User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 027

Mentioned your name
Just a polite note to let you know I mentioned your name at this discussion here --Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

CFD question
Hi, i nominate two categories at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 31 for renamed, however the discussion was closed because i already created the new category and make the necessary changes. You mention that i should follow the right process by establishing a consensus at 'CFD'. However i can't understand where the 'CFD' is, can you provide me a link to it please. Thanks. Kingroyos (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CFD = Categories for discussion. Sorry if the abbreviation was unfamiliar.
 * If you want to make a change such as this, the way to proceed is to nominate a category for merger or renaming. If there is a consensus to make the change, then the closing admin will instruct bots to implement it. You made the nomination using WP:TWINKLE, which offers an option "Choose type of action wanted". From the drop-down there, you can select "deletion", "merge", "renaming" etc as appropriate.
 * The reason for requiring prior consensus is simply that category changes can be complex and difficult to reverse, and may also be hard to tarck. The WP:BOLD renaming of an article can usually be reverted in a single edit, but many edits are usually required to revert he renaming of a category, and the scope of the changes is hard to track. That's why CFD is used to seek consensus before category changes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Athlete category discussion
Hi. You recently commented on the discussion about athlete categorisation but I believe my nomination was not fully understood. Could you please revisit your comments based upon my explanation? Thanks. SFB 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

SSR Airport
I would like to have your opinion in a discussion at Talk:Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport where a user removed images of the airport and a destination map which i added by insisting that it does not comply with AIRPORT-CONTENT despite the guidelines does not say so.Kingroyos (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't want to get involved. You may find it helpful to ask at WP:30. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Recipients_of_the_Philippe_Chatrier_Award
I've replied on my talk page. DexDor (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:GAA
Hello there, I'm contacting editors who have recently contributed to this talk page to let you know about an ongoing discussion to do with the naming and categorisation of GAA counties, teams and players. If you'd like to give an opinion this would be very welcome. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Harz Mountain geo stub
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I see the Harz-Mountain-geo-stub and category are being deleted. As the author I am disappointed that I was not contacted in the normal way about this proposal. Actually, unless there is a wiki rule that geo-stubs may only be linked to admin areas, I don't understand the logic for deletion either. For those working on Harz Mountain-related articles, it is very useful to be able to identify the stubs and improve them, rather than try and work out where the stubs are from several districts that include stubs outside of this major mountain range. Is there any chance of being able to revisit this decision? Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bermicourt, and thanks for your message -- especially for keeping it so polite and friendly when you are clearly disappointed at the deletion.
 * The CFD discussion of Category:Harz Mountain geography stubs was a fairly clear-cut closure for me. The category was correctly tagged, and the discussion had been open for 8 days, which is more that the required 7 days. all 3 editors who participated in the discussion supported deletion. They offered a clear rationale, which was that "official" regions (perhaps better called administrative regions) are a preferred basis for stubs. Notifying the creator is
 * That left little or no scope for administrator discretion, and I couldn't really see how any admin could legitimately have closed the discussion any other way.
 * However, the one glitch I notice now is that while the category was tagged, the stub template Harz-Mountain-geo-stub was not tagged as part of a deletion discussion (tho I am not sure how it is supposed to be tagged these days, since sfd-r clearly predates the merge of WP:SFD to WP:CFD). Since you were the creator of the template, I presume that it is on your watchlist, so you might have spotted a tagging of the stub template. OTOH, it seems to me that if those of you using the stub category didn't spot that the categ was tagged for deletion, then maybe it wasn't so significant. So I don't put much weight on the lack of tagging.
 * So this doesn't add up so far to enough for me to want to reopen the discussion. If there is anything else you want to add to try to change my mind, please feel free to post again. And you are of course free at any time to take this to WP:DRV.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards time again
Looking for one that you haven't been given already...


 * Thank you!
 * I sometimes fear that I am a pedant, but I since don't like having to infer what other editors might mean, I try to spell things out. It's nice to know that it is appreciated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Attention seeking??
Eh, no. If we had kept the "female actor" category system naming "male actor" as an equivalent would make perfect sense. I know you advocated naming it "female actor" and I believe that this system is now officially used for several awards. If we are going to use the old term "actress" the natural old term for a male is "actor". "Male actor" on the other hand looks out of place if there is no female actor category. I have no problems with actress categories, but I find this situation poorly handled. The actress categories were previously deleted 26 times, and this time neither the film or actors projects appear to have been contacted over the categories until too late, and to date there has been a consensus against splitting because it presents the awkward state we now find this in. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Separate issue.
 * Creating nonsense pages to make a point is not a great way of persuading anyone of the merits of your argument. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * i wasn't making a point, I was sarcastically saying "this place has gone mad". If you can't see it was intended that way then you take yourself too seriously. An actor is an actor, male or female, period. If we have to start categorizing male actors as male actors just because of splitting actresses/female actors I'd rather delete the actresses categories and go back to a merged category, this system of naming looks really awkward,♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wanna say "this place has gone mad", then feel free to say it. But you can do that as an essay, or at the village pump, or on my talk (you're always welcome here), or at WT:CAT, or wherever. But you've been around long enough to know that WP:SPIDERMAN antics don't help anyone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I felt this morning when I logged in, with a rather groggy head too I might add, I felt like stringing up somebody in a spider's web, never mind Spiderman. What frustrated me the most was that the CFD was closed just 6 hours after the film and actor project were informed, I don't know how a CFD can be closed as a fair consensus if individuals who are more involved with using the categories and articles are not even invited for their input. Obviously you'll have an answer and not criticize your friend who closed it, but there was definitely without the shadow of a doubt a consensus against recreating these categories and I can't believe that was overlooked. We've managed 12 years with actor categories to cover both male and females without worrying about gender-equality and political correctness. It is the simple option, some people get offended with "actress", "male actor" is barely used except in some award ceremonies where it has made a point of renaming actress "female actor". I just find it unnecessarily awkward. Yes, there is a case for improving browsing by splitting actors and actresses, but it does seem a bit redundant to me to explicitly express the actors as "male", people should have better things to do, you know, building content instead of fussing... I'll let this rest for now, but I have a strong feeling that people will continue to be in conflict over naming and having them split will create more problems and time wasting than they're worth. I think you know this, which was why you argued heavily against naming them "actresses". ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Minerals named after people

 * Hello BrownHairedGirl
 * You may want to read Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 28 again. You may want to comment it too.
 * Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read and Commented. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx, still don't know if I should leave it or create Category:People honoured with a mineral name instead. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My compromise got a CfD too: Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 30 :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would have been better to await the outcome of the first CFD, and considered all the points made there, before creating a new similar category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for 299k edits on en.wikipedia.org ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disturb u, but u did it! 300.8k edits on wikipedia.org ;) Wow --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Attacked for categorizing actresses
Dr. Blofeld has been going around complaining about my adding various subcats of Category:Actresses to articles on people who are actresses. He seems totally ignorant of the recent decision to keep these categories. Some other people seem to have decided to try to intimidate editors into not using these categories. I am not sure if there is anything to do about this, but it does seem odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have saved me a bit of time by posting to a link to the discussion at User talk:Johnpacklambert, which I found eventually.
 * Anyway, it looks like you both conveyed your points well, and that you have shown him how consenus has changed.
 * Where is this intimidation you talk of? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was at User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, it was the most recent section when I just looked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked at User talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao.
 * I see some disgruntlement, but nothing that looks remotely like intimidation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nora-Jane Noone bio page
Can YOU be more specific about what footnotes to add? I started the 1 about University. 204.50.179.136 204.50.179.136 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess that when you posted this comment, you didn't read the note about linking to the page you were referring to :(
 * But I presume you mean Nora-Jane Noone.
 * Anyway, if you look at the history of the article, you will see that all I did was to recategorise it. I didn't add any tags.
 * When you posted here, I looked again at the page, and saw that it had only reference, to one one source ... so I have just tagged it as needing more sources. So far, only one point is referenced. Where did all the rest of the info come from?
 * See Citing sources for help on how to do this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

By-elections to the House of Lords
Can you record the results of the new by-election? http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2013/Conservative-Hereditary-Peers-by-election-result-Earl-Ferrers.pdf --94.65.145.7 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I can, but so can you :)
 * I'm busy on other things, so why don't you try it? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did and I accidentally closed the window at the very last moment!--94.65.145.7 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What bad luck. I'm sure that every editor has done that a few times!
 * Go on, try again :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I cant do it from the beginning until a day passes.--94.65.145.7 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's a bit urgent--94.65.145.7 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there is no deadline. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that, but there is no reason to wait for me to do it. And anyway, if you do then I will think it as my fault that wikipedia became outdated.--94.65.145.7 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actress category addition reversion
User:TheRedPenOfDoom has now decided to revert some additions of adding of people to actress categories with the explanation that doing so is "sexist". I have asked him/her to stop doing so on his talk page. I guess if this works and there is not a repeat than it will be enough. If that is not enough though, what would the best next step be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have left a note on their talk page. If he continues, I suggest a warning that ANI is next. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Irish sportspeople by county
I was wondering would you be able to fix this that Counties Kerry and Limerick are listed under K and L respectively. Unsure how to do it myself. Thanks Finnegas (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, in these 2 edits:,.
 * As you can see, they just needed a sort key, which added at the end of the category entry like this: . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Grand thanks,will know for again Finnegas (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you please keep this category alongside, not force it to be an alternative to, Category:Sportspeople by county in the Republic of Ireland‎ and the corresponding six-county category - almost all sports are organised on an island-wide basis so it is likely that most users would want to see all counties on one page at the same level, unless they have a specific reason for searching out sportspeople by groupings of counties in one or other of two political jurisdictions irrelevant to how their sports are administered. Brocach (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick answer is no.
 * There is a general rule that a page should not be in both a category and that category's parent, for several reasons: it increases category clutter, and makes maintenance harder.
 * In this case, you may not have spotted that Category:Sportspeople by county in the Republic of Ireland‎ contains exactly the same set of sub-categories that Category:Irish sportspeople by county contained before I started work on this area two hours ago. Category:Sportspeople by county in Northern Ireland and its sub-categories are newly-created by me.
 * Readers can of course see all the counties on one page, simply by clicking the little expansion buttons beside the sub-categories of Category:Irish sportspeople by county. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS This raises the same issues as have been discussed at WP:CFD 2013 February 1#Hurling_clubs, where there is a consensus against your preference for populating the all-Ireland categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tipperary hurlers
I am bemused by your apparent rejection of the outcome of the discussion at WT:GAA and WT:IMOS. Titles of categories of people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should not have "GAA" inserted after the county name, i.e. "X hurlers", not "X GAA hurlers"; "X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers". Why have you deleted the category "Tipperary hurlers" in favour of "Tipperary GAA hurlers?" Brocach (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not rejected the consensus. As you know, I supported it.
 * However, there is a process for implementing it, and there is no deadline. For a longer explanation, see my oppose to your proposal to speedily rename this category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both LL proposals now closed per the consensus. Does this really need more discussion? Brocach (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that it doesn't need more discussion, but it's best to give editors the opportunity for discussion. It's pretty clear which way consensus has formed, but speedily reverting the result of a recent CFD would be procedurally wrong and could open up the chnace for somebody to have another go. So let's do it by the book, and close this off once and for all.
 * I will open the full CFD now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

CFD discussion now opened: Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February_9. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On another point, I have a Little List of GAA championship articles retitled by LL that need to be reverted to the actual name of the competition. These are all admin renames since the redirect pages have history. Noting your concern to observe correct procedure can I ask for your advice on the best way to take this forward? KDB had specifically invited suggestions for 'any mop-and-bucket work' to follow up the recent agreements, but after his heroic efforts I am reluctant to trouble him further. Brocach (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club of tidy-up-after-LL's-misconceived-moves editors! You are entitled to ask for your sentence to be reduced to life imprisonment with hard labour ;)
 * The best thing to do would be to list them all as a group nomination at WP:RM, linking to relevant the section of the WT:GAA discussion. If they won't all fit on the RM nomination (it has a maximum of 12 or 20, can't recall which), then make a list as a subpage of your userspace and link to that. For an example of how to do this, see Talk:Bengali films of 2012 and the list at User:BrownHairedGirl/Film lists for renaming.
 * Hope this helps -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, thanks (and the number is slightly more than 12). Brocach (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad that helped. And sorry, I should have checked at RM: the limit is 30 per page.
 * Good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've done that - first time using this procedure so hope it works. Brocach (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. I have added my support to all the article renamings, but the categories should not be included in that list, so I have opposed them. They should be proposed at CFD, but I think they are a bad idea, so I will oppose them if they are raised there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, should have gone to CFD, but have I missed something? Wasn't there agreement that sportspeople should be categorised by traditional county rather than the modern, soon-to-disappear administrative ones? Brocach (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:GAA applied only to GAA players, and these are generic categories for all sports from scuba-diving to bankster-burning. In any case they should all be in the appropriate category by club or by team (e.g. Category:Holycross-Ballycahill hurlers or Category:Tipperary hurlers, and since those categories are (or should be) subcats of, they should not be individually in the sportspeople categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that the LL categories for N & S Tipp are now empty anyhow, so have struck out that part of my list. Brocach (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, tho I do wonder how they came to be empty. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...wanders off, whistling... Brocach (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the rename notice need to be removed from all the other County hurlers cats, e.g. Category:Carlow hurlers? Snappy (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Snappy, long time no speak. Nice to hear from you again.
 * It does indeed need to be removed. The closer of Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 17 should have done that, but seems to have overlooked it. The category talk pages should also be tagged with.
 * Would you be kind enough to take care of that? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and dusted, glad to be a member of the clean up crew! Snappy (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Snappy. That's great. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Canadian athletes
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I have replied there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Welfare and poverty
Wait, where did I identify the work that needed to be done with this category? All I said was "Delete an irregular joining of related topics." I think you have confused me with someone else, because I clearly did not identify any work to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops! You're right. I mean to volunteer the nominator.
 * Sorry -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, should be depopulated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sanskrit words and phrases
Purge complete. Please feel free to review (both those articles remaining in the category, or those I purged), there is some judgement implied and a second pair of eyes (and perspective) may be of value. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-trouting
I have now relisted the debate at CFD 2013 February 13. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot your later-deleted note about it until I had gone to WP:CFD/W, seen that the category was still in the job list, and thought that it was empty and in need of deletion. Thanks for the thought, but I think tagging is important, and it'd be best to relist. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

CFD close
Re: the processing of this discussion. Category:Mongolian Empire Muslims was created instead of Category:Mongol Empire Muslims, though you closed it as intending to create Category:Mongol Empire Muslims. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to fix it to save you any hassle, but I thought I should check with you in case there was something I was unaware of that was going on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was just a clerical error. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

New user who wont talk
I have came across a new user who has created some articles that lack sources, edited articles without adding sources and hasnt said anything to anyone. Baron Langford, could you take a look at this for me because I dont want to revert his work again, and I also PROD'ed one of his articles- to which he removed without comment. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Murry
 * Yes, a lot of problematic additions there. I have reverted the changes to one article, and left a note about that, but also left a welcome message. This is as you say a new editor, so zie was probably unaware of the MOS and other such policies and guidelines.
 * It seems that your areas of interest overlap, so maybe you could help out by offering some more detailed guidance on how to go about improving some of the articles zie has been working on? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, sometimes I feel that I am not giving the right links on to new editors on thier page when this happens. Cheers Murry1975 (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I find that WP:TWINKLE is invaluable for this sort of thing. It gives a well-structured choice of messages, although there are a lot of them and it takes a while to get to know them all. The guide at WP:WARN is a handy summary, and I keep it bookmarked. For a briefer list of the crucial stuff, I find that Template:WelcomeMenu lists the really important bits. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cricket season and tour reviews: 2001–2012
Why have you reverted edits to these articles? You haven't thought about what you are doing. The categories in these articles are not subject to CfD and no one has suggested they should be. But the articles were, and are now again, in a complete mess re categorisation. Take 2001 English cricket season as a good example. The consensus at WP:CRIC and our standard for the several years now has been that each season review shall be in three categories: ccyy in cricket, ccyy in England (in this case) and then a season(s) category. This applies to all season reviews from 1726 to 2012 and the aim is to provide consistent and efficient navigation. My edits yesterday ensured that the season reviews complied with that standard. Instead you have reverted to the nonsensical situation whereby the England category has been removed and three seasonal levels apply: English cricket seasons from 2001, 2001 cricket season and 2001 in English cricket.

Why do projects bother with categories when people from that inane CfD page come along with their RULES at the expense of common sense? You don't know what you are doing. Absolutely shambolic. Jack | talk page 01:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did indeed think about what I was doing. Please have the courtesy to accept that someone else who has thought about something may reach different conclusions to those you reached when you thought about it.
 * I am not going to repeat the substantive reasons here, because a discussion is already underway at CFD and it is better to centralise discussion in one place. However, the procedural issue is quite simple. The by-year categories exist, and just as articles should not be deleted without a consensus, categories should not be depopulated without a consensus. If you don't think that category should exist, then nominate it for deletion or upmerger, and if there is a consensus to change it, then a bot can implement the work (there is no need to do it all manually). And if there is not a consensus to change it, then it is wrong to do so.
 * It may be that there will be a consensus to revert to the structure preferred by WP:CRIC; but let's see where the discussion goes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are evading the issue I have raised here. The 2001 to 2012 categories are not at CfD and you have undone a lot of valid work by me on the articles to synchronise them according to project standards and precedents. Are you going to revert those edits or not? Jack | talk page 10:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, it's quite simple. If you think that a category should be depopulated, then seek a consensus at CFD to merge or delete it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is that we are not allowed to remove a category from an article even though it plainly should not be there. So if I look at a cricket article and find some obscure chess category in the list and I remove it, am I then depopulating the chess category or improving the cricket article? You cannot have it both ways so which one applies? Jack | talk page 10:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, you are confusing two different questions:
 * Whether an article belongs in a category
 * Whether the category should exist
 * Take the example of the 2000 NatWest Trophy. It was in Category:2000 in English cricket, and I hope we can agree that since it relates to English cricket in the year 2000, it should be in Category:2000 in English cricket if that category exists.
 * You removed it from that category, which was wrong: if the category exists, that article belongs there. That's Q1 above.
 * Now, you reckon that category should not exist. Fine; you are entitled to that view. But to get rid of the category, it is wrong to simply empty it. What you should do is to nominate the category for deletion or upmerger, and seek a consensus to do so. That's Q2 above.
 * Now, if a cricket article is in a chess category, well it clearly shouldn't be there: that is a miscategorisation. So it's fine to remove that.
 * I hope that clarifies things. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And you have not answered the question in my 10:35 post. You have undone a whole series of valid categorisations in articles such as 2001 English cricket season so what are you going to do about those as the categories concerned are not at CfD? Jack | talk page 10:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, so far as I am aware I did not undo any valid categorisations. An article should not usually be in both a category and its subcat, so if we take the example above of the 2000 NatWest Trophy, you can see that in I my revert, I removed it from both Category:2000 in England and Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000, and put it in Category:2000 in English cricket. Since Category:2000 in English cricket is a subcat of the other two, it shouldn't be in them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about 2001 to 2012 (see heading above). 2000 is out of scope. Pending CfD outcome, I accept what you've done re articles/categories in the 1969 to 2000 series.

If you look again at 2001 to 2012 (not 2000), you must surely see that I have been trying to restore synchronisation and so repair both categorisation structure and the navigation facility for the benefit of the readers. I suppose, though I don't think you've said so, that you are concerned about articles being moved out of Category:English cricket seasons from 2001? Well, that category is not in CfD and it is a PARENT or HOLDING category now that there is a full set of "20yy in English cricket" subcats. This means it does not hold articles that belong in its CHILD subcats.

Therefore, using 2001 English cricket season as an example, correct categorisation is Category:2001 in cricket, Category:2001 in English sport and Category:2001 in English cricket per CRIC standard and precedent. It should NOT be in Category:English cricket seasons from 2001 if it is in Category:2001 in English cricket so the current categorisation is wrong and I was trying to correct it. I admit that I was mistaken when I added Category:2001 in England as I forgot that has been superseded by Category:2001 in English sport (this series starts in 1870 and most of my work is on prior years wherein use of "ccyy in England" remains the standard). But, as you have left that article, it has a superfluous category which should be removed and similar comments apply (subject to some articles being tour reviews rather than season reviews) to all the 2001 to 2012 articles I tried to improve. This is what I mean when I say your action in reverting those articles was incorrect. You should merely have pointed out to me that I had used "in England" instead of "in English sport" and I would have dealt with that.

I continue to share a concern voiced numerous times over the years by CRIC members that projects are hidebound by the CfD "process" and its rulings that invariably fail to see the big picture. Projects work to provide information for the readers and most projects I have seen enhance this by introducing and maintaining a structured logical method of navigation via categories. CRIC achieved this several years ago by consensus and full deployment. Hugo999 has not consulted CRIC aboout his idea so has no consensus but the worst thing is that he has made no attempt to achieve full deployment of his proposal which is why I say it has been done "willy-nilly". So he thinks there should be a category for every cricket season in the 1990s. Why, then, has he created only five and why are those not fully populated? This leaves articles out of synch and fouls up our navigation process with the result that the readers become confused and CRIC loses credibility. Jack | talk page 07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, please read my comment of 15:24 of 16 February 2013.
 * You continue to confuse the two different questions of whether 1) an article belongs in a category; 2) whether that category should exist. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are completely missing the point. See 2001 English cricket season and explain your rationale for its current categorisation versus my third paragraph above. Jack | talk page 08:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, unfortunately the problem I see is that you are wilfully refusing to see the bigger picture of how categories are organised, and how they can be removed if editors think they should not exist. There are plenty of good editors in WP:CRIC who do take the time to understand this, but sadly you seem fixated on the idea that any discussion of categories belongs only in the wikiproject. That's not the case with any project, or with any page, because projects do not WP:OWN content. For example, projects do not decide whether to delete an article; that's a matter for WP:AFD. The same applies with categories.
 * Now, onto your example. We have a Category:2001 in English cricket. You may reckon that we should not have such a category, but deleting or merging a category is a matter for CFD. Right now we have that category.
 * Since we have that category, 2001 English cricket season belongs there.
 * That means it doesn't belong in the parent categories of Category:2001 in English cricket, because a category should not usually be in both a category and its sub-cat.
 * (Most of the rest of your post seems to be an argument that because the set of by-year categories is not complete, and they have not been fully populated, those which do exist should be emptied. Wrong: see WP:DEMOLISH). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'll quote you here: "We have a Category:2001 in English cricket. You may reckon that we should not have such a category, but deleting or merging a category is a matter for CFD. Right now we have that category. Since we have that category, 2001 English cricket season belongs there. That means it doesn't belong in the parent categories of Category:2001 in English cricket, because a category should not usually be in both a category and its sub-cat." Which means that the edit you reverted should be reinstated, so would you please go back to the articles in 2001 to 2012 and reinstate my edits except for the mistake I made re the "in English sport" categories? And, once again, I am not contesting the existence of Category:2001 in English cricket, only that it should be correctly populated. Thank you. Jack | talk page 09:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, in reverting your out-of-process depopulation, I may well have caused several glitches. My priority there was to ensure undo the out-of-process depopulation so that the consensus-forming discussion at CFD was not pre-empted, and the least time-consuming way to do that is to revert. As with any other reversion of out-of-process actions, that sometimes removes good contributions.
 * Once we have a consensus at CFD (i.e. when those discussions are closed), I will review the categorisation of all the relevant articles. As you know, I have already undertaken to populate the by-year categories if they are retained, and to complete the series. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tipperary
I am having a hard time understanding your actions re Tipperary sportspeople. Late last year LL wreaked havoc across a vast range of sports-related articles and categories, one of his innovations being the introduction of categories for just two of the post-2001 counties, N & S Tipp. Those two categories are obviously anomalous in the long-established 32 county categories. They should have been reverted at the time, and presumably if that had happened quickly you wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Yet now, after a long and for some of us bruising battle to get LL's wrecking undone, and after taking part in a discussion that rejected the use of modern admin counties for sportspeople, and after watching this further debated at IMOS, you seem to be standing over these two categories. Are you for or against? Brocach (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MULTI, discussions should be centralised.
 * This is already being discussed at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 14, and i see no point in duplicating that discussion here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category: Linear amides
I note that you are the administrator who renamed a category to Linear amides. Could you please read what I have posted at Category talk:Linear amides and reply there? Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I have replied at Category talk:Linear amides. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paddy Kelly (Kerry Gaelic footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mitchels GAA (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) 10:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Broke template or category
Is Category:21st century in Gaelic games incorrect and should be Category:21st-century in Gaelic games or is BDDecadesInCentury incorrect ? Gnevin (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question.
 * I see that the hyphen is unused in Category:21st century and the other first-level subcats of Category:Centuries. However, if we look within Category:21st century, there are both hyphenated and un-hypenated uses: e.g. Category:21st-century literature‎ and Category:21st century in law. Looking further, it seems that the hyphenated form is being used in the adjectival form "Xth-century fooers", whereas the un-hyphenated form is used as a noun: "Xth-century in foo".
 * Category names is not helpful, because the only guidance it gives relates to the adjectival form for people. I'll raise this question at WT:NCCAT, because if the pattern I have identified represents a consensus, then it should be documented. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If I may comment, both "Xth-century fooers" and "Xth century in foo" seem perfectly correct to me, grammatically speaking; the hyphenated adjectival form is applied exactly as it ought to. Perhaps a change to the guidelines on category names would clear up some confusion, but I don't believe it is necessary for proper grammar to be used on such names. Waltham, The Duke of 10:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great to hear from your again, your grace. And thanks for confirming the grammatical issues. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fire-related categories
113 sub-categories of Category:19th-century fires and Category:20th-century fires, two of which you have created (Category:1981 fires and Category:1985 fires), have been nominated for merging. 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. Waltham, The Duke of 17:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question at RfC
Thanks for you input at RfC on Overcategorization. If you have a moment, could you provid input on two questions I posed there: one about College alumni (under your original post:  should it be a standard biographical detail?); and one at the bottom of the RfC about whether or not WP:DEFINING applies to including particular articles in a category (vs creating a category). Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cricket tour categories

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your wholesale changes to numerous cricket articles need to be reviewed. I do not believe you have fully considered the results of your actions and you have certainly not consulted anyone in WP:CRIC about the category structure. I'll use a typical example which is Pakistani cricket team in England in 1974. According to you, the categories should be:


 * Category:1974 in Pakistan
 * Category:1974 in English cricket
 * Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England
 * Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975

According to the CRIC structure which has been in place for several years, the categories should be:


 * Category:1974 in cricket
 * Category:1974 in English cricket
 * Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000
 * Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975
 * Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England

First question, how can Category:1974 in Pakistan possibly be right? The series took place in England. That category is for events taking place in 1974 in Pakistan.

You substituted Category:1974 in Pakistan for Category:1974 in cricket and it appears to me that you do not understand why we use "ccyy in cricket". It is because it is a subcat of "ccyy in sport" and so it links WP:CRIC with WP:SPORT. So it is not an extra category, it is there for a reason. No doubt you will say it is superseded by Category:1974 in English cricket but that is not so. We originally used Category:1974 in England until these categories were decomposed into subject areas and this is so that we link to the host nation structure for geopolitical purposes.

It seems you have no problem with either Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975 or Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England but do you understand why we use them? One is a cricket competitions category, the other is an international tours category and so are part of the five-strand structure we have adopted. The fifth strand is cricket seasons and this means the season in which the tour took place so we use Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 unless/until we ever have a specific category for every single season.

Nearly all the tour article categories you made last week need to be reverted and reconsidered. I suggest you roll them all back and give me a list of the ones you think should be changed and I will do them. I simply do not understand why some admins, especially those who work on the "CfD process", have such apparent contempt for projects and just go ahead and change things without consulting the project to find out why things have been done a certain way. Even if you are right (and I suppose the admins can close ranks and decide you are right), what about all the other cricket tour articles with which these are now out of synch?

I am very concerned about your attitude to this matter and I am beginning to believe it amounts to an abuse of privilege. I'll leave it with you but think about Category:1974 in Pakistan and ask yourself from a reader's point of view how it can possibly be a correct category for that article? Jack | talk page 06:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, I disagree with your assessment, and would be happy to provide an detailed explanation, and discuss our disagreement ... but only if you retract your incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
 * I did consider what I was doing, but reached different conclusions to you.
 * And I did not use any "privilege" in doing so.
 * We have a disagreement here, and it needs to be discussed. But if we are going to discuss this productively, it needs to be done without the hostility and accusation which you display above.
 * So I am going to close this thread. I look forward to hearing from you again, in a more collegiate tone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aboriginal words
I've listified 3 categories at Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Australian_Aboriginal_origin. I'm not sure which bits of the process I (as CFD nominator) should be doing - e.g. do I need to CSD these categories ? DexDor (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DexDor
 * Thanks very much doing that.
 * For future reference, you could have tagged the categories for speedy deletion, with  ... but it's less hassle for me to just list all the categories at WP:CFD/W for the bot to do the job, so I'll do that now.
 * Thanks again for implementing this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket tour categories (take 3)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why have you deleted the amended message I sent? Are you prepared to discuss these issues or not?

Answer the question about the Pakistan category if nothing else because that is the crux of the issue, namely that you are removing categories that do apply and inserting ones that do not apply. Thank you. Jack | talk page 11:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jack, I am indeed prepared to discuss things. I removed the second message because like the first one, it started off in a hostile tone.
 * In this case, you still haven't got there. Re-read the message above: a demand to "answer the question" is quite unnecesarily hostile, and while I am happy to discuss things with you, I am not prepared to try having a discussion with someone who continues to take suvch an aggressive tone.
 * Please try again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Epeefleche RFCU
BHG - is this worth addressing? This kind of ABF has been going on since the original ANI and it's wearing on me. He also spammed this message at the user talk page of all those who agreed with him.--v/r - TP 00:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TP, thanks for your message.
 * I am not sure what to do, but here's my thoughts for now.
 * I saw the RFCU listed at WP:AN/RFC, and looked at it to see if I could close it. I looked to see if I was in any way WP:INVOLVED, and found no sign that I was ... so I took a few hours to study it all, and closed it on the basis of the clear consensus I found.
 * In general, I think that it's best for an RFC closer to remain uninvolved as the issues develop, other than to provide clarification of the close if needed.
 * So here's my thoughts on those two diffs.
 * Danjel does not have to agree with the closure. This is a decision-making and dispute-resolution process, not a mind-control process, and editors are quite entitled to disagree with a consensus.
 * However, while editors may disagree with a consensus, and are free to express that disagreement, they do need to respect it. In other words, they are entitled to say "the consensus against X is wrong", but not to keep on doing X.
 * So it's fine for Danelj to sound off to other editors (tho not by spamming).
 * So at this point, I wouldn't see any need for further action, other than possibly a warning about excessive cross-posting. The real test is whether Danelj resumes the restoration of unreferenced material and/or the hounding of Epeefleche ... and if that happens, I'd suggest a fairly rapid move to sanctions. The community consensus has been expressed clearly enough both at ANI and in the RFC.
 * Hope this helps! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I see that my note to Danjel about the RFCu closure was deleted by him with an edit summary "bullshit". If he does decide to unretire again, that doesn't bode well. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response. I think I can agree that it's best to wait and see if Danjel respects the close or not.  I appreciate your time in the close.--v/r - TP 14:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing him, if he doesn't stay retired, he's going to do something brash, like start a de-sysop request or accuse you of sockpuppetry. If he does that, it's time to think about really long block.  He's made precious few edits that weren't concerned with this RfC in a very long time.  p  b  p  20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I'll see what happens.
 * If he (or anyone else) wants to do open an SPI on me, they are very welcome to do so. Likewise, if Danjel wants to start a de-sysop request, he's entitled to ask. If I've screwed up, then maybe I'll be de-sysopped, and if not then there's no problem.
 * So I'm not worried about any of that. What will happen will happen.
 * What I am sad about, tho, is that an editor who did genuinely want to improve Wikipedia appears to have backed himself far enough into a corner that he feels unable to continue. I hope that in time he'll return. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is unfortunate that he kept digging but I think we're all reasonable and forgiving people around here for the most part.--v/r - TP 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket tour categories (take 4)
Coming back to my issue about your recategorisation of numerous cricket tour summaries, I'd be obliged if you would outline your rationale and explain why you do not like the existing CRIC usage. Please bear in mind that CRIC devised its system several years ago by consensus and, albeit several recent articles do not comply, the structure has been maintained ever since. Our basis was the need for an effective navigation system to help the readers and it has been widely agreed within CRIC that we achieved that. The only issue at present is the creation by User:Djln of a dozen or so English cricket season categories that do not fit and these are rightly up for CfD. Other than that, there is no need for any action other than to ensure compliance by recently created articles.

I believe that your recent changes to articles about tours of England should be reverted and then subject to review once the Djln categories have gone. The changes you have made are creating confusion and are in many cases illogical. I will use the typical example of Pakistani cricket team in England in 1974 but the points I'm making apply to many other articles. According to you, the categories of this article should be:


 * Category:1974 in Pakistan
 * Category:1974 in English cricket
 * Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England
 * Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975

According to the CRIC structure which has been in place for several years, the categories should be:


 * Category:1974 in cricket
 * Category:1974 in English cricket
 * Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000
 * Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975
 * Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England

First, how can Category:1974 in Pakistan possibly be right? The series took place in England. That category is for events taking place in 1974 in Pakistan. It is illogical to apply a category about events in Pakistan to an article about an event in England.

You substituted Category:1974 in Pakistan for Category:1974 in cricket and it appears to me that you do not understand why we use "ccyy in cricket". It is because it is a subcat of "ccyy in sport" and so it aligns WP:CRIC with WP:SPORT, something CRIC agreed upon many years ago. So it is not an extra category, it is there for a reason. No doubt you will say it is superseded by Category:1974 in English cricket but that is not so. We originally used Category:1974 in England until these categories were decomposed into subject areas and this is so that we link to the host nation structure for geopolitical purposes. Hence, ccyy in cricket and ccyy in country are two separate strands and both need to be applied to each tour article.

It seems you have no problem with either Category:International cricket competitions from 1970–71 to 1975 or Category:Pakistani cricket tours of England but do you understand why we use them? One is a cricket competitions category, the other is an international tours category and so are part of the five-strand structure we have adopted. The fifth strand is cricket seasons and this means the season in which the tour took place so we use Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 unless/until we ever have a specific category for every single season though I accept you are moving this forward.

I suggest you roll back all the tour of England articles you changed last week and give me a list so that I can review them along with the rest of the world which I have been doing for several days now.

Finally, a point about AGF. It was hardly AGF on your part to denounce me for depopulating a category when I was in fact working through a series of articles to repair them. If a dubious category was emptied because of the fixes I was making, then that was happenstance and not some heinous crime on my part. I still believe that you need to do more to work with projects on categories and respect project usage. Thank you. Jack | talk page 16:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack
 * Thanks for your message. I started writing a reply to you, but then my browser crashed. I'll reply in the morning. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust The Homunculus 14:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

South Asian Winter Games
A tag has been placed on South Asian Winter Games, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54   talk  20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that it has now been fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:GaelicGamesByYear protection level
There is a request at RPP to reduce the level of protection of Template:GaelicGamesByYear from full protection, based on the low number of transclusions. I'd be inclined to agree that semi-protection would be appropriate, and wanted to drop you a note in case you wanted to provide input as the protecting admin. Monty 845  00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have commented at RPP. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is For the last time. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you took part in Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7
I have nominated Category:Current national leaders for undeletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6 you may be interested in taking part. Ryan Vesey 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Template:Vecmath!
Cheers, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!
 * For future reference, you could just have tagged it for speedy deletion with db-g7 or db-author. Same result, less effort for you! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok - thanks very much, will remember that. (I'm terrible at locating/choosing these templates...). Best regards, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling. There are squillions of them, and they keep on breeding :(
 * It spent ages trying to remember them all, then I just bookmarked a pile of links on my browser's toolbar; WP:CSD contains a nice list of all the speedy deletion stuff.
 * Also, do you use WP:TWINKLE? It's a great way of getting to these tools without having to remember the difference between the bits of alphabet soup such as xhtwpoqm and xwthpoqm. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't use Twinkle. I'll see to these links. Are you saying that Twinkle can make finding/using those templates easier? M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes them much much easier. Everything becomes available in a dropdown menu with nice explanations and forms to complete ... and then Twinkle handles all the notifications. It's a brilliant tool. The instructions on how to get started with Twinkle are at WP:TWINKLE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI the current and only browser was IE 8 (for which Twinkle doesn't work), so downloaded FireFox and it does work very well (including the lists of templates)! Once more thank you!! ^_^ M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jews in Rock'n'Roll and Rockabilly music
Hi, I created the list but don't know how to delete the category. Please instruct or proceed to do so yourself. Actually maybe you also want to check if i made the list correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_early_rock%27n%27roll_and_contemporary_rockabilly_music Thank you! Memphisflash56 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's excellent work. Thank you! I will organise the deletion of the category.
 * I have moved the list to List of Jews in early rock'n'roll and contemporary rockabilly music (per WP:NCLIST, and added a note to its talk page about the origins of the list, and about some enhancements which should be done. Hope that helps :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

HI BHG, thanks for your quick reply - nice to have a positive interaction for a change :-) oh, and what type of references can a list have? And can you direct me to an example for an introduction? thanks!Memphisflash56 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, editors won't always agree ... but where we disagree, we can try to be WP:CIVIL about it, and where we do agree we can work to solve a problem :)
 * The references needed are something to justify the article's inclusion in the list. So for each artist you'd need a reference that they were a) Jewish, and b) involved in that sort of music.
 * It would also be a good idea to have some sort of an intro which explains why the list is a notable topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying! have a good weekend!Memphisflash56 (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please place "Template:Mick Talbot" in my User Space?
Can you please place "Template:Mick Talbot" in my User Space? Thank you very much. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. It's at User:Jax 0677/Mick Talbot.
 * If you are thinking of creating a new template or tweaking this one, please respect the consensus at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 10. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs some help here.
OK here it goes, it started over the leaflet section in the article of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is an ongoing dispute whether the leaflets were dropped or not. In the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, Binksternet keeps on believing that Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cities on the list and Hiroshima was not. I don't want to go any further as things will gets ugly in the "leaflet" section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets". I attempted to remove it in the "leaflet" section, and Bink kept on reversing it back to way it was without providing any legitimate explanation to me whatsoever. Everytime i tried to edit out the problem and everytime i tried to explain he keeps on telling me to go to the talk article and he kept on reversing the back the way it was. The whole thing is he keeps on believing that the Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cites with Hiroshima not on the list which no major sources ever said it as i i said again in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=history Earlier, he puts on this last sentence on late December 2012, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." This is really blatantly dishonest to deceive a reader because two books he put our there said it differently:

"Before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the city was given the standard psychological warfare treatment prior to an incendiary attack. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, indicating, along with several other cities, that they were to be fire bombed within a few days and to evacuate the city. The leaflets are on display at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and were dropped on the city several days prior to the atomic bombing." No Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999."

"But, the leaflet continued, unless the country agreed to immediate surrender, the bombings would continue. On the back of the leaflet, along with a photograph of a superfortress, were listed the cities destined for destruction: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabaru, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima, it will be noted, was absent from that list; so were Nagasaki, Kokura, and Niigata." The Day man lost: Hiroshima, page 215. Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981."

So based on the two links, I then remove that last sentence as i stated above because they are mixed together such as the leaflet was displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Museum (no link even said this nor i know many people who lived there did not say anything about it) to deceive a reader then Bink kept on adding in with the sources continueing on claiming to have that Hiroshima warned with 12 leaflets and Hiroshima was not on the list. He added this link: http://www.gifu-np.co.jp/kikaku/2008/gifu63/g63_20080804.shtml and he claimed that the leaflets were warned on Hiroshima based on the link he provided and said this: "One such leaflet lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed."

He puts it like this because he believes that Hiroshima was given a 12 city warning when i saw no evidence providing to the contrary whatsoever. And he added the 2nd link in addition to the Japanese link claimed it was based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Would you read it and does it REALLY says that Hiroshima was given such as 12 city leaflet? I don't think so. This Google link specifically did not say anything about Hiroshima given the 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not which makes no sense and this link did not specifically say anything about it. I like the say the leaflet section is written as earlier on the article earlier didn't say any information about the leaflets, just had problem with the last sentence to claim that Hiroshima received a warning with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not. That link isn't along with the Japanese link reliable enough to support the evidence. Not possibly had to be specific and reliable.

So when i tried talking to him, he refuse to answer my points and goes off topic to defend his points that does not make sense. So i was just wondering if you help me revert without him always changing a thing. He didn't have any evidence besides this so-called link he has. He is too obessed if putting this thing and now he puts in a CIA image and an article that clearly said that leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with 33 other cities. My main point is that he thinks that Hiroshima received a 12 city leaflet warning when it's not on the list which makes no sense because no leaflet could have been dropped on a city not listed for targeting. Thanks. So any amateur historian administrator could help me fix the solution? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very detailed explanation, but I don't want to get involved.
 * May I suggest that you try WP:3O? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So since you can't help me, then can you find a more appropriate admin/user that is a amateur historian and not biased? That's what your log says that you could help me or find a more appropriate admin to help me. Because I been to the noticeboards like Reliable Sources and the Administrator boards and I got ganged up and it makes the problem eve worser. Also i did check the WP:30 but problem is how could I know a user that could help me sort the problem? I mean it's not of a big deal just a small problem i need to deal with that's all. I needed some help because i can't do this on my own. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, per WP:MULTI discussion should be centralised. Discussion about an article's content belongs on that article's talk page. I see that there is substantial discussion at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and re-posting the same long comments here is not the right way to proceed.
 * Secondly, if you have already asked at WP:RSN (archived here), and you say at other noticeboards. Now you are asking me for help, having already asked AGK (archived here), Hawkeye (here), and Carcharoth (here).
 * This is an outrageous case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If you don't stop it quickly, you risk sanctions, which may include being WP:BLOCKed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying I should go do this discussion on my own then? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying stop trawling Wikipedia looking for someone to agree with you. You have been WP:CANVASSING so hard that you are already way deep into the territory where you could be blocked; you haven't just been canvassing on Wiki, you have been canvassing off-wiki as well (your first approach to me was via email, rather than posting openly on my talk page).
 * Make your points in that discussion, and see if anyone pitches up who agrees with you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok I checked the WTO:30 you provided me so one of the topic says "Active disagreements". Do i had to put that topic of the article there I'm currently disputing? In the "content" tab it says "Requests for comment". Where do you put it when you request? Now I ask this because sometimes it gets kinda of tricky where should i put these stuff in any kind of threads. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the use of rules?
What is the use of rules against Point of View pushing category names when the only people who ever participate in category discussions are those who have a vested interest in the names, and when it is names that label people as heretics they get to keep them? OK, maybe I am giving up to soon, but the defenders of labeling people as "heretics" actually existing is just so shocking I have no clue what to do about it. Especially since there is so low participation in CfDs as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi JPL
 * I share your disappointment at the attitude of some editors, but please remember that WP:NOTAVOTE.
 * When a discussions is closed, the role of the closing admin is to weigh the consensus in the light of policy, not to count heads. So the main thing is to ensure that the closing admin is aware that there is a WP:NPOV issue here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Poor Law
I ran into Category:Poor Law and the name seems imprecise and there is no main article. It appears that the main article is poor relief which on this side of the pond is ambiguous. Should that category be rename and probably cleaned up? If so, are you interested since you probably are more familiar with the usage then I am? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Vegas
 * In the UK and in Ireland, the term "Poor Law(s)" is the WP:COMMONNAME for a legal framework developed over centuries to mange poor people and set whatever degree of relief was going to be offered to them. (See Irish Poor Laws, Scottish Poor Laws and English Poor Laws).
 * Those laws were hugely significant in the history of those countries, and they are widely taught in school history and featured in museums. They are well-enough known to be referred to in newspapers without explanation: see the search results the Irish Times and in The Irish Independent.
 * So I would strongly oppose any renaming of the category to "poor relief". It might be helpful to rename it to to clarify its scope; but I don't know enough the terminology elsewhere to know whether that restricted scope would be too narrow.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the main article the one at poor relief? If so, any idea why and does that need moving?  If nothing else, a rename to  would tell those of us not familiar with the term that it is UK related. But then I'm not sure that would be a change that might gain consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the underlying problem here is the narrow focus of the head article. It is titled as if it was a generic article on relief of poverty, but its scope is exclusively Britain and Ireland. (Note not British Isles; it does not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands). No mention of the rest of Europe, let alone the rest of the world. So it probably should be renamed to Poor Law in Britain and Ireland. Its title should not include United Kingdom, because its scope includes Ireland, which was part of the UK only from 1801 to 1922.
 * Then the category could be renamed to . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I will nominate this as suggested and ask that the article follow.  The backlog at RM is probably worst then then one at CfD especially if this suggestion receives consensus.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okanagan cat split
HI I see you decided for "split" on Feb 26 but I don't see the new categories; is the nominator supposed to create them or? Category:Ski areas and resorts on the Okanagan and Category:Mountains of the Okanagan would be the results (though I disagree with that 'of' in the second one though aparently landforms must use that preposition; it's not used that way in local English but never mind..... anyways this was in re this cfd.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Skookum1
 * Category deletions, merges and renamings are handled by bots. The closing admin lists the category at WP:CFD/W. and a bot does the work.
 * Listifications, splits, and some other tasks cannot be be done by bots. Those categories are listed at WP:CFD/W/M, and the work may be done an admin, by the nominator, or by another editors who is willing to implement the consensus. After I closed the CFD discussion, I listed this category at Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, but so far nobody has come forward to do the work.
 * If you want to implement the split yourself, feel free to go ahead. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL I'll let the bots do it...lots of articles...well not that many....but how do they know which article changes to which cat?Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, listifications, splits, and some other tasks cannot be be done by bots. This has to be done manually. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * K, just finished manually doing 'em, only maybe nine or ten entries......my question related to I guess larger categories, but again things like Category:Mountains of British Columbia can only be divided up by hand.......in this case it's just a small regional category. Thanks.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. Thanks for doing it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

 * link to unblock discussion — Ched :  ? 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup. I have commented at ANI. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI I unblocked Calton (didn't see much point in prolonging the ANI discussion further). One editor has expressed a concern that this could be construed as wheel warring (here). Obviously I didn't think so but, if you do, feel free to reopen the discussion and/or reblock him. (Gotta run for a meeting!) --regentspark (comment) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I see that you left a note for Calton setting out the warning I had suggested, and I'm glad to see that. I see that you also closed the ANI thread. So I hope that's the end of it all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot Request
Doesn't cfr-speedy need a parameter with the name being renamed to? Or is it okay with no parameter? Vaca tion  9  00:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better with a parameter, 'cos it displays the target .. but it works with no parameter (it just doesn't state the rename target). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Speed deletion of Category:Israeli Popes
I think it was highly inappropriate of you to speed delete this category without further discussion. I was asleep during the discussion and had no chance to reply. As a registred user with several constructive edits I deserve more respect then that. Saint Peter was from "the land of Israel" and he was Jewish, so categorizing him as Israeli is a legitimate and rational idea. Prior to this he was categorized as "Syrian" which also gives associations to a modern state. Same problem and much less accurate.--Orakologen (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Israeli people redirects to Israelis which defines the termas "citizens or nationals of the modern state of Israel." Merriam Webster defines "Israeli" as "of or relating to the people or the republic of Israel". Saint Peter was not from the "republic of Israel". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No of course not, but that also applies to Syrian popes, who are not citizens of the modern republic of Syria. Sometimes ancient and modern terms are the samme. Egyptians and Greeks are other examples. Speed deletion is not the way to go in this context, offering a constructive alternative or allowing a debate to be conducted would be much more helpful. Peter belonged to the people of Israel which I shortened as Israeli. Israelites is perhaps the appropriate term in English? Why not rename to Israelitic popes? I offered Jewish popes as an alternative and you immidiately tagged this for speed deletion, even if Peter being Jewish is described in the NT, recognized in Jewish tradition and considered non-controversial by scholars. Stop this speed deletion nonsense and offer an alternative if you disagree with me.--Orakologen (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not tag for speedy deletion. In nominated it for a deletion discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 14. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that is slightly less bad, but still uncalled for since the "reliable source" in this context is pretty obvious. Would you consider "Israelitic popes" to be wrong?--Orakologen (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comments at CFD. Best to centralise discussion, and discuss it there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Shahnaz Ali
Hi there, you may remember we corresponded back in May 2012 on the subject of the bio page for Shahnaz Ali. At the time you placed banners on the bio pointing out a lack of secondary references.

Since that time I have added a number of prominent secondary references as and when they have arisen. These include repeated coverage in the Guardian newspaper and in the Health Service Journal (which covers the sector in which she works). The articles referenced help to substantiate both personal and professional details.

I acknowledge that there are still possible gaps; however, please note my explanation (on the Talk page) of the difficulties in covering some areas. The subject has a 30+ year career and therefore some aspects of the bio can't be substantiated by online references. However, the coverage of her in the above mentioned publications does provide historical context, even if not explicit verification.

Could you please review the revisions to date (apologies for any poor mark up style) and remove banners where you feel I have hopefully done enough. Where you still feel there are gaps I'm happy to strike out passages you're unhappy with.

May I suggest the best place to discuss this would be on the bio Talk page, as there is already a thread there.

Kindest regards Plainsense (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cardiff Boroughs by-election,1886
Hi again. Sorry to ask but I could do with some help. I recently created this page. The list of by-elections for this period incorrectly lists the election as uncontested. I wanted to try and change that but couldn't see how to delete the reference. Any ideas? Thanks, GrahamGraham Lippiatt (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In the mood for trout?
Oops? Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13

Did you mean Category:Actors by language of India rather than Category:Categories by language of India? – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Yes, I did screw up, and will now sort out the mess.
 * I hope you'll forgive me for asking you to postpone the (justified) trouting until my headache clears. Tomorrow would be fine :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed in these edits. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Null edit?
Hullo, what was for? Yours curiously, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   09:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To try to purge a template. See WP:NULL.
 * User undelete used to populate Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, but that categ has been moved to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles ... and the server is slow to update its cacheing of user pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what null edits do, I just wasn't sure what you were applying the technique for. Thanks for the explanation. Best, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles
The last one is at User:Malik Shabazz/Bottom, but the page is fully protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the others. I'll fix that last one now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Watching a category at CfD
Hi there. Due to being involved in the disucssion (well, WP:INVOLVED; due to the discussion being one left turn in Albaqwirky from NPA territory I'm disengaging) I can't act further on it, but it might be necessary to have eyes on Category:Christian Bible College alumni during this discussion. The nominator attempted to remove the parent categories from the category, claiming they were POV, and leaving it an orphan. I reverted as it seems to me, from the tone of his comments in the discussion, to have violated WP:POINT, but due to involvement left it at that; but it might need to be watched to be sure it doesn't get "pointed" again. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I don't hold with removing a category's parents while it is under discussion, but I am very surprised to see some editors defending categorisation-by-degree-mill as if the place was a real college. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Further POINT violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that category is now protected, so that should stop the edit-warring.
 * My concern there is (as said) finding reliable, non-self-published-source sourcing that says "this is a degree mill". If that existed, I would have said !delete promptly (and thus avoided a lot of Wikidrama, it seems), but as there only seems to be Levicoff saying it's a degree mill, well. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the more telling feature is the absence of any sources indicating that it's a real college. A degree-issuing institution usually leave a significant online footprint. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category: Male film directors
I've begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. - Fantr (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Davey 2010  Talk  14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, but I think you mean CFD, not AFD. The template you should have used is cfd-notify, like this: . That would produce a link to the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 23. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiya, well second time lucky I guess :), Thanks for mentioning tho, regards Davey <font color="Orange">2010  Talk  23:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I'm noting this as a third party. Even though YigMgo (that Tibetan symbol that doesn't display on my gym PC) apparently had notified and had admin approval for a second account (I personally don't agree with allowing alternate accounts) but:
 * Per WP:REMOVED, editors should not remove declined unblock requests or sockpuppetry notices, but this editor removed both of them. I have protected the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What WP:REMOVED says is "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block". His/her block expired 02 March, 20 days ago, and according to the wording of WP:REMOVED the block is not "currently active" so it appears the user is allowed to remove it, I've seen plenty of other editors do similar, and the IP who kept on restoring it shouldn't have been doing. Also I note the IP has been following YigMgo around and reverting his/her edits. FYI. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:REMOVED is written rather oddly. "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" - it could be read that confirmed sockpuppetry notices are an exception and can never ever ever even be archived. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

True enough; the block was not currently active, so in the ordinary run of things the block notice could be removed. But my reading is that a socking notice cannot be removed unless archived.

Anyway, per WP:MULTI, shouldn't this be discussed at ANI? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re WP:MULTI I wouldn't normally jump onto ANI to publicly query an admin's reading of a guideline. As I said, I'm a third party, or at least I am now, I was pretty disappointed to find out about the 2nd account even though an admin had approved it - and then wasn't available to explain why. As regards the guideline, if that's what is intended it should have "...can only be removed by archiving" Someone should perhaps query it on WT:User pages. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your talk page protection
When you made this protection, I think you were under the impression that the editor in question was still blocked. However, they are not, and are still unable to use their talk page.  Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C  •  AAPT ) 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You should look at categories before commenting
The removal of Category:Populated places in the United States with African American plurality populations would not orphas "dozens" of categories. This is not really a container category. It has 23 articles and 2 sub-categories. Of those one Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations, has already been nominated for deletion. The other one I did miss but have now added to the category. As it is though, there are arguments for deleting this category but keeping the majority sub-cats, so there is a set of rationals where the category would be removed but its organized sub-cateogies would be kept. The category has not been divided by state, so it really is not a container category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You "missed" when making the nomination, but you accuse me of not looking?
 * How much did you scrutinise this before making the nomination??
 * Anyway, categories are best discussed at CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

can u help me if your an administrator
i dont need any help right now i am just asking. or is there another administrator who helps more people.--There goes the internet (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of administrators; see some of the lists of admins. I', not aware of any attempt to rank us by helpfulness. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TGTI, who's a block-evading sock now re-blocked, should already have a growing list of admins he's familiar with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.
 * TGTi can add me to the list admins who's prepared to help in this way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please reinstate "Template:The Accüsed"?
"No contest" on my part does not constitute "No contest" on the part of the Wikipedia community. Can you please restore Template:The Accüsed to allow one week of discussion to take place, especially if more than one person edited the navbox? Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I closed the debate as "speedy deleted per WP:CSD". If the template's creator and sole significant contributor does not oppose deletion, then per WP:NOTBUREUCRACY there is no need to waste the community's time with a week-long discussion.
 * I have restored the closure; please note the red text Please do not modify it. ... and don't modify it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rozz Williams albums
I've expanded Every King a Bastard Son and added a little more to Dream Home Heartache. These albums are a couple of decades old- finding stuff on the Internet really isn't that easy. I've no doubt that goth culture/rock music/alternative music publications will have covered them at the time, but they're not something I have ready access to. Perhaps you could reconsider the deletion nominations? (I've no opinion on the live albums right now; they're probably little more than bootlegs, but if the studio albums warrant articles, as I believe they do, then the navbox can probably remain.) J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If and when you can provide evidence of the albums' notability, I'll happily reconsider the AFD nominations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've provided a citation to Trouser Press, a 1990s alternative music magazine which covers both EKaBS and DHD. There are probably dozens of other examples, but most of them can't be found online. Just how many do you need before you're happy that the album is notable? J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

10 minutes searching in response to Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness) found, in addition to the review already cited, a review originally published in a print magazine, a mention in a published book and an ezine interview discussing the album. Perhaps you'd consider withdrawing that nomination? J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done, but see my comments at AFD. It don't think it's there yet. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Brickens
There is an assessment request for this article on the Ireland WikiProject assessment page (BTW I seem to be the only one actively doing assessment requests or even assessments) but I find it very odd to see links to external images, especially as the copyright status is unknown, which I though were discouraged and various maps being used as citations even though they don;t state the facts alluded to. The article itself does appear to have improved quite a bit but I don't know if the citations/reference are regarded as acceptable. Would like someone else's input before commenting or reassessing. TIA. ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ww2c
 * Long time no see. Hope you are keeping well!
 * I'm not comfortable with the idea of using maps as refs, because some interpretation is required, and that seems to me to be a form of WP:OR/WP:SYN. However, I don't see any specific guidance on maps at WP:RS, so I suggest that you ask for clarification at WP:RSN.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that later. I've noticed that you are more active again and I am around doing stuff. I've got another request and will post details later. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deleting nav boxes full of red links
Brown Haired Girl, I see that you deleted three nav boxes whose links had been deleted as G8 (page dependent on deleted page) here. I don't really think that there is agreement to use G8 in this way. In fact, I proposed a lintless nav box speedy delete less than 12 hours ago and already have received an objection to the idea, so I would imagine using G8 to do the same thing would also see objection. Please comment on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (this is where I proposed the new criteria - use of G8 is a subsection of that). Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

disestablishments
Have at it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I will ask some template experts to get to work on it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy.
Hi BrownHairedGirl

Re. this edit the consensus was to delete the article (with the possibility of a transwiki) not to redirect it.--Charles (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Charles
 * A deletion does not exclude the subsequent creation of a redirect, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. The discussion at Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire doesn't include the word "redirect", so I see no consensus against a redirect.
 * Feel free to take it to WP:RFD if you like. You may be right that the redirect is a bad idea, and an RFD discussion may agree to delete it. But it ain't speediable, because it clearly doesn't meet WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Years in French sport
The by-year subcategories of Category:French sport by year ie “19XX in French sport” were altered from “19XX in French sports” recently, which is OK with me as that is the world standard apart from North America. But the templates for the year categories have not been altered, and now they do not work properly see eg Category:2010 in French sport as the template still has “in French sports” in the “cat” line, not “in French sport”. I manually amended the future years 2014-15-16 before realising that existing years back to 1892 need to be altered; presumably a bot can automatically alter the 120 years left to do? Hugo999 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will ask a bot to do them all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now done. (I finally got AWB running again, after installing 14,296 updates to evil Windoze). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Wondering55
Hi! I remember you commented at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788 about Wondering55. Unfortunately, Wondering55 has continued with his source removal, inserting SPS as a replacement for the newspaper that he hates: Would you mind dealing with this? I'd be inclined to indefblock per NOTHERE as the editor was warned and has continued, and keeps revert warring, but as this is a U.S. roads issue and I'm a prominent member of the project, I'm in a bit of an awkward position. --Rschen7754 07:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * I have only a few minutes now, and probably won't be online until late this evening, so I don't think I should take any action now.
 * I can look at it tonight, but you may prefer to drop a note at ANI. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. No worries. --Rschen7754 08:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:ANI didn't solve anything. --Rschen7754 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Join The Discussion
Please, feel free to join this discussion Miss Bono  (zootalk)  14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
Hello! This message is to inform you that WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono  (zootalk)   17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
didn't mean to bother you. Won't happen again! <span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive"> Miss Bono   (zootalk)  11:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor Laws
Please answer my question here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the CFD page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject alert question
How do you (or how would I) alert WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to the discussion i started at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 6 on Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in Imperial County, California and similar. I just added the category to the project with the talk page template, but im not really sure if this eventually automatically alerts them. I notice you have notified groups of discussions before. (I also am not able to do multiple nominations yet, though i know thats not always the preferred method)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagging the talk page (as you did) is a good idea, because it means that the XFD nomination can be picked up by WP:Article alerts. However, not all projects have implemented Article alerts, and not all of those who set it up actively use it.
 * So I find it best to add note to the project talk page using {{subst:cfd-notify}}. It's esaiest to set it up if you do it on the same day, but it can also be applied later by setting the date parameter. In this case the code is:
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rugby oustide UK and ireland
Please, could you explain me why a page like this is Ok and this other is a problem....

In the same way nobody are discussing about Category:1954 in Argentine football but only about Category:1954 in Argentine rugby union --Carcamagnu (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that one inappropriate page has not yet been tackled does not mean that we can't tackle another one.
 * You're right that 1954 Argentine Primera División is faulty; I have just tagged it as unreferenced.  But whether or not anyone is tackling other articles, 1954 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby remains a problematic article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How many reference need an Article to be considerable accetptable ? --Carcamagnu (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Notability, particularly the section headed "general notability guideline". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK i read it before: colud you explain me what is not OK in the article ? --Carcamagnu (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which page are you referring to? (This discussion mentions several of them). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1954 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby what else ? --Carcamagnu (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

1954 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby
OK, here's some of the problems with the article 1954 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby. This is a big problem on any page. An article based on one source may be a WP:COPYVIO, and it certainly does not include a range of views on a topic, which is required by WP:NPOV. This is another serious failing. Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia is to report what others have to say about a topic, not to republish the views of the people directly involved. See WP:Identifying reliable sources. As noted above, so far there is no evidence that this topic received any coverage at all other than from the body which organised the competition. If that is the case, then we should not have an article on that topic. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No footnotes
 * The article lists two sources, but because it doesn't use footnotes, it is unclear which facts are supported by which sources. See WP:Citing sources
 * One source
 * The article is referenced only to http://www.uar.com.ar/, which is the website of the Argentine Rugby Union.
 * No independent sources
 * The article is referenced only to http://www.uar.com.ar/, which is the website of the Argentine Rugby Union.
 * Notability not demonstrated
 * See WP:GNG, which requires that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".


 * Ok this is the problem ? Ok.. Now you can close 50% of wikipedia pages ...--Carcamagnu (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
hello, I am so sorry for the inconvenient posts about WP U2. It won't happen again. I'm new in this and sometimes I don't know what should I do or how. Please accept my apologies. Kind regards..<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive"> Miss Bono   (zootalk)  12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish cheeses
Category:Northern Irish cheeses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I'm facing a situation where an editor -- after wp:burden has been explained, continues nevertheless to restore OR material that is wholly uncited, without the requisite inline citations. His main points seem to be: a) the uncited material has been in the article (uncited) for a long time; and b) there is other uncited material (which I told him I would be happy for him to challenged and delete as he wishes). He continues to edit war on that basis.

How would you suggest I address this? The main discussion of the matter is here and here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well... I'm a bit shocked to find this comment here. As far as I'm concerned there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Serial comma, and that is where Epeefleche should engage with others who are trying to improve the article, rather than scattering grossly exaggerated accusations on other people's talk pages!  SNALWIBMA  ( <font color="2F4F4F">talk - <font color="2F4F4F">contribs  ) 11:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Media of Ireland
Your help is needed on the Media of Ireland article - now split out per our discussion. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Brocach
I just read the comment you made at the Administrators' Noticeboard regarding this user. I followed the link to the post he made: "Have you thought about synchronised drowning?" I remember reading those very same words quite a while ago; it may have been about the time of the Olympics in London. Also, it may have been in an article about the Summer Olympics. Is there a way to check histories for "synchronised drowning"? Or can a bot be programmed to do the search? I do not expect a response from you. Just wanted to bring this to your attention as the post may have been made by the same user. Thank you for all the good work you do. Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Boy Band
I deleted the Category: Boy Band from the Mills Brothers article because it is a racial slur. Please see comment I made at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I am concerned that my comment may be overlooked. Please help because it is racist to call a black person of any age a "boy". It is demeaning to him and it is meant to be demeaning. If you respond, please leave your message here. Thank you. Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Hello BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to notify you that I continued an AN/I conversation that you were involved with. I hope you're having a great week and thanks for your help! :) Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Akbar Khan Qureshi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akbar Khan Qureshi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Akbar Khan Qureshi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disestablishments
Any luck on getting help to fix the templates? I looked at it and don't see how to fix it. Changing all of these seems to be much simpler. Also, don't know if you want to move this discussion back out of your archive, and the top line of your talk page in interesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was sidetracked this week, but will get back on the case in a day or two. I think it is fixable :)
 * And thanks for pointing out the graffiti. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender category problems
You are exacerbating the problem with gender categorization. To break this down:


 * Wikipedia is getting negative commentary in the press (I've seen three articles so far), on Facebook (which is how I saw it) and probably elsewhere regarding relegating novelists out of the novelist category into gender-based "subcategories".
 * The problem occurred when one editor, johnpacklambert, began removing women authors from the "novelist" category, leaving men in the category. He has a stated agenda regarding gender-based language, with the effect of promoting inequality.
 * When the controversy arose, he started covering his tracks by then moving a handful of articles into the "men novelist" "subcategory".
 * A discussion on the Category:American novelists page showed a majority of opinion favoring the solution of dual categorization for the women authors, so that none would be excluded from the "American novelist" category. Several people then started making these corrections.
 * You then started reverting the corrections.

So here's how this can play out:
 * You can listen to the community and make sure no articles are excluded from the "American novelist" category, or
 * We can have an edit war, or
 * You can get an admin to ban me. I then comment on Facebook "I've been trying to fix the problem in accordance with the discussion of the Wikipedia community, but an admin banned me." I'll just say that I am not many steps away from people who are adversely affected, so this would get back to the media.

What I've been trying to tell people is that Wikipedia is working as it should. The guideline at WP:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality states "If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category." The community at Category:American novelists essentially came to the same conclusion. One person ignored the guideline. That's not a general problem with Wikipedia reflecting some sort of sexist policy.

Unless you, as an admin, ban me. Then this becomes a general problem with Wikipedia.

I value Wikipedia. I'm trying to fix a problem, and more importantly, show that problems are easily fixed. You really need to reconsider your approach here.

Noting that the "American men novelists" category has been populated only to serve the agenda of creating a gender-based division here, i.e. to marginalize the women writers, I'm going to revert your changes. How you proceed is then up to you. Avt tor (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Avt Tor, you misunderstand the situation ... but it's really quite simple.
 * Wikipedia makes decisions through WP:CONSENSUS-forming discussions. Don't pre-empt the outcome of that discussion.
 * You are trying to fix what you think is a problem ... but that's not how things work here. When a discussion is underway, make your case in the discussion.
 * If you want to try to be a Facebook martyr, please remember to explain why: "I refused to accept that a decision-making process was underway, and instead I implemented my own solution. I was blocked because I wouldn't wait for a consenus to be formed." -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one who is ignoring consensus here. One person started populating the category to promote their agenda, this week, after the media controversy emerged. I reverted that. That's all. Avt tor (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, my reputation is not what is relevant here. If Wikipedia fails to correct this problem, Wikipedia's reputation will suffer. No one cares who is trying to fix this, they only care if "Wikipedia" resolves this or not. Avt tor (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:CONSENSUS. It's fundamental to all this.
 * An editor is quite entitled to populate an existing category. If you believe that a controversy (or any other factor) justifies its deletion, then argue your case at the consensus-forming discussion. Unless and until there is a consensus to delete or merge the category, it can legitimately be populated with articles which meet its inclusion criteria ... and should not be depopulated unless there is a consensus to do so.
 * If you believe that an editor is disruptively promoting an "agenda", then use the dispute resolution processes or seek admin intervention at WP:ANI. But please stop trying to impose your own preferred solution. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)