User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 025

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Hoult at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I thought that I had done that, but apparently not.
 * Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Bot to add links to National Portrait Gallery, London

 * [#Bot_to_add_links_to_National_Portrait_Gallery.2C_London Re:Bot to add links to National Portrait Gallery, London]

Is this irritating cursor: not-allowed in your signature intentional? Bulwersator (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was intentional when I added it about 5 years ago. Nobody has complained about it before, but maybe the joke has worn a bit stale now, so I may remove it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Charles McArthur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kingsdown


 * Elijah Sandham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Speaker


 * Walthamstow by-election, 1910 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Bill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! All three are now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Talking to a bot now? :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only as a note to myself :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Creating a new page
This may seem stupid but im wondering how do you create a new page, with a topic of your choice. For there are a few things I wish to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onaventure (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Onaventure, the guide on how to do it is at Starting an article. Good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Hoult
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for the nominations of Paul Bedson's articles. I see he's taken them in good spirit, but I think he should know better. He has a huge COI in this area. And, as I see you noticed them through DYK, I should say I've been unhappy with most of his DYK nominations as the ones I've encountered have pushed the same fringe pov. Not hard to do with DYK when editors don't know an area. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you found the AFD for the two articles.
 * Paul's response is, as you say, in good spirit. However, I find the reply unsatisfactory, because either  is incapable of making any reasonable assessment of what are reliable sources and what constitutes notability, or he is disingenuously trying to feign surprise in order to limit the damage. Given his history of sockpuppetry, I fear that the latter may be more accurate ... but either way, I am alarmed to see how many articles he has created on related topics.
 * I see from his talk page that you have been keeping an eye on this stuff for over a year, but what I see alarms me even more. It seems that his editing here is entirely focused on pushing a POV about near eastern archaeology, and that he is systematically using Wikipedia to promote original research. Whatever is going on here, it seems to me that his work needs a huge amount of scrutiny, and his conduct needs some restraint.
 * I don't have time to do either of those tasks myself, but I particularly am concerned how DYK seems to be functioning in this case as such a useful tool for promoting his theories. Is there any lightweight mechanism to ban this editor from using DYK? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I can't disagree. You can see I've been concerned about this edits, his use of sources, etc etc. I don't know of any lightweight mechanisms that can be used and  dealing with a prolific editor is time consuming. Maybe we need to go to WP:FTN? Unfortunately though archaeology doesn't often interest people there, but it might be worth a shot. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your sigh. This sort of POV-pushing can take a lot of work to unravel.
 * I had not heard of FTN before, but it seems worth a shot. I suspect that archaeology is in general an under-scrutinised area, and it looks like this chunk of it needs a lot of scrutiny ... but we gotta start somewhere. Would you be able to draft something?  I haven't seen enough of Paul's work to point much much further than the stuff around the two articles at AFD.
 * I suspect that whatever initial steps we take, it's going to need an RFC/U to apply any serious restraint. In the meantime, I am going to ask Paul to apply some self-restraint. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just done more scrutiny of Paul's editing, and I don't like what I have found. See Articles for deletion/Edward F. Malkowski See User talk:Paul Bedson (permalink). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Thanks. Barton's notable, but he really should have spent time referencing it. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that George Aaron Barton might meet WP:PROF, but I'd want to see some evidence. However, there are real probs with Paul's sourcing. Even where he does add refs, they are often very dodgy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My Grandad used to call me dodgyboots, but that is sadly off-topic. You will find that the one form of constraint you guys have over me is the enormous respect I have for you both and high value I place on your opinions. Doug (my Grandad's name was Doug) practically taught me everything I know about Wikipedia and I certainly bother him a lot less lately (although I do miss our discussions!) I can but simply assure you that my interests generally are in Lebanese Archaeology and my intentions on Wikipedia are to document all 88 Beqaa valley tells, all the surface sites, and ruins, drawing all the flints and make a conservation map to see what's left of the prehistoric archaeology there. I do have to admit to recently starting a Facebook Group called Save Beqaa Heritage which might be slightly affiliated with Save Beirut Heritage and the Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage, but any COI arising from this really should be covered by a mutual interest for recording and preserving archaeology. I'd really rather discuss this than the tired old, fringey stuff about O'Brien, which I have demonstrated I am quick and gracious to acknowledge if I do make a mistake. Also, if you do need any advice on archaeology or related subjects, I have lots of sources here and am always happy to help out. :) Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, you may well prefer to discuss other things than "the tired old, fringey stuff about O'Brien", but the fact remains that a) your userpage makes it explicitly clear that your primary purpose in editing Wikipedia is to promote the fringe theories of your friend Edmund Marriage and his late uncle Christian O'Brien; b) your edits reflect that POV-pushing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right again. My userpage is getting a bit tired and fringey. I've changed it to something I hope you will deem more acceptable in light of our recent discussions. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's A. It's B that matters. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I dispute that as my primary purpose, perhaps it was a bit biased that way a few years ago when I started editing, but Doug's talked me out of that and as the majority of my recent edits will show, and the discussion on my talk page, that I am reflecting a wide range of views from a variety of scholarly, secondary sources. Hopefully in as neutral a tone as possible. Please feel free to pick me up on any elements of my work that do not reflect this. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 10:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for Capture of Malolos
Yes, I, the author had access on the full text of the book. Arius1998 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about expanding the refs to include the full publication details, and page numbers? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already included the page numbers. Arius1998 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Iphone 5
Hi. Could you delete that page please? It is a bad redirect, written wrong and non-sense, since the new iPhone will come soon.-- Frigotoni ... i'm here ; 13:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, while I can delete it, I shouldn't do so without a prior consensus, because I don't see that any of the WP:CSD apply.
 * If you want to delete it, then ask propose it at WP:RFD. However, I see no problem with it. When the iPhone 5 arrives, an article can be written at that that page, and until there is such an article the redirect seem entirely appropriate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that local policy, so ask sorry. But the redirect iphone 5 is wrong anyway, seeing that there's already IPhone 5 with the upper-case letter. I think at least the first redirect could be deleted and you don't need a such agreement to solve this problem. -- Frigotoni ... i'm here ; 12:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look more closely at IPhone 5; it's the same page.
 * As above:
 * WP:CSD does not allow me to delete a redirect without consensus
 * I don't think it is appropriate to delete this one. There is no problem to be solved.
 * If you disagree, please use WP:RFD rather than arguing with me.
 * Thanks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten title added
Hello Brown Haired Girl. Thanks for the Consul WL correction. I must have been half asleep when I worked on that article. A personal question? Are you really a blond haired girl? I have got an impression, I don't know why, that there are very few female admins in WP; is that right? I mean it is an anonymous place but judging more or less on user names and behavioural modes I can imagine that most admins I have met here are men. Anyhow... Nice meeting you and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi E4204, no prob about the correction. Every bit of editing has an error rate, and the good thing about Wikipedia is that we fix each other's mistakes.
 * Yes, I am a brown haired girl. Really. Although maybe a bit too fossilised to be called a girl by most people. Nice meeting you too! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * I think I am older than anyone here. Now I noticed I had written "blond" instead of "brown". Maybe I should begin Sudoku or something. (Why are my hands shaking?.. :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

UK constituencies banner
Hi Brown Haired Girl. A long time ago now you left a message on my talk page about merging the UK Politics and UK constituencies banners. I have finally gotten around to sorting it out and have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. I would welcome any comments you wish to add. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have posted my thoughts there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anwar Bannud
Hello BHG. Thank you for your comment and your c/e at the Anwar Bannud article. Please see my response here and (and here, for the more general discussion) Yazan (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup, but gimme a few miniutes. Gotta first finish off a CFD nomination, then I'll come take a look. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your time! Yazan (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I responded at the nom page with respect to this particular article, and took the liberty to copy your response to the general discussion at DYK:Talk. I hope you don't mind. Yazan (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do mind you copying my comment. It clashed with my own expanded comment there, and when I went to save my commet I tought that I had saved a draft by mistake. It is usually better to link rather than to repost, and if you really do wanmt to re-post another editor's comment, please take great care to indicate that it is a repost from elsewhere. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for that. But I did think that it was relevant to the discussion and my re-post was in good faith, I assure you. And I did note in a disclaimer above the post that it is being reposted from the article's nom page. But, again, apologies for not taking your permission first. Yazan (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hello! Hope you are well!!

♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) 
 * Thanks, Dr B! I doin grand :)
 * Good to see you still in prolific form. Hope you are well too :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I most certainly am BHG. Thanks for the DYK reviewing too!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Liverpool Exchange by-election, 1897
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Millward
Sorry to be a pain but I've now added an image to Template:Did you know nominations/Stephanie Millward, I'd really appreciate it if you could do a quick re-review checking the image rights as I suspect it'll get ignored otherwise. Thanks - Ba  se  me  nt  12  (T.C) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Erpert  Who is this guy? 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Liverpool Everton (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to United Kingdom general election, 1910


 * Sir Francis Barry, 1st Baronet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Order of Christ

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about that, neutral wording it is! Please let me know if my wording is alright. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this was a reply to this message at User_talk:Ncboy2010. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Verify credibility at Starborough Castle

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

I haven't seen the verify credibility tag before and may be misunderstanding it but having spent two hours on library searches to find the information I'm a little frustrated by the tag. I'm not clear what the verify credibility is supposed to prove, but I feel I would be remiss to add it to every article sourced to a book that I do not have in my house. Would that be the right reading. I apologise if my tone comes across as intemperate, I am just becoming frustrated and starting to remember why I left Wikipedia, it seems it is even harder to than before. Before I succumb to the darkness in my soul and delete the article as G7, is it worth keeping it? Hiding T 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hiding
 * I just left a note on your talk.
 * Yes, the article is very much worth keeping -- most of it is fine, and you did great work in getting it that far. If you tried deleting it as G7, I'd object!
 * However, the sourcing of the assertion about demolition remains inadequate. I don't suggest deleting that point, because it is reported in enough unreliable sources that it is at the very least a persistent rumour, so one way or another it needs checking out.
 * You may not have the the time or energy or inclination to hunt down the history books in which it might be referenced. If so, that's fine, and please don't feel frustrated or put down by this. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and by leaving the tags in place the article is identified to other editors as one in need of more sources.
 * Hopefully someone else will be able to find a reliable historical source. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair do and thanks ever so much for the reply. In my defence I removed the ref improve tag because I thought I had improved the reference. I'm currently suffering a broken foot so it leaves me fairly house bound. I will try and find better references, but all I turned up in a library search of newspapers I added to the article.  I'm still not clear on what is supposed to happen when someone questions the verification credibility though. It seems like any source which is not online could have that tag applied to it, and then given some people argue that online sources are unreliable, we'd be left with no information at all. Also, I'd like to make a suggestion that we copy all our correspondence to the article talk page, along with that at the Did you know template, for future Wikipedians. I noted at the Did you know request that I was very disappointed not to be notified so that I could try and help, it seems like these things should be left on the article talk page where interested editors can find them. Hope you agree! Hiding T 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about the broken foot. That must be very frustrating, and I hope it heals soon, without too much pain along the way.
 * The verify credibility tag can be used in a variety of ways, but as I understand it it can ask one or both of two questions: a) has the editor who added this ref accurately represented what the source says?; b) is that source really a reliable way of verifying this fact?
 * I assume that you set out to report the source accurately, and since I can see that you have been very careful in reporting the sources I can check, I have no reason to stop assuming good faith. (It would be silly as well as rude).
 * So when I added it I was challenging the suitability of that source as a reference for those facts. The online/offline aspect made little difference.  If it was offline, I'd just have asked you to explain more about it :)
 * In the case of The Times ref, I too have access to the paper's archive, so I set about burrowing, to save bugging you for all the details. It was a little difficult without the page number, but I got there ... and could see that this was, as I had feared, a brief mention on the property pages. Not my idea of a good source for history!
 * The options then are that either a consensus develops that it is a good source, or we wait for a better source. That may come through one of us finding it, or of someone else spotting the tag and digging something out.
 * Hope this helps! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


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

SLA
Hi BrownHairedGirl! It appears we have a slight issue over at second(-)language acquisition. The requested move at Talk:Second-language acquisition was closed as "not moved", so it stays at the hyphenated title, but I see that you closed the CfD discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12 as "rename", so the category is now hyphenless. This isn't a criticism of your close at all, and I would have closed it the same way; the problem seems to be that it was completely different sets of people commenting in the two discussions about the same thing. The reason I'm messaging you is that I'm not sure what the protocol is in this kind of situation. What do you think would be the best thing to do about it? Maybe take it to Move review? Let me know if you have any good suggestions. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I missed that, and thanks for pointing it out.
 * May I suggest that the easiest solution is speedy rename it per Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! Now that does sound like a good way of doing things. I've gone ahead and nominated it. Surprising how many processes I've not encountered before on Wikipedia, despite managing to pass an RfA. Thanks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The place is so labyrinthine that even tho I have been editing for 6½ years, I still keep on encountering new processes! My latest discovery in WP:30; very useful! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

PD Music Files
Per your closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_2 I was wondering if you would create the necessary new parent category? And if I should update the PD template? (we'd end up with redlinked categories if I updated it before the category was created) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, when I came to look more closely at the relevant category tree, I could see no other categ of music files, so what I have created is Category:Public domain audio files, populated by using PD-audio.
 * I hope that this is OK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to work (unless some of the other users are particular about them being music). Thanks. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad it seems OK. If others want to create a subcat for music, that will be fine. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of Miss Queen World
I thought maybe you could look into the articles this editor created. I nominated their 6 creations for speedy deletion under G3 because I couldn't independently verify any of it. Articles are unsourced. The editor responded by undoing a speedy deltion tag and undoing a prod which I subsequently nominated for speedy deletion. You were online, so I thought I'd ask you to look into this....William 12:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't try speedying a contested PROD.
 * I have done some Googling, and I do get some hits on a web search, though none on Google News. So it might be a hoax, but it may just be non-notable.  So I can't say that it is a blatant hoax, and I will decline the speedies.
 * However, the online sources doesn't seem to come anywhere near WP:GNG, so I suggest WP:AFDing the lot on grounds of non-notability, as a group nomination. There may be offline sources, but so far I see no evidence thereof. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took them all to AFD. See Articles for deletion/Miss Queen World. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and I learned something about what to do in the future. The creator of these articles removed one of the templates. Check here. I reverted....William 14:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted. I posted a level-2 warning for the removal of the AFD, and an informal request to stop creating further similar pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Physics category
I realize your concerns over miscategorization. I'm reluctant to change the term because the literature prefers the use of the term as a good way to sum up the transition from two very different views of the universe. I like the Classical/Modern distinction, and I hope you understand that it is most definitely not an arbitrary division. Post-Newtonian sounds more awkward than modern. Thank you for your comment, and I hope that I've helped you as well. Please continue your excellent work. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, Benkenobi.
 * I think that the modern physics category discussion is an interesting illustration of one of the many ways in which categories need to be handled differently to articles. My concern in this case is not about any fear that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary; it is that the ambiguous name name will create disruptive misunderstandings of the inclusion criteria. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP disruption
Brown Haired Girl, can you please put an end to disruptive edition by an IP on Nicosia article... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The two of you are edit-warring. Please stop.
 * I have issued warning notices to both of you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) When I wrote to you, it was meant to stop warring from my side but if you say so... --E4024 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this felt like I was picking on you for having sought advice, but I'm trying to be even-handed here. Both of you have been reverting when you should have been discussing.
 * Good luck with discussing the issue. --14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you as a good admin, Brown Haired Beautiful Girl; sorry to have caused you this dilemma. Forget it and thank you very much. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's nothing at all to apologise for. And thanks for your kind words :)
 * It's hard to know what to do when you first encounter that sort of situation, and you did the right thing in seeking advice. If you don't get a rapid consensus through discussion between the pair of you, remember that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and this may take a few days to resolve.  Nicosia is a big enough city that there are probably other editors watching the article,  but if after a few days  nobody else has appeared to help settle the matter, you may want to ask at WP:3O. But so that probably won't be needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your keep votes
Your suggestion of a merger makes a great deal of sense, an article on the case itself would in my view be quite acceptable with the three current articles redirected to it. Pakistan supreme court decision on forced marriages or something? What do you think? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Darkness
 * I presume that this refers to Rinkle Kumari, Asha Kumari, Lata Kumari, and my comments open the AFDs you opened on them?
 * If so, then I suggest waiting for the outcome of the AFDs. The title of any merged article should reflect the title of the court case, which is probably available in the Pakistani press ... but it may be that the amount of material available on these is enough to justify separte articles on at least some of them.
 * In any case, you dismissed all three women as examples of "a common occurrence in the region" and nominated them for deletion without making even a cursory assessment of their notability. Since that's your view of the topic, I have grave doubts about your commitment to writing an NPOV article.
 * I would be delighted if you proved me wrong, but what I have seen so far does not look good :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Forced marriages are unfortunately a common occurrence in south east asia. I shall write up an article in userspace over the next few days, you can let me know if it is NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, forced marriage is sadly common. But the legal battle is rare, and that is what has made this one so notable.
 * I look fwd to seeing what you write, and sorry if I came across as a bit bitey. Good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I just added more Minnesota towns to the CFD I began today. When you voted, I was in the process of setting them up....William 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Will take a look. Hope the scrutiny was in a higher gear than the first one :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I try looking at the town pages. In fact of the 20 nominees, 19 of the article pages have 3 or less people listed in their notable people sections if the town has one at all and many didn't. Zumbrota has only one person mentioned in their article. The town I missed was Thief Falls.
 * You probably don't know it, but I do alot of work on cleaning up notable people sections of town articles. I clean out non notables daily. You know, IP editors who trash their girlfriends or think their barber is notable. I also add people and categorize Judges, Baseball players, politicians articles into town or county category pages. Look at my edit history. Plus I've created People from Categories. In fact last weekend, I created People from Fort Scott Kansas, People from Coffeyville Kansas, People from Pittsburg Kansas, People from Leavenworth Kansas, People from Independence Kansas.


 * I worked hard nominating those articles and scrutinized ahead of time but come in saying "but it doesn't look good so far". Where's WP:AGF and not assuming I just screwed it up?...William 17:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * William, I'm sorry you feel that I have been unfair.
 * But when a few cursory checks produce very difft answers to what you had found, I think it was fair to say that whatever scrutiny was done had not been sufficient. What do you think I should have concluded? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't fair. I did the most obvious search. Going through county category articles, which can have hundreds of entries, or googling 'Born in Rushford, Minnesota, wikipedia' can't be called a cursory check in any form. Shouldn't the creator of the category, just like the creator of an article, have to bear the burden of proving that a category is deserved. Most of the categories were probably created by the same editor who's created over 100 people from categories for small towns who you've repeatedly said don't deserve them.


 * Another thing, is 5 really enough for a category? That's your opinion but I disagree but have keeping to 3 or less except one time which BTW you supported merge for towns with four. No consensus has been formed....William 18:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet another thing. You added William Roseland to the Category People from Zumbrota, Minnesota category. His article nor its one readable source gives no proof of his being from Zumbrota and the first two pages of google searches "William Roseland zumbrota" turn up noting....William 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And I just noted the addition of William Roseland and the lack of proof for his being from Zumbrota at the CFD. I did so without 'doesn't look good so far' or 'that technique is insufficient' commentary....William 19:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Listify Category:Star Trek crossover episodes
Hi BHG. Thanks for closing Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_21, which was as listify to Star Trek crossovers. I don't see the list. Does it still exist somewhere or is it now lost? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe
 * I listed it in the queue at WP:CFD/W/M in this edit, which was 1 minute after I closed the discussion.
 * It was removed from the queue 2 days later by.
 * Here are the edits by Fayenatic to Star Trek crossovers. I have not assessed them, and if you have any concerns please can you discuss them with ?
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed. A system working like clockwork.  So that's what bought Fayenatic london to the article.  He did a good job.  I was expecting a clumsy copy-paste of a list to appear.  Thanks again.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Telecommunications terms
Thanks for deleting Category:Telecommunications terms, after closing its deletion discussion. Please also delete the associated template, Template:Telecomm-term-stub. This is the current correct procedure: stub sorting templates are deleted by holding a CfD for the associated stub category. (This is described at Stub types for deletion, and in the RfC linked from that page.)--Srleffler (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for overlooking that one, and thanks for the friendly reminder.
 * It seems that User:Malik Shabazz beat me to it, here. I hope that's all wrapped up now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert all moved to Australian related categories

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

There was no discussion at all for the moves such as Category:Australian television navigational boxes to Category:Australia television navigational boxes, please restore these back since the move is disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you disagree with those moves, but I hope that you will reconsider your labeling of them disruptive.
 * Those categories were moved by the speedy-renaming process at WP:CFD/S, according to criterion C2C. You can see the rationales listed in this diff of when I moved the listings to the process page, where you can also see that there were no objections. The categories had been listed there for more than the required 72 hours.
 * If you want to reverse the moves, I suggest that you open a group nomination at WP:CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections as no one knew about them and clearly not C2C! Revert them back! Also odd to see an Iish IP and you're from Ireland. Bidgee (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in my view they do meet C2C.
 * I am sure why you think that my nationality has to anything do with this, and I would prefer that we just discussed the categories.
 * As noted above, if you want to reverse the moves, I suggest that you open a group nomination at WP:CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FFS, They don't! Even more reason why you should revert it back as you clearly have a POV. Bidgee (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is imprtant that admins ar accountable for their administrative actions, and I am quite happy to discuss to have a civil discussion about an editor's concerns. However, your language is unacceptable and your accusations of POV are unfounded, and a breach of WP:AGF.
 * This discussion is now closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Complaint from Nick

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

Looking at this issue the rationale for the change seems to be that because some other categories are named this way, the Australian ones should be too. Sorry, that simply does not cut the mustard. It doesn't matter if you find a thousand other category groups that have such little regard for English grammar, but the adjectival form of the "Australia" is "Australian" and the phrase structure of these categories requires an adjective. Speedy moves are for uncontroversial moves, which obviously is not the case here. Please reverse this change and propose it in the appropriate manner where interested people can comment on it. I would also recommend advertising the proposed change on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. - Nick Thorne   talk  10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, you are talking to the wrong person. I'm just the clerk here.
 * I did not propose those move. In accordance with the standard procedures at WP:CFD/S, I took a noted that the nominations had been open for the required time and that they were unchallenged. I therefore undertook the administrative task of listing the moves for implementation by the bot.
 * As with speedy moves in article space, there is no requirement to notify wikiprojects, so I did not check for that.
 * I did look at the rationale, and see whether I had any concerns of my own. If I had any concerns, I would have raised objections in the same way as any editor is entitled to do, but I saw no problem.
 * It seems that you dislike the naming convention for template categories. You are entitled to your view, but please don't blame me for the fact that a process worked as it was designed to do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, I do dislike this misuse of the English language. However, of more concern is with the way this move was done.  I can find no evidence that the move was advertised with the appropriate template on the categories concerned.  Acting as the clerk as you put it, you should have checked that all the requirements of the noticeboard had been fulfilled, including notification of the proposed change - that is an obviously required "clerical" role, i.e. your job.  To omit this check before making the move allows people to game the system.  The instructions are there for a reason and you subvert those reasons by not ensuring compliance.  I can understand that if a category has been listed it should have had the template applied, but in this case it did not.  OK, anyone can slip up, but now the issue has been raised, IMHO it behoves you to reverse the move and cancel the request for failing to abide by the rules clearly stated at the top of the noticeboard. -  Nick Thorne   talk  10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, I was unaware of that oversight, and if you or Bidgee had pointed that out to that this was your concern, we would have saved a lot of time. Instead you made complained about a lack of discussion, and discussion is not a requirement at WP:CFD/S.
 * I did indeed make an error in not checking the tagging of those categories, but you also made an error in targetting me with a complaint about the substantive merits of the move which was and is completely irrelevant to my role. Your suggestion that I chose to "you subvert those reasons" lacks AGF. There is a big difference between a good faith oversight and a an attempt to "subvert" a process.
 * I have explained at ANI how I intend to remedy the situation. Per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised ... so any further discussion on this issue should be at WP:ANI. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Apologies for my outburst
As stated on AN/I, I sincerely apologise for my inexcusable outburst, I shouldn't have taken out my frustation on you. Also WP:CFDS states that ""They must be tagged with new name so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal."", which the IP did not do. Can you understand where I'm coming from with the lack of any warning? No one is going to be checking WP:CFDS everyday. Bidgee (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bidgee, if you had simply pointed out that oversight, we could have gone directly to the solution I have now explained at ANI. But you didn't do that, and instead you leapt straight into the attack.
 * You didn't just make one outburst, you made a series of offensive and unfounded personal attacks, and failed to assume good faith.
 * If you are frustrated, please deal with your frustration before posting in anger.
 * Thank you for you apology. I hope that in future you will pay closer attention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that these categories are now listed for a full discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 17. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

John Hanna Robb
Kittybrewster &#9742;  19:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A few tweaks done. Hope that helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, Hiding. That's very kind of you.
 * It was also a timely reminder. I checked back on the article we had been discussing and noticed that I have never updated the DYK nomination to note that all problems were resolved. That's now done, and I hope it makes its way soon into the DYK queue. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TfD of cn-span and refnec
Hello! You recently closed WP:TFD discussion. As there were generally two rationales behind preference of citation needed span over reference necessary (the technical difference – usage of fix-span – and aesthetic/ergonomic value of corresponding markup), could you please expand your closing statement with your assessment of consensus behind these two (or any other I might fail to notice) rationales? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dmitrij, thanks for your msg.
 * In general I don't feel a need for a detailed close summary when the decision is as clearcut as this, but I'll look at it again and see if I think anything needs to be added. But first I need some food :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked again, and I don't think that I should add anything. I don't think that there was sufficient discussion of either point to justify its inclusion in the closing summary. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Prisoners of conscience CfD
Although I disagree with your proposal to delete related categories, I was heartened to see such well-crafted and nuanced comments. My desire to see these categories retained may fall under an IAR philosophy; ultimately I think they are useful. The definitional concerns you so thoughtfully raised seem a little abstract to me; in the context of China, which is where I operate, I can think of few cases where the classification would be ambiguous or controversial. Anyways, I'm curious to see if any other solutions or proposals come up to address the problems you've identified while still serving the purpose these categories were created to fill. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 21:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Homunculus, and thanks for your msg.
 * I have replied in more detail at CFD, but I think you'll have a hard time applying WP:IAR to a WP:NPOV issue. And don't forget to read WP:ITSUSEFUL.
 * As to China, well .. I look fwd to seeing the Chinse sources applying the label "political" to their prisoners. You may not like the Chinese state's POV, but per WP:NPOV it can't be ignored. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Walthamstow by-election, 1910
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

JEL classification codes
Hello, BHG. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11#JEL_classification_categories, I did leave a note for J at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonkerz&diff=513932797&oldid=513914804.

Given the long, involved discussion at the RFD, the attention to detail and big-picture analysis that your remarks obviously reflected are esp. noteworthy. I think that all of the discussants are grateful. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Thomas
 * Thanks for your message. I do hope that I was able to be of some practical help. I felt sad that such a long and detailed nomination and huge discussion hadn't produced a consensus, but I really couldn't see anyway of divining a clear consensus out of a discussion which covered so many separate but related issues.
 * If I can be of any help in the further steps, please let me know. I don't have any stake in the discussion, but I am interested to see how you guys resolve the differences of approach between Wikipedia's own categorisation principles an apparently-significant external categorisation system. If you decide to follow the WP:RFC path, I suggest that you consider listing it at WP:CENTRAL, because the issue go much wider than economics classifications. There must be many other intellectual disciplines in which similar tensions apply. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting suggestions. On wider implications, WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT might be revised a bit to take account of issues raised at CFD by use of an external source (JEL codes here) within WP. Still, if there are no other examples of classification sytstems used in WP, there might be no wider issue. Inspection of Category:Classification systems did not suggest to me that there other WP-JEL counterparts in other sciences.  In the case of the JEL codes, it seems reasonable to employ its conventions where feasible, for example in allowing Category:Other economic systems, rather than thrusting its contents from a subcategory to the parent category Category:Economic systems. Here IMO WP:OC reduces the information content of the parent category in not being able to differentiate articles that go beyond a single subcategory (or set of subcategories). Perhaps that's a point worth taking up at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Thanks for your reactions.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a range of views on what counts "where feasible", which is why I think that it's a good idea to seek as wide a consensus as possible.
 * Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization one place to hold such a discussion, although it could be argued that putting it under overcategorization kinda loads the question. WT:CAT might be an alternative.
 * However, but my experience is that discussions on either of those pages tend to have low participation, so doing it as an RFC may help to get wider input. Good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP-JEL codes may be one of a kind as to generalizable conventions. The trick, as you suggest is to see if a JEL convention can carry over to WP category guidelines more generally. If I can think of any in going over WP:(OVER)CAT, I'd certainly be prepared to pursue it.  P.S. Good to see your work in removing  the proposed JEL cat. changes.  For one thing it facilitated starting to update JEL cat. labels. Thanks again.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Walthamstow by-election, 1897
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Camberwell Collegiate School
Hello! Your submission of Camberwell Collegiate School at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that no one had pinged you on this one. Sorry about that! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I have suggested an alternative hook. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Projects
Hi there,

I have a quick question / idea that has been going through my head for awhile however I feel that the scope of the project wouldn't be beneficial for the for the village pump. Would you mind if I emailed you? It appears we've had similar ideas in the past and would like you're opinion if possible. --Morril (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Morril
 * Feel free to email me if you like, but I thought it best to warn in advance that my reply may be to ask you to raise it here. I will of course will treat the mail as confidential, even if I think that the topic is not one for email.
 * I'm happy to give you my thoughts on the idea, for what they are worth, but in general I much prefer that any such discussions take place on Wiki, to maintain transparency. So unless you feel that there is some pressing reason which would make on-wiki discussion inappropriate, it would be better to post here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there,
 * Fully understandable. I was seeking some guidance on the Education in Canada articles. I was wondering if it was a bit over the scope of an editor to ::wish to streamline the articles. Many of which use a variety of templates and infoboxs that are either incomplete or even incorrect for that situation. ::Would it be above and beyond an editor to try and tackle the articles and stream line them? --Morril (talk) 23:37, ::24 September 2012 (UTC)

1st two by-elections
Greetings, I told my problem to User:Kittybrewster and she told me you may know the answer. I can't find anything on the two first by-elections in the House of Lords. It seems that no by-election happened on the deaths of Myrtle Robertson, 11th Baroness Wharton and Henry Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnarvon. The only solution I can think of, is that David Lytton-Cobbold, 2nd Baron Cobbold and Roger Chorley, 2nd Baron Chorley were sole candidates. Any help would be appreciated.--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the standing orders vacancies until the end of the next parliamentary session were filled by the nearest runner-up in the 1999 election. So, on the death of Wharton, Cobbold became eligible (as the losing candidate with the most votes see Cross-Bencher votes) and on the death of Carnarvon, Chorley (as the next in line) took office. DrKiernan (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very, very, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.35.192 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Camberwell Collegiate School
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Anwar Bannud again
Hello BrownHairedGirl. Our disagreement on the proper amount of sourcing require for DYK notwithstanding, the Anwar Bannud article had had several new sources added to it for many days now, and I hope that will satisfy your requirement for a variety of sources and you can continue your review, as the nomination is now stalled. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the msg. Will take another look this evening. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello BrownHairedGirl, just a friendly reminder that you still haven't reviewed the article, nor asked for a new reviewer (if you're not planning to review it). I'm not trying to be pain, but just wanted to ping you in case it slipped your mind. Cheers! Yazan (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! It did slip my mind again, but I have just reviewed it now, and it's good to go.
 * Thanks for the reminder :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :) Cheers! Yazan (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lists of populated places in Israel" category
This edit to List of moshavim shitufiim is likely to be seen as controversial at some point because the moshavim shitufiim listed for the Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and the Golan (i.e. Golan Heights) districts are beyond the Green Line. Consequently an "in Israel" category is not appropriate. Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That can easily be resolved by adding the equivalent category for the Palestinian territories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An equivalent category don't exist for either the Palestinian territories or the Golan Heights. There are very few "Lists of populated places" categories so I'm reluctant to create them and add them for this article. The locations listed that are beyond the green line are individually categorized as Israeli settlements (or possibly subcats of that...I didn't check each one). That category could be added but it only applies to a subset of the locations... Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, which I will add.
 * However, most of the kibbutzim are in Israel behind the green line, so the Israeli categ is clearly appropriate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also created and added a Golan Heights-related lists cat and put it in the Asia-related lists category (rather than either of the Israel or Syria-related lists categories) since the locations in the Golan are not covered by either of the existing cats. Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good work. I hope that allays any neutrality concerns. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Medalists at the IAAF Championships in Athletics
BHG, I'm more than a little taken aback. You closed my September 12th CfD nomination on a procedural basis. Okay, I get that. I cured the procedural notice problem, and renominated the category with a different proposed name. You speedy closed the second CfD nomination, in which I cured the procedural issue with proper notice, and I might add, with a different proposed name change that answered Courcelles' objections. Technically, it is a different nomination (different proposed name, different nomination, right?), and I do not believe that it is subject to a speedy close. I also went to some length to explain my reason for the quick renomination in the second CfD. Your suggested remedy is that I take it to DRV. Why would I do that? I am not objecting to your original closing of the first nomination. You were correct: I make a mistake, and I did not provide the proper notice. That should not preclude a procedurally proper second nomination, with a different proposed name that answered Courcelles' objections. This CFD deserves to be considered on the merits, not closed based on a procedural error by the nominator. I respectfully request that you withdraw your speedy close and re-open the second nomination. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just writing a message on your talk page, but I will reply here instead.
 * The discussion at CfD September 12 was closed as "keep" only a few hours ago, as the consensus of the discussion. Please re-read the closure statement there, because your complaint is based on a misreading of it. The procedural failing was a subsidiary issue which I noticed only when I went to remove the tag.
 * You renominated the same category at CfD 2012 September 21, only hours after the closure. Asking the question repeatedly in the hope of getting a different answer is not acceptable. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to rely on this as a "consensus" close when a grand total of two people contributed to the CfD discussion? Courcelles raised an objection based on the existence of other IAAF Championships, thus necessitating the inclusion of the words "in Athletics."  Okay.  Then let's change the proposed name to answer the objection.  I was already simultaneously typing a response to Courcelles' comment when you closed the original CfD.  Reliance on this being a "proper close" by the administrator is somewhat misplaced here, in my opinion, because no real decision was ever reached on the merits.  Please re-read and carefully consider what is said in the second CfD.  This is not some vanity pursuit; it is simply about following the better established naming pattern, and renaming a freshly minted category before it will require much more work to fix later.  Again, I respectfully ask you reconsider and reopen the second nomination (again, with a different proposed name that answers the original objection), so that it may be properly considered, on the merits, by more than two editors.  If you take the time to read and consider the argument, I believe you will find it has merit.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dirtlawyer
 * Thanks for replying, and sorry that my quickly-written first reply came across as bit curt and cold. That wasn't my intention, but when I re-read it, it felt unfriendly. Sorry.
 * Anyway, discussion at the previous CFD had stopped 9 days ago, so I don't think that the close was in any way hasty. If there wasn't a CfD backlog, it would have been closed 2 days earlier.
 * I'll AGF that you were indeed typing a reply when I closed it, but after 9 days of inactivity, I hope you'll forgive for not having thought that a likely possibility.
 * I think that the close I made was sound. A rename proposal was made, and a well-founded counter-argument was made, with no reply after a week. It would be nice if more editors participated in XfD discussions, but low numbers are not uncommon. I do sometimes relist discussions if it appears that progress is being made towards a consensus, but that didn't apply here: we had a proposal, and a sound argument for its rejection.  It would have made little difference if many editors had supported one side or the other, because the argument for rejection was solid, and WP:NOTAVOTE.
 * Looking at it again, I think there is a case for arguing that if the category had been properly tagged, then there might have been :greater participation, with other ideas on the table.  In that was accepted, then the procedural failing would actually be the dominant issue, and a relisting or fresh nomination would be a good idea ... but as above, the pattern of low turnout suggests otherwise.
 * So I hope you'll understand why I think still that it's best to leave this issue aside for the usual delay of a month before revisiting it. You may not agree with that, but I hope you can accept that there is a reasonable case for saying that this issue should fall within the general principle of not just repeating a similar question immediately.
 * However, in the same spirit I do think that you have a case for earlier re-opening, even if tho I don't agree with that case. So you may want to seek a review of my closure at DRV. I won't be offended, and we might both learn something :)
 * Best wishes -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it would appear that we will not have to revisit this CfD in 25 days after all: diff. Courcelles has decided to alter the category name himself per CSD G7, and has already moved all of the pages to the new category, and deleted the old category.  Makes me even happier that we're not still arguing over this like two mules over a turnip at DRV.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a bit of a stretch of G7, but if you and Courcelles re both happy with that, then I think it's problem solved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

HELP please!
I was referred to you by a person on here for being sensible smart,fair and helpful. I am not a wiki person and have no experience at this stuff. I built one page while working for Rick Hendrix in 2008. Since this time the page has been tossed around and written and rewritten a dozen times. Every time it gets to a place an editor or admin feels it should be another comes in 6 months later and changes it or says it does not meet the wiki bio standards. I am sick and tired of it and frankly ready to delete the page and say screw it. I have not worked for Dr Hendrix in several years. I use to get assistance from his office but they no longer return my calls about the wiki. I can understand-Hendrix office said his wiki gets vandalized and trashed and edited so much they do not take it serious or care to defend a public jury on credibility or notoriety. However, I do feel Hendrix deserves a wiki. He was the top promoter for 20 years in gospel music, he has written several number one songs, been nominated for producer or writer nearly a dozen times, he has received several gold and platinum awards, been recognized by several governors, articles in Washington Post, Country Weekly, USA Today, Dallas Morning News, Charlotte Observer, Billboard Magazine and featured on CBS News, Fox News, 700 Club special about his positive promotions and life, was on a TLC show "True Stories from the Morgue" in 2002 and 2003 season. He was named by the Washington Post as the Democratic parties biggest evangelist in the 2008 election and served on Hillary Clinton for President faith team. I truly do not care at this point if an unbiased set of eyes and brain cells tell me this page is not a wiki notable article. I am reaching out because I have been on a bait and rescue mission with a couple of the folks on the page. They request ref and better sources, once I provide them -they say it doesn't matter. But I would like outside opinions before I cave in to this woman and her antics about this page. She is rude and confrontational and I do not feel she compliments the wiki community. She continues to request proof and changes, when these are provided she omits them as still not credible. If Washington Post and Billboard Magazine are no longer credible sources then I don't feel a wiki page would be worth my time or energy. I would love to see if you could let me know if it is notable or not, and if not I will delete it. If you say it is can you help or direct me to remove the deletion portion on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Hendrix Please advise and I value your opinion

Dalestorian (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John A. Willox
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Liverpool Everton by-election, 1892
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

William Palmes
Hi GrownHairedGirld,

I wonder whether you could kindly help me improve the article for William Palmes. I am new to this so unfamiliar with the protocol.

thank you very much

(Burnkilmon (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid that the page you created consisted of a straightforward copy of http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/palmes-william-1638. This was identified by another editor, and after I confirmed it for myself I deleted the page. See Copyright violations for the relevant policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dukedom categories
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. Thanks for helping out with renaming these categories. If you have the time perhaps you can help me with Category:Baronies in the Peerage of Scotland. The articles in this category should probably be moved to Category:Baronies in the Baronage of Scotland - the category can then be deleted. We already have Category:Lordships of Parliament. Tryde (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominated for merger at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 1. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alcatraz inmates
Hi. Can you do me a favour and nom Category:Alcatraz inmates for CFD to Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. Alcatraz was formerly a military prison.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr B
 * I could do that, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to separate out the inmates of the previous military prison. Not saying it's a bad idea, just not sure enough to want to propose it.
 * So I'll leave to the nom if you want to proceed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All entries are Alcatraz Fed. Pen. to my knowledge. But Alcatraz refers to the whole island rather than the jail. I'll nom then.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. I may well end up agreeing with you :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Stuttgart Military Community
The 'Stuttgart Military Community' is an obsolete, although still commonly used, term among military, civilian staff, contractors and family. The current official term in use is USAG- Stuttgart or US Army Garrison- Stuttgart, as the existing community command structure is a remnant of the formerly large Army presence in Germany from the end of World War II through the Cold War. The current community is largely a multi-service one, hosting 2 Department of Defense Unified Commands and I expect it will eventually be changed yet again to reflect it's DoD multi-service role.

The reason I created the category under this name is it's common usage from close to 70 years of historical use. I expect many searching Wikipedia would enter this term- not USAG-Stuttgart.

This entity (Stuttgart Military Community) is one of 4-5 geographic hubs around which US military activity will remain after the final drawdown of US forces in Germany and is the highest level headquarters. AFRICOM is responsible for all Defense and a significant amount of State Department activity in Africa. EUCOM is responsible for all of Europe and a significant portion of Asia. Both are 4 star commands and report directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense.

In conclusion, it's not just a community of military in Germany- it's the Pentagon-East Campus. Much of our foreign policy is determined, laid out and implemented from Stuttgart's 4 installations. It also hosts a significant portion of our overseas stationed special operations troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.112.170 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not usually follow the inhouse jargon of armed forces personnel, or of any other group. We either use the terminology commonly used in reliable sources, or we use plain English descriptive terminology. Calling a military garrison a "community" also raises problems of WP:POV, for reasons that might be a little clearer if we applied it to other other military garrisons. How does sound to you?
 * The discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 29, and any comments should be left there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson and fringe theories
User talk:Paul Bedson. Sorry I didn't have the time or energy to follow up your earlier discussions with him. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug
 * Good catch, and please don't blame yourself. Following up this sort of stuff takes a lot of energy, and few editors are in a position to do that. I also didn't follow it up.
 * However, at this point I think that it's time for an RFC/U. I dunno how Paul sees it all, or what he intends to do, but he seems stuck in fringe theories and won't stop without community involvement. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

American country musicians
Any chance I can get you to help me depopulate the category? This is really tiresome. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of categories, you seem to have accidentally added a nonexistant one here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. I deliberately created then redlink, then created the category.
 * Sorry, but I can't help with . You may want to tag it with cat diffuse, and.or seek help from WikiProject Country Music. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd think people never wanted to help me or something. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's nothing personal. I just got a browser full of unfinished jobs in recategorising lists, and want to wrap that up before I take on any other big jobs. I'm sure you'll find some volunteers at the WikiProject Country Music. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Just to point out: for categories like and, the template Fooian fooers doesn't produce the correct results, so instead there is a dedicated template Fooers from Northern Ireland. — Paul A (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul.
 * Thanks for the reminder, and for fixing the categories. I just spotted who created the template . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing semi-protection of Martin McGuinness
The article was semi protected last year during the presidential election campaign, however it seems to have been indef protected and I can't see any grounds for that, Can you sort? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Valenciano
 * You are right. Lifting that protection was long-overdue. Now done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Football in Spain lists
Category:Football in Spain lists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Northern Irish MPs
Category:Lists of Northern Irish MPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Accidents will happen
Sorry about accidentally reverting on your talk page - the perils of using a touch-screen phone in small hours of morning! Had switched it on to check whether internet access was working OK (yes - but phone function seems to have died, problematic as I care for aged mother and need to be contactable when out of the house!), browsed my watchlist, and obviously left my finger on an "undo" somehow. Thanks for quietly re-reverting: I guess you realised what had happened. Apologies. Pam D  07:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Pam
 * Thanks for you kind message. I had indeed guessed that was what had happened. These one-click edit buttons are very easy to activate unintentionally, and your revert came on an evening when I had twice accidental pressed the "[-]" button on the category lists at the bottom of pages, thereby sending HotCat off to remove the category. Luckily, all these things are easily-fixed.
 * Hope you are keeping well, and that you manage to get a working phone again. I stick to the more old-fashioined phones, myself; they are more reliable and lots cheaper :)
 * Hope you are keeping well. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I find my bottom-of-the-range smartphone a real joy - I can lie in bed in the morning reading the newspaper, check whether the train I'm about to meet someone off is delayed or not, check whether the tide is coming in or out before venturing onto tidal carpark, or summon Wikipedia to contribute to a discussion! And the maps - wonderful. A helpful chap in the shop on Saturday managed to fix it - something slightly loose in its innards. Life goes on, and I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia and not enough on the rest of the world, but it still feels a satisfying and useful thing to do, most of the time. Ah well. Pam  D  10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA
I note that Σ has changed their signature if that changes your feeling about the RfA. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. It only strengthens my oppose, because the sig as used in this edit displays the username of another editor. That would be a serious impediment to admin accountability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Television Navigational Boxes
With all due respect, I think it is about time to unscramble this egg. Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. - Nick Thorne   talk  03:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, the discussion has now been closed, and the categories have been listed at WP:CFD/W, where a bot will do the moves.
 * After your persistent abusiveness and assumptions of bad faith, both at the CFD discussions and at ANI, I no longer want to have any dealings with either you or Bidgee.
 * Please stay off my talk page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:French engineers by Grande école
Hi, I just proposed the above cat for renaming, but apparently Twinkle hickupped and the discussion was created but not inserted correctly on the log page (here). As I've become completely dependent on twinkle for these tasks, I'm not sure how to correct this manually. Can you give me some advice? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Twinkle seems to have given up part way, so what you needs to do is to go to the category page, and look for the bottom line win the pink box. It begins with a blue link "add entry".
 * The rest of that link is black text. Copy it, then click on the "add entry" link, paste in the text you copied. The replace "your reason" with whatever you want, and save the edit. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That simple! :-) It worked, thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad it worked :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Harlem category
Just letting you know that you closed this CfD after having !voted in it. I won't unclose and reclose per WP:BURO, since I agree it was the correct close, but just letting you know. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for pointing that out.
 * It's not good thing to do, even in a a clearcut case, and I'm very embarrassed about it.
 * I think I know it happened. Having tone down the colours in my sig for acessibility reasons a few weeks ago, I created a bit of crude CSS to highlight my own contribs with an orange blob, and it is solid in Firefox (my usual browser). However, I have been trying Google Chrome again over the last few days, and it handles that CSS a bit weirdly. The screen flashes with orange blobs when I load, and takes a while to settle down, so I tend to the orange blob is disregarded as a false positive.
 * My own fault, relying on a technical aid. I suppose I should read the sigs, but I try to base closes on what arguments are made rather than who makes them. Looks like I need to pay a bot more attention to them than I did there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd reclose it, but I also !voted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I should just revert my close and see who else turns up to close it. It's just a transparently bad thing to leave standing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. BencherliteTalk 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bencherlite. I hope I never do that again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's easily done.  The only way to avoid never making mistakes is never to do anything, after all... Keep up the good work. BencherliteTalk 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

CfD:Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011
I'm the category creator and primary objector deletion, however I do see that you made a good arguement. Do you how to make a bot request to have the category shifted to the talk page? Do you think it would be acceptable for it remain hidded while this arrangement is being made? - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stillwaterising
 * Thanks for listening to what I had to say. I'm glad it made some sense, and I'd be happy to help you get a win-win solution.
 * Shifting the category to the talk page is easily done: a bot could do it in minutes. But first, it would be good to consider how you want it to appear on the talk page. I can see 3 mechanisms:
 * Just add  to the top of the talk page. Simple, but looks out-of-place, so might be removed
 * Use a template, e.g. WP Pharma Top 200 US Drugs of 2011. Almost as easy to do, but it makes it clear that this is intended categorisation, and allows the display of a message as well as the addition of category
 * Use the project's banner template. Using the techniques set out at Template:WPBannerMeta, you could create a "Top 200 task force". By applying the appropriate parameter to the banner template, and article would be added to the categ, and the banner would display a msg about it.  This would also allow you to track the quality of those articles.
 * I recommend option 3, but it's up to you. Do you want to discuss it with other members of your project? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the third idea better.Should I make a (existing) bot request? I have a AWB bot with trial privileges. I could also use that. I assume that  by doing nothing and allowing the deletion to occur there will be a bot that will remove the current cat tags. -  Stillwaterising (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, our shortcut is WP:Pharm, shouldn't we use that? - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like option 3. The name I suggested was a only a crude placeholder, and I suggest discussion at the project to choose a suitable name.


 * And yes ... if the current category is deleted, a bot will do that job. All you need to worry about is creating and populating the new category. No need to rush it: if deletion can be put on hold until the new category is in place. Just leave a note at CfD about the plan, and the closing admin will delay implementation until you guys are ready. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the list of articles to add, that's already done and I'm learning to use regex with a text editor to make the links I want. What tools exist that can take a list and autoadd the category tags? - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work! Try WP:AWB. It's semi-automated, but makes this sort of job much easier. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I used AWB to pop the cat originally. It took so much time in semi-automatic mode I made the bot StillwaterBot but have not have finished my limited trial on the way to full auto mode. Could you please come to WT:Pharm and assist us on implimententing this? -  Stillwaterising (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I'm a cat lover in RL, so please don't think that I enjoy popping cats, but I'll do it if have to. --Stillwaterising (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 
 * Thanks! Will try to get to the tagging tomorrow. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-deleted cat
Hi, you closed Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 1 as "delete", but the category still exists. Are we waiting for a bot task? I'm not familiar with CFD process otherwise I'd do it, if no bot is involved. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Redrose
 * Yes, it's done by a bot, which works off the list at WP:CFD/W. I listed it there, but the bot didn't pick it up for some reason, so I have deleted it manually. Sorry for the delay. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I . Could it be because there is a colon missing between Red rose64 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that didn't help. But I fixed that later, and the bot still didn't delete the category. Anyway, all sorted now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Its clear
That you are not a local - I feel I could keep chasing your edits all night ... :)  SatuSuro 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I am a local. Just probably local to a difft place than your local :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe - but the local quirks - like the dreaded perth australia suggests you are not keeping up with the local ambience... so to speak, and a few other slipups suggest lack of local knowledge, so to speak... :/ SatuSuro 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it- the local pub type local - viz http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ABrisbane-related_lists&diff=517295798&oldid=517234908 :)   SatuSuro 00:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's all you can find to fix, I'm not worried. The Perth seems trivial, since the other Aussie Perths are either parts or surrounds of the city or tiny places; and the Brisbane issue was simply sloppiness when copying-and-pasting from another city category. Thanks for fixing it, but rest assured that I do know where Brisbane is. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perth trivial? ahah - the name issue caused major grief to people and even some desysopped over that one (hmmm)... as for sloppiness - I am finding the editor space on wp en getting more and more silent (most people I have interacted with in the last 6 years no longer edit or if they do so irregularly) so it was amusing to see someone actually doing something... I sort of wonder whether someone has put up a notice what to do when to turn the lights off... SatuSuro 00:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to differ about what's trivial, but I do agree about the exodus of editors. The decline see seems to have accelerated a lot in the last few months. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah the cohort in Australia seems to have shrunk where the regulars who seem to be positive regular contributers might fit into two or three cars soon... although there's the lot who would get thrown into the back of the ute, or where necessary the horse trailer... SatuSuro 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me BHG! You're my only hope!
Category:Roman Catholic Dioceses in the Netherlands Needs a speedy to lowercase d. Can't change it myself. Thanks for your help! Just doing some cat maintenance... Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Benkenobi
 * You're right that it needs a lowercase "d" ... and right too that it can be speedily renamed. That's a capitlaisation fix, covereded under speedy criterion C2A.
 * But you are wrong that you can't do it. You can do it, using cfr-speedy. Here's how:
 * edit the category, and paste in at the top the speedy renaming tag: . Save edit
 * Look at the second-last line of the pink CfD notice. It  begins with a link titled "add entry", and the rest of it is black text.
 * Select that black text, and copy it.
 * Click the "add entry" entry link, which will open the CFD speedy renaming page. Past in the text you copied.
 * Replace "Reason for rename" with "C2A capitalisation fix", and save.
 * That's all. Go on, you can do it :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oil and gas pipelines categories

 * Yes, time to go ahead Hugo999 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the bot somehow went ahead and did it anyway, depsite the NO BOTS tag :(  So it's a good thing that was ok! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 8
I see the discussion has been archived; was the issue taken care of so the templates can be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force, or should I remove the yes from the templates so AnomieBOT stops wanting to complain about them? Anomie⚔ 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that discussion. Sadly, it doesn't look like things were resolved, so I guess you should remove the auto setting :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad. If the discussion ever gets revived and resolved, it would be nice to auto-subst those templates. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps
Hey, I thought I'd talk to you about this since you did contribute earlier regarding the Vancouver Whitecaps team from 1986 to 2010 and the current Vancouver Whitecaps team that currently plays in MLS. The Vancouver MLS category was merged. Even when the other discussions weren't quite settled yet which could turn out to be problematic. I may need to ask for your help fixing this later on because the other Whitecap cats are probably gonna be moved as well. You were probably right, I should've listed as one single nomination instead of two. Please reply on my talk page. – Michael (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until all the related discussions are closed, then we'll see where it has all got to. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was my plan. I don't like admitting my mistakes, but I clearly messed up big time. – Michael (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't be hard on yourself! Nobody who does much editing here avoids a few foul-ups, and they are always fixable.
 * But in this case I don't think there is a problem, so long as the other merges go ahead. Is that your reading of it all, or have I missed something? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well this is taking longer than thought. – Michael (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a big backlog of unclosed CfDs :(
 * You could help by listing some discussions at WP:ANRFC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, did I do it right? – Michael (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * YEs, that's the right place to list it. I fear that the lengthy explanation may deter some potential closers, but hope I'm wrong :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Association
Hello BHG, I'm working my way through the list of 84 members of the Canterbury Association. Only few of them don't have articles on WP as yet; I have yet to come across anyone who wouldn't meet notability criteria. Could I possibly ask for your help with getting those articles online (even the shortest of stubs) of those that are missing? Most of them were MPs at some point, and you would be able to look up those details, I guess. The other area where I need help are with English naming conventions. The particular one I've just looked for is Richard Cavendish (1794 – 18 March 1876). The peerage has him, he was thus a brother of Henry Cavendish, 3rd Baron Waterpark, and here's a pretty good reference for all the members (with Cavendish dealt with on pages 18–19):

Could you help? I have five others so far that haven't got a page yet.  Schwede 66  08:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, I wasn't asking you to write the article, just to help with naming and MP details. I've now had a go at writing it (Lord Richard Cavendish (1794–1876)); feel free to move it if appropriate.  Schwede 66  02:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Schwede, sorry for the slow reply. I'll do some proper checking later tonight, but for now I'll just point out he should not be in Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed that category and nominated the article at DYK. It got approved pretty much immediately. So if he has indeed been an MP, it would be good to have that added to the article before it hits the main page. I'll be on a short break for the next few days; please do add yourself to the nomination if you expand the article (I would normally have done that for you, but don't know whether I will have internet access).  Schwede 66  21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Noblesse Oblige (book)
Hello, I have just made a contribution editing this article. I inserted the book cover, a few editorial reviews, quotes, and made a résumé of the essays. Could you please take a look? I will welcome any changes you make to improve it. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tat Sat
 * Well done. It's a nicely-written start to an article, with engaging prose.
 * If you want to improve the article, here's a few suggestions:
 * The quotes from the reviews are interesting, but it would be better to summarise and compare reviews rather than quote at length from them.
 * More references are needed for the description of the essays.
 * The lead section should do more to explain the significance of the book.
 * Hope this helps :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Brown Haired Girl. Could you please point an article in which the reviews are summarised? I will try to learn. As for the description of the essays, I have the book, but sorry, not the references. In fact I love Nancy Mitford sense of humour and I have nearly all the Mitford books (I mean the sisters). What should I do in a case like that? I have been a book reviewer for some of the most important newspapers in my country. Now I must learn how to write in Wikipedia. Since I made a start, and English is not my first language, I feel a little insecure for this, could not an experienced editor improve the article? No egotrip here. PS Perhaps the article is not a stub anymore? Tat Sat (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Brown Haired Girl! I have inserted references and tried to explaing the significance of the book in the lead section. Could you please take a look in the article? My only difficulty lies in summarising and comparing the reviews. :) PS I repeat my question: Perhaps the article is not a sub anymore? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tat Sat (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Category problems
Hi, I would appreciate if you could look into the category activities of User:Euroflux. I don't seem to be able to reason with this editor... He has been emptying categories out of process, uses them for ranking entries (see Category:French engineers by Grande école, for example), using weird sortkeys (such as exclamation marks), etc. Just a heads-up: As soon as I find time I'll take this user to ANI, given his relentless personal attacks on me (and other users), as well as unnecessary disparaging remarks towards other editors. But that is independent from the mess this guy is making of the whole categorization system in that area. Mind you, I'm not saying that things are perfect as they are (I don't have a strong opinion about that), just that Euroflux is making things much worse by creating a huge mess. I know you're well-versed in categorization (not everybody's thing), so perhaps you can give some advice/help in dealing with this situation. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Paraguay/Uruguay
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I just wanted you to know that some categories you have created pertaining to Paraguay you have categorized with Uruguayan categories. I am correcting some I find, but just in case you have more tasks in the area, I wanted you to know. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was clumsy of me.
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will go fix now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. You caught 2, and I caught 2 more. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

William Douglass (engineer)
I'm looking for help from an Administrator with the article on William Douglass (engineer). The author has confused this man with his uncle. I left a message on his Talk page some time ago, and on the article's talk page, to no avail. Details of the uncle, William Douglass, born London 1831, can be found here: []. How does one set about deleting, or withdrawing a page? Shipsview (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case of WP:SOFIXIT.
 * Why not just rewrite the article so that it's about one or other of the two, and create a new article for the other one? --16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My type? Possibly not....
I've recently created Category:Geological type localities of Scotland. It may well break several cat rules, although it looks neat enough to me and I thought it best to shoot first and... Comments welcome if any occur. Ben Mac <font color="#228B22">Dui  18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ben
 * Thanks for the msg. I took a look at the category, and I can't see what it is for.
 * What makes a "geological type locality"? Is it that the article says something about the geology of the area? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Type locality (geology) tells us that this is "the locality where a particular rock type, stratigraphic unit, fossil or mineral species is first identified". Thus, Perm for the Permian, Jura Mountains for the Jurassic and (most crucially!) Mugeary for mugearite etc. The reference at the main article is a dead link but this has a definition. <font color="#6495ED">Ben <font color="#C154C1">Mac <font color="#228B22">Dui  07:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you were not alone - it has already survived a CfD. <font color="#6495ED">Ben <font color="#C154C1">Mac <font color="#228B22">Dui  14:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Dr B.
 * I am wandering around the globe sorting out categorisation of lists, and most of the list of films are poorly categorised. So they are one of the strands of lists I am recategorsing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll jump onto the Doc's wikilove wagon and thank you for sorting out the lists categories in Syria! Yazan (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're both v welcome.
 * I have some areas still to work on (such as Africa), and a few stragglers elsewhere, but I think I have nearly finished the first pass of by-country lists. Once it's done, I'll then check the topics such as films, school, books, etc ... because a few preliminary checks have shown that a significant number of "Lists of Foo in Bar" are not in the basic trio of categories:, , and . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed the love coming to Africa... nice one! Dsp13 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The African lists seem to be almost entirely unsorted, so there is lots to do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Australian films of the 1910s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:American actors of Austrian descent
If you go to Category:American actors of English descent you will find a link to the discussion on that and several related categories, such as Category:American actors of German descent which were all heavily supported for deletion and eventually upmerged. For reasons I do not understand the German category was recreated. The reasoning given there would apply at least as well to the Austrian descent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will follow that up on my way back to CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dog's Eye View
I left a query about your merge proposal at the link above a few days ago. As there is a DYK nomination hanging fire for the Peter Stuart article you're proposing to merge into Dog's Eye View, it would be nice to know if that's going ahead, or if Peter's sticking around for a while. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi
Hi, just wanted to let you know I posted two sources on the BLP noticeboard thingy for Berlusconi having been condamned, if needed I can dig up some more. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 22:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Snowolf. Those sources do help. We may need more, so anything else you can find would help! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Waterloo Region, Ontario
I am contacting all opposing parties to see my extension. ChemTerm (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"net negative" versus "not a Wikipedian"
Please explain why one is an attack page and the other not.

I have asked this question before, of course.

Thanks, <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 12:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume that this refers to my closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012 October 25
 * I closed that discussion without having reviewed (or even seen) the other discussion. There was clearly no chance that the discussion I closed would finish with any outcome other than "delete", and a clear consensus that Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia was an attack page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question: Why is this an attack page but the other category is not? (The category of nonWikipedians was linked and discussed on the CSD page.) <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 12:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that all but me supported deletion. However, WP:Consensus is not a vote, and this question has not been addressed. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz  12:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on what may have happened at the other discussion. However, the deprecation of attack pages is a long-standing principle, as is the principle that user categories may be created only to facilitate collaboration. Regardless of any other exceptions, there was clearly no chance that editors would make this one an exception. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you deleted per consensus.
 * If it is "failing to foster collaboration", then please go ahead and try to delete the other page. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 13:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote. I did delete per consensus: the clear consensus not to make that category an exception to long-standing principles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Metropolitan Boroughs
Can you look at the closes of these two nominations and tell me whether I've closed them in accordance with the intent of the "areas" proposal? If not, I will amend my close.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks fine, Mike. The "areas" proposal was adopted at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_27, and these two followed suit.
 * Thanks for checking! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I know that, since I closed the Areas discussion. What I want to know is whether the "Metropolitan Boroughs" needs to be in there, or if they should just be in the format of "Areas of Rochdale"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mike, I missed the point there.
 * That's a good question. I can see the point about including the "Metropolitan Boroughs" bit to clarify the scope, but then I see that  and  both have their scope as the boroughs, and none of the other other subcats appear to use the long-format name.
 * So I'd say, omit the "Metropolitan Boroughs" bit ... but the discussion didn't really consider that aspect, so I;m not sure what close is appropriate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll just change it to match the rest, and if anyone has an issue with it, I'm sure they'll mention it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)