User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 034

IdeaLab proposal
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussions
Brownhairedgirl, when closing discussions, please add Old TfD or a similar template to the talk page of the nominated page. I've done this at Template talk:Link-interwiki. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Academics by university in Europe
Category:Academics by university in Europe, 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. Oculi (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Shelby Tucker
I recently spent several hours in the public presence (a busy hospital ward) of Shelby Tucker, a man of considerable erudition, education and charm, and considerably more egocentric self-aggrandisement, who never missed an opportunity to announce to all casual passers by that "those Wikipedia people have built an article about me." and "Google me, Shelby Tucker." His eloquent domineering speech pattern and character was identical to the article, such that as I read the written phrasing I could still hear the man himself. I have no reason to raise doubts about the integrity of the words, just the anonymous conflict of interest, lack of third party verification, whether he is sufficiently notable under WP:AUTHOR criteria, and if this is relevant to the sock-puppetry investigation into User talk:Orakologen. Chienlit (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I made something useful
Template:HistoryofParliament. Makes citations easier, and hopefully useful against the day (albeit probably a decade from now, if not longer) when we can start sending information back to correct their entries. Hope you're doing OK. Choess (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Choess, thanks for the notification of that excellent idea. I'm a big fan of this sort of template for all the reasons you suggest.
 * I haven't been editing much recently, but if and when I do resume I'll try to remember to use this template. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Malicious attacks
I know this is off wiki, but it is still a public attack. Here is the progressive wiki article on me I am trying to decide if I should be flattered I rate an article there or offended that they lie about me. I am not from Utah. I am not a "Mormon fundamentalist" by most definitions of the term. While I have opposed the use of the term "Islamophobe", to claim that I am one goes beyond the sources. They give no example of what I did they think was racist, so I can't even challenge it. The "sexist" accusation seems to center on an issue that involves a category I did not create. The claim I created the jeans enthusiast case is just plain false. I am not sure I can do anything about this collection of liable, but that is what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This shows I voted to eliminate the jeans enthusiast category. I may not have attacked it as strongly as some, but this reflects the fact that I take the narrowest possible view in discusions. I did get Progresive wiki to retract the claim I was from Utah, and they at least are considering backing down on the claim I am an Islamophobe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl isn't particularly active right now, so I posted about this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the ANI thread was closed as unactionable. Off-wiki attacks like that are sneaky, but sadly there seems to be no way pf countering them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (18th most active!), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your msg. I have left my reply at that page as requested. However, it's mostly to say "dunno", so I don't think it will be much use to you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time to answer the survey, I appreciate it! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Balfour (died 1845)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Balfour (died 1845) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Balfour (died 1845)
The article James Balfour (died 1845) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Balfour (died 1845) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Count
It appears your link for viewing the percentage of edits with summaries is no longer valid? I found the information using X!'s tools. Thanks for 99.9%? :p @ND  Killa  ^^^  12:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)
I think this may interest you. EEng (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, EEng.
 * I see that there was a substantive discussion at Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27, which led to the previous AfD being overturned. At first glance, he does now seem to be covered in reliable sources.  I haven't checked to see how substantively those articles covered Young, but I hope that at least some of those who participated in the DRV did the necessary scrutiny. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the weird, weird history of spamming in this topic area, I'm not as sanguine as you. Look closely at the four new "sources" in the DRV discussion! Beyond that, the coverage in the article is so thin that the article is unable to say almost anything at all about the subject -- even his birth is given as "1974 or 1975". Present-tense statements like "He lectures at X" and "He is a graduate assistant at Y" are a decade out of date, cited to a 10-y.o. conference program and so on. Almost the entirety of the rest is "he verified Old Person P/debunked Not-Old Person Q", citing to his own organization. Take a look. EEng (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a good case.
 * I don't have time to do the checking myself, but if you want to pursue it, you can open an WP:AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Sure, tempt me into making myself the target of the crazypeople, why don't you? EEng (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * EEng, you wanted me to be their target, didn't you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's flip a coin when the time comes. In the meantime, see here. There's also an interesting suggestion here . EEng (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)_(2nd_nomination). Not to canvass, I'll notify everyone (other than SPAs) who participated in the last AfD. But right now I have to run, and thought I'd get started with you. EEng (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you know I'm on the up-and-up, I've now notified everyone who participated in the prior AfD. EEng (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia classification templates
Category:Wikipedia classification templates, 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. DexDor(talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Robert Baikie
 * added a link pointing to William Douglas


 * Sir William Honyman, 1st Baronet
 * added a link pointing to Armadale

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

my edits
hi, all of my edits seem to have been reverted, even ones where I left helpful links to ukpollingreport on the uk constituency pages - why is that?Oxr033 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry that's wrong, my mistake i'm looking for mistakenly edited pages, tyOxr033 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir William Honyman, 1st Baronet
Hi BrownHairedGirl, just wanted to say thanks for starting the article Sir William Honyman, 1st Baronet. It is within my realm of interest. I made a cople of minor fixes to the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! He turned out to be a more interesting character than I first thought.  Handsomely rewarded for persecuting Thomas Muir of Huntershill, and a pioneer of the clearances.
 * Glad you enjoyed the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually have a distant ancestor who was named Honyman after him, as a first name. I don't think they were related but my ancestors were tenants on his estate in Armadale, Sutherland. As such he is of particular interest to me. Just one thing though I think the original title of the article was better.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, a real connection. Were your ancestors among the people he cleared out?
 * Per WP:NCPEER, the simple title is the long-standing convention for unambiguous baronets. It was recently inverted without consensus by one editor, and  have just reverted that change.  The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, my direct ancestor escaped being cleared out but eventually moved from Armadale, Sutherland down to Edinburgh anyway. One of his brothers was named Honyman Munro and was baptised in 1806 in Armadale, parish of Farr, Sutherland, but I am not entirely sure what happened to him and some of the others, so it is possible that he and some of the others could have been "cleared" out. As it happens the mother was a Mackay who might well have been descended from the Mackays of Skerray who in turn were descended from John Mackay, 1st of Strathy - who would have been the ancestor of the Mckay of Strathy that you mention in the article. So it is possible that they were related but if so then it would have been very distant and its not confirmed anyway. My Mackay ancestor owned an Inn in Armadale, that I know was open in 1821.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

About Talk:Steve Crowther
...I think you might have meant to protect Steve Crowther from creation? Somehow, it seems that you indefinitely protected Talk:Steve Crowther, but it's a talk page redirect without a parent page (eligible for G8 speedy deletion). Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. Sorry for my mistake; it is now deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Crowther listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Steve Crowther. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:Steve Crowther redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct link is Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 27. Since the page is protected, you or another administrator will need to add the notice to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. Sorry for my mistake; it is now deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Montgomerie (died 1725), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgess. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bot. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories regarding Espionage Act of 1917
Wow, am I glad to see that you are still active, because I have a question for you, the cat guru. :-) I hope you can help.

There is a cat called Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. It had only one subcat: Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. There were several problems with that situation. First, the "charged" cat was going on people's bios even if they were found innocent or never convicted. Second, many bios were using both cats, because it's technically true that someone who has been convicted has also been charged. The third problem was that if you went to the category page for "charged" then you'd see lots of convicted traitors all mixed in with people who were found innocent or never convicted.

So, I created a new subcat under the "charged" cat, and switched the "charged" cat to a container cat. The new subcat I called "Persons presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917". This seems like a definite improvement, but it still seems maybe a little awkward or unclear. It might be more clear to say "Persons charged but presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917" but that has problems too (e.g. it's long). I would prefer not to create a whole bunch of subcats, one for acquitted, one for fugitives never put on trial, etc. etc. What.....do.....you....think? :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anythingyouwant
 * Thanks for your message, and your kind words.
 * Quick answer: I would delete all those cats except the Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. People being convicted of X is a verifiable fact, whatever anyone thinks of the justice or injustice of the conviction.  But whatever the charge "X", people not tried, or tried and acquitted, are all presumed innocent.  So your Category:Persons presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917 should every biographical article on en.wp except those in the convicted category.
 * That's why we don't have any other charged-with-X categories, whatever the value of "X". And we shouldn't have these ones either.  Time for a CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. There are 25 people in Category:Persons presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917 including Edward Snowden, and I suspect that editors of the latter page would be none too happy with CFD. I wouldn't really mind, though.  But what would be the problem with this:  Category:Persons charged but presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917?  Also, I notice that Wikipedia does have plenty of "people acquitted..." cats, and something like that could be a subcategory of the redlinked one I just recited, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I suppose the best thing for me to do is make an "acquitted" cat, and then put "charged" and "presumably innocent" up for deletion. So that's what I'll get started on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't hold with "aquitted" categs either, but sadly I see that the parent was kept at CFD 2009 March 11. So there seems to be a precednt :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see the difficulty with tagging a person who didn't actually do anything wrong. Given that the acquittal cats are accepted at Wikipedia (rightly or wrongly), I guess I'll make one in this instance.  It would be nice if we could limit it to dead people, though.  Thanks very much for all the advice and showing me that CFD thing for acquittals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

List of female British politicians
FYI. --Neil N  talk to me 19:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Alexander Reid, 2nd Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kintore. 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) 09:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please help: need to rename article
Hi. Would you kindly rename Faust up to date as Faust up to Date? (the last word should be capitalized). Note that there is a redirect in the way preventing me from doing it. Thanks in advance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Done by Materialscientist. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:4th century in Guatemala
I'm not sure if this makes sense but I'll looking into overturning the discussion from CFD over Category:4th century in Guatemala. I'm not sure if I should be discussing this with you or going to DR or what. I'm currently going through Template:Maya sites and other places adding both establishment and disestablishment categories based on their current location. I think we'd be better off if we could organize those things under their current location (rather than under the giant underpopulated Category:4th century in Central America or under some sort of Category:4th century in the Mayan Empire). I'd suggest a moving from Category:4th century in Guatemala to Category:4th century in present-day Guatemala and putting that under the Mayan Empire perhaps and then ultimately under the Central American structure. There's current discussions regarding whether Germany should be under the Holy Roman Empire at here and here and likely many more (Category:1st millennium by country and all prior ones will be an absolute mess if we have to merge to what was done at the time for each country). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ricky81682
 * Thanks for your message. my first point is that you are of course welcome to open a DRV of Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 7. Personally, I see now way how it could have been closed differently, because the balance of argunments was strongly in favour of merger. that makes me think that DRV would be unlikely to see any grounds for overturning my closure ... but that's my view, and you are quite entitled to ask uninvolved editors to review my decision. If you do so, please remember to link to this discussion.
 * However, as you will see in the closure I did note that two respected and experienced editors (Simon Burchell and Good Olfactory) "made a good case that the well-defined boundaries of a modern state are a logical way of grouping topics relating to the history of that area before it became a state. They may wish to open an RFC to consider this".
 * I still recommend an RFC as the way to pursue this case. Instead of arguing the toss over a previous closure, an RFC allows you to develop and expand the case advanced by SB and GO, and have the discussion closed on its own merits.  But as above, its your decision.  Good luck with whatever path you choose. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree on your close (I'm an admin myself). It made perfect sense when you closed it then. I just thought DRV is the only mechanism to overturn a properly done closure based on a change in ideas. Maybe I'm overthinking this but the RFC may be a better idea. I'll wait out the two current CFDs before approaching it maybe. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ricky81682, sorry I hadn't spotted that you are an admin.
 * FWIW, my understanding of DRV is that it is a rather narrower process than you are seeking. A DRV now might overturn to relist, but in this case I can't see any grounds even for that: the decision last year was quite clear, and AFAIK there is no evidence of a further shift in consensus. However, if an RFC showed a change in consensus, then you would probably face no objection to a new CFD to test the RFC ... and if you did, then a DRV would almost certainly permit a relisting. Good luck! :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=662315542 your edit] to Douglas Alexander may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * was the Shadow Foreign Secretary and former Member of Parliament (MP) for [[Paisley and Renfrewshire South (UK Parliament constituency)|Paisley and Renfrewshire
 * Thanks, bot. fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
You requested a third opinion on the list of female politicians in the United Kingdom. On the one hand, it wasn't really a proper case for requesting a third opinion, because the third opinion was already that of User:NeilN, who agreed with you that the split was correct, and that the edit-warring should stop. However, my fourth opinion is that the split is correct, and that SleepCovo should stop edit-warring, and either accept the split or submit a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert McClenon.
 * Sorry I had forgotten that we already had 3 views -- but the fourth one is valuable, even if it came as a result of an unintended use of the wrong process.
 * As you will see from my latest comment at Talk:List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom, it seems that SleepCovo is unclear about what zie actually wants. That lack of clarity, combined with their apparent inexperience in discussing disagreements, is what has caused the drama. :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

MP stubs 2015-20
Hi, just a quick heads up to say that the work you're doing across the new MP articles is appreciated. I'm going through a bit of a CBA spell with WP at the moment, but happy to shout encouragement from the sidelines! Brammers (talk/c) 17:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brammers!
 * I have such phases myself at times (sometimes for long times), and these days when I do edit I mostly prefer 18th+19th century stuff. But I thought that a few days work with the new MPs would get them at least to the stage of being properly categorised stubs with succession boxes and other such cross-linking, which hopefully helps other editors with a decent start to expand from.
 * It has been a ;little sad, though, to watch how the election-night flurry of stub-creation has tailed off. I hoped that there would be a flurry of editors expanding those pages, but it mostly seems pretty silent -- apart from Scotland, where there is some great work on the 50 new MPs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing up stubs is really quite satisfying; I've never quite made the leap to pushing something towards GA. For what it's worth, a lot of the new MPs have very little about them online – their past lives will have been scrutinised much less because they won't have been in the limelight for very long. I've banged in a photo request for one of them, and if that pays off then might follow suit with the rest. Good to see such enthusiasm coming from Scotland though. Brammers (talk/c) 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Help needed for 'The Talks' article.
Hi BrownHairedGirl, just a quick message to see if you could help add some finishing touches to the English 2Tone ska band 'The Talks' article before its next submission for review? I spotted you had a few ska based edits, and thought you may be aware of 'The Talks'.

Let me know what you think?!

Thanks!

Richard

AOOHull (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard
 * Thank for your message, but AFAICR the only contributions I have made to articles on ska bands have been disambiguation of links. I don't really known much about such bands, so I doubt that I could add much without a lot of catch-up studying first. Sorry!
 * It seems that the previous reviews have found that the band didn't meet the notability guideline for bands. I see that it now has two items of coverage in reliable sources. In one case (BBC Humberside About Raw Talent) they get 2 paras of coverage, but are not the main subject of the article. In the case of the Browse Mag article, I wonder whether the mag a sources that is "reliable, not self-published".
 * I suspect that if re-submitted for review, the article would fail again unless you can find more sources. That's the main issue -- more coverage in reliable sources. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to Have You Back
Thanks for your input on the CFD discussions. It's good to have you back! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RevelationDirect. Not sure how much I will be participating at CFD, but I may stick my head in a bit :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that would be so good. We have not been keeping up without you! – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for William Honyman
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas Liber! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for James Campbell (of Burnbank and Boquhan)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas Liber! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:UK MP links
I saw your edit on Brendan O'Hara adding Template:UK MP links. To add his contributions in the current hansard I had to update the template from the 201314 session to 201516. While this is going to be good news for current MPs, it'll break former MPs (like Nick Clegg who's the example in the doc). Maybe the template needs a bit of a rethink in this regard? Bazj (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bazj, I saw that problem, which is why I didn't add it. I think it's wrong to break the link for so many of the MPs from the last Parliament, so I would suggest that you revert both edits until we get a wider solution. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. And fix my mistake above. Bazj (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bazj. Maybe you could start a discussion at Template talk:UK MP links on what to do? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Bazj (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Strip whitespace
Template:Strip whitespace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz Kendall
Liz Kendall is a candidate in the Labour leadership and her article seems to be on the receiving end of a lot of WP:SPA editing without the luxury of edit summaries, the need to fill in references or the requirement to not-delete reliably sourced references. Would this page benefit from some sort of protection? Regards JRPG (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.121.237 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2015 -- John Brewis MP
Hello, BrownHairedGirl I hope this is the right way to do things. I happened to look at the wikipedia entry for my father John Brewis MP and was surprised to see him called Henry John Beverley Brewis. I have checked his birth certificate and his name is definitely Henry John Brewis. I have attempted to attach it but not sure it's worked.

According to wikipedia's own records he was also a member of the European Parliament from 1973 to 1975. 

Kind regards Christopher Brewis

86.133.42.122 (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I deactivated the (see WP:PER for when and how to use it) because whatever is needed here, User:BrownHairedGirl is not the page that should be edited. Presumably it's John Brewis; but that's never been protected. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christopher

Many thanks for your message.

Just as an aside, the page John Brewis wasn't protected, so you could have edited yourself if you had wanted to. You're v welcome to ask me for help, but you don't have to :)

Anyway, the crucial thing here is that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources. That means that we don't use primary sources (such as birth certificates), or conduct original research. Instead, we rely on what other people have writtren of their research -- and the more scholarly the better.

So, we can't actually use you as a source. That may sound odd at first, or even plain daft ... but it's a for a good reason.

Anyway, I looked instead at other sources. I found that the full version of his name had probably been taken from the Leigh Rayment's Peerage pages, which is a great starting point for rserach but not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms.

We need to do better, so I looked instead on Google Books. A search there for Henry John Brewis throws up lots of results in reliable sources, but a search for Henry John Beverley Brewis throws up nothing.

So I have edited the page to remove the word "Beverley". Thanks again for helping correct this article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Meade (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 18th Dragoons. 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) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Women warriors and synthesis
Hello. I just came across the article entitled "Women warriors in literature and culture".

I am writing to you on your talk page because I noticed that you were involved with a move-page request for the page towards the end of April 2014 (see diff: ). However, I guess you weren't involved in the discussion, nor was I.

In any case, this page and its title seems to be WP:Synthesis. I am thinking of taking this article through WP:AFD. However, perhaps proposing it for deletion first would be the best course of action. Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the matter. I'm wondering if you could take a look at the page and the discussions on the talk page and let me know what you think.

For now, I am going to tag it for WP:SYN. Your response would be greatly appreciated. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding numerous links to catalogue
Hi. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/West_of_the_moon|User: West of the moon]] has been adding numerous External Links to collection description pages at the New York Public Library. The links to do not access the information, they just drive traffic to the pages describing the collections. Is this permitted under WP:EL? He has done it with respect to more than 500 articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ssilvers, and sorry for the v slow reply.
 * I presume that you are asking about ?
 * If so, I'm not sure of the answer. My initial instinct is that linking to a library or gallery which hosts some of a writer or artist's work is in general a bad idea, because it could lead to a link farm on any such article.  I might make an exception for a site which held a particular significant collection and published a lot of info on its holdings, but I think that such links should be rare.
 * I think that my ideas above are keeping with the spirit of WP:EL, but I am not an expert on that policy. I would suggest asking at WP:ELN.
 * As a sample, I took a look at wotm's edit to John Martin-Harvey. That's interesting, because the start-class article provides no hint that JHM was a watercolourist, but the link which wotm added shows that JHM painted at least 4 watercolours. In that case I think that the solution I would adopt would be to find reliable sources which describe his painting, and use them to expand the article ... and only then remove the link.  So I'd suggest approaching these links on a case-by-case basis.
 * Hope that helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, BHG. I did not make myself clear.  West of the moon has been adding links to collection description pages at the New York Public Library on hundreds of pages.  These links do not lead to much content (usually none), but usually merely state that some of the subject's papers are within the library's collection.  I agree with your statement that simply linking to a library or gallery which hosts some of a writer or artist's work is in general a bad idea.  I have asked West of the moon to desist, but (s)he replied that (s)he thought it was permissible and useful.  What I am trying to ask you, is whether you, as an admin, can do anything to stop this spamming except, as you say, in exceptional cases where the link is to "a particular significant collection" with respect to a subject.  Or, if you cannot do it, how can this be properly reported to someone who knows how to deal with mass spamming like this?  Or, alternately, should I not worry about it?  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite gender neutral alphabetisation
Hi!

I've found that a bunch of the subcategories of Category:People by nationality have rhe subcategory "Xyzan men" or "Men in Xyz" sorted on " Men" (note the space), and therefore is listed among the first subcategories, while the corresponding subcategory "Xyzan women" is sorted on "Women", and therefore is placed under W. See e. g. Category:Grenadian people, Category:Kuwaiti people, and Category:Puerto Rican people; and Category:Russian people further down in the category tree. I've also checked the history, and noted that you actually created several of these disparities, by creating the respective articles with different types of alphabetisation (,, , and . vz. and ).

I'm not saying that this is a major issue; but I do react somewhat to these differences. Viewing the categories, I get a slight impression of differentiating between "ordinary people" (us men), and "people belonging to 'the sex'" (you women; with the sex used as e. g. Austen did). Not that I for one moment believe this is what you intended; seemingly, you created a lot of "Xyzan women" categories around 2007, and numerous "Xyzan men" categories much later; and I guess that you simply had changed opinion about alphabetisation standards in these years. (Besides, I did note the user box; I hadn't seen this one, but completely agree with it.)

My reason for writing to you rather than just fixing the slight problem is that there are several competing potential ways to do this. I see in the "Xyzan people" category histories that there has been more categories with similar discrepancies, but that to-day they mostly are replaced by one of the following four situations:
 * 1) Alphabetisation by "Men" and "Women" (leaving the subcategories at the respective letters M and W). This, I think, is the most common way.
 * 2) Alphabetisation by "+Men" and "+Women" (sorting both subcategories under +).  This seems not to be uncommon for European nationalities, and seems to be entirely due to edits by  in 2013.
 * 3) Alphabetisation by "*Men" and "*Women" (sorting both subcategories under *).  This also seems not to be uncommon for European nationalities, and eems to be entirely due to edits by, as recent as April, 2015.
 * 4) Alphabetisation by " Men" and " Women". Rare.

Similar discrepancies and history patterns seem to exist in the categories of type "Xyzan men/women by occupation", and perhaps in others, as well.

It would be nice to fix similar solutions in all these cases. Do you have any recommendation? JoergenB (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about categorization by surname at Wikimedia Commons
Hello again BrownHairedGirl! As you may recall, when last I visited here seeking your excellent advice, the subject was Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, which I think turned out satisfactorily. Now, I wonder if you could give me a little advice about another project. This one involves categorization over at Wikimedia Commons. Are you a guru relative to that as well? If not, maybe you can give me a referral. But if so, here's the issue.... This is all ultimately for a Wikipedia project regarding audio files of music. It will be extremely useful for that Wikipedia project if music composers are categorized at Wikimedia Commons by first letter of last name. Do you see any problem so far? Categorizing by first letter of last name is okay, right? In the mean time, I have been doing stuff like this. Do you see any problem with doing so? The main reason I am coming here now is because I do not want to make a thousand bold edits at Wikimedia Commons, and then find out that it is all contrary to some policy or another. The goal of all those edits at Wikimedia Commons will be so that I can make lots of edits like this one at Wikipedia. Please let me know if you can help by addressing these convoluted questions. :-) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you're busy. I went ahead and created this category for the letter "A", and will do likewise for the rest of the alphabet unless someone says I'm doing it wrong.  This will make it mush easier to use AWB to work on the WP:Sound/List.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationhood
You say Dalhousie returned to England. Scotland is not and never has been part of England. He returned to Britain!!!109.155.70.1 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're talking about George Ramsay, 9th Earl of Dalhousie, BrownHairedGirl has never edited that page in its entire history. The "returned to England" was added eight years ago, by User:Andrew Gray. &#8209; iridescent 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Beats me why I wrote England there (possibly because he was notionally with the 2nd Foot at the time?), but "Britain" seems safest given the lack of detail. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kinnock
Ah, I suppose that line in the title about him holding ministerial office refers to any ministerial position, rather than just premiership. My bad.--ERAGON (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Year in Wales header
Could you please reduce the protection of this template to semi, as it does not appear to be high-risk? Alakzi (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics in lists of politicians
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 20:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Irish local elections, 2014
Hi BHG, a user moved Irish local elections, 2014 to Republic of Ireland local elections, 2014 in order to differentiate them from Northern Ireland local elections, 2014, and turning Irish local elections, 2014 into a disambiguation page. I have moved that to Irish elections, 2014 in order to be consistent with other pages like Irish elections, 2011. The problem now is that one local election page is at a different format from all the rest, e.g. Irish local elections, NNNN. We don't use Republic of Ireland in the title as that's not the name of the county but the convention is to use Irish for RoI and Northern Ireland for NI. This is used for general elections, e.g. Irish general election, 1969 and Northern Ireland general election, 1969. If you agree with me, can you please move it back to its original title? Snappy (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Poetasters
Template:Poetasters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zeke. I have added my comment at the TFD discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Counts of MPs by parliament?
Hi! I have a feeling you might know the answer to this, as you've been the main driving force behind maintaining the various "UK MP xxxx-yy" categories...

Do you know if a table exists somewhere of the total number of members for each parliamentary term? I've been able to identify total numbers from 1661-1754 by digging through the appendices in the History of Parliament, and I'm sure a comprehensive count (at least since 1832) must exist somewhere else, but I've no idea where. I've been working on tabulating our entries for MPs in Wikidata and it would be good to incorporate a quick "how complete is this?" check where possible.

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew Gray
 * Your question is a little unclear, because there are two numbers: a) the total number of seats; b) the total number of people who held those seats. I am not sure which you are after, but after a quick peek at the Wikidata list, I presume its the second.
 * The number of seats is easily obtained from British Electoral Facts post-1832, and from other sources before then (I'd look at the History of Parliament website)
 * However, I am not aware of seeing anywhere a total number of MPs per Parliament. The History of Parliament website may have it, but I note that you found their data stopped at 1754, which seems unhelpful of them. Otherwise you should be able to get a rough figure by adding seats plus by-elections (tho beware of double-seat by-elections, where there was more than one vacant seat per constituency).
 * Note that even this figure may not be wholly accurate, because there are some quirks such as double-returns which, by some standards, increase the figure a little further.
 * May I suggest an email to the History of Parliament Trust?
 * While we are talking, I notice that one of the tables on that page refers to "P1816 National Portrait Gallery", which caught my eye. Back in 2006, I created Template:NPG name, to provide link to NPG portraits.  I have added it as appropriate to MPs for whom I have found an entry on the NPG site, but I haven't searched very systematically.   There are still only 748 pages using that template, not all of whom are MPs.
 * Is there some automated way of finding more matches? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there some automated way of finding more matches? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at this. Yes, it's the total number who at some point were elected to/sat in that parliament, rather than the number of seats at the start of the term, that I'm looking for.
 * HoP includes statistical tables for most of its volumes, but unfortunately they're usually aggregating all the people in that volume - so it gives us a total for, say, everyone who sat 1754-1790. The 1660-1754 volumes were a convenient exception, as they gave statistical tables broken down by parliamentary term. I've a friend who works there so I've asked him to investigate whether they have more detailed figures in a file somewhere. I've tried counting by-elections but this is quite prone to error (I got in a horrible tangle when trying to count up the period where Benn resigned and then came back...), and dauntingly time-consuming for large parliaments like 1935-45, so I was hoping to avoid it if possible. Still, if it's the best we have I'll bite the bullet!
 * Regarding NPG entries... We've been trying to match up the full catalogue of artists & sitters with entries in Wikidata, and there's just over 19,000 of them identified as at the time of writing. (See meta:Mix'n'match/Manual for the tool). Of these, 2,176 are also identified as also being an MP; I believe all of those have a corresponding English Wikipedia entry.
 * I can't immediately identify the ones who *don't* have NPG name on the Wikipedia page, but I can probably work out a list with a bit of coding - in any case, there are well over a thousand of them, at the very least. Would it be helpful if I generated a table with a) the relevant page name for each missing match; and b) a pre-formed NPG template, for you to copy across at your leisure? I've been meaning to do something like this for cite ODNB and the History of Parliament links as well so it might be a good chance to do all of them at once... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You may find it useful...
...to watchlist WP:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Article_alerts. EEng (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Strauss (1847-1920)
Hi BrownHairedGirl I am the author of The Zimapanners (see www.zimapanners.com). One of my biographies on this website is on Florence Annie Strauss (FAS), a suffragette, whose father was Gustav Strauss (GS), born in Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, in 1843. GS's daughter, FAS, married Charles Augustus Vansittart CONYBEARE (CAVC). Both Arthur Strauss and CAVC fought general elections over the same constituency: Camborne, Cornwall. 1. I am wondering what the relationship was between FAS's father, GUSTAV Strauss and Arthur Strauss. Can you help? Do you know? 2. Do you know who Arthur Strauss's parents were? As Arthur Strauss and CAVC moved in the same political circles, it would seem very likely that CAVC was introduced to Florence via one of her relatives or via Arthur Strauss himself. Perhaps her father GUSTAV was related in some way to Arthur Strauss. Can you help me solve this mystery? RegardsDrSchaub (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Albania(n) sport(s)-related lists
Please see my proposal to rename Category:Albania sport-related lists into Category:Albanian sports-related lists or vice versa (?). Hugo999 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have made my contribution to the discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl/Gadget-HotCat.js
Hey, Are you still using the copy of HotCat in your userspace? If not, can you please delete it? It contains old code, so won't actually work (correctly) anyway. If you haven't already, you can enable the extension in your preferences :) Reedy (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Reedy
 * Thanks for the reminder. I gave up using my fork years ago, when HotCat incorporated my fixes, and i have used the pref-enabled gadget since then.
 * I have the script, but left the old version in the history. Hope that's OK. --07:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great, thankyou! :) Reedy (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Erdős number information
Hi! I noticed that in the past you've been involved in discussion of the significance, or lack thereof, of Erdős numbers. There's some guy going around deleting Erdős number information from Wikipedia articles; I recently reverted one such deletion. Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Qing dynasty people executed by decapitation
Category:Qing dynasty people executed by decapitation, which you created, has been nominated for merging with Category:People executed by the Qing dynasty by decapitation. 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. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At least I think you did; sometimes the bot histories are a little hinky. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No big deal, but
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wedge-shaped gallery grave
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Wedge-shaped gallery grave &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tim1965 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nuking page creation and editing attribution during a move
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I believe I created the page "2015 San Bernardino attack" which you have deleted along with the attribution of my creation and the attribution to my subsequent edits to the page. Going forward, I believe, you can Move pages over a redirect to preserve the attributions for copyright purposes. I would suggest making a WP:dummy edit with an Edit Summary as some sort of an effort to restore any creation or editing attribution the page history previously listed. Cheers! 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Checkingfax
 * Before the move, the history of the page 2015 San Bernardino attack showed only 3 edits, each of which consisted solely of a redirect. None of those 3 edits was by you.  The current page, which has been at several titles before its move from, has plenty of edits by you in its history.
 * AFAIK in my 9 years as an en.wp admin, it has never been policy to preserve the edit history of redirects. In any case, no edits by you have been deleted through the move.
 * I will therefore take no further action. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing; or two
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are well and that you are reaping the plentiful harvest of so many well sown seed. I sadly remember a time ago when I showed you, and hopefully few others, my inner fool. It would be great if your recollection fails at this time; I assure you I gave nothing worthy of remembrance on that infamous day.

You, on the other hand, gave a demonstration that was not only worthy of remembrance, but also of emulation. I hope the sentiments I leave with you today convey at least a semblance of the esteem I have come to hold on your behalf. You quite frankly are a fantastic Wikipedia colleague, an admin extraordinaire, and; I am certain: a genuinely fine and decent person. I hope those knowing you in life are aware of the blessing bestowed them so as to maximize the good fortune of their privileged association.

I hope when the coming holidays pass, you will cherish them as being the best of times; until you then have a day better, and progressively another day better than that; in perpetuity. I apologize to you for being so incredibly sorry in that day past. And I feel better having said it directly to you here. I hope I have made an amends; albeit small. For I know that the sum of all that I am is tiny in fact, when amassed in your proximity; aside traits of character so incredibly large.

By the way, you would have been a great candidate for Arbcom in my late and humble opinion. If you have enough strength to fulfill the obligations of such an appointment, I hope you'll consider the good you could do; as you consider a future run. I wish you the best all the same.--John Cline (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi John
 * Thank you very much for your exceptionally kind words, and for all the wonderful things you say about my work on Wikipedia.
 * I am pleased to say that I have absolutely no recollection of any previous dispute between us, and am happy for it to stay way. Online discussions omit so many of the cues which we use to make face-to-face communications workable, and it's horribly easy for misunderstandings to develop, tempers to flare and for any of to be far less than our best.  I too have shown less than my best at times.  I hope that I have learned from that, as you have. Let bygones be bygones.
 * Thank you for suggesting me as a possible ArbCom candidate. I did briefly consider it, but realised that responsibility for ArbCom's important role is an incredibly time-consuming job.  There is no way that I would want to commit that much of my time, especially since I think I would find a lot of it rather depressing!
 * For example, years ago I had some tussles with the obsessive longevity tag-team, long before they got to ArbCom. The sheer volume of repetitive discussion was exhausting, and I don't currently want to commit myself to having to engage with that sort of drama.  Maybe at some point in the future, my life will be less busy and I may feel up to offering my services, but not now.
 * Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Triangle
I keep seeing your careful maintenance tweaks, and I should like to say how grateful WP jolly well ought to be for your painstaking work. Thank you.  Tim riley  talk    15:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim!
 * If I had spotted beforehand how many edits I would have to do to implement that RM closure, I might have left it to someone else. But all done now :)  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A can of worms
Hello, BHG. Long time, no messages. I'm not going to get involved in the discussion on WT:CRIC about disambiguation titles because I think it all comes down to common sense and we should use the title least likely to cause reader confusion. I wonder, though, if you with all your long WP experience would be interested in the cricket topic that is a real hot potato at present: this thing? You may have noticed that it takes up a few topics in WT:CRIC too.

The problem we have is how to interpret WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and, within that, WP:NCRIC. We have just had a new AfD participant saying: "WP:N makes it clear that meeting a subject-specific guideline (WP:NCRIC) does not guarantee that a topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". Well, unless my eyes are letting me down, I cannot see that at all and I have countered by quoting verbatim what WP:N and WP:ATHLETE actually DO say. WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (including WP:ATHLETE). WP:ATHLETE states in bold: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (including WP:NCRIC). Therefore, the criteria clearly state that NCRIC alone is sufficient: it is GNG OR SSC. The player has played in a first-class match and so he meets NCRIC and the two sources cited are definitely reliable (and also independent of each other, despite what some of the article's opponents are claiming).

Have you any advice about how to resolve the key issue of how to interpret the guidelines? My contention is that they plain enough as I have quoted them above, but other people are reading them differently and I'm especially concerned by people claiming that GNG supersedes the SSC when ATHLETE categorically states that it is an either... or decision.

Anyway, I'll leave it with you but I'll understand if you prefer not to get involved as it is a can of worms. Merry Christmas. Jack | talk page 14:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack
 * Thanks for your thoughtful message -- and happy christmas to you too!
 * I have spent a lot of time thinking about notability (probably more than is healthy), and my initial response to this is a little complex, so I don't think I can reply concisely. (Wot, BHG verbose? Quelle surprise!)
 * When I get time to reply properly, I'll be happy to share my thoughts, if they are of any use to you. Maybe tonight or tomorrow. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro Villanueva - move closure

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

Hello, I'd like to ask you to revert the closure you've done on Talk:Alejandro Villanueva as I find your assessment to be flawed. You mentioned the long-term significance to be the strongest policy-based argument, but that's completely false. Primary topics are not established on long-term significance, but on elements such as visitor statistics, incoming links, references in other sources and the likes. Which could be backed up by long-term significance to strengthen the arguments, but that's not an argument in itself. Given that there is a living person by that name who seems to be drawing a massive number of visitors, compared to a long-forgotten footballer, invalidates your argument. Therefore I would like you to revert that closure. --Midas02 (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Alejandro Villanueva is by no means a long-forgotten footballer. He is the icon of Alianza Lima and one of the best known players of the Peru national football team. At his career's apogee, Richard Witzig comments that Villanueva was part of "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time" (cited in the Peru football team article). One of Lima's most important stadiums is named after him, and the book results demonstrate that he is a relevant figure in the literature of the sport.
 * The same cannot be said about Ali Villanueva. There is no actual concrete evidence that he is more or equally notable to the Peruvian. The fact that you point out that Ali "seems to be drawing" attention is indicative of an assumption. That's not a reason to revert a valid closure.-- MarshalN20 T al k 09:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Midas02

Thanks for your message. Any closure of discussion is of course open to challenge, and thank you for making your case in such a civil way. It would be better to ask a closer to reconsider or explain, rather than simply asking for a revert -- it's a better path to a dialogue, and I hope you will consider that in future.

My first point is to stress that your request is based on your false claim that primary topics are not established on long-term significance, a claim which you also made in the RM discussion. The guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is quite clear that there two major criteria for assessing primacy: usage and long-term significance. You claim above that long-term significance is not an argument in itself, but there is no basis in the guideline for your view.

Given that you used to RM discussion to criticise another editor's understanding of the guideline, I think it's a pity that you didn't review it yourself before seeking a reconsideration of the closure.

As to the substance, I wrestled for a long time with that closure. My own general preference is to be wary of treating any topic as primary, because readers and editors are best-served by unambiguous titles, and by stability of titles. Maintaining a high-threshold for primacy helps to avoid articles moving in and out of that zone as news spikes occur and new sources become available. The guideline hints a little in that direction with its phrase "substantially greater enduring notability", but I bear in mind that my own personal view may be a little more cautious than the guideline about accepting the existence of a primary topic.

In this case, here were basically two claims made: current page views and current sources, versus long-term significance. Similar number of editors on both sides.

I largely discounted Midas02's !vote, because it offered no factual evidence and was based on a clear misrepresentation of the guideline.

Similarly, the nomination itself merely asserted that there was no primary topic, and offered neither evidence nor policy-based reasoning in support of that claim. The nominator did offer evidence later in the discussion, citing page views, but that was persuasively countered by MarshallN20's observation that these figures were distorted by a recent massive spike in page views. The data shows that this spike has not been sustained, as MarshallN20 predicted. So the evidence of greater current notability is unpersuasive.

By contrast, MarshallN20 demonstrated that the Peruvian appears in 612 books in a google search. No editor offered any evidence at all of any substantial coverage in such reliable sources for the American. So on the basis of sourcing alone, the strongest policy-based arguments support the Peruvian's claim to primacy.

Additionally, MarshallN20 noted that the Peruvian is an Olympic gold medallist with a stadium named after him. Both are persuasive claims to long-term significance, and they were not challenged by other editors.

In weighing the policy-based !votes, I was therefore left with an equal number of editors on both sides ... but the opposes were much more solidly based in policy and in evidence. So per WP:CLOSE, I had to accept that my own personal aversion to primary topics was not reflected in the discussion. As closer, my job is to weigh the discussion rather than make my own judgement, and that is what I did.

Hope this helps clarify the closure. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BrownHairedGirl, I'm not going to spend much precious time on this, but it's clear we seem to disagree on how the policies should be implemented. I am having an issue with being accused of not knowing how to implement those policies, though, as it is exactly what I'm faulting you at. You're pulling the long-term significance card, whilst you seem to ignore that, in the guidelines, that paragraph is preceded by the one on usage. On top of that, the current link set-up will be a source for disambiguation mess, a project you don't seem to be active in. But mostly, I'm having an issue with the unintelligent arguments being used by MarshalN20, which has been stalking this discussion as well (how and why is beyond me), which you seem to allow yourself to be influenced by without any further consideration. Just a few of them:
 * A 'book' search on "Alejandro Villanueva Lima" is NOT an unbiased search. How about searching on "... American football", guess what the result will be?
 * It's pointless to do a 'book' search comparing a person who died in the 40s compared to a young sportsman. It goes without saying younger people won't be mentioned as much in 'books' (as compared to an internet search).
 * A stadium named after him? Yes, in Peru. Not anywhere else in the world. That's local significance, not global.
 * The Peruvian footballer will obviously be more important to Spanish speakers from South America. But this is English Wikipedia, and in this day and age, and within the Anglo-American constellation, the American footballer will be the one English readers will be mostly after.
 * etcetera
 * I'm not going to start a whole discussion, but I'm having a serious issue with the lack of consideration which has gone into this. I'm therefore asking you to revert the closure, and extend the move discussion so others could chip in, if you feel that would be more comfortable. --Midas02 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I came to this discussion to thank BHG for the closure. The accusation of "stalking" is unnecessary and a personal attack. I'm not entirely sure why this topic is of so deep an interest to you that it would force such an unfriendly comment upon me.
 * The first result that came up in my GoogleBooks search for "Alejandro Villanueva" and "American football" was the following from Studies in Latin American Literature and Culture in Honour of James Higgins (ed. Stephen M. Hart and William Rowe):
 * I am also intrigued by the continuing growth of significance of Villanueva according to your above argument. First you contend that he only has "local significance, not global." Next you expand that to be significant "to Spanish speakers from South America." I suppose that the above quote shows the importance of Villanueva to Latin America (which covers a substantial part of the Western Hemisphere).
 * I am also perplexed by the opinion that South Americans don't fit within the context of "English readers." I'm a South American and I can read, write, and speak in English; and I know plenty of other South Americans (and Latin Americans) that can do the same.
 * Have a good day.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a good day.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As a closer, I am accountable for my actions. So when you challenged my closure, I took quite a chunk of my time to give you a detailed explanation of my reasoning. You do not of course have to accept my reasoning, and you are welcome to reply.

However, I am not prepared to continue dialogue with someone who is as discourteous as you have been. Some examples:


 * You accuse me of pulling the long-term significance card. That is an unfounded accusation of bad faith; I did not pull any card, I sought to apply a guideline which does not assign any higher priority to either criterion. On the contrary, it explicitly says "there is no single criterion for defining a primary topic", and explicitly notes that "in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant".  This is founded in the policy WP:NOTNEWS, which states explicitly that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events".
 * You write that "the current link set-up will be a source for disambiguation mess, a project you don't seem to be active in". That's a pile of attacks on my good faith -- I actually do a lot disambiguation (though that is irrelevant to my role as a closer). I have already explained that my own personal preference is to disambiguate but that in this case my role was to weigh the consensus of the discussion against policy rather than to apply my own views.
 * You write of the unintelligent arguments being used by MarshalN20, which is a straightforward personal attack on user:MarshalN20. You are quite entitled to disagree with another editor, but accusing them of being "unintelligent" is not acceptable conduct on en.wp, and it is not an acceptable use of my talk page.
 * You also accuse MarshalN20 of "stalking". There is no basis in WP:HOUND for that serious accusation.
 * In relation to MarshallN20's evidence, you write that you seem to allow yourself to be influenced by without any further consideration. Again, a personal attack; I have explained how I weighed the arguments made against policy.
 * You add a series of bullet points, making arguments which were not made in the RM discussion. The role of a closer is not to add their own arguments, but to weigh against policy the case made in the discussion which actually happened.  I will, however, note that your assertion that a topic has a greater claim to primacy because it is American is a clear case of systemic bias; there is no basis in policy for preferring topics from one nation over those of another.

This discussion is now closed. Feel free to seek a WP:Move review if you like, but before you do, please read WP:RMCI to familiarise yourself with the role of a closer, and do note that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information. Please ensure that any request for a move review includes a link to this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size BrownHairedGirl as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Page moves
Thanks for doing all those WP:POINTY page moves. Sickening.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * a bit of WP:AGF, please. There is nothing pointy about reverting a small proportion of a long list of WP:BOLD page moves, when the reverted moves appear to breach the naming guideline at WP:NCPDAB, and where a recent WP:RM discussion has upheld my view of those guidelines.
 * You are quite entitled to disagree with my assessment. But please use the consensus-forming process at WP:RM to find a consensus, rather than accusing me of being pointy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And now you're stalking my edits to go through and move pages without going to WP:RM, despite the fact you've listed several there in the last 24 hours. How do you defend these actions?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * please calm down. I have not been stalking you -- see WP:HOUND.
 * I note that your edit summary for the comment I am replying to is "POINTY page moves - i hope you get desyopped and quick". If you have a genuine concern that I have somehow been abusing my admin powers, please take it to WP:ANI or to whatever dispute resolution process you consider more appropriate.
 * See my longer reply to your similar message at WT:CRIC. I can only repeat my request there that you desist from personal attacks and engage in consensus-forming discussions.
 * Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not stalking me? Bullshit. I've just seen your "long reply" at WT:CRIC. Take it to ANI? Ha. We all know that we be shut down within minutes. Absoulte joke.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Partial primary topics
Hi there, in regards to your move of Alan Davidson (cricketer) to Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1929), I think this is the perfect example of where a "partial primary topic" should be used. >99% of people looking for the cricketer called Alan Davidson will be looking for the Hall of Fame member, not the 4 state games in the 1920s player. I've had a similar pair of footballers before, Peter Bell (Australian footballer born 1976) and Peter R. Bell. The born 1976 guy is (now) a Hall of Fame member, the other guy played a few years but is largely forgotten now. I'm not arguing that the 1976 guy is the true primary topic for Peter Bell, but he is clearly the primary topic for "footballers called Peter Bell", just like the 1929 born Alan Davidson is clearly the primary cricketer topic. I vaguely remember asking someone, somewhere, many years ago about whether "partial" primary topics are allowed, or tolerated, and was told "no, they're not". Your Davidson move matches that approach. But I don't see it written in any of the DAB or NCP guidelines, nor see any reason for it. It makes sense to me, the "lesser" topics can still be linked from the dabpage and/or hatnotes, but users get to where they need to go quicker - especially when the difference in notability is so vast. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi The-Pope (or should that be "your holiness"? )
 * Thanks for your message -- and above all for setting out a reasoned concern/disagreement in such a civil way.
 * I see your point, and I agree that without question Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1929) is a much more significant character than the 4-games Alan Davidson (cricketer, born 1897). So far, there is no evidence that the older player even meets the minimum threshold of WP:GNG.
 * However, I am not aware of any precedent for "partial primary" topics. AFAIK over the last ten years of editing here, it has always been practice that if we disambiguate at all, we try to create an unambiguous title.  I am surprised that this has not been included in the relevant guidelines, but I am not unduly concerned by that -- guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus rather than impose it, so I just regard that as a bit of undocumented consensus.
 * If you wanted to propose the partial-primary idea, it would make an interesting WP:RFC. However, I would oppose it, for multiple reasons.
 * The first is that I place a high value on removing ambiguity from article titles. Ambiguous titles deprive readers of guidance on where to go, and even worse they lead to a mis-linking, which is serious hindrance to readers and hard work to unravel.
 * One of the advantages of full disambiguation is that any undabbed or partially-dabbed link is automatically thrown up as an error, which can be monitored by bots and fixed by easy software tools. Where a primary (or partial-primary) topic of any form is chosen, that facility is broken -- it is impossible for simple bots to tell whether a link to the primary topic is correct or in need of disambiguation, and the fix requires a more time-consuming manual edit. That may sound like a matter of editors' convenience rather than helping readers, but I disagree: misplaced links are a huge disservice to readers.  As the number of active editors declines while the article count continues to rise, editorial effort is spread ever thinner and wikipedia relies more and more on bots to monitor all sorts of issues.  The we impede our ability to identify and fix links, the more we will let our readers down.
 * Those are practical issues. But there is also an issue of conceptual complexity. As the number of active editors declines, the new editors who do join face an ever-growing problem of instruction creep.  It is hard enough for long-established editors to keep up, but new editors face an utterly daunting task.
 * Some of the concepts we use here are utterly fundamentally unfamiliar to most people. Notability, NPOV, reliable sources, consensus decision-making; most people don't get to encounter those elsewhere. In many respects, Wkipipedia policies are already vastly over complicated, and the more we introduce un-needed concepts, the less the chance of them being understood by our overwhelmingly young editors.  Primary topics are already a nightmare, as new editors raised in the internet age measure current noise in their own bubble and struggle with concepts like long-term significance and global perspective (zOMG! I never heard of the 14th century empire or the eminent Russian philosopher, but the celebrity of that name has been all over TV for weeks!)
 * The idea of partial-primacy adds a whole new dimension of complexity, because it opens up multiple layers of choices on each disambiguation page. Here's how, taking a fictional name ZXYW:
 * The boxer ZXYW is extraordinarily well-known. So he's not just the primary boxer of that name, he's the primary sportsman of that name.  Cue a debate about whether to dab him as "ZXYW (boxer)" or "ZXYW (sportsman)".
 * Once that's settled, we selected a primary footballer from among the dozen listed, as "ZXYW (footballer)". Of the remainder, 5 are English, so we now proceed to select one of those as the primary "ZXYW (English footballer)". Each of those cascading decisions contains a degree of subjectivity -- do we really have enough patient and experienced editors to wade through those debates? (RM discussions are already very poorly attended)
 * So what seems like a simple step has hugely complicated an already complex area. Rather than doing that, I think we should be considering a big restriction on the notion of a primary topic. Instead of "more significant than all other topics of that name", it could be tightened to something like "vastly more significant in the long term".  I don't see any appetite for that yet, so I won't even propose it; but it's an example of the sort of step that Wikipedia needs to consider, in order to reduce complexity and tussles.
 * Sorry, that's a very long reply. Happy Christmas! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated page names and the associated discussions are relevant to this question. Basically, there are several prominent examples of "partial primary topics", but they are not the norm. If memory serves, any attempts to alter WP:D to either explicitly disallow this practice or to explicitly permit it have been met with the result of "no consensus". My gut feel would be that if Davidson went to RM the consensus would be to use the full disambiguation – mainly because RM regulars tend towards full disambiguation and I don't think Davidson would have many talk page watchers to argue in favour of a partial primary topic (as opposed to say Nirvana (band) or Lost (TV series)). Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that pointer, Jenks24. I hadn't realised that the idea had already been debated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl -

Just a quick word of thanks for doing such wonderful work on my Wikipedia entry. Truly an honor to have received your accurate attentions.

Best always, Paul Boocock 108.46.7.23 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT in Islam
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I saw your entry at Talk:LGBT in Islam and understand your argument to the point that I withdrew my request. I wonder whether you would support a restarted request that would only involve the wording but not the scope, so would just include the articles on Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hare Krishna, Haitian Vodou and Zoroastrianism. If you're interested, we should find a better place to rediscuss the scope of the articles, as the different naming, scope and content seems to be based more on accident than related to the respective religion. I can imagine rescoping (both splitting and remerging) the articles to Sexuality in Islam and Gender in Islam, resp. Sexuality in Christianity and Gender in Christianity etc. While both aspects remain in the context of the LGBT debate and remain linked by the LGBT navbox, the new scope would better embrace the more general – including historic – context, such as the role of expansion and mission and fertility propagation, and the consolidation of patriarchy. Most importantly, that article scheme would make the content vastly more relevant to our mainstream readership, see only the number of Google hits in comparison. The fact that many of the rescoped articles would become main articles of existing categories such as Category:Gender and Christianity, Category:Sexuality in Christianity, isn't an argument for rescoping by itself, but may serve as another indication that articles are properly scoped. Btw., I hope it became clear that I'm neither serving an anti-LGBT nor a POV-pushing agenda here. I'm just concerned with building a good encyclopedia. Please me when answering! Thanks and cheers, PanchoS (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas
To You and Yours! Quis separabit?  03:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Drummond, 4th Earl of Perth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thumbscrew. 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) 11:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bot. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your myriad contributions to Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greenwood Academy, Dreghorn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irvine and Springside. 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) 09:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DPL bot. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

 * Hi Ipigott
 * Music is not really my area of work -- I mostly do politics -- but thanks for the invite. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposals re British, English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century
Please see my two proposals to create categories for English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century Discussion of 8 January 2016. Hugo999 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, Hugo999. I have addded my comment at CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir William Grant
Hi I am researching this family, mainly interested in John Grant, his brother, who was an officer in the 71st Fraser Regt (my special interes - book written) Have you ever found personal papers of Sir Williams, especially while he was in Canada in 1776 Ed Brumby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.103.189 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2016‎


 * Sorry, Ed, but I can't help you.
 * I did not write the article Sir William Grant, and have made only minor housekeeping changes to it. As far as I can recall, I have never researched him any way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl!
I am wondering what to do about people who post their own telephone number on wiki. Do you know what to do? Here are some examples:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:TWA/Portal&diff=prev&oldid=699034206
 * User:Midhunsh
 * User:Ahadu1
 * User:SubrataROCKZ

I think the phonenumbers should be removed, WP:USERBIO calls it "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" and maybe even hidden from public view. Would you be so kind to take a look? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Would you be so kind to delete User:Fizzy11? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Quixotic Potato
 * I am not sure what to do about the telephone numbers.WP:USERBIO doesn't mention phone numbers.
 * created the userpage in one edit 2008. The edit creating that page was the editor's only undeleted contribution, so the page serves no purpose other than promotion. I have deleted it per WP:CSD
 * created their userpage in a series of edits in 2011. Those edits were the editor's only undeleted contribution, so the page serves no purpose other than promotion. I have deleted it WP:CSD.
 * However, did make a series of mainspace edits, so the userpage has some legitimate purpose.  There may be too much info for the user's own good, so I blanked the page.
 * What do you think are the grounds for deleting User:Fizzy11? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello BrownHairedGirl,
 * Thanks for your help. Fizzy's page contains the text: "I AM GAY". Here is a quote from Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles.


 * Some Wikimedians have postulated that these statements are made by immature childish editors who use it as a derogatory term. Any Wikimedian who thinks about this a little longer will realise that this is extremely unlikely, as being gay is not a negative qualification. A more reasonable conclusion is thus that the writers of these phrases are merely friends of the subject, who are so proud of the sexual orientation of the subjects they feel the need to shout it from the rooftops.


 * Note that almost no vandals write "I AM VERY GAY" or "I, Anita Flugelhorn, appreciate a good roll in the hay every once in a while with another woman." The rare exception to this rule is those who self-identify on other people's user pages. However, it can usually be inferred that gays and lesbians are exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors, and only some of their very proud but misguided acquaintances feel the need to broadcast their friends' sexual orientation.


 * I think that this is one of those rare cases where a vandal wrote "I am gay" (while using someone else's identity). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a vandal, The Quixotic Potato. Or maybe it's a new editor proudly proclaiming their gayness (along with their poor command of English). The username is not obviously tied to any real-world identity, so I don't see any issue of slander or outing.
 * I'm not sure that I see any of the WP:CSD speedy deletion criteria applying here, but feel free to tag it for speedy deletion if you like -- maybe another admin may take a difft view. Alternatively, you could take it to WP:MFD.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I have MfD-ed the page. I will try to make a list of the pages that contain phone numbers. Thank you! Have a nice day, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome -- glad I could be of some help. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Kpoffon DYK
Hi, I tried to summarize the facts gathered by snippet view for the Paul Kpoffon DYK nomination, but the table doesn't function well in the DYK template. In summary: --Soman (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Soman -- that's a very comprehensive list, which must have taken some time to prepare. Thank you for doing that.
 * Please can you give me some time to consider it?-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to think about this, Soman. However, I have reviewed it now. With such a detailed explanation there is no way I could doubt that the sources have been used carefully and in good faith ... so I have ticked the DYK nomination as Good-to-go.. Thanks again for being so helpful with this -- and congrats for expanding wikipiedia's sparse coverage of Africa. Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, --Soman (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Meehan edits
Why have you removed the changes made to this page I made last night ? Penpalz (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Penpalz
 * It is because the first thing I noticed about your 3 edits to Patrick Meehan was the last one:  in which you added the text "Framed by MI5 Patrick Meehan" at the bottom of the article.


 * That is a serious claim, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL it would need to be seriously sourced, but you offered no source. The fact that it was beyond the text section made it look like vandalism.


 * Then I looked at your previous 2 edits -- widespread changes with no references added. Given the last edit, that indicated an editor who was writing their own ppint of view, rather than using referenced material to build an encyclopedia.  So I reverted all 3 with the edit summary "revert unsourced commentary". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Framed by mi5 is the name of his book ! That is the reference ! Nothing I added is disputed and all is documented fact .The wiki page as stands tells half a story ! Penpalz (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Penpalz, I understand what you were trying to do.
 * If it is the name of a book, then please read WP:CITE on how to cite a book as a source.
 * But you will also need to ensure that any edits you make properly attribute all the facts or views asserted, and that you don't end up misattributing other material. You also need to ensure that WP:UNDUE weight isn't given one particular point of view.
 * Is this the book you have been reading? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Framed-By-M-I-5/dp/B0007C8YH2
 * If so, it's by the subject of the article, who is not a neutral source. The book is valuable as a statement of Meehan's view, but it is not a set of neutral facts.
 * Since you are a new editor, and still learning how wikipedia works, may I suggest that you start by using the article' talk page Talk:Patrick Meehan to discuss you proposed changes? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

you removed my addition that Patricks Royal Pardon made Scottish legal history .That is a fact. You removed my addition that he escaped to East Berlin and was held in a stassi prison. That is fact. You removed my point of reference His book ! Framed by mi5 is not an allegatiin it is the name of his book ! You removed he felt duped and betrayed .That too is fact .See Ludovic Kennedys book. Patrick Meehans book and Beltramis book ! You removed he told of an impending springing .That too is fact ..see Chapman Pinchers book where this was raised in Parliament after the springing of George Blake .Fact. You clearly know nothing about this case ..and most outrageous of all you removed my addition of the word non violent There is no record for violence during Mr .Meehans time as a peters man ..he was know as the gentleman safe breaker ! The head of Glasgow CID gave a statement that this case was not in keeping with Meehans non violent record FACT. Penpalz (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

However, before you go any further please do take the time to read the guidelines which another editor posted on your own talk page in a welcome message. I have no idea whether what you say is true or false or disputed. The point is that Wikipedia has quality standards which incorporate some of the techniques used in academic writing, and before adding controversial material to an article, you need to understand those policies. If you have difficulty, you could ask for help at Help desk. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Penpalz, I have given you some pointers on how to go about editing the article. Please follow them.

The Royal pardon was the first given in Scotland for a murder conviction Fact .How do I publish the legal history of Scotland for your satisfaction ? Penpalz (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You ask how? I have already pointed you to guidelines on how to edit Wikipedia, and pointed you to a source of help.
 * Please *****read***** those guidelines rather than bugging me ... and if for some reason you do need to post here again, please do not create a new page section when there is already a section discussing the matter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Request to revisit the discussion; matters in article addressed. North America1000 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russell Barr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angus Morrison. 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) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bot. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Roderick John MacLeod, Lord Minginish
Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/William James Cullen, Lord Cullen at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bot. Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seealsocat
You recently made a couple of edits to Princeton Theological Seminary adding seealsocat templates to link the Alumni and Faculty sections to their equivalent categories. I think this is really useful to anybody viewing that page, and was about to go and do similar things to one or two pages that I was aware of - e.g. sections listing burials at UK cathedrals. However, I see in Template:Category see also that it says:

"This template is only intended for use in the Category namespace. Please do not use it within articles"

Does that restriction no longer apply? Why was it even made in the first place? Is there an equivalent template that can be used in article spaces? I've started a section in that template's talk page, but thought I'd ask you too, since you're an admin and presumably know what you're doing! Chuntuk (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks v much for headsup, Chuntuk.
 * I have removed the notice from Template:Category see also/doc, and explained my resaons to the discussion which you helpfully started at Template_talk:Category_see_also. I pinged User:Kaldari, who added the notice. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Your attention is requested
I have mentioned you in a dispute at Talk:Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles, and you might be interested in giving us some guidance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added two comments to the discussion: and.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles
Hello again. I suggest you talk to since they're still trying to portray S.O. as an affluent neighbourhood, without getting support from other editors for it first. Thomas.W talk 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was asked for my input, and have given it. I don't have anything to add. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Edinburgh
If there is already a WikiProject Edinburgh, is there really a good reason to add WikiProject Scotland ? In Australia we have sub projects within the main australia tag (Tasmania=yes), however in the Scottish case, I would have thought that Edinburgh good enough was stand alone? I am sure you have a good reason to do so, would appreciate an explanation, thanks JarrahTree 11:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi JarrahTree
 * I am just doing a big AWB run, tagging about 4500 categories which fall within the scope of WP:WikiProject Scotland. I'm about 2/3 of the way through the list, and about 40% of the pages scanned so far already had a WikiProject Scotland tag.  One of ~2000 pages tagged, I think that about 70% had no tag from any Scottish project.
 * I have always been relaxed about pages being tagged with a project's banner when a more specialist project exists. Project tags don't convey WP:OWNership; they are just a way of bringing a page to the attention of editors who may be interested, and the more eyes the better.
 * Additionally, as the number of active editors declines across en.wp, many WikiProjects are moribund. The more specialist the project, the more likely it is to be inactive.  Looking at WT:WikiProject Edinburgh, I see that in the last two years, there have been 4 new threads (plus 2 or 3 generic notifications) ... and only one of those 4 threads got a reply.
 * Maybe the Edinburgh project will revive, maybe not. Maybe it should be upmerged to WikiProject Scotland.  But those aren't my decisions.
 * There is of course a lot of merit the Australian model of having one project with several task forces, leading to banner-sharing. It's a more flexible arrangement, better able to cope with rises and falls in project activity. If these projects ever decide to adopt that model, I'd be happy to help them implement it ... but for now, it is as it is. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow - thanks for your answer. Yup, when I was in Edinburgh in 2009 and 2013, I couldnt help but notice how many edinburgh or scotland project cats were not tagged, so it is really really great that what you are doing, I dont use Darkside/PC hardware (mac freaked that I am), so I cannot AWB - it is a great relief to see you are fixing it.
 * I have a real problem about dismissing stagnant project space - my sense is that even the deadest project is more 'cement' in making sense of where an article or category 'belongs' in project space is as important as what sits on the main space... I have been quite adamant that some your fellow high 'k' editors who only play with cats and have never been in talk page space misunderstand what makes a 'whole' of complete structure, so to see yours and tim! where you both go both sides of the divide, is indeed a great relief, compared to some others who dont seem to have a sense of the potential use. As for upmerging, and taskforces, dont let me start... It goes back to my bias where good clean project tagging even with all its limitations is better than nothing..  Thanks again, specially for fixing up the scotland project, it is really appreciated!!!
 * btw - Australia state projects are not specifically task forces.. they are sub-projects (even with their own portals) relative to each australian state, and to date have worked very well, as far as I can see.. JarrahTree 12:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)