expands, there will be an increasing number of links to his article, and they will be much more easily disambiguated if the Martin Corry page is a disambiguation page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is as may be and as the the Irish politics expands there may come a time when that becomes the primary topic. At present however, the rugby player is the most common. Making a DAB page at this time seems premature. A quick google search for "Martin Corry" produces over a 100,000 hits. Adding Rugby to the search reduces this to 77,000. Replacing Rugby with Politics produces just over 4,000 hits - most of the first 100 referring to the rugby player.  replacing politics with TD produces 95 hits.  I would expect the vast majority of people searching on Martin Corry to mean the Rugby player. Adding a hatnote pointing to the Irish politician should be all that is required at the moment. noq (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Links between articles are much more easily maintained when a disambiguation page is used, and in this case there are not nearly as many links to maintain as would appear from a what-links-here search, because the vast majority of them are generated by a few widely-used templates, all of which have already been updated.
 * A google search is not a useful tool for this sort of comparison, because the career of Martin Corry (Irish politician) ended long before the internet era, so naturally is there is not so much online coverage of his life. Relying on google to favour recent articles generates recentism, which is a form of systemic bias. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have also moved Martin Johnson as well. I would suggest that this is not an uncontroversial change and consensus should have been reached prior to making the change. noq (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The same issues apply, only more so. See Martin Johnson (disambiguation) for a long list other people of that name: what chance is there of disambiguating those incoming links to other MJs if they are lost in hundreds on template-generated links to one article? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A little comment: with people there are very few cases, where a primary topic is justified - caused by the fact that only very few people are well known in wide areas of the world. With rugby being played only in a handful of countries (and in some of these countries only a minority sport), no rugby player can considered to be a primary topic. Phoe talk  21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: The templates seem to have been purged at last, and I have disambiguated the last links to Corry and Johnson. Only the ambiguous ones remain, along with those from talk pages and project space. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jailed UK peers
Interesting category. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W protection
Hi BHG—I saw this old discussion about protection for the above page. The protection was temporarily downgraded to semi-protection late in 2008 to allow a non-admin to perform some actions he wanted to do there. Do you think full protection should be reinstated out of security concerns? I'm a bit loath to do it myself, since I just asked a non-admin user to not change the edits that I make to the page when I'm processing a CfD close, and I don't want to give the impression that that is why I was protecting the page. But this user raised the security concern issue with me and it reminded me that it had been protected until very recently, and since it was you who had originally pursued the issue I thought I'd mention it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the pointer. I have restored full protection: see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your vote at Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Moran
I've provided references for all the players ,this may affect your vote Gnevin (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Two of them remain unreferenced, but I have struck out my "delete" !votes for the articles which are now referenced. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which two I though I got them all Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the AfD page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen them, got them. Time for a wiki break soon I think . Gnevin (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GAA articles at Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 3 done Gnevin (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Election template
Hi BHG. Your edits to the Irish election template have kind of given me a push to try implementing an idea I've had for reforming the series for a while;

Instead of having three different titles (Fooian presidential elections, Fooian parliamentary and Fooian referendums), each with their own flag, there would just be one heading (Elections and referendums in Foo {flag}, and then use groups with headings on the side. I think this would solve both the issue you had with the Irish one, and the repeated attacks from the WP:FLAG enforcer. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the European elections issue was discussed elsewhere a long time ago (I assume on the talk page of one of the hundreds of them!), with the conclusion being that they shouldn't be included (as otherwise in some cases the template becomes unmanageable (presidential, parliamentary, Senate, referendums is more than enough), as is also the case for regional and local elections, which have separate templates. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever conclusion was reached about including the Euro elections for another country's template, I don't see why the same has to be applied to Ireland: see my comment at Template_talk:Irish_elections.

However, I really do like your idea of a fresh approach. As I found to my cost when trying to tweak Template: National elections, it's a horribly non-standard thing, with unnecessary full-width section titles achieved by a horrible abuse of Navbox's syntax. Just using navbox would allow a more compact template which included all the elections (local, national, European, presidential) and referenda.

Perhaps something like this:

Is that what you meant? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant. My only concern is that for some countries there are a lot more parliamentary elections than presidential ones, and having it left-aligned looks a bit funny if one list is a lot longer than another. Can the lists be centre aligned? If so, I might have a go at converting a few tomorrow. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very good idea. I am fully in favour of it. Snappy (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that there seems to be agreement on this (at least between us three!), but maybe we should continue the discussion at Template talk:Irish_elections, which is where a discussion about the template really belongs?

The thing is that if we follow this path, the intermediate National elections template isn't needed: we can just use navbox directly, so we don't have to change other nation's templates. And yes, the lists can be centre-aligned: I just did it to the sample above by using. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess National elections might be the best place for the discussion, as it is effectively the model for all the rest of them; I was never quite sure why it was created in the first place - it's not as if the templates use complex code... I'll change a few and see if there are any objections. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to "referendums" and favour "referenda". Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Irish usage settled very clearly on "referendums" back in the 1980s, when we had rather a lot of them. The academics said that while "referenda" was the correct Latin usage, a loan word should be pluralised according to the normal rules of the language it was being used in. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guessed as much, knew you would have thought about it and did not change it for that reason. I bow to your knowledge. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot
Hey BGH do you still have your bot, I may have a job for it ?Gnevin (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, BHGbot is still there. It's been gathering rust for a while, but it's time it was dusted off and given some exercise.  As you'll see from its user page, it has a fairly limited scope, but I'd be happy to ask for an extension to its remit if there's a task I can program it for. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tag User:Gnevin/sandbox1 with GaelicGamesProject Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'll do it with AWB, but it'll have to wait until I fire up BillOS later on.  Your list makes it very easy job, which AWB can do v easily ... but having the bot flag means that I won't have to sit there whacking the ENTER key :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The list was created with AWB but as you say hitting enter is a pain. I may request you run this a couple of time I hope you don't mind. Gnevin (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

BHGbot's authorisation was only for WikiProject Ireland (see Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot), and I committed to seeking further approval before using for any other WikiProjects. I'm just about to make that request, and it may take a few days before to get approval. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See request for approval at Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot_2. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnevin asked me to tag GAA articles I saw with the GaelicGamesProject template. I added it to my monobook Outriggr script but for some reason it does not appear in the drop down menu list. Any ideas? Maybe it needs a full template as opposed to a simple project banner. I presume BHGbot could tag all found talk pages very easily as it did for the Ireland WikiProject especially as there are no assessment or class ratings to be taken into consideration. ww2censor (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried that too, with a similar non-appearance in the drop-down list. I guess that Outriggr's script reckons that if there are no parameters, it has nothing to do. Pity :(
 * Anyway, if the BAG gives approval to BHGbot, it can do the job quite easily, as you say. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. :(

The BAG was kind enough to give me very prompt approval from BAG for the task, but an obscure technical glitch is preventing me from runing AWB in bot mode. When I find a solution, I'll get to work on User:BHGbot/Job0008. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

www.ireland.com -> www.irishtimes.com
✅

Hi BHG, since the Irish times moved its main website from www.ireland.com to www.irishtimes.com this has left lots of dead links all over many Irish articles. All that needs to be done is to replace ireland with irishtimes as the rest of the url has not changed. This is an ideal task for a bot. Do you know how to get a bot to do this? I know nothing about these creatures! Snappy (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, this needs to be changed. As you may have seen, I caught a few recently, such as on Martin Cullen (diff) and on Members of the 14th Seanad (diff)
 * However, the situation is slightly more complicated than you suggest, because in some cases the change is not just replacing ireland.com with irishtimes.com :(
 * Here's a table of what I have discovered so far:


 * It may be that the archives→archive shift is the only such change, but since I used the archives quite heavily when working on the Seanad last year, I don't want those URLs to be broken. So I think that the first step will be to ask a bot to collect all instances of links to www.irishtimes.com/.* ... and then we'll have to check for patterns.  I'll post something to WP:BOTREQ later today. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heho, to spare both of you further efforts: User:Kittybrewser has passed this already to a bot-owner (see User_talk:Erik9bot) - Greetings  Phoe  talk  18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Phoe. Unfortunately KB was unaware of the glitches described above, so I have posted at User_talk:Erik9bot to ask that first we get a list of links to Ireland.com.
 * BTW it's great to see you back. I recall that at some point a year or two ago you took a long break ... and then I did too. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Snappy and Kittybrewster getting things going and Erikbot's hard work, this job is now all done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Kennedy Scholar
If you want me to pull back the speedy CfD nomination on this one in light of your full nomination, that's fine with me and would save you the hassle of having to keep an eye on the categories to tag the renamed category and providing the explanation at CfD about why the category may be redlinked later on, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I don't actually think it's needed. I have left a note in my nomination about the speedy, and if deletion is rejected then then renaming seems like an uncontroversial step, so I don't see why the two should conflict with each other. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just thought I would offer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it was v kind of you to do so. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)