User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 022

Succession boxes
Yes, you are absolutely right: the SBS guidelines ought to have been updated ages ago. Indeed, a couple of years perhaps. I have had the ideas, but I suppose that's not enough when I lack the time, energy or, as now, Internet access (so be informed that I may not respond as promptly to your reply as either of us might like). In any case, I intend to bring up a couple of matters to the project talk page in due course; it is my belief that the guidelines must finally a) come into line with existing practice, to the extent that this is practicable, and b) be simplified and reduced in size, so they may be easily followed. Considering the remit of the project, it might not be unreasonable to aim to incorporate the said guidelines into the Manual of Style.

But let's not run ahead of ourselves—the immediate concern is the streamlining of the succession-box templates. I wonder whether you might be able and willing to implement this. No definite proposal exists on the matter of acting office-holders, but I think the implementation of proper parameters for multiple predecessors and successors is long overdue. The brief: the parameters "before2", "before3" and "before4" need to be added to s-bef, and the corresponding parameters "after2", "after3" and "after4" need to be added to s-aft, with a result identical to the one produced now by the use of  tags. With this done, we'll achieve two objectives at the same time: make the templates more user-friendly, and increase standardisation. Waltham, The Duke of 16:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I believe you have a typo in your editnotice ("acted good faith"). Waltham, The Duke of 16:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes yes! Great idea, and as you say long overdue.
 * Please don't reproach your good self for not tackling this earlier. You did heroic work on this topic a few years, patiently and persuasively building a consensus on unifying what was then a humongous mishmash of templates, and you displayed great patience even whe n some people like me were disagracefully slow about responding to issues which arose.
 * The tweaks needed now are relatively minor compared with what was achieved then, and the proposals you make are so obvious that really some of the rest of us should have taken them up long ago. Even if your grace had not been constrained in your ability to participate, you woukd have been well justified in thinking "time someone else to carry some of the load" ... so thank you, thank you, thank you for coming back to stir the rest of us sloths into action.
 * I trust that your grace's estates continue to prosper under your stewardship. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS thanks for spotting the glitch in my editnotice. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, though I have to note that much of the credit is due to Whaleyland. After all, the template system was mostly in place when I arrived; the problems lay in its implementation and fine-tuning. Regarding response time, I am often slow myself, so I can understand when others do not reply immediately. My basic source of anxiety in the project has been the general lack of participation, and the resulting question of how one proceeds from there. I like discussing options with people, and I am also willing to act unilaterally if the occasion warrants it (though discussions are better), but there is a large area in between where I want to see consensus form, the issue may be sufficiently important to warrant it, but although input is not forthcoming, ignoring the abandoned beginning of a discussion just feels wrong. Hearing one's increasingly officious voice bounce off bare walls can be unexpectedly tiresome, which I suppose is one of the reasons I have been away from the project for so long—aside from my other obligations, that is, as well as the circular nature of my multiple interests, which seem to wax and wane in turns.
 * But enough ranting. Insufficient participation is a concern throughout Wikipedia, so it is futile to expect SBS to operate with permanent staff. It has for some time now been operating in sessions, and in this one I intend to make several proposals and, in general, get some work done. It certainly feels good to know that I can count on you to offer your valuable insight and assistance if I nudge you hard enough, and I appreciate your attitude on the matter; I do not like to become too unpleasant by pestering people about matters in which they may no longer maintain an active interest. Waltham, The Duke of 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who has been creating and tidying up various MP succession boxes recently, I'd noticed the anomalous lack of "before2" etc and am delighted to see that they may be forthcoming! It seemed odd to have to introduce html breaks in the midst of this sophisticated set of templates. The change will be welcomed (well, by me at least!). Where will you announce such a change - it's difficult to know how knowledge spreads around amongst editors (I don't know what proportion watchlist talk pages of any projects, or read the Signpost), and presumably many people will continue to add breaks manually until they happen to notice a SB using the new parameters and have the wit to work out what is now possible! But I suppose that applies to any changes, like date-delinking. There must be a PhD project somewhere in information flow among WP editors. PamD (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad you like the proposed changes, Pam. Indeed, agreed changes: the esteemed owner of this page is welcome to implement consensus whenever is practicable. The venue for these discussions is the SBS talk page, but I suspect that your remark is more general than that. I tend to stay abreast of events (provided that I have the time to check my watchlist) by reading the Signpost and keeping an eye on the Village Pumps, Centralized discussion and several well-frequented user talk pages. I also watch several pages of more special interest, of course, including several WikiProjects, but with these I can be sure that everything that matters reaches me. Not an assurance that I'll know everything that will interest me straight away, but again one cannot watch everything... Waltham, The Duke of 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the timely and gentle nudge! It's now done: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Royds
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Priestley DYK
Hi, I'm not sure if you nominated this for DYK or whether Sarastro1 did but, I've reviewed it and it is not yet 5x expanded, can it be expanded further? SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was me who nominated it. Sarastro1 kindly referenced and corrected the cricketing sections, but even tho zie hadn't expanded it, I thought it only fair to make this a joint nom.
 * I'll see what I can do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Fell
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Tonbridgians
Hi, re your removal of the Tonbridge from articles on Old Tonbridgians. The relevance is to Tonbridge, not to the person. The addition of the template where the person in question is on a "list of people from (place)" seemed like a good idea, but there have been a few objections. I don't see that a person being educated at a certain place is an insignificant event in their life, in many cases it can be quite the opposite, especially where a public school is involved. I won't replace the template where it's been removed, but I'm not going to remove the template from other biogs either. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued at User talk:Mjroots. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edward Robert King-Harman
King-Harman said "Keep the cartridge in the rifle". Do you have an opinion on what he meant ? When I created the article, it appeared to me he was advising Unionists to keep the gun loaded i..e. remain armed. To take the cartridge out of the rifle in contrast means to disarm. To fire off the cartridge indiscriminately means to waste ammunition which may still be needed for more serious purpose. This was about as far as he could go as a constitutional MP but one who who aggressively opposed any loss of power by Unionists in Ireland. The article has now been changed to represent these words as "cooling" instead. If you follow the reference, Healy actually described Northcote's as "gave Orangemen the cooling advice, "Don't fire off your guns in the gaiety of your hearts."" - he merely states what King-Harman said without comment. In fact, I believe Healy was being ironic in describing Northcote's words as "cooling', not literal. In any case, the refence as it stands in the article is misleading. I think far from being cooling, King-Harman's words were militant. What do you think ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Talk:Edward Robert King-Harman. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you-
I just want to thank you people for doing the articles about the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is interesting and fun to read them. I found the articles about the British Parliament interesting especially with the last election for the House of Commons. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's fun editing them, and I'm glad you enjoy them too.
 * Tho please do remember that I am only one of many many editors who have helped to create wikipedia's coverage of British politics. Like everything else here, it a big team effort :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bones
Hi BHG. As you seem the authority on matters pertaining to templates etc. could I ask you to quickly look at Peter Bone? I've been adding citations and will try to further improve the English. Someone's put a lot of work into the election results but these are duplicated in the constituency -and therefore potentially conflicting. Do you agree? Regards JRPG (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. The election results are a duplicate of data which is already in the constituency articles, and should be removed from the biography.
 * So I have just removed them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks BHG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPG (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2010

DYK for Walter Windsor
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Priestley
Courcelles 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

John Calcraft
The Calcrafts (Sr and Jr) were amongst the owners of Leeds Abbey, as the house built on the site of Leeds Priory was known. Info is all there in the article, with online links to book ref used. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like it says in the editnotice: If you came here to reply to a message I left on your talk page, then please post the reply on your talk page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Pengelly
Thanks for your help with the succession box on this article. I must admit I found it very confusing! Jack1956 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It tends to take a bit of practice to get the hang of the more complicated boxes for multi-member constituencies, but I think that the new functionality of having numbered fields will help to make things clearer.
 * Well done building the article. Thomas Pengelly (judge) is coming on nicely. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Jenkins (MP)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Somewhatdazed
Hi. Could you help me with this new user (contrivutions by Somewhatdazed). I have now reverted most of his edits (removing and de-bolding peerage titles and so on). A block would be useful here. Are you also aware of the recent edits by User:Lucy-marie. She has gone on a one-girl-crusade to remove peerages from article titles. The Leader of the House of Lords is now located at Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960)... Sometimes Wikipedia is SOOOOOO frustrating... I will have a look at this tomorrow. Regards, Tryde (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look at the work of, and WP:BITE comes to mind. Many of the edits are clearly misplaced,  but this is a new editor, and I really think it's important to try to discuss  the prob before an admin gets involved. I know that can be time-consuming and feel tedious, so I do sympathise with your frustration ... but we were all newbies once, and per WP:AGF I'd not want to be at all heavy unless I saw evidence that this editor really didn't want to discuss contentious issues.
 * As to the Leader of the House of Lords, I have reverted the unilateral move pending any consensus to rename the article. I see that some of the other moves have been reverted, and that there has been communication to, but no sign that zie has edited at all since those two requests to desist ... so for now I suggest AGF that zie will stop and discuss. However, the move log shows a lot of these renamings, and I'll be happy to help revert them tomorrow. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is one of those "new" users who comes to Wikipedia with a very clear agenda. Somewhatdazed's first edit was to remove the "Sir" part in a link to Laurence Olivier and his third edit was to change "Lord Byron" to "George Byron". Then on December 7th he started de-bolding peerages in a number of articles on life peers. Seems to me to be a person who is well acquainted with Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they came with some notions, but so do lots of editors. The test is what they do with those notions when they find that wikipedia has guidelines and processes. So it's best to start by explaining that we have guidelines, and try discussing. If the problems continue, or if discussion is refused, then we can escalate ... but it's much better to start by saying "look, we have a guideline, and if you think it's wrong here's how you propose a change". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!!!
Your edit summary of "template spam" is not assuming good faith. I suggest that this issue is brough up at the relevane Wikiproject - WP:KENT. The people on the Bearsted were either born in, or lived in the village, as noted on the Bearsted article. Again, the inclusion of them on the template is justified, as is the inclusion of the template on their articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Spam is spam, and continuing to add barely-relevant templates is spam. As to AGF, please read WP:AGF.
 * The fact that someone was born in a particular place, or retired there, is in most cases not relevant to the notability ... and it's controversial to even categorise them as "from" there unless they had an ongoing association with the area. See for example George Horne: the link to Otham in the lead is more than enough. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent. BTW, your bottom banner prevents the last few lines of text being seen and makes reading replies hard. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent.
 * Sorry about the bottom notice: it works fine on Konqueror, Opera, Firefox and Chrome, so I dunno what's up with your browser.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on Firefox. Mjroots (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno what's happening then. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion with Mjroots here. I agree that placename templates are disruptive in articles about people who simply lived in the place. Even worse, Mjroots uses the placename templates to make it appear that orphaned stubs are not orphans, which helps to protect them in AfDs. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories:Victims_of_British_political_repression - redux
Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 5 has been up for nearly a week with no comments. Johnbod (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just added my rant. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You, Malleus & I are all still up. what is wrong with us? Johnbod (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe just I'm not the only one who finds the quiet hours of night a good time to think. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just read your Oppose procedurally at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 5 I just wanted to let you know that I agree that all such categories should be treated equally. I came upon those two by happenstance. I didn't even know that this type of nonsense category existed, given the evident subjectivity, etc. Someone did have the Category:Victims of American political repression deleted for cause in 2009, so it probably would have been better to delete them all then. Nonetheless, I just wanted you to know that I know, after all these years, that you are a fair-minded, kind and decent person and I do agree with you in principle. I wasn't just being selective per se. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad we agree, and I hope that my comment there didn't come across as any assumption of bad faith about your nomination. I have commented again at the CFD, to suggest a way fwd. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Take a look at CFD (Partial list of victimology categories for deletion). I tried to keep my word that I wasn't being selective, but I still couldn't get to them all in one shot with my lack of computer savvy and very slow dial up connection here across the pond. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work: that's a long list. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion re infobox
Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alpheus Morton
Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_11
Please see my reply. The categories up for deletion were used by a now-deleted banner template. The replacement template actually uses category trees for all Canadian provinces and territories. The banner template for WP:CANADA (which is the same template for WP:ONTARIO) is unaffected and remaining in place. Your concerns, while noted, are baseless.  Imzadi  1979   →  03:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading what I wrote, before you rudely dismiss concerns as "baseless".
 * I didn't say this was a bad idea; I said that you did not appear to have got consensus in all the involved wikiprojects. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read what you wrote. WP:CANADA and WP:ONTARIO are not involved in this change. Their categories, templates and assessments are not affected one iota. We don't need their permission to implement a separate banner template. We don't need their permission to retire WikiProject Ontario Roads either. That template was the one that used the categories proposed for deletion. The template itself was deleted, meaning that the categories are not in use. (If you'd check, they're all empty.) There's no template that's adding any articles to these categories anymore. Canada Roads WikiProject adds articles to category trees for each province/territory, the national project and a tree for articles on components of the Trans-Canada Highway. That template uses "Category:XXX-Class Ontario road transport articles" for its naming. Substitute "Canada" or any province or territory name to get the other categories. The categories proposed were never in use by WP:CANADA nor WP:ONTARIO, only WP:ONRD, and now they are not in use.  Imzadi  1979   →  03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This affects assessment categories for articles within their field of interest, so ask them what they think. There is scope for a joint assessment process.
 * And, per WP:MULTI, don't split the discussion between my talkpage and the CFD page: this discussion here is now closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Should by-elections have separate articles
Hello, we are having a discussion in New Zealand whether by-elections should have separate articles or not. Would you like to offer your thoughts?  Schwede 66  17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented here. Hope that's of some help. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very helpful - thanks!  Schwede 66  18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kent village templates
Please stop removing links from templates if you are going to nominate them for deletion. As I have already stated, it seems that the removal of the links is intended to degrade the template before it is nominated for deletion. Are we going to have all the templates nominated then? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to remove any links which are to entities with tenuous connections to the village, most of which seem to have been added in an effort to pad out the template to justify their existence. I will continue to explicitly acknowledge in any TFD nominations.
 * I will nominate at TFD any more pointless templates. I don't think that will mean all of them, but so far it seems likely to mean most of those relating to small villages. This should be no surprise to you, after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

H F Stephens
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on H. F. Stephens. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from an editor who described my good-faith, explained-removal of a spammed template as "vandalism". Try reading WP:NOTVAND. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Blackburn by-election, 1869
Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting somewhere
I note that you consider 5 valid bluelinks as sufficient to retain a navbox. At least that gives me something to work with. Re your comments that entries without a full article don't meet WP:GNG, in almost all instances you are referring to watermills. Watermills are less glamorous than windmills, and generally get less coverage. I could quite easily create hundreds of watermill stubs, each of which would just about pass GNG. My general criteria when creating articles is "can I write an article of C class or better about this?" If yes, then I will write it. If the answer is no, then I ask myself "can I create a Start class article from the info I have, and would it be likely to be expandable from sources I don't have? If the answer is yes, the I will create it. If the answer is no, then I will only create an article if I feel that the subject is sufficiently important that an article should exist (BRUTE is an example of this). Otherwise, the topic is covered as part of another article. With watermills, it is logical to place these under articles on the river that powered them. If we are agreed that 5 valid bluelinks is a basepoint, how about I continue working up templates in my sandbox, and let you vet them before creating the template (if approved). Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. No, I do NOT agree that 5 valid bluelinks is sufficient. I was just looking for ways to group the TFD nominations, and a grouping by the number of  bluelinks seemed like a good way to do it while we test where the consensus lies.
 * To centralise discussion per WP:MULTI, I have copied your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent, and replied there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Victimology categories CfD
Hi. You recently participated in the ongoing Partial list of victimology categories CfD. I recently posted a renaming proposal in that CfD and I would appreciate receiving your feedback at Partial list of victimology categories CfD. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Western Wood (MP)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did prefer my suggested hook that Kitty O'Shea was his niece, but I can see why this one was chosen. Thanks for featuring it in DYK! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Victims of political repressions CFDs
You participated in a 2010 DEC 13 CFD about victims of political repression. A follow-up nomination to that discussion has begun here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I have responded at CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox
I'm hoping you can help me. Template:Infobox cardinal styles has the field "See" which links to Titular see but it would much better to be linked to Titulus (Roman Catholic) or List of titular churches in Rome. The problem is I don't how to redirect the "See" field. Do you know how to go about it. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Scrivener, I am not entirely sure what you mean, so it would help a lot if you could provide an example of what you are trying to do and show why it's not producing what you want.
 * Looking at infobox cardinal styles, I think your concern is that the caption applied before the "see" parameter is . If I understand that correctly, then the change you want is simply to replace that with.
 * That caption is not actually applied by infobox cardinal styles; that template calls Infobox manner of address, which is invoked by where the caption  is generated.
 * Neither template is not protected, so if I've understood you right, then you could make this change yourself ... but since infobox cardinal styles is transcluded in 622 pages and Infobox manner of address is transcluded in 1971 pages, it would be best to seek consensus first.
 * Although I'm no expert on the subject, I'm not entirely sure that your proposed change is one I'd support even for cardinals, and I would not want to assume that the "See" field in Infobox manner of address is used only for RC cardinals. I suspect that it may also be applied to the Orthodox churches, tho I have not checked.
 * I suggest that you propose the change at Template talk:Infobox manner of address, and drop a note to WikiProject Christianity.
 * Hope this helps! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave things as they are for the time being. Transclusion and all it entails is way beyond my understanding. Thanks for you help anyway. Regards Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)



Your recent reversions
You may have a point re 'Elections' rather than 'Election results', but frankly the UK elections pages are completely inconsistent. I was working with what I percieved to be the style of the majority of the pages. I will be going through all the pages again (see my user page if you haven't already): has this been discussed previously amongst those doing the work? If so, where? I feel the pages should adhere to a standard and they certainly do not. I really have no issue as to which wording is better.

I agree with your white box on the left before 'Constituency abolished' in the MP box, but we see left, centre or neutral at people's whim. I'll change the rest to what you have done as it is better than anything else I've seen. Right certainly does not work. Again, a standard is required. Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi BHG -and Christmas greetings! Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency) is causing me confusion in that the position of minor parties in the 2011 election tables seems to be getting changed by IPs, needless to say without reason given. Is there a proper order for this? Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi JPRG
 * I can't recall whether there is any existing consenus on this, but it would be worth having a look at WT:UKPC or WT:UK Politics.
 * FWIW, my own view, which I don't recall discussing, is that when the results are available, candidates should be sorted in descending order by number of votes ... but that until then, the NPOV order should be as they would appear on the ballot paper. Ballot paper order is an alphabetic sort by "surname, firstname".
 * I'll go look for evidence of any existing consensus on this, but until then, have a great solstice! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I just found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 2.
 * The consensus there is for alphabetical order. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. 20:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council
I have just noticed that in June you moved Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. That is of course a good title for the present-day Privy Council, but as with House of Commons of the United Kingdom it doesn't work for the centuries before there was a United Kingdom. Last year, I took part with Ground Zero in the creation of House of Commons of England and House of Commons of Great Britain, and it seems to me we need a Privy Council of England and a Privy Council of Great Britain. Do you object to this if I begin a discussion at Talk:Privy Council of the United Kingdom? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonraker
 * I hadn't spotted who had been involved in creating House of Commons of England and House of Commons of Great Britain, so congrats to you and Ground Zero for doing all that work.
 * A similar split of the Privy Council seems like a great idea, and while I don't expect to be in a position to do much of the work, I fully support the split. So please do go ahead and start the discussion ... and if you need any help, pls let me know and I'll see what I can do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you figure out...
what came first in the chicken or the egg problem of Akbar S. Ahmed and http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/about/AkbarAhmad.html? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not immediately, cos I'm too tired. I'll have another look tomorrow.
 * But a clue may lie in the contribs of, who appears to be an WP:SPA. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Another fishy aspect was that most of the article's talk page had been deleted without archiving or anyone noticing. The issue of the article being too similar to PR stuff on the subject has been raised there before. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC?
An RFC on the subject of the navboxes may well be a good idea. You state that bluelinks to 5 stand-alone articles was not intended to be a threshold, but it seems that we (the Wikipedia community) do need to establish a threshold somewhere, so my intention is for this number to be suggested as a threshold. I'll ask that the discussion at AN be closed, pending a RFC which I'll file in the next day or two. The issues of when a person should be added to a template, and articles on buildings that are covered as part of other articles can also be discussed at the RFC. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with a numerical threshold is that it is insufficient, because the relevance of the articles to each other is a critical point ... and a numerical threshold risks encouraging editors to pad out a navbox to meet the threshold, for example by adding to the template people with non-notable relationships to the a village.
 * If you are acting in good faith on this, you should also set about withdrawing the false allegations you have made against me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your comments at WT:KENT. I'm sure it would benifit us both and the wider community if we were agreed on the wording of a RFC before it went live. Re biogs, am I correct in thinking that if there is a "list of people from foo", then a link to such list on the navbox is fine, and the navbox appearing on the list similarly so. I accept that in these cases, the navbox should not appear on every biog that appears in the list. However, it may be possible that there may be individual cases where placement of the navbox could be appropriate. Apart from biogs, your other main objection to entries on navboxes would seem to be where the link is to a section of an article, rather than a stand-alone article, yes? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree on working together to draw up a neutral RFC. :)
 * I agree that link in a navbox to a "list of people from foo" is fine, provided that it is a standalone list; otherwise it's just a duplicate link to the article on the place. That fits with the general point per WP:NAVBOX that a navbox should not include multiple links to the same article, which I think is something you still contest.  I don't object to linking to a sub-section of an article, provided it's the only link to that article.
 * As to individual biogs, the consensus so far seems to me to be that the template should be applied to them only if the biog is linked from the navbox ... and that would happen only in some very rare cases where the person and village were were unusually closely-bound in notability. (One example which occurs to me is William Madocks and Tremadog; he bought the land and founded the town). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bootlegs
Quick question: Do we generally allow articles about bootleg albums? I can find no indication that this album is an official release. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We got lots of 'em in Category:Bootleg recordings. That makes sense to me, because even the record companies are trying to kill ppl who mention bootlegs, we can't consider that: the issues are the usual mix of WP:V, WP:RS, NPOV etc.
 * If Romeo Bleeding: Live From Austin is a bootleg, my main concern would be that article should say so.
 * BTW, haven't crossed paths with you for a while. Hope you are keeping well and having a good solstice! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reliable source I can find is the allmusic link in the article, but amg gives no information.
 * And you are correct, we have not crossed paths in some time. I am doing well, as I hope you are.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Privy Council again
I should welcome your comments here. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Irish county stubs
Hi BHG -I've made some replies at WP:SFD to your comments and questions (which I only saw a few minutes ago). You're right that WP:IE should have been kept in the loop - my fault, I'm afraid, for some reason I completely forgot. BTW, at the time the proposal was made the other counties you mentioned were below the 60-stub threshold - I hunted around to see which other counties I could get up to speed (Co. Limerick also has its own category now). None of the other counties are that close to 60 stubs, though Co. Clare's in the mid 40s Grutness... wha?   22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and sorry that my comment at SFD was a bit tetchy.
 * I'll respond properly at Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/11. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin
Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BHG, for notifying me.
 * Dumb script :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Canvassing by JJBulten
Greetings,

I thought you should be aware of the following comments. Though off-Wiki, they indicate that JJBulten is attempting to manipulate the situation:

(from InvisionFree, a "Wiki-blacklisted" site due to its hosting blogs, but nonetheless the content can be documented off-Wiki)

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Report Post Group: Members Posts: 40 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10

User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

JJB Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM Report Post Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

Now, a few points need to be made:

1. The above activity reflects JJBulten's perception of the situation, not your thoughts or intentions. It does, however, strongly infer that he is attempting to manipulate the situation.

2. Flags or no flags does not establish or disestablish notability, by nation or individually. Articles such as this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

establish notability. Walter, though not a world's oldest person yet (he ranks third-oldest), has been covered in substantial outside sources for many years, outside the local obituary...he's not even dead.

By JJBulten's illogical comment, simply removing a flag from next to Walter's name on the "List of American supercentenarians" page would disestablish his notability...complete bunk.

3. What happened in 2007 was in some ways uncivil, but time has healed some of the wounds, and out of the "fire" regenerated new understandings. It was you yourself who suggested merging articles on individual supercentenarians into a list format. Personally, I would prefer three levels of coverage:

A. standalone articles for supercentenarians with a lot of coverage (such as Walter Breuning) B. mini-bio format coverage for supercentenarians who are the "oldest in a nation" but not that well-covered worldwide (i.e., Margaret Fish, oldest living person in the UK) C. list-only coverage (just a name in a list) for those who may be below threshold B.

4. JJBulten has personally stated on his own Wiki page that he is "paranoid" and "delusional". He has stated that he believes that Noah lived to 950 because the Bible says so (which is his right to believe) but also that means that people can live to 950 today (which is not scientific, since there's no evidence of that). He has, for more than a year, attempted to minimize, ravage, or delete any article on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" coverage. In fact, he attempted to delete articles on world's oldest persons as well. Only when those efforts were mostly unsuccessful did he even offer to change course a little bit.

5. Probably most cynically, JJ included you in the current discussion on Longevity, ostensibly to recruit an "ally," even though until December 25 you had shown no inclination to be involved and were not involved for over a year. I personally have not added flags, though I think they should be used. That is beside the point.

6. The real point is that "notability" and the coverage on Wikipedia should reflect reliable outside sources, not the ideological bent of a man whose mission (and he is an editor for WorldNetDaily, a conservative POV-pushing site) is akin to forcing schools to teach that "evolution is just a theory", "intelligent design should be taught in schools" or "the Earth is just 6000 years old."

One has every right to believe these things...it's just they don't have the right to stamp this as the defacto position on Wikipedia, when such non-mainstream coverage is, in fact, "fringe theory."

But regardless, it is more than clear that JJ has attempted to "start a fire" by re-igniting the 2007 debate.

I think the best thing to do is to let it go.

Sincerely Ryoung 122 02:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert, thanks for the message, and the friendly tone :)
 * I had spotted this in your evidence at arbcom, because although I had decided not to participate in the RFAR, I had been watching the page. While I do thank you for drawing this to my attention, I am disappointed that after all these years you still chose to copy-and-paste onto my talk page, instead of using a diff, as above. You're clearly an intelligent man, and can do better than this.
 * As to the substance of the main dispute between you and JJB, I don't want to get involved. As you know, I have been very critical of a lot of the way that you and the GRG have conducted themselves, and I still don't like the way that GRG is being used as a source for so much of the longevity coverage. There are walled garden issues there which arbcom does need to explore, and while I can see that there also seem to be grounds for concern about POV-pushing by JJB, I don't want to get drawn into the middle of a dispute between two camps who both seem to me to be significantly out-of-line.
 * You're right that the end result of the 2007 disputes was a reasonably stable situation by which WP:GNG was applied to individual biogs, and the rest were listified. But from your contribs, I see your posts to Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27, and I do wonder whether there has really been so much progress. Yet more disruptive formatting, and verbose commentary which would be irrelevant at AFD and is wholly out-of-place at DRV. :( Sorry if this seems rude, but that sort of conduct does not speak well of your role on wikipedia, and the substance of your arguments also rather undermines any hopes I had that those of you working on longevity articles had started to engage seriously with Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
 * As to the flags, it's simple: the lists of supercentenarians were still on my watchlists from 2007, and when I spotted edits to one I took a look and saw the flags. I checked MOS:FLAG and removed them, but I was surprised by the speed of the response, and by the fact that a second (and not-very-active) editor popped up to revert so promptly. I did suspect off-wiki canvassing, but I suspected you, since that was what happened before. While I want to assume good faith, I don't know how much reliance to place on your report that it was JJB who was canvassing off-wiki. I think it'll be best for me to bring it to arbcom and let them unravel it. So it looks like I will be giving evidence after all :(
 * For me, the flags issue has been a wake-up call that there remains some sort of walled-garden here, though your evidence suggests that there may be more than one gardener ;)
 * But you're quite right that JJB's suggestion of flag-removal-as-a-prelude-to-deletion is wildly misplaced.
 * Since my suspicions about off-wiki canvassing has been confirmed, and doesn't want to discuss the problems seriously, will you help?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting comments in categories for discussion
BrownHairedGirl, In order to make the conversation flow better in Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22, I created sub-sections for 2 cats. In so doing, I separated one of your comments into two locations. Please make sure I didn't change your intended meaning by doing so. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I am not entirely happy about that refactoring, but it does not appear so far that my meaning was disrupted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mad heading! :)

 * Like totally. :)   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. Endash
Hi BHG, sometime ago I moved all post 1921 Irish constituency articles that has a hyphen in the name to use an endash instead, e.g. Carlow-Kilkenny (Dáil Éireann constituency) to Carlow–Kilkenny (Dáil Éireann constituency). After reading WP:HYPHEN and WP:Endash, I think I may have been wrong but I am still confused! Can you shed any light on what the correct separator should be? Snappy (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this. I am clear wrt to date ranges, but less clear for this sort of case.
 * However, my reading of WP:Endash is that the names of the two counties are independent elements, and that you got it right. I'll ask for comment, cos I think zie seem to be clearer on this than I am.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case that could go either way. If, say, in a hypothetical world the counties were actually combined and a new county by the name of "Carlow-Kilkenny" was created, then I think the hyphen would be appropriate because the name would have ceased to be an amalgam but has become a solitary proper name. An example of this happening is Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in which two towns named Winston and Salem merged. Since it is a single town now, we use a hyphen and not an en dash. (Another good way to think of it is when people with two different surnames get married and they combine their surnames to create a hyphenated surname. The name then becomes Smith-Jones, not Smith–Jones, because it has ceased being an amalgam and is now a unified, solitary name.)
 * Although a constituency is kind of a proper name for a solitary thing sort of like a combined county would be, the counties are unquestionably more well known and the fact that the constituency is using the names of two separate counties to create an amalgam name suggests to me that it would not be incorrect to use the endash. I know this is not a very good answer. In ambiguous cases like this, I think it's best to use whatever the government itself tends to use as the official name. If they use a hyphen, go with that. I know in Canada, the government often uses em dashes in constituency names that combine places like this, which really makes no sense, but there you go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, GO. Very helpful.
 * So I guess we are left with a choice between either applying MOS principles and using the endash, or adopting the format used in the legislation. I just looked at the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, the 1974 Act, and the 1923 Act, where I see that all appear to uses hyphens. Now, is that because hyphens are the govt's intended usage ... or is it because whoever builds the webpages doesn't bother with endashes? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Another check: the Dáil Éireann Members Database seems to use hyphens. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a definitive check would be a hard-copy of the legislation, if Ireland still produces such a thing. It's possible the hardcopy was scanned and the dashes just showed up as hyphens via the scan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In a related issue, accoring to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009; Cork North-Central, Cork North-West, Cork South-Central, Cork South-West, Donegal North-East, Donegal South-West, Dublin Mid-West, Dublin North-Central, Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West, Dublin South-Central, Dublin South-East and Dublin South-West all have hyphens/dashes in their names whereas there wikipedia articles do not. Shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect the official name? They were all created in 2005 by an anon IP. Snappy (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any more thoughts on whether these articles shoudl be moved? e.g. Cork North Central to Cork North-Central. Snappy (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Further thoughts:
 * 1) My memory suggests that the use of the hyphen in the compass-points may not have been consistent over the years, and it would be good to check the electoral acts and see.
 * 2) Also, does the WP:MOS have anything to say on this?
 * 3) AFAICR, the Dáil standardisation of constituency names for which I built consensus in 2006 didn't consider this. It may be that we just followed the WP:UKPC convention, because a lot of excellent work had been done by two editors who also did a lot of fine work on UK constituencies.  Whatever we conclude. it's a good idea to look at it again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:South Dublin County
Hi BHG, when you nominated Fingal County, DLR County, North Tipperary County and South Tipperary County for renaming, you missed Category:South Dublin County and its subcats. Will you do the honours at CFD? Snappy (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will indeed. Probably not till later today, but thanks for the reminder. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunekh2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2010
 * Hi Neptunekh2
 * The issue is whether http://www.truthaboutscientology.com is a reliable source. I took a quick, and have some reservations, so I think it would be best for you to ask at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where more editors can take a look.
 * Hope this helps! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DEmand for reply by L_L
I have replied to your request for sundry answers on my talk page page. I was able to do so without having recourse to obscenities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pity. WP:CIVILity is policy, and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. May I suggest that you consider taking a break from your keyboard until you can resume civil discussions? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832
Hello BrownHairedGirl. You nominated the subject list at WP:FLC some time ago, and there are a number of outstanding comments. Do you intend to return to this nomination or would you prefer for it to be withdrawn until such a time you can revisit? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will return to the FLC later today. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nudge. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NUDGE...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Marie talk page
Hi there.

Don't mean to be pedantic, nor do I wish to post on her talk page again, but technically there have only been four editors commenting on her page moves not five - my comments were directed solely (is that a word?) at her edit summaries. a_man_alone (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'll amend the figure. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers again
Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAICS the reference wasn't properly formatted: you used the cite web correctly, but didn't wrap it in tags.
 * Howver, the source was removed because another disputed whether it was a reliable source. I see that you have already raised this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and got the answer: no, with a link to the substantive discussion on the topic.
 * And I just remembered that you asked me about this before, and I directed you to WP:RS/N. So I'm not sure what you want me to do; I will not reintroduce the material referenced to that source. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention and peerages
with User:Lucy-marie. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had been notified about this before (see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_022), but didn't get round to acting on it.
 * I have just chcked her move log again, and it seems that she is back doing a lot of moves underway. Some of it may be okay, but a lot of it looks doubtful under WP:NCPEER, and the multiple moves of Michael Dobbs, Baron Dobbs have left him at a disambiguated title, but not dabbed per WP:NCPEER, and with an unfixed double redirect.
 * This editor needs to start proposing page moves at WP:RM, rather than unilaterally moving them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * She is also removing the title from the first line in the lede. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest WP:RFC as I've also seen this kind of unilateral behaviour many times. (Oh, and BrownHairedGirl, that FLC.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that before moving to a page with the addition of a title WP:RM should be initiated due to the conflict between the naming convention and common names policy. In some cases there is no need to add the title as it is not the common name and no disambiguation is required for the individual subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Michael Dobbs? And why do you remove his title from the lede? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like you did with Lord Strathclyde's article? I don't seem to remember that being listed as a WP:RM, even though you moved it from the stable location it had been at quite happily for a long time. What's more, you wouldn't even discuss the page move when other users questioned it.
 * Based of past behaviour, it seems this user has some sort of grudge against peerage titles, and it is this, rather than any desire to keep to guidelines, that is driving his/her to move these pages.  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've seen this kind of thing far too many times for it to be accidental, or an oversight to not include the community in these decisions. As I said earlier, I would suggest a WP:RFC to gauge the feelings of the wider community with regard to this behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't an RFC/U be more appropriate? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was being generalist. RFC/U is the best way forward here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll leave it someone else to start the work; I got an FLC to get back to, after shameful neglect on my part. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask you, if possible, to consider heading up an RFC/U. It's clear this behaviour is commonplace and isn't going to stop, ever.  I'm not close enough to the detail to initiate my own, but you guys between you should really look into monitoring this sort of behaviour.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

She has approached Susan Kramer correctly. I wonder if this has something to do with the sex of the peer. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that she's been block warned by two different admins...  a_man_alone (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, the peerage convention is not in conflict with COMMONNAME. You are ignoring WP:Article titles. When a specific convention is adopted, it operates as an exception to the general rule; in fact, that is the whole purpose of having an explicit convention. If you don't think there should be a convention, you should propose deleting it, but I don't think you will get anywhere. -Rrius (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Block
Okay, clearly I've crossed a line here. After that ANI thread I should've known better than to lash out in edit summaries again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I am concerned, the edit summaries are the least of the problems. They were silly and disruptive, but did not damage any content.
 * It's edits themselves which concerns me. Blind removal of links is coming close to vandalism, and I'll post to ANI about it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think an indef block was overkill, but it doesn't matter now since I'm unblocked. Either way, it's obvious I need to watch my step. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An indefinite block is not an infinite block.
 * You need to do more than watch your step: you need a better explanation of what you were doing here. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Explanation given. When I unlinked John Reid, almost all of the ones I removed were in reference to a songwriter by that name who doesn't have an article. When the first two David Porter links I found were in reference to David Porters who don't have articles, I falsely assumed the same about that page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do so little checking before unleashing a mass-unlinking tool, why you should you be trusted to edit again? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I usually do check and David Foster was a momentary lapse? Also, most of the pages that were in reference to the naval officer had a link to his article and the disambiguation page anyway. At the most, it seems I accidentally removed only five or six links that should've pointed to the musician — hardly disruptive IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted at ANI, I am not persuaded. After you announced that you had fixed the damage to the David Porter links, the first article I checked was unfixed. This looks more like habitual carelessness than a one-off, because if you leave the damage in place when you are under scrutiny, what's it like when you are not being scrutinised?
 * The consequences are usually trivial when done to a single-article, but when applied to a mass-unlinking tool they are destructive.  From what I have seen, you should not be using such a tool. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't the better solution have been just to disable unlink on my account, to prevent me from making this kind of mistake again? I can live with a solution like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that it was possible to do so, and my immediate concern was to put a rapid stop to any further damage. More refined restrictions can always follow later if needed.
 * If indeed it is possible to disable use of automate tools on your account, I would now support doing so. --02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot unlink was part of Twinkle. I wouldn't want to lose all of Twinkle because it would make xFDs and other edits very laborious. Maybe an edit restriction against the use of the unlink thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is possible to unbundle such a technical restriction, nor whether it is desirable. If you misuse one such tool, why leave you with access to the others?
 * If it's a soft restriction (i.e. not disabled), I'm not sure that that the unlink tool leaves clear enough traces to allow use of it to be detected. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments and AGF
Could you please refrain from making comments on discussion pages which question the motives I am undertaking in the talk. Please assume good faith and not ulterior motives. The comments you have made are a personal attack as to why I am making my comments. The edit summary is also assuming bad faith in the discussion. I do not believe you are genuine in wanting to have a genuine issue based discussion only. All that you seem to want is to win and have your version as the only version. Please stop attacking the motives for me posting on the discussion page. I would like no personal attacks by any user in the discussions. If you have problems with your perception of my motives please speak to me directly on my talk, page and don't make a scene on discussion pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are referring to my comment at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark.
 * I stand by that comment. When it suits you, you talk of COMMONNAME taking precedence, but your mass-renamings of articles on peers tell a different story.
 * For example, Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde inherited his peerage at age 25, and has been known throughout his political career by his title ... yet you still moved him in two steps  to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960).
 * I don't know why you want to remove titles even from someone whose entire political career has been conducted as Lord Strathclyde, and I have not speculated on motive. But what I do know is that your long history of page moves shows that your claim to uphold COMMONNAME is simply bogus, and I make no apology for drawing that to the attention of other editors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not denying your right to make those comments what i am taking issue with is making them in an inappropriate place. If you have personal issue with me direct the comments on my talk page and not in a discussion regarding a page move. If you have issue with me talk to me and do not make a scene on an unrelated talk page. I also view you as not assuming good faith. I also doubt your motives are anything other an attempt to force what you perceive as the consensus over the other policies of Wikipedia. I do not believe you are interested in the arguments being put forward by multiple users on both sides of the arguments. The numbers of people opposing you also demonstrates I am not some lone fringe user all on my own pushing something no one else supports.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made those observations at the requested move discussion, because they are directly relevant to that discussion.
 * As before, I do not know why you apply your rationale selectively, but the fact that you do so makes your arguments bogus. If you are acting in good faith, as you claim, please try to explain this blatant inconsistency rather than complaining that the evidence is laid out.
 * I'm very amused that you talk of "the numbers of people opposing you". If you took a moment to read the discussion at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark, you would see that I have not yet made up my mind on which option I prefer, because I am still weighing the evidence and the arguments. I have no idea why you want to claim that someone still weighing up the options is being opposed, let alone who are these "numbers of people" opposing a position I have not taken.
 * In any case, please remember that WP:CONSENSUS is weighed by strength of argument, not by counting heads. You may want to reflect on how your argument is strengthened or weakened by your inconsistencies, but there's no point in blaming me for the fact that your actions contradict your arguments. Shooting the messenger doesn't alter the evidence. --Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not relevant to that discussion they are simply an attack on me. If you want a genuine discussion comment on the content of the discussion and not the edit histories and persona character of other users, namely myself. Also you arguments are not carrying much weight as all they are saying is this policy says it and we must ignore the other policy. If you want have a genuine discussion then make points which back up your POV as opposed to resorting to attempting to smear me personally. The reason I am those observations is because you seem more obsessed with trying to say my arguments are wrong and commenting on me than actually staying silent until you have made up your mind and feel able to comment on the page move as opposed to commenting on myself. I am not denying are walking away from what I have done. I am simply taking issue to you attempting to smear my points of view and arguments i am making which are based in policies of Wikipedia. You seem obsessed on ignoring the other side of the arguments and only having your point of view as the accepted version because you claim it has more weight which it does not. If you have issue with me talk to me on my talk page and do not attempt to smear me on an unrelated move discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not an attack on you: they are an attack on your bogus arguments.
 * I have asked at Talk:James Chichester-Clark for an explanation of your inconsistent approach, and I suggest that you make that explanation there rather than coming here to complain.
 * In making up my mind, I discuss the evidence available and the strength of the arguments. I'm sorry that you find this uncomfortable, but this process of discussion and scrutiny is how WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and since I do not yet have a POV on the naming of that article I am in position to state one. I am still keeping an open mind, and examining the evidence.
 * If you genuinely believe that this is a personal attack, then feel free to seek guidance at WP:WQA or to make a complaint at WP:ANI .... but your posts on this talk page are just repetitive, so I am now going to close this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just in case...
...nobody notifies you, you may be interested in this. Take it easy, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Moyola
While I took part to a degree with the discussion on Lord Moyola and watched your attempts to get a rationale of Lucy-marie's edits on Strathclyde -v- her statement on commonname I'm not sure how to regard her acts as good faith and therefore how to proceed. Garlicplanting (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Always assume good faith until there is clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A "gut instinct" or a "feeling” or being "not sure" is not enough to assume bad faith. I also fail to see how the edits I have made on that page are in any way "bad faith" edits. I have given a clear and rational reasoning for the edits and have answered the questions by BHG. If there is confusion or misunderstanding with relation to what I have said in response to BHGs comments, I am willing to give clarification, if the points of confusion or misunderstanding are raised to me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucy-marie, you have been asked half-a-dozen times to provide an explanation, and have chosen not to do so. Right now you have given no remotely plausible explanation for this cherry-picking, and you have clearly persisted in your refusal to explain it. That looks like bad faith to me.
 * If you do decide to offer an explanation for why you completely ignore a policy in one case but claim it as a trump card on another, that might help to restore the presumption that you are acting in good faith. But please do so at the RM discussion where it is relevant, not here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what your opinion is and in my opinion I have done none of what you have claimed i think this all too much overanalyses of a few simple edits and a simple position which I have taken that i believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia. I have not said has that convention come after the policy. I have said that I believe the Common name policy should take precedence and then if the common name is the ennobled title then WP:NCPEER should be used. As I stated I firmly believe WP:NCPEER is how to name if it is the common name and not a superseding of and usurping of common name. I have now given the same explanation again and have provided answers to all questions you have provided. If you view them as evasive they are not. If you view them as cherry-picking (which is think is what you are doing by only using WP:NCPEER and ignoring common name) it is not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, you are entirely evasive, to the point of dishonesty.
 * Yes, you have indeed said before that you "believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia". That's quite correct: it is indeed being applied that way, in accordance with the same policy document: see Article titles. I don't know why you continue to ignore policy in this way, because it has bee repeatedly pointed out to you.
 * With Lord Strathyclyde, you completely ignored COMMONNAME, but with Chichester-Clark you claim that COMMONNAME trumps everything ... and the only explanation you provided is that you think it's "sensible". Why, Laurel, why? Naming policies and guidelines exist to be applied on a consistency basis: their whole purpose is provide stability and consistency for article names. As far as I can see, there is no way that you can oppose the use of the title for Lord Strathyclyde while claiming that COMMONNAME takes precedence, and the only plausible answer  can see is that you couldn't give a fig about either policy or guideline -- you are just using both in bad faith in pursuit of a desire to remove titles fro articles.
 * If you have another explanation for why you removed the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, then let's hear it. So far, you have just responded with vague dismissals which don't answer the question ... and until you do provide a plausible explanation, then I will continue to assume that you are acting in blatant bad faith.
 * Please don't post here again to complain about my conclusion that you are acting in bad faith. Either explain why you reached that conclusion with Strathyclyde, or leave my talk page alone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy
thumb|150px|Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]]
 * Thank for the good wishes, but I hate fireworks :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA
The question is bugging me; meta-question just about covers it! (Sorta like a "prove you didn't murder that woman" question - rather difficult). I'm going to answer the one below it immediately, since that's more obvious, and let yours softly percolate in my head until I can come up with something - just thought I'd let you know so nobody thought I had ignored it or was displaying a big flashing warning sign saying "THIS USER HAS NOT CHANGED AND REFUSES TO ADMIT IT" :P Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, it's a difficult one. I pondered for a while over how to word it and whether to ask it at all, because I felt there was a real risk of it being like a witchcraft trial: we'll either burn you for denying your sorcery, or burn you for having confirmed that you are indeed evil.
 * Hope I have avoided that, but I'll look fwd to your answer whatever it is, and may in any case just decided that I am being an unforgiving cow. Do take your time, cos I understand it's a difficult one ... and rest assured that there is no bonfire (nor even peine fort et dur) :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Something that might amuse you (while I'm here) in relation to peine fort et dur is the Hale Commission, a legal reform commission which proposed removing that torture, introducing a not guilty plea, providing for legal aid, limiting the use of the death penalty, small claims courts, refusing to allow lawyers to practise until they were suitably qualified and not throwing debtors in prison. It was founded in 1652 and made up mostly of Puritans. Always gives me a good giggle :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now replied; my apologies again for the bleurgh-inducing soppiness of my answer. I appreciate it isn't a very good one, but I couldn't think of a good one that wasn't insincere. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you feel I haven't actually answered the question, feel free to pose a follow-up; it's a rather multi-legged creature, and I just grabbed the most likely looking ankle and pulled :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sleep on it, but my initial take is that you only answered part of the question, or at least part of what I meant as the question but probably didn't express clearly. It seems to me that there were two strands of concerns raised at the previous RFA: interaction (perceived snippiness, etc), and judgement (e.g. excessively rapid assessment). I didn't spell that out, so can't expect you to have inferred what I meant, but it seems to me that your answer addresses the interaction issues thought not the flawed judgement ones.
 * That's only a quick-thoughts answer, and I'll look again the morning. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha; thankee. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS love the Hale Commission article. Am shocked to see that they had liberal do-gooders in those days too!
 * Allowing defendants access to lawyers? Not imprisoning debtors? Hold the Daily Mail front page while we expose such loony leftism!! Next thing they'll allow all men to vote and some of the more deranged nutters will probably even try to extend that to votes for women (cue ROTFL).
 * Thank goodness for Lord Braxfield, who was on hand to remind clever-clogs that they'd be "Nane the waur o' a good hingin".
 * I'll try to get my tongue out of my cheek by tomorrow. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Privy Council again
The draft you suggested is here. In this discussion, forces of inertia seem to be at work. While working on the Kingdom of England period, I have a visceral objection to linking to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I didn't feel the same way about Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, which you moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I'd like to pursue the split which you supported, but failing that in my view we do need another name, so that a narrow modern identity isn't imposed inappropriately. Hope you can help. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
You may wish to take note of the observations on my Talk page with regard to Rayment refs. I would very much appreciate it if you could be a little bit more careful in future. Motmit (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

HNY
Have a great 2011. But just a thought, there seems to be a consistently confusing battle between WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME. Instead of instigating a user based RFC why not look at a general RFC to see which guideline has a consensual precedent? Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too!
 * I'm not so sure that's a good way to approach this, because it seems to me that your suggestion would pose a general question in relation to a specific application. Article titles is clear that there there can be subject-specific guidelines, and where they exist they take precedence.
 * It seems to me that there are two possible ways to approach this in a RFC. On is to examine whether Article titles should always  precedence over subject-specific guidelines. That's a very broad question, with implications for many many topic areas, but if we are not going to open the nature of subject-guidelines as a whole, then it seems to me to be a recipe for chaos to propose that some of them take precedence and some don't; that way nobody would know how much weight to attach to subject-specific guidelines, and the resulting uncertainty would lead to a lot of unstable article titles.
 * The other option is to examine the narrower question of whether WP:NCPEER has consensus support, and whether its specific exceptions to COMMONNAME have consensus, or whether it should be revised. That seems to me to be a much better way of focusing the discussion on one problematic area, without destabilising other topic areas.
 * However ... have you looked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and its extensive archives? Eeek!!!
 * Two hardline camps repeatedly challenged the guideline, both over baronets and peers: one wants titles-in-every-case, while the other wants titles-hardly-ever. Some (stress that "some") editors do so either out of a POV that titles are "correct form", while some (stress that "some") other editors approach it from a similarly POV position that titles are inegalitarian/snobbish/etc. This has repeatedly led to assumptions from various quarters that those sharing one of those particular ideologies must necessarily hold the other one ... so editors who bring other perspectives to the table find ABF assumptions poured all over them. It's quite possible to take a view on this based on a variety of pragmatic and non-ideological positions, e.g.
 * "titles gives us ready-made-disambiguators, and using them consistently saves a lot of grief in dabbing later"
 * "Too much instruction creep. Use titles if dabbing is needed, but not otherwise"
 * "Too much instruction creep. COMMONNAME should apply to all topics on WP"
 * "WP is written for a global audience. For readers outside the UK, titles carry much less relevance than for the small proportion of readers who live in the UK"
 * "WP is written for a global audience, and aims to inform them about topics from all over the world. Whatever ones view of their merits, titles are part of the political and cultural structures of the UK, so shoukd be used in documenting it"
 * "in previous eras, titles were used rigorously. That's less so now (see e.g. Roy Hattersley, a peer for 13 years who doesn't use his title outside the Lords chamber). Do we adopt a consistent approach to their use, or do we open them all up to examination" (choose which side you take depending on your preference for stability or taking-each-on-its-merits)
 * There are plenty more permutations, but those will serve as an illustration of how many difft NPOV perspectives can be applied here, in addition to the POV-pushers.
 * Do take a look at the situation wrt baronets, where guidance has been stable for ages to use the title where a dab is needed, but not otherwise. Sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it's a nightmare. The titles-always-brigade moves articles to their titled form even when no dabbing is possibly needed, while the no-titles-crowd move them to the untitled form even when dabbing may be needed ... which sparks long debates about when dabbing is appropriate: e.g. "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 7th Baronet" is so far the only "Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit" with an articles. However, "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 2nd Baronet" and "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 5th Baronet" were both MPs, so per WP:POLITICIAN are presumed notable and will hopefully have an article at some point.  Should the article on the 7th Baronet be named with the title or without, when the others are still redlinks? Cue another fight, which has been to ARBCOM several times. :(
 * I opened an RFC in 2009 suggesting that we end the instability by coming down on one side or the other, wrt baronet titles: see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive_19. Nothing remotely approaching consensus.
 * See also other similar RFCs, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 21
 * So my view is that while the current guideline is nobody's ideal, no attempt to revise it has come anywhere near a consensus: it just generates a lot of drama and ill-will, as illustrated by the discussions in the last few months at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I see no reason at all to believe that a fresh RFC would do any better.
 * So at this point I reckon that the least-worst option is to stick with the status quo, and try to implement it with some consistency. Naturally, someone else may open an RFC if they want, but it won't be me :) - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

How would one go about initiaing this with the aim of finishing this once and for all with the widest possible input and the widest possible implication so that Wikipeida can move one and put this behind.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You could start by dropping your dishonest use of existing policy and guidelines to justify your personal preferences, by insisting on COMMONNAME it when it suits you and ignoring COMMONNAME when it doesn't. Until you drop this game-plating and explain what your rationale is rather than evading the question, stay off my talk page and quit wasting my time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as BrownHairedGirl has intimated, she was optimistic that things were moving to a more positive conclusion so RFC's were considered unnecessary for the time being. However, given the recent exchange a couple of sections up from here, it seems that a wider view is needed, and one way of doing that is via WP:RFC/U, chiefly to discuss your (Lucy-marie) editing.  This can be initiated by anyone, but generally it's best done in the cold light of day so rational and objective arguments can be proposed.  Then we involve the wider community, and hopefully reach a consensus to end this ongoing dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wholly reject that I am being dishonest and would like withdrawn that unfounded and defamatory claim. I also reject the claim that I am "game-playing" and request that comment be withdrawn as well, as it is without foundation. How many more times do you want me to explain my position? I have already done so on your talk page in an earlier discussion. If that explanation is not "satisfactory" please can you explain how it evasive and not answering the question? I am trying to work with you here but you now appear insistent on unfounded name calling.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rambling Man you will not like what I am about to say but I genuinely do not believe i have done anything other than participate in the same behaviour as the other side of the discussion on this issue. Participated in move discussion when they have been initiated and even initiated a discussion on the naming convention dated 6 October. I also believe I have done nothing wrong with relation to answering the questions put in an honest and non-evasive way. I firmly believe being called dishonest is uncalled for as i have only edited in good faith weather you believe me or not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucy-marie, for whatever it's worth, I have no real interest in tit-for-tat behaviour. I just want the situation to be resolved swiftly so those involved can get with improving the encyclopaedia, not wasting hundreds of KB debating policy A vs policy B.  That's why I'm now talking about RFC/U so we can get a wider perspective which would hopefully include uninvolved editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out the original dispute has been resolved. The complaint was that I was moving pages unilaterally. Now I am moving no pages at all and am participating in move discussions and will be doing so on all pages in the future. That means the original dispute has been succesfully resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Lucy-marie, if you are not being dishonest, then give a direct answer to the simple question: "what policy or guideline led you to remove the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, and why?" (For example, if you were using COMMONNAME, explain what evidence you have that the title is not part of his COMMONNAME. If you were using some some other policy or guideline, explain which one and why you believe it applies)
 * Until you provide a direct answer, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting my time. I will delete any further complaints about how you don't like your dishonesty being noted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On her behalf, it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with WP:YOU CANT MAKE ME ANSWER YOU. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may well be the case. :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for one wrong revert
Sorry for deleting a post on Lucy-marie's on her own talk page. Lucy-marie had repeatedly restored material which I had deleted from her talk page, despite being told to "stay off my talk page".

I was watching her contribs and mistook which page her latest comment had been applied to. I am glad to see that she has reverted my edit to her talk, as is her right. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BHG, I've mailed you, but if we could neutralise edit summaries too, then that'd be perfect, especially considering it's 1/1/11 and all that jazz (no fireworks)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, my edit summaries while reverting were not restrained. Playing whack-a-mole gets tedious, and when faced with an editor who repeatedly reverted my edits to my own talk page, I used direct terms is the hope that they might be understood. Glad that's over now ... and I'll go check my mail. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not too patronising. If so, ignore, and indef block me for being an ass (and to save me a lot of time this year!)... Anyways, take it easy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not patronising at all! And if anyone was going to black you for being an ass, they'd be working off such a bizarre definition of an ass that they might as well block all editors. So the only indef for you an indef thankyou for being since a consistent voice of calm thoughtfuless :)
 * Thanks again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope my mails made sense.  Take it easy, all the very best.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Course they made sense! I have replied in email. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing yet, but life's slow this time of year. I'm off to bed.  Sleep well, more tomorrow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still nothing, perhaps it's got lost in the ether...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent them again yesterday. Dunno if either copy reached you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. It's been suggested to me too by several admins that I should run for office. I gave them the same answer. Nevertheless, I'm going to have to throw my hat in the ring soon because it's just too clumsy and time consuming having to ask admins twenty times a day to do my dirty work for me. It will be both an experience and a test case ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RFA? May the gods have mercy on your mortal soul. Have you considered any more relaxing alternatives, such as gouging your eyes out with a rusty beaked bean can whilst enoying a holiday at Bagram? ;)
 * Seriously, tho, the "dirty work" you mention is one of the important aspects of an admin's toolkit, and it's not all a matter of the much-feared nasty stuff blocks or deleting articles. The things I find most useful are much more mundane, like the ability to move an article over a redirect. Like any power, that tool needs to be used judiciously, and there are some moves which I could do myself but think it better to open an RM ... but it would waste a lot of time having to do that for even non-contentious moves.
 * Plenty of those who have the toolkit make regular use of only the more minor tools. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got the picture, it's mainly uncontentious routine stuff, but because I work in a completely  different  time zone from  the UK/US admins there's not  always someone around. And then there a re the occasional  southeast  Asians that  go  on  a rampage and need stopping. We'll see how it goes. --Kudpung (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds RfA
Hiya, BHG. Thanks for your vocal support for Ironholds. I think his enthusiasm will be great for the project, but I'm keeping my trout handy (just in case). Be seeing you around the wiki. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he satisfied my outstanding concerns, and since he otherwise rates so well it would have been folly not to support him.
 * Some of the rest of what's happened in that RFA is a troubling symptom of RFA's general malaise. Several of the critics seemed unable to distinguish between an error of judgement (i.e. one outside the bounds of policy), and a legitimate judgement-call with which they happen to disagree. (I apply a distinction like the test in judicial review: you can get a hearing to review a decision which appears to have been ultra vires or illegal, or where you can make a prima facie case that it was perverse and irrational; but you cannot get judicial review just cos you'd have called things differently). That sort of thing is part of what makes RFA such a generally unpleasant experience, and Ironholds has had a lot of mud slung at him which says "zomg you was wrong!!" when the substance of the complaint clearly means "you do not share my radical inclusionist views". The process would work better for everyone if RFA participants made that distinction, and openly stated that an oppose was due to a disagreement rather than to spurious claims of wickedness. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments regarding the current nasty state of RfA nominations are spot on. I was pleased that so many editors came out of the woodwork early to support Ironholds' nomination; the early support changed the tenor of a lot of the later comments.  That's why your early support was so important to what is clearly going to be a successful nomination (assuming there are no incriminating photos).


 * As for the state of the RfA nomination, comment and voting process, it's not the process itself that's broken. IMHO, some of the regular participants are broken, or more articulately, too willing to cross certain boundaries in their advocacy of their personal RfA standards.  The real problem, as I see it, is that no one has the authority to draw boundaries on what is and is not an appropriate comment regarding a candidate, and that permits some of our more, ahem, vocal community members to exercise their free speech rights a little too freely.  I would support the creation of a committee of three or so administrators to serve as neutral referees for each nomination, who could step in to remind everyone of WP policy, civility and good manners as necessary.  But, then again, what do I know about about procedural fairness?  I'm just a lawyer.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a good point about lawyers and procedural fairness. A few years ago I was party to a court case where there was repeated and systematic perjury by the other side which could not have been conducted without the active participation of the solicitors involved. My lawyers refused to touch the perjury aspect, and just insisted that the other lawyers were highly respected, despite the evidence in front of them. That close encounter with the ugly side of collegiality, and close involvement with another case which went in about seven steps to the Lords and destroyed the life of my friend the successful plaintiff, has made me re-examine many of my previous good-faith assumptions about how your profession works.
 * Please don't take that as any sort of personal criticism, direct or implied; my criticism is of the culture within which you guys work, not of the individuals who have to work within it.
 * You're right that RFA has a problem with some broken participants, but that's not just a problem with the individuals; it's a cultural problem with a community that tolerates mud-slinging at RFA as if it were a form of scrutiny. Moderators for RFA might be a good idea, but those doing it would need a hide thicker than any yet invented. (omg!!!! you islamofascist stalinist feminazi uber-liberal neocon drittsekk, you are sensering mi free speech!!!!). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Calne MPs
Talking early seventeenth century here; and there seem to be problems. The famous one is John Pym; but it could be that many sources are wrong in saying he was Calne's MP in 1614. That is because Conrad Russell in the ODNB is definite that he was first an MP for Calne on 1621; and then for Chippenham in 1624. That would mean that Calne (UK Parliament constituency) must have something wrong also. It seems an odd business. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Charles
 * I'm afraid that I tend to stay clear of pre-restoration MPs, because I don't have good sources. From 1832 to 1950, I have F. W. S. Craig's election results, which are great; from 1660 onwards I use, which is astoundingly accurate, better even than Craig's fine scholarship; and I also use Stooks Smith for 1715 to 1822, but it's much less reliable, with an average of 2 or 3 errors per constituency. I also make a lot of use the London Gazette, but the poor quality OCRing on pre 1850s material means that it can be very hard to find material.
 * With all due respect to the DNB, I have found that it is not a good source for parliamentary returns, and even with 19th century material I have found and corrected quite a few errors (I persuaded them to amend their entry on one person they claimed had been an MP, but wasn't, but haven't bothered pursuing the others). If there is a clash of sources, I would not assume that that the DNB is correct, particularly when using the old out-of-copyright versions: a lot of revision work has been done since then, and the standards of scholarship are much higher in newer versions.
 * As to Calne, I note that the pre-1640s entries are unsourced, so I would take them with a big pinch of salt. Another possibility to consider is that someone may have stood for multiple constituencies. As above, I'm not good on the 17th century material, but in the 18th and early 19th centuries, there was a lot of swapping around: resign one seat to contest another, or stand for several and choose which one to sit for, and flurries of petitions meant that a lot of elections were overturned. So no easy answers, I'm afraid. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right about the old DNB (not infallible by any means); but the ODNB to me means the current version, and that tends to represent current scholarship. I'm aware of the 1660 watershed too; but of course the composition of parliaments under James I and Charles I does matter! Charles Matthews (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken on versions, but the current version still has some glitches on parl returns, even on the relatively-easily-verified 19th-century MPs. That's not entirely surprising, because the minutiae of eln returns are often a v minor point in a biography; and for pre-restoration stuff, the sources are too fragmented to make verification of the minutiae worth the huge effort involved. I quite agree that the pre-1660 period matters; it's just while I enjoy the politics of that 17th century, its elections are not really my area of editing interest, and the sources I am have accessed so far seem too fragmentary for my liking.
 * The History of Parliament Trust has done some magnificient work on a lot of periods, tho sadly the years 1600-1660 have not been done yet, and at £490 per volume or £150 for a CD-ROM which misses out the later printed volumes I doubt I'll be buying any of their works.
 * I think it is disgraceful that a body such as this which is principally publicly-funded should price its works at such an exorbitant level. The taxpapyer has paid for that data, and it should be placed on the web under the usual crown copyright terms rather than trying to gouge university libraries for sums which add up to only small proportion of the Trust's budget, and in doing so lock out the general public. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Assertions
Sorry if my RFC comments were irritating, I've seen you around and apart from matters relating to CW have a high regard for your contributions. Should have known not to write that about 'moderately talented analysts', was just trying to gently imply you might be arguing outside your area of expertise. I may well be wrong but for sure we seem to have such a different understanding of stats that we might need a very long discussion before we found any common ground. Not all my points were bald assertions, but youre right its purely personal opinion about CW being one of our best editors. Hope you have a Goodnight! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that friendly message.
 * I'm no statistician, so on that narrow point I am indeed right outside my area of expertise. Still, non-experts can spot flaws in expert analysis :) But whatever the statistical analysis, the statistics can only be as good as the underlying assessments of whether a ref justifies the conclusions drawn from it, and it seems that you and I would make very different assessments in that area.
 * Apart from the refs where we can check against the sources, CW also uses offline refs, and we already have an example while the RFCU was underway of where CW used an offline sources which does not appear to stand up to scrutiny, and simply refuses to discuss the problem, despite having cited it at AFD. A good faith editor would make haste to discuss it and either defend the source or apologise for the error, and I cannot see how CW's refusal to respond to being caught making a bogus ref leaves any grounds to believe that he is a good editor. In academia, that sort of behaviour destroys careers; on WP, verifiability is a core policy, but CW simply sneered at it. I find it immensely sad that anyone defends this sort of thing, because it so deeply corrosive of the good faith without which Wikipedia is dead.
 * Anyway, that's just rehashing old ground. Thanks again for your friendly msg, and I hope that we meet in again in more agreeable circumstances before all this gets to arbcom :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to be able to agree with almost all of that and defenders like myself did agree with some of your points on the RFC itself. Thanks very much for the friendly reply. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with deletion of an image
BHG, I need some advice on the proper place and procedures for filing a complaint against an administrator for violation of WP procedures and bad-faith deletion of files. Please see the discussion at User:Zscout370's talk page and File talk:Florida Gators logo.svg. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking into it now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BHG. I think the current discussion at Zscout's talk page lays it out pretty nicely.  In order to speedy delete this file, Zscout violated multiple WP guidelines as well as the required procedures of the particular rule he cited as his justification for a speedy delete.  So, much for everyone being equal.  It's the failure to play be the same rules that gives some admins a bad name.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so far as I can see your complaint is justified. The image File:Florida_Gators_logo.svg was deleted without being tagged for the required 7 days, and in any case the rationale WP:CSD applies only to files "that are not used in any article" was inapplicable, since Zscout370 removed the image from 20 articles immediately prior to deletion. So it was doubly out-of-order even if the fair-use concern was valid, which I understand you dispute; I have not researched that aspect myself, so have formed no view on it yet.
 * I am glad to see that you have first tried to discuss your concerns at User talk:Zscout370. That's the right first step. If that fails, the next step is WP:DRV, and I see that you have already notified Zscout370 of your intention to go there if you are unable to reach agreement.
 * Zscout370 appears not have edited since your first post on their talk page, and I would suggest that you give Zscout370 24 hours to respond to your concerns, before opening a DRV. If this can be resolved without wider involvement, it's best to avoid drama. On that note, I see that you have already notified another admin, at User_talk:Cuchullain. In the interests of minimising drama, may I suggest that you don't notify further admins at this stage?
 * I will try to keep an eye on the response, because while I assume that the deletion was a good faith mistake, I think think that Zscout370 has some explaining to do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BHG, you're my objective British ear. The other notified admins have various degrees of involvement in either WikiProject University of Florida or WikiProject College football.  Accordingly, your opinion carries a lot of weight right now.  I am done with notifications, unless and until this proceeds to DRV.  Given the obvious violations of CSD procedure and abuse of the admin's article delete button, do I have any alternative avenues to bring a rogue admin to account?  ANI?


 * BTW, was you edit summary intentional---"you're on the right rack?" Nice.  Sure feels that way sometimes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The edit summary was a typo for "on the right track". Not intentional :(
 * PS I echo Cuchullain's concern that you are coming on far too strong here.
 * So far as I can see at this stage, your concerns are justified, but as a first step it's quite enough to set them out politely and await a response. Alleging "abusive nonsense" (which still stands when after you toned down your response) and talking here about "rogue admins" is not AGF and not a good way to proceed, and involving two other admins within 12 hours when you have not yet had a response from the deleting admin is also too much drama. I suggest that you take a break from your keyboard for a while, because while I can understand your annoyance, this is not the right way to deal with the situation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, mother. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, son
 * And ... Oi!!!!! Just noticed ... "objective British ear".
 * I am not British. Very definitely and decidedly absolutely not British; am not not, have not been and will not be. I am Irish.
 * I am also not entirely comfortable with the idea of an "objective" British ear; ears labelled in that way have an unfortunate habit of seeing appalling vistas and other such delusions.
 * So go wash your mouth out, before we subject you to some British law or British neighbourliness or give you a British holiday -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. FYI, the adult discussion has now begun at Zscout's talk page. If I get too rowdy, please feel free to kick me in the shins under the negotiating table. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I know the difference: my mother's maiden was McConaughy. But on this side of the Pond, "Republican bomb-thrower" has an entirely different meaning.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We may yet reach a relatively happy outcome over at Zscout's talk page. The file and its uses have been restored for the ime being.  We shall see.  After waking up at noon local time, to the rocket's red glare, he seems to have returned to his "rack" for the time being.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm please to hear that a mutually agreeable resolution may be in sight.
 * However, I'm disappointed to see your remark about "the rocket's red glare". That sort of comment just inflames any situation, and impedes a resolution. Please step back and try to reduce the drama. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, mother, that was intended to be a humorous reference to the "Star Spangled Banner" and Zscout rolling out of bed "at dawn's early light." Probably helps the humor if you know the lyrics.  LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not the habit of learning national anthems, apart of course from the La Marseillaise which is the only one I've encountered that's not me-me-me. (And of course it's great for buoying up the spirit on those dreary saturdays when one decides to skip the grocery shopping and organise a revolutionary riot instead). YMMV :)
 * Anyway, good luck in the quest for an amicable resolution :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Garvald
I think these villages are all the same place. Don't know how to propose they be merged. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about that area to have a view myself on whether they should be merged, but what I'd suggest you do is:
 * Use mergeto on the ones you want to merge
 * Use mergefrom on the one you want to keep (e.g. if you want to merge from "village" and "village2", use
 * On he talk page of the one you want to keep, explain your reason(s) for the proposed merge
 * Drop a note to WT:SCO inviting comment.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Soubry
Hi BHG. Don't seem to have seen much activity on the talk pages apart from one helpful -but unsigned ip contributor! Both User talk:Kateshaw44 and User talk:Norman6677 are spa's and both made the same edits. Kate Shaw is Anna's office manager and if it's the same person was probably simply unaware of the rules. Changes I've suggested on the talk page happen to be much more positive. Could I ask you to lift the protection but watch the article? JRPG (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had intended to protect the article for two weeks, but it seems that I inadvertently applied indef protection, which I have now lifted. Sorry, but me watching the article probably won't help. I have about 30,000 entries on my watchlist, of which Soubry is one, and given my current editing priorities I'm not likely to spot any trouble there.
 * Good luck in developing the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks ..and I fear I'll need it! JRPG (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please...
I request that you be more careful with what you say about others in inappropriate settings than you were when you wrote about me on Will's talk page, claiming that "B2C has a goal which clearly opposes existing policy". I know at the time you sincerely believed it was true, but I assure you it's based on a misunderstanding on your part, albeit possibly related to sloppy writing on my part, but never-the-less illustrates why we have policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It' precautionary, in case we're wrong (which happens to the best of us). Thanks... --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) B2C, My own many exchanges with you on  various issues of policy and other debates where you generally  appear to  argue against consensus and existing policies, and your 63% participation in talk, AfD, RfC, and WP:DRV, against only 19.34% content building, appear to clearly support BHG's statement as a fact. It was not, IMHO, in  breach of any AGF or NPA policies. That's why we have essays such as WP:BOOMERANG and others that guard against being overly sensitive to interpereting incivility and personal attacks too literally. Best  wishes for 2011.--Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, I stand by what I wrote. And thanks to Kupdung for kindly setting out some of the context.
 * All the evidence still points to you being a single-purpose account on a mission to disrupt wikipedia policy, not by challenging the policy directly, but by devoting your energies to disruptively and tendentiously opposing its implementation in multiple forums.
 * I fully support your right to disagree with policy, and to seek a centralised discussion on how to change it; but unless and until it is changed, it is disruptive to repeatedly set out to undermine it. I deplore your repeated refusal to work within the policies and guidelines which currently exist, and your repeated unilateral declarations that they no longer apply even though a consensus has not been reached on changing them.
 * If you don't like your disruptiveness being noted, don't shoot the messenger. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As promised...
I've clarified the apparent source of confusion on my user page. Please let me know if that helps. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no confusion.
 * If you feel that a minor qualification to your blanket rejection of policy helps you in some way, then you are quite entitled to edit your userpage as you see fit.
 * However, I am satisfied that:
 * Your track record of consistently opposing policy in practice reinforces your original statement. Changing it when challenged is not persasive
 * If you think that expressly adding support one of the 67 naming conventions somehow dilutes the previous statement of opposition for the principle  of the policy at Article titles ... well you are of course free to think whatever you want.
 * -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Location navboxes
Hi, as I said earlier I would like to raise a RFC on the subject of location navboxes. It seems that there are four main areas of contention between ourselves over these. In raising the RFC, I do not intend to dwell too much on our arguments. I apologise for my interaction with you in certain respects, such as ABF. I want to put this behind me and to work on getting some consensus with the wider community over location navboxes. I agree that WT:NAV would be a good venue, with the RFC publicised at WP:CENT. Let me know your thoughts on the above (I'll check back here) and whether there are any other issues you think should be raised. I'll then make a start on the RFC in my user space, where you will be free to suggest any amendments and once we are agreed it can be made live at WT:NAV. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When to create a navbox - although you stated that 5 blue-linked stand-alone articles was not intended to confer suitability for existence, I think we do need to establish some sort of threshold, and 5 seems a reasonable number to use. I accept that some of the navboxes with only a link or two were probably not a good idea in hindsight, which is why I did not oppose their deletion at TfD.
 * 2) Links to sections of articles - these should not count towards the 5 stand-alone articles mentioned above, but their inclusion or otherwise should at least be discussed by the wider community.
 * 3) People - this is probably the biggest point on which we disagree. Again, the issue should be discussed by the wider community.
 * 4) Flags - I notice you've been removing flags from the navboxes I created. There are a vast many navboxes that do have flags. I've not reverted you because I believe this issue should also be discussed at the RFC.
 * Thanks for the msg, and the friendly tone :)
 * I'm glad you accept that some of the navboxes with only a link or two were not a good idea, but if you reached that conclusion you could have saved them being relisted at TFD by supporting their deletion. I'm sure we have all done it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time things and realised afterwards that they were not-such-a-good-idea, but having reached that conclusion it's a pity to stand aside from the deletion process rather than helping to assert a consenus in favour of deletion.
 * On the points you suggest for an RFC:
 * I am concerned that you still fix appear to focus on a crude count, rather than on assessing whether the items are sufficiently closely connected to make such prominent links appropriate. This issue is covered in WP:NAVBOX, and while I accept that it's one of the points of difference we need to resolve, I think that both angles should be presented.  I know that this was only a few notes, and hope that in the RFC draft you will address this point.
 * Links to sections. Again, I think there's a relevance issue and an undue weight issue, but there is also a question of whether the reader is being misled into think that there are different articles involved.
 * People. I accept that you disagree with me, but please also note that at least 4 other editors have agreed with me on that one. If you want to pursue this in an RFC, I think it would be appropriate to note that.
 * Flags. I removed the flags per two sections of MOS:FLAG: WP:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAG. If you object to that guideline, I suggest that you should raise that point as a proposed change to the guideline, at WT:MOSFLAG, because it seems to me that it relates most closely to MOSFLAG.
 * A further concern of mine relates to point #1: that you seemed on several occasions to be relating the decision on creation of a navbox to the status of a place. I hope we can address this in the RFC, because I think it's a very significant difference of view in determining whether a navbox is appropriate; on my view it comes before the numerical issue. You proposed before that a town was more suitable for a navbox than a village, but as before I think that's asking the wrong question: to my mind, the first questions should be "Why would readers want a navbox here? What does it actually do for them? Are there other ways of doing this?" I'd like to see that approach addressed in the RFC.
 * Sorry that this reply may come across as a bit grumpy. :( If so, that's because it seems to me that an RFC should try to involve the wider community on points where editors have been tried unsuccessfully to reach agreement, and on some of my central points it doesn't feel to me that you have engaged enough for us to clarify the issues for wider discussion. I like the idea of another venue where we can bring distilled points of disagreement, but I'm not yet confident we have quite got to the point of distilling them, so I'm a bit worried that we may just end up talking past each other again. Hopefully I am wrong on that :)
 * Anyway, I look fwd to seeing your draft, and hope that I may feel more positive when I have read it ... and thanks again for discussing it with me first. I think that's a very important step in getting a good problem-solving RFC rather than Fight Part 2, and I hope we'll make this a successful one. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that
You gave me a start there. I thought for sure when I saw that section title that it was going to be someone yelling at me for real. I'm happy to give you your own crappy t-shirt. Since it's so late you get the special blue one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bless you. Honest, I'll stop crying now :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

James Stuart-Wortley
HNY to you. Could you please have a look at this, and comment there? If you comment here, would you mind placing a talkback?  Schwede 66  06:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the query. I have replied at Talk:James Stuart-Wortley (New Zealand politician), 'cos I think it's best to discuss articles on their own talk pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input - that's much appreciated.  Schwede 66  17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. And well-spotted that there was something awry :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox UK constituency (former)"
I noted your update to Altrincham and Sale (UK Parliament constituency) switching from the former constituency infobox template. I agree in principle with what you've done here, but we have (I think) 1207 constituency pages using the old template. What are your thoughts on where you want to go with this? I haven't put this out for wider consultation because I don't want conversations on what current constituencies do (yet - I will come back to it in time - as I am trying to avoid scope creep). Cheers. Crooked cottage (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox UK constituency main was developed in April last year, to replace the jumble of difft styles of infoboxes for constituencies. It's a good one: it does everything done by all the other templates, and a little more besides, and use the new std format for such things. So far it's used on 1708 constituencies, but that includes 705 pages which use UK former constituency infobox -- it now just passes its parameters through to Infobox UK constituency main, but has only a subset of the functionality.
 * So we've made good progress, and although there is still a long way to go, there is no deadline :)
 * So, if you feel like adding this to your to-do-list, great ... and if your mission creep alarms tell you to park that one for now, that's fine too. It'll get done eventually, and the main thing is that you can feel comfortable with the great work you are doing! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clear. In the course of my 1992 work I have to work with a list of 196 (I think) constituencies abolished in either 1997 or 2010. This is the sort of scope I can deal with (and btw the figure I gave above is double the real figure). I'll work these as a mindless task - they are useful :) Crooked cottage (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The figures I have for usage of UK former constituency infobox may be misleading, because it has a few redirects and I only counted the main usage, but I canna be bothered tallying it properly. It'll be done when it's done :)
 * KUTGW! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say...
...Good Lord! -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed.
 * But sometimes a complete change of topic lightens the day ... so now for something completely different. Have you ever encountered Randy in Boise? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to meet anyone like that. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PastorWayne (take 3734753)
User_talk:Occuli. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. Looks like it's in good hands, and under control, so I'll leave them to it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Will it ever end?
Hi. Long time no hear. Happy New Year, belatedly. When do you think that it (Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22) will end? I know we're basically right but it seems like a stalemate. We need some fresh blood (I hate that I am writing that when we are in the middle of this film and television vampire obsessed season, but ...), so to speak. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome, it should be closed now. The closing admin should discard any arguments not based on policy, and weigh whether there is a consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be best if it were closed now. Things are going around in circles—peptide circles, at that. I do find it telling that some users are arguing that this category should exist and so too should . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To be fair, the concept of NPOV is a hard one for a lot of people to grasp, because they are not used to neutrality being applied even to things that appal them. When so few news organisations follow the Reuters principles on neutral terminology, it's unsurprising that people find the approach alien. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I believe that removing useful categories for political (or political correctness) reasons contradicts WP:NPOV, and most important, to the goal of creating good encyclopedia . Biophys (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that enough to violate your editing ban? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Biophys. You make my point well.
 * "Useful" and NPOV are not the same thing. We could categorise Sarah Palin in Category:Rightwing nut-jobs and Barry O'Bama in Category:Liberal extremists, and huge numbers of editors would find such categories "useful". But we don't do it because it's not NPOV, and both assessments are subjective.
 * NPOV is nothing to do with alleged "political correctness"; it's about not taking sides. Subjective terminology is unacceptable in categories because it requires editors to take sides, by either placing an article in the category or not, with no objective way of determining that either position is false. Please read WP:NPOV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I honestly do not see why classifying someone like Aung San Suu Kyi as a victim of political persecution would constitute any kind of bias (she was described as such in a vast majority of sources).Biophys (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For every Aung San Suu Kyi, there are dozens of Nelson Mandelas or Bobby Sands people whose imprisonment was justified by the state on the grounds of what was categorised as criminal behaviour, and many more Tommy Sheridans. It's all very well saying "let's have these categories for cases nobody would object to", but apart from the fact that supporters of the Junta would object strongly to Aung San Suu Kyi, there will be countless other cases where either inclusion or exclusion will be highly controversial ... and because there is no consistent NPOV definition of "political repression", the result is an unsolveable content dispute.
 * Rather than using subjective or POV categories, use factual categories: people imprisoned by, people killed by, etc.
 * Anyway, my talk page is not the place to be discussing this. Biophys, please do not post here again on this topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I told Biophys (Hodja) the same thing about leaving me messages on my talk page. In re the CfD: can't we invoke WP:IAR if Wikipedia's integrity is going to be seriously compromised over an issue that the vast majority of Wikipedians either are ignoring or don't care one way or the other? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing admin is obliged to weigh consensus against policy. IAR not really a good idea in such cases. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Old LL question
To get back to your earlier question about what to do about LL's behaviour: as far as discussions go something like this might be the most productive approach. Not sure what to do when it comes down to actual substantive edits to categories that are a problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. There comes a point when further discussion is pointless.
 * As to the edits, I'm watching them carefully, and this seems to be leading to an end the out-of-process depopulations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

odd
how we agree so strongly about a recently successful RfA and disagree so strongly on a recent RfC. I'd be glad to engage is some attempts to work jointly on something where we have common ground    DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Tis usually the way! It'd be odd to disagree on everything :)
 * But I'm afraid I don't often see common ground with you. You have repeated stated a philosophy of don't throw-anything-away, which is a great principle in a library, but a poor one in a publication which has quality thresholds and inclusion criteria. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if I ever run for office (I'm thinking after all, I may indeed prefer gouging my eyes out with rusty baked beaz cans instead), you'll both be welcome to use it as a battle-ground of the giants ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno about DGG, but me no giant. I'm just a humble peasant from the land of the bogs and the mists and the little people. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BHG, in recent debates it seems to have been forgotten on all sides both that there are other issues to work on than inclusionism, and that most issues with inclusion have compromise solutions. If I advocate a strong position it is often in the hope of achieving a more reasonable middle. (and as far as strong positions go, I have so far deleted 12,791 articles).But there are more important issues than inclusionism, like WP:V and NPOV and NPA, and I think that these are the ones that people like you and me need to stand together on. We need to improve both the quality and the quantity of material in Wikipedia.  Surely we have common ground for some of this?    DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree that quality and WP:V is a very pressing problem, and probably the most pressing one. But as noted at RFC by me and others, it appears that it is your inclusionism which has led you to support the actions of an editor who systematically degrades wikipedia's quality by adding bogus refs and refusing to discuss them, and who restores merged articles on the flimsiest of pretexts without giving any indication that he is doing so.
 * I'm sorry that is a negative response, but I have been quite shocked by the lengths you have gone to deny that there is a problem. It's not at all clear what sort of middle you have in mind, because you repeatedly deny that there is a problem to start with. A middle makes sense when there is disagreement about the remedies, but not when there is disagreement about whether a problem exists (it's like deciding to half-execute someone when some think the defendant is guilty and some think he isn't).
 * You're clearly a thoughtful and intelligent editor, yet despite the evidence at the RFC of how CW had had misused dodgy refs to sneakily unmerge an article of abysmal quality, you rushed to his defence. I'm sorry, but that sort of defence of the indefensible doesn't leave any scope for me to see common ground.  It's not just that you don't see a serious problem in the issues identified here and here, it's that you soon after that evidence was posted you wrote that "CW meets the necessary standard more fully than almost anyone else here".
 * So at this point I don't see anything to work with you on. When you are a consistent cheerleader for a prolific degrader of wikipedia's adherence to WP:V, you make yourself part of the problem, not part of the solution. I do hope that you change your view, but that's up to you ... and unless you can acknowledge that there is a problem, I don't see where the common ground is. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial
Use i stuck my foot in it by stating that RoI is a not a controversial term, when for some it clearly is. Mabuska (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye indeed. WP:IECOLL spent the best part of a year in an arbcom-mandated process of trying to agree guidelines on when it should be used.
 * I think that outcome is the right decision, but a significant number of editors remain unhappy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)