User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 010

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Scottish MPs

Scotland_constituency#Members_of_Parliament_returned_for_Scotland contains a lot of wrong links. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that's probably inevitable while there are so few articles on the first Scottish MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sorted the blue links which should be red, but not red should be blue. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please delete Hugh Montgomerie (Canadian politician) if non-notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done sorting the links. I have zapped Hugh Montgomerie (Canadian politician), because his only claim to fame (so far) is coming second in a ward in the Toronto municipal election, 1976, which fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Promptly unzapped. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you fight Tolkien?

Could you please explain why you keep posting notability tags in articles about place names in Tolkien's works? Are Valinor, Fangorn, Beleriand, etc. not notable to you? Although this is material out of one of the most-read works of literature? I really suspect you are trying to abuse your administrative powers here. Instead of trying to remove said articles, you should try to expand them. Please stop your private rampage. Cush 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of a rampage (see WP:NPA), please read Wikipedia:Notability and WP:FICTION. The issue is not whether you or I consider these articles notable; there are clear objective tests set out in the guidelines, which these articles do not meet. That's why I tagged them.

No administrative powers are involved in tagging articles, and I hope that in future you will assume good faith before accusing people of abusing them. Those tags are an open invitation to editors to expand and improve the articles. You are as welcome as any other editor to improve those articles, and you would be better engaged in doing that than in objecting to the fact that the deficiencies in these articles have been noted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are asking for something that is entirely pointless. We are talking about fictional places from Tolkien's works. There are no other sources or references needed for such articles than the original works, Hobbit, Bombadil, LotR, Silmarillion. If we were talking about places or characters in Shakespeare's works, would you dare to stir such a fuss? I doubt it. And Wikipedia is still better off with stub articles than with missing articles. If you can't contribute anything to the articles in question then at least leave them as they are and have patience that someday someone might take the effort of expanding them. But what you are currebtly doing is actively discouraging people from adding anything to those articles as one would have to fear the loss of one's work because you find it insufficient and tag it for deletion. What do you want to achieve by threatening the Tolkien fan community on Wikipedia? Cush 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong to say that "there are no other sources or references needed for such articles than the original works". Read the guidelines, and try to understand why independent references are needed to establish the notability of the subject of an article.

You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone.

Oh, and in answer to your question: if articles on anything by Shakespeare, or any part of the bible, were similarly unreferenced, I wouldn't hesitate to tag them too. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine, and referencing is a fundamental requirement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to disagree with you on anything, I think Cush, Caracaroth etc are in the right here; personally, I don't think fiction articles should be here (yes, even Shakespeare et al - I'm the one who got my very own Wikipedia Review thread by AFDing Antonio (Merchant of Venice)) other than very brief summaries, but, following the huge arguments over the Harry Potter pages, the consensus is clearly that fictional characters & locations in significant works do warrant their own pages, and The Lord of the Rings is certainly as notable, if not more, than Harry Potter. The consensus as thrashed out in the Harry Potter and similar AFDs and DRVs seemed to be that for works like this, the novel in question was valid as a reference about itself even though it constituted a primary source. — iridescent 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, and it may be that I'm fighting an uphill battle. But if that's the case, then let's do this properly and tear up WP:FICTION and put a big loophole in WP:NOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction is self-sufficient. What other sources can there really be for a work of fiction? Especially when it's created from scratch as Tolkien's work is? Maybe those guidelines need a review. Articles on characters, places, events, etc out of Tolkien's work are primarily for those who seek information on Tolkien's work, and those folks just don't care whether or not the article they were searching for meets any arbitrary guidelines. Of course this is not a fanzine, but then why have articles on Tolkien's work in the first place? Cush 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cush, please don't bother posting on my talkpage again unless you have read and studied the guidelines. Your questions are answered there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note to anyone who doesn't know where to find it, the place for this debate is Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and not BHG's talkpage! This is a very longrunning dispute and nothing at all is served by content-forkig it to here. — iridescent 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are with out a doubt the rudest person I have encountered in two years on wikipedia. You're rudely telling them to take a flying leap and read the guidelines, which they have already said he believes are too extensive. You interpet them to unbreakable commandments, and have taken a puritan stance on it all. I've noticed most of them you end up attaking things you disagree with, as if you're the surpreme authority here. I, and many tens of thousands of others, would be extremely upset if Wikipedia was not as broard and extensive as it is. If I could not look up extensive amounts of side information on interesting fictional works. I can't help but say, "What is your obsession with following arbitrary guidelines to the t and the i." So much that you are attacking perfectly acceptable articles and offending the large user bases who have worked on them, and the many people who look them up. Would you like to turn wikipedia into a boring, standard encyclopedia. One of things I like about this site is that I can look fiction and find a great of aside information wirtten by knowledgeable readers, helpful information too, nad I'm sure it's not just me, but many other people using this site that do the same. You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone. Again, What is your obssession with the wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia is an online site for people to read up on things, than Tolkien fans who are trying to look into his works, have a right to have access to articles on the known information on the major geographical places. Stargate SG-1 has about fifty pages worth of articles on the various fictional alien races and planets and technology, are you opposed to that. I believe you are outside your zone her, as your main projects seem to be hundreds and hundreds of works on British Legislators. It seems that everywhere I run into a controversial article deletion tag, you are involved in it, and are fighting with the writers of the article, and very uncivily at that, in fact I have never read a polite and civil argument posted by you. I would say you're on a power trip as I see your name constantly on deletion pages, most of the time for articles that have otherwise good content and relevance. I would say that you and your group of supporters need to quit trying to delete every article you dislike or don't think falls perfectly under the guidelines, you don't have be a puritan. And, the absolute worst part of it is that most of the things I've seen you try to delete are outside of your said areas of knowledge and interest, giving you no right to pass judgement on them, on what other people with different interests are working on. On a last note, you say that a topic has to have a particular amount of notability? Well these do. I interpet that to say I, can't and shouldn't, write an article on myself. I am not notable, Valinor is. You have no right to make that judgement based on the fact you think it's silly. That fact is that the enormousness of that piece of literature and the amount of fans of might look up information on it, make it notable, not what you think about it. There is plenty of room on wikipedia, for your interests, mine, theirs, their is room for all semi-notable well written, and informative information. That is the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information. The site is not running out of memory, so therefore you shouldn't be going out of your way to delete perfectly good articles based on your own puritanically dictatoral view of the notability guideline, it's a power trip, 100% a power trip. I'm sorry for the way the formating came up, it really got away from me. I would just like to add, again, that I have read through most of the Tolkien pages, all of them are perfectly good, though a few need more information and their are people working on that.--Robert Waalk 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you say that "the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information". Wrong: the internet has lots information, but the purpose of this site is to make an an encyclopedia, which is a different exercise (see WP:NOT). The purpose of policies and guidelines like WP:V and WP:NOTE is simply to maintain quality standards. For people who don't want to try to maintain those standards, there are many other places on the internet where they can post their writings, but verifiability is not a mere detail here: it's a core principle of wikipedia. And if you read the guideline, you'll see what wikipedia's founder says about sourcing things.

And I'm a little bemused that someone with whom I've had no previous encounters comes to my talk page and accuses me of being rude, and then embarks on several paragraphs of personal abuse. Do please try to be a bit more restrained when you read what Jimbo wrote about verifiability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of being rude because of the way you talk to other people. I've read your attacks on multiple articles, but held my tongue. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, that's why it's so much better. It contains large amounts of useful and interesting information that an encyclopedia would miss because of printing restrictions, we have no such restrictions here so we should not set the bar so high that we are acting like we do. For instances I have run afoul of you on multiple pages on Supercentenarians and Gerontology. It seems that any field or subject you, personally, find silly or unneccessary, you tag for deletion, and bring all you're little friends in to votestack against the group of people who are working on that area and are interested in it. Robert Young for instance is the latest. You say he is not notable, but he is a world reknowned Gerontologist at age 33, Chief Consultant to Guiness Book of World Records, and has published multiple articles in national publications on the subject. Yet I read your belittling interpretation of his crendentials when you tagged the article on him for deletion, and then a bunch of people who I have seen posting on your talk page show up and vote to delete it as well, overwhelming the small group that works on gerontology, which is merely a passing interest of mine. What I'm trying to say is, 'Why do you tag Robert Young for deletion when you are not knowledgeable in the field of Gerontology and seem to ridicule it openly?' Why is it that I find your name first on deletion tags, but that, for the ones I have seen, it's usually something you dislike. If Robert Young's bio is deleted, it will be the third Gerontology article that I, I who am rarely logged on wikipedia, have seen tagged for deletion by you. I also found your statement about dismantling [WP]Fiction very disagreeable, and can't imagine why you are attacking several articles relating to Tolkien's works, when they are notable articles that many people might interesting aside information from. I have just become very annoyed with the constant effort to purify wikipedia of all articles not 100% under the guidelines, or not notable enough for some people, or fiction asides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I'm not particularly interested in either gerontology or the process of tracking supercentenarians, but I have nothing against them. You miss three crucial points:

• wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge amount of work is done every day to delete articles on non-notable subjects, only a small fraction of which ever make it to AfD
• AfD doesn't delete on my say-so; AfD leads to a deletion only if there is a clear consensus to do so. This is not a matter of me deleting articles, it is a matter of me making a suggestion which other editors can accept or reject
• If you have evidence of Young's notability per he guidelines, submit it to the AfD debate, but don't complain here, because I am not the person who will decide whether the deletion nominations are accepted

Finally, you make a direct allegation that I have engaged in votestacking. If you have any evidence at all that I have inn any way breached WP:CANVASS, I plead with you to urgently make a formal complaint against me at WP:ANI, when such matters are treated as a serious misuse of wikipedia's cinsenus-based decision-making process. But unless you can come with some evidence of a breach of WP:CANVASS, I will have regard this as an unfounded personal attack must insist that you never again post to my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to message left on my user page

Regarding the below message left on my user page:

[edit] Supercentenarian trackers Hi Ryoung

I'm sure that your intentions are good, but your postings to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers are becoming disruptive, and I have just deleted a lot of material which is irrelevant to the discussion. CfD is not the place to discuss the details of a possible article, but simply to discuss whether a category should be kept, renamed, merged or deleted.

Per WP:TPG, posts at CfD are normally kept brief, and restricted to a few pertinent points. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting material pertinent to discussion can hardly be described as 'disruptive' or 'irrelevant'. Perhaps you should consider whether your actions and comments have been in line with what is expected of someone from your position.Ryoung122 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A single reply which amounts to three screenfuls is deeply disruptive, which is why I deleted it all. See WP:TPG: "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Votestacking?

Dear BHG,

{a screenful of irrelevancies deleted by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)}

I am here on Wikipedia to 'give back' to the community and educate the public. I am not here to cause problems for long-time Wikipedians. However, it is true that what I do may not be well-known to the general public. Yet when you hear of the world's oldest person passing away, everyone hears of that.

Sincerely, Robert Young World's Leading Expert Ryoung122 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, all that "about me" stuff is irrelevant to the vote-stacking exercise, and irrelevant to keeping or deleting a category, except insofar as there is a clear conflict of interest in creating a small category specifically for the field in which you claim to be the "World's Leading Expert".

If you want to "give back" to the community through wikipedia, then you really do need to start trying much much harder to work with the wikipedia community, which that means following wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That includes:

• Follow WP:TPG. Link to discussions and edits rather than copying-and-pasting them, keep your contrbutions brief and to the point (don't splat in huge blobs of text from external references), learn about indentation and threading and don't just start a new section for each reply.
• Stay within the spirit of WP:COI. Don't create articles about yourself or your friends, and don't create categories for them either
• Respect wikipedia's process of consensus, and don't abuse it by votestacking

You say that you are the "World's Leading Expert", and I would like to believe that, although my experience of the world is that people who claim that sort of title for themselves or their products are often, to put it mildly, overstating the case (and, no, that's not an invitation to spam this talk page with more links to your achievements). But this self-promotion and disruption makes your claim less and less credible.

I found the Category:Supercentenarian trackers while I was clearing out the Special:uncategorizedcategories, and I have no axe to grind here: my only interest was in drawing attention to an inappropriate category (it's orphaned, it contains an unsourced essay, and it's underpopulated with little potential for growth). My own great-aunt lived to be 110, but I have little or no interest in the subject either way; I just don't like badly designed categories, and put in a few hours every day helping to decide what to do with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am interested in claims to age 110+. How about this: you tell me the name of the person and what nation she was born in, and I bet I can find the birth and death dates. She may already be on my lists. Or, give me the birth and death dates and I'll probably be able to find out the name. Given that you appear to be Irish, I wouldn't be surprised if she were Irish (not that hard to figure out, granted, but we cannot assume).

And, if by the off chance I don't know who it is, if you have the documents I'll add her to the worldwide database. How about that?Ryoung122 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm NOT selling a product. There is no 'robertyoung.com'. I am a science researcher. I am here to educate the public as to how long the human life span really is. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for...to educate the public...or is it here merely to reflect what the kids already know, gobs of articles on high schools, college football players like Keeley Dorsey and fictional TV settings like Sunnydale, California?Ryoung122 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for the offer wrt my great aunt, but I prefer to maintain my anonymity, and her children are for various reasons rather private folk, so I wouldn't want to step on their toes.

As to selling a product, it seems to me you keep on missing the point: that the results of your research, like anyone else's research, can be included here if they meet the neutrally-designed verifiability and notability thresholds, and I don't see any move to delete that material. The difficulties have not been over that, but over your promotion of the people who do the research, including yourself. With the best will in the world, there are difficulties in assessing one's own notability, which is one good reason why it's best left to others. The other good reason not to write about oneself in this way is that if queries arise about the notability of an article on yourself, it's much harder not to take it personally if you have had a hand in writing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Truce Proposal. I would very much like to operate on Wikipedia in a proper manner. Despite all the negativity, I was looking for a response like the one (above) and I finally got it.

The current Irish record is 111 years 327 days set by Katherine Plunket (in 1932!), the oldest record in the book. Other public Irish cases to 110+ include Florence Lytle, Elizabeth Yensen, and Catherine Furey...a very short list. We know that Irene Richardson (born May 29 1896) made it to 109 but no updates since. The lists we have include over 1,000 cases worldwide.

Please note that my original creation of an 'autobiography' was partly factored by the creation of the article David Allen Lambert by himself...an autobiography. He was involved with ONE supercentenarian case. ONE. I had over 1,000. He deemed himself notable with a little self-publicity coverage. Seem fair? Not quite. Also, some have been asserting that persons such as Mary Ramsey Wood were '120' when the evidence pointed to 97. When the question became 'on what authority' do you say she was 97, it made sense to create my own article and provide a link to it from the appropriate article...because, in actuality, I am the authority.

Note I didn't include in my autobiography: parents, high school, anything like that. Only material relevant to answering the question: why should a reader of Wikipedia trust me when I say that someone like Micajah Weiss isn't really 114 years old? As a child, I was 'fooled' by several cases that turned out to be false, such as Pierre Joubert (claimed to be 113, turned out to be 82). It became my mission to educate the world as to how long people really live. Wikipedia is a part of that education mission.

Note that I was the major case contributor and co-organizer for this book, which also was made into a featured exhibit at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

This book included a foreword by U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. That was in 2002...before Guinness hired me.

So, already in 2002, persons like Jerry Friedman searched for an expert and they found me. He lived in Connecticut...I lived in Atlanta. Hardly what I'd call a 'local' story.

Yet even earlier, in 2000 I had gotten an invitation to Germany to attend the FIRST annual conference on supercentenarians. In 2004 I was called to help form the 'Supercentenarian Research Foundation.' Thus I have been not just an 'editor' or 'listmaker' but involved in setting up the very apparati that are now involved in this emerging field.

When the Wall Street Journal wanted an expert, who did they turn to?

Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal"We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, .... Club Has One Requirement: 110 Birthday Candles," The Wall Street Journal, pp. ... www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Similarly, I have also been cited/quoted/mentioned in the NY Times, Japan Times, BBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. I actually worked on a project for an NBC news segment in 2005 with Max Gomez.

OK, if you don't think that makes one notable, then fine. But I expect to see junk like Keeley Dorsey done away with. Two touchdowns and oops, died at 19 from the heat while in practice, does not constitute 'notability.'

By the way, I have already developed the 'XX theory' of gender differentials in supercentenarians. It's not due out, however. I agree on the 'professor' front I'm 'not yet notable.' That will probably change in the future. But in the meantime it seems that I should be counted as 'notable' based on the fact that, when the media want a person to turn to regarding supercentenarians, they often turn to me. That's over 1,000 newspapers on all six continents...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia. This is not a little 'hometown' citation. For example, ABC news:

ABC News: 2nd Oldest Man in World Dies at Age 113Moses Hardy, Last Known Black WWI Vet, Dies at 113; Listed As 2nd Oldest Man in the ... Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2711726 - Similar pages

ABC News: Oldest Person Dies at 114 in ConnecticutEmma Faust Tillman, World's Oldest Known Person, Dies at 114 ... Her four-day reign was the shortest on record, said Robert Young, senior consultant for ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2831097 - Similar pages

Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:

http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm

have cited me (even though I'm not linked to it and not deriving any money from it).

Thus, there is no 'fear' that mine would be the 'first' of many additional articles. Actually, mine wasn't the first...E Ross Eckler Jr, who worked for Guinness in the 1950's, was the first article. Thus I see myself as continuing in that tradition. I did not decide to be notable...others decided for me. Every group I was with, invited me to 'help' them get started on the subject. I have done more than 'create' lists. While true that Louis Epstein was also a pioneer, I have already invented several concepts including organizing data by 'oldest by year of birth' and invented ideas such as the 'age bubble effect,' 'XX theory of gender-related lifespan differential' (why women live longer). In 2002, I overturned the long-standing notion that 'life expectancy increase in the West began about 1750', instead demonstrating it went back to the 1200's. That's notable...to researchers. Maybe not to those concerned about cartoons on TV.

So, I propose this: I will be 'polite' and 'civil'. In exchange I request that you not delete material that, even if you don't consider relevant, I do, and consider that some statements made, even if not intentional, may have been incorrect. For example, that article you said didn't mention me, actually mentioned me seven times. It is only fair for whomever may vote to delete me would do so based on the actual facts, not miscontrued information. Is that too much to ask?

Sincerely, Robert Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 November 2007

Canvassing?

Dear BHG,

In response to this message:

Addituonally, it now turns out that you have been blatantly canvassing this AfD ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), which I will take to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that some of those persons either voted 'no' or hadn't voted at all, which hardly argues for one-sided canvassing. I do believe in a 'jury of peers' and again, I have a few main issues which I believe were unfair in this process from the beginning:

1. The deletion or collapse of my arguments meant that, '4000 words' or no, few if any probably actually read them. Wikipedia is 'not paper' so the length of a response should not matter, as long as it is pertinent.

2. When it appears that editors with a personal vendetta or bias don't recuse themselves from the 'non-vote', it can hardly be called a 'fair' process. That includes AboutMovies, KittyBrewster, PeteForsyth, and ShotInfo, as well as yourself, considering it is traditional for the 'nominator' not to actually vote and that your nomination came after a few controntational issues regarding the 'supercentenarian trackers' debate. For example, ShotInfo decided to 'vote' against me after I removed something from the David Horrobin article. That is evidence of 'bad faith'. So, I cannot assume 'good faith' for those who demonstrated 'bad faith.'

3. The posting of incorrect information, which was never corrected.

Please send me a link to the ANI if you do decide to go ahead with this. Ryoung122 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes my head hurt

This seems like a misuse of the category system and I'm wondering if some of this mess needs to be cleaned up. Things like categories for articles that don't exist strike me as a bad road to go down. Otto4711 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! My head hurts after reading that. It even starts to rival Pastorwayne.

I have a few other things on the go right now, and apart from needing an aspirinfest, I don't have the energy to tackle that one :( But if you can find the time I suggest a mass WP:RFD on the redirects and and then a group CfD on the category. Lemme know if you do it, and I'll lend my support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, redirects often need to be kept because they have edit history for text that has been merged elsewhere. That needs to be checked either before, or at, RfD. And in general, categorisation of redirects is accepted. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Finally, administrative categories are perfectly acceptable. See {{Wikipedia category}}. Sorry if you both knew this already, but it wasn't clear from the above whether you were grouping in the administrative categories with the redirect categories. The "planning" aspects of the categories should be removed to the WikiProject space, and linked from the category, I agree. Carcharoth 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some of the redirects should probably stay (those that are the residue of a merger), but that the categories should be removed to project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable Canadian hyperlinks and redirects

Category:Ontario_municipal_election_results_templates leads to alll sorts of blue links that should be de-linked. Is there a way to do a mass tagging? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they could be tagged with apart from a generic {{cleanup}} tag, which isn't very informative. May I suggest talking to the templates' creator? They all seem to have been the work of CJCurrie (talk · contribs).

I do agree that the names should not be linked unless there are specific articles on those people, because the names nearly all relate to local councillors, who have no presumption of notability in WP:BIO. CJCurrie may not be aware of this, so it would be a good idea to explain the point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 6#Non-notable_Toronto_local_election_candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Well done. Sadly I notice it goes well beyond Toronto. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me :( I suggest that we treat this rfd as a test case, and if it passes, then it should be easier to zap the rest. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

This discussion related to canvassing by Ryoung122 (talk · contribs), who posted his reply both here and on his talk page. I have replied at User talk:Ryoung122#Category:_Supercentenarian_Trackers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User 160.81.29.174

Could you have a look at this ip he vandalised Wall Street article last night and if you look at his talk page you will see that he has been warned repeatedly it seems it is an account just for vandalisim thanks. BigDunc 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dunc, you're right. It's petty and childish, but it's vandalism nonetheless, and it wastes a lot of time for others tidying up after this stuff. I have blocked 160.81.29.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for three months, which is as long as seems to be considered acceptable for IPs. Roll on compulsory registration, I say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear thanks for that on a bit of vandal patrol at the moment studying for exams so not much time for reasearch on projects so just going after the bad guys ha ha. BigDunc 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work. And good luck with the exams! .. and don't let this stuff distract you too much from the path to first class honours :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging - how to keep track

Hi there. I've noticed you doing some more tagging, and I'd like to thank you for that. One question - is there an easy way to generate a list or category of the articles you've tagged? I'd like to be able to review such a list, as some will be easy to deal with straightaway (such as On Fairy-Stories). I can't work out any easy way, other than following your contribs logs, or using Template:ME-importance, or a variant of that. What do you think? Carcharoth 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again :) I wish it was easier to track this sort of thing :( If we had dynamic category intersection, we could rapidly generate virtual categories such as the intersection between Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Works by J. R. R. Tolkien, and it would be really useful for all sorts of purposes, but particularly for those diligent editors like you who are keen to bring the article up to scratch.

At the moment, the only way I can see of doing that is to use a project-specific variant of each template, which woukd add aricles to project-specific cleanup categories. As per our discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth, that has its downsides in that it could lead to the creation of many forks of the tags, which could both dilute the message of the tags and lead to the articles not being categorised in the relevant tracking categories such as Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2007.

But those I have been thinking about it a bit more, because it seems a pity to let technical niceties impede the efforts of you and others to improve articles. I think I can see a possible win-win solution, which I'd like your thoughts on:

• The way I think that this could be done is to provide a hook in the underlying {{ambox}} template, accessible through the {{unreferenced}} etc, which would allow customisation parameters. So, for example, {{ME-unreferenced}} would consist of something like {{unreferenced|project=Middle-earth|project-tracking-cateory:WikiProject Middle Earth unreferenced articles|project-guidelines=foo|project-specific-extra-text=Middle Earth likes references}}. That way the template logic could handle categorisation, so that the usual tracking categories are all included, and it could ensure that the core text of the template is modidified. That way, if the standard text in {{unreferenced}} is changed, it cascades through to all the templates derived from it.
• I suggest that we trash this around a bit and then (unless we conclude it's a dead duck idea), talk to the folks at the Wikipedia:Article message boxes standardisation project about a generic way of allowing these maintenance template to be safely adapted for a wikiproject.

If this makes any sense, what do you think? I hope that in outline this might be a way of helping projects tidyup articles in their own areas, but without creating the maintenance headaches of content-forking or losing articles from the generic wikipedia tracking categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Though I wouldn't give up on category intersection just yet. See Wikipedia:Category intersection, and look around. There are lots of ideas and some working systems. Just none that work here yet. Bots can also update category intersections, and if all else fails, manual intersection is possible if the categories are small. Unfortunately, Category:All articles lacking sources is not small. Manual intersection could be done with the date-limited ones, but integrating topic-specific (rather than WikiProject specific) categories would be an idea. See what was done at Template:Fact, which can be submodifed by using Template:Fix, as was done with Template:Me-fact. Carcharoth 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia:Category intersection link; the problem still seems to be not the lack of code but the fact that implementing it would overload the servers, which I think is roughly where it has been at for at least a year. The suggestion of a separate category database server may have potential as a way of lowering the bar, but I guess even that would cost money. I haven't lost hope, but it still seems that any holding of breath would be inadvisable.

I like your dry observation that Category:All articles lacking sources is "not small"; just a slight understatement :) But if this technique provides a way of drawing the attention of wikiprojects to problems in their area, allowing them to fix the problems, it might stop the category growing quite so fast. I'll post a proposal to the Wikipedia:Article message boxes standardisation project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you have time to check this. Wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you meant by the tag. BTW, I left an earlier response at the same time as a previous one (in the section started by Otto), so just making sure you didn't miss that. Carcharoth 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You was quite correct to remove the tag: after you had added so many secondary sources, notability is clearly established, and my concerns were solely about notability. BTW, I think that series of edits pretty much illustrates how these tags should work: editor who knows nowt about the subject spots a structural deficiency and tags the article, then an expert comes along and doesn't just get over the hurdle but takes the article way beyond it. And in this case, with an impressively quick turnaround time :)

It think it also illustrates how useful it would be to have project-sorted tagging of this sort of problem, to make . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for project-specific extensions of tags

See Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Project-specific_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and dusted

Rose Dugdale finished, after much hard work.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article -- a fascinating story, told in a rigorously neutral style whilst bringing in all the details and including enough colour to give a real flavour of the personality. Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On the "image needed" front there is actually a possibility. There's a couple of photos in the book, and one of them is of her and female friend dressed up as men for the gatecrashing incident. I'm well aware that fair use of living people is generally quite restrictive, but I'm thinking that's a unique enough photo to merit fair use? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never had much involvement with image policy, so I think that any guidance I offered on licensing or BLP wrt images would be useless :( But I do hope there is some way of getting that photo up there, it sounds like great fun.

BTW, I can see several potential DYK items in that article, so I hope you find time to nominate it. (the dressing-as-men episode, the first helicopter attack, and first marriage of two Irish prisoners). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort of admin doesn't know about image policy? ;) And I'm well ahead of you on the DYK front, although feel free to suggest any alternative hooks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort admin? One who loves words and can't draw, and whose preference for text is probably not unrelated to her lack of any photogenic qualities :)

There doesn't seem to be room to fit the marriage into the DYK item, so I have posted a second entry. I dunno if that's allowed, but we'll see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's generally done underneath and without refs, but I fixed everything. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

is being vandalised. Please would you fix and semi-protect. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected again for 6 months. There is something about the persistence of vandalism to that particular article which makes me a little sad about the state of some chunks of humanity :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One for you

As our resident expert on Irish administrative miscellany, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo? This looks to be headed for a delete vote under highly dubious circumstances (the place patently does exist) - but do you think Wikipedia's "all named geographic locations should have their own article" policy breaks down at the townland level?

Incidentally you're now in the top 10 of all time by edit count... — iridescent 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Top ten? Aaargh. I must hive my AWB edits off to a separate account. Meanwhile, look what pops to the top if you put BrownHairedGirl into Goooogle. So much for hoping for obscurity for that typo :(

I have added a little location info for Derry, and my comments at the AfD. I fear that there is some recentism at work, or at least a certain lack awareness of how the historical geography of a country which until very recently exported most of its people raises very different issues to that of a country which avoided such calamities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to at least keep going until you hit 100k... — iridescent 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that when I get a gold watch, or will I just be sent off to the knackers yard to be rendered down into pig food? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You get officially classified as a bot. — iridescent 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The folks who coded me will be very pleased!

Maybe that's why BRFA request is a taking a while, if they are waiting for my edit count to climb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirects

Please see my response here. CJCurrie 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe You Can Figure This Out

I'm cleaning up Category:Urban_legends and I can't figure out why Talk:Killer badger is listed or how to remove it. 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{urbanlegend}} template automatically adds it to the category. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks.Ridernyc 10:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom

Hi -- I have rewritten TTI Telecom, originally a spam article, and included references since you nominated it for deletion. I invite you to take another look at the article and its AfD before the AfD closes shortly. I am not affiliated with the company; in fact, I PROD'd their 4 other articles -- see Talk:List of network management systems.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the pointer. I have now withdrawn the nomination. Your rewrite in neutral terms solves the self-promotional problems, and the refs you have provided in the mainstream press (not just the trade press) demonstrate notability per WP:CORP's requirement of substantial coverage in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Listas parameter in WPBiography template

It seems to me an obvious MoS, but please could it be stated somewhere that listas=Smith, Sir John is not correct and it should be listas=Smith, John. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a general indexing issue? Same applies to {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, John}}, and for Sir Egbert Snodgrass, 6th Baronet it's {{DEFAULTSORT:Snodgrass, Egbert, 6th Baronet }}, not Sir Egbert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been going through unprioritised Baronets, trying to assess their importance / priority, and am coming across a number who are wrongly shown on listas (which is on the talk page). Defaultsort ia usually right. - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline appears to be Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering_names_in_a_category, which seems to be completely silent on the point. If you have the energy, it would be a good idea to propose a knight-and-baronets clause. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good find. I think it is clear on the point - in that it says "Surname, Forename" but I have added the point as an additional note for the sake of clarity. I doubt anyone would wish to challenge it since it is normal indexing policy. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it looks like a weak case to me. One substantive piece of coverage, and one mention in a list which is reprinted in a few places. The other interviews, comixtalk include, don't look to me like WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American scientists

Hello, BrownHaired one -- If you can find the time, would you please take a look at the comment I've added to the discussion re Category:Jewish American scientists? I believe the need to articulate what I wrote there crystallized in my mind as a result of reading your very interesting comments in the DRV for Category:African American baseball players. Regards, Cgingold 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at the CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London (2)

That is apart from the encyclopedic listing of wider refference source material but I ain't a barrister so arguing is no fun. Better to delete than be encyclopedic. Or maybe if I just listed refferences instead is it same difference but maintainable? See List of wards in Greater London Jed keenan 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the MPs, see reply at Talk:List of Labour Party Members of Parliament in London. The List of wards in Greater London seems to be a different case, where the councils produce the lists, althiugh that article really should also cite the Boundary Commitee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:British Army Portal officers

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:British Army Portal officers

Would you mind if I relisted that discussion to WP:UCFD (it seems to be intended as a user category) and expanded its scope to include the 19 subcategories? Mostly, I want to ensure that the comments made so far are transferred ... although I have to admit that I'm tempted to simply close the discussion as "delete" and then delete the subcats (which would become orphaned) per CSD G6. Please let me know your thoughts. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to you relisting it at UCFD if you see fit, though I won't follow the debate there, because any time I have ventured in there the place has looked like a madhouse ("Wikipedia is doomed if we keep Category:X wikipedians" v "how dare you censor my ability to collaborate with other X wikipedians"; not so much a storm in a teacup as a category 5 tropical cyclone in a thimble).

I think that a closure and then a G6 on the subcats would probably be appropriate, but I'm also not sure that's it appropriate for my advice here to guide you, since I was the nominator. All I can say I'm sure that whatever decision you make will be a wise one :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence! :) I'll give the matter some more thought and will try to arrive at a well-reasoned closure. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! There are several few CfD closers whose judgment I really respect: Kbdank71, jc37, Radiant, Sam Blacketer, Samuel Wantman, and you. I don't mean that I would necessarily reach the same conclusions that you do, but you all try conscientiously to assess arguments against policy and you give reasons for decisions where necessary. I dunno where in the world you are based, but in English law one of the main grounds for seeking judicial review of government or administrative decisions is that a decision was "perverse or irrational" ... in other words it's not sufficient to argue that a better decision could have been made, but that this one was made badly or on the wrong grounds. All your closures that I have seen are well clear of that threshold :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I'd like to see in a DRV decision: "overturned; perverse closure". :D ... But, seriously, thank you again. I consider you an exceptional editor and your words mean a lot. ... I'm also glad that the explanations that I occasionally attach to my closures have a useful purpose other than serving as practice reading material for psychoanalysts. ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Flattery! But thanks :) [altho I think of myself more as obsessive than exceptional ;) ]

Maybe it's because I spent too much time pursuing test cases through courts, but I do place a lot of value on reasons for decisions. When I first started frequenting CfD a year ago, decisions tended to be a one-word "keep" or "delete", which I didn't like. I eventually found that some decisions I disliked were not as irrational as they had seemed, but it would have been much to have had the reasoning explained up front: everyone could have learnt from it. I'm pleased to see that in the last 9 months or so a lot more rationale has been given for XfD closures. I don't think it's necessary in all cases, and in many simple ones it would be a waste of time and energy, but particularly in controversial or complex cases it can help avoid a lot of confusion and resentment. Of course, if people really won't accept an outcome they dislike, then no reasoning will soothe tempers, but that's they way it is with any form of decision-making. CfD is often noted as a particularly obscure and jargon-ridden end of wikipedia which can be intimidating to newcomers, which it certainly was for me ... and explanations of decisions go along way to helping mir people to get involved. They certainly aren't wasted :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster's "mass" movement of article page names

I notice that over the past 24 hours Kitty has move the titles of a number of articles relating to Baronets. Now it kicked off big time over this time especially when now disambing is required. We have just had an arbcom and the issue of Baronet played a large part in this, I would be tempted to change them all back and report Kitty but in the spirit of the arbcom I would like you to see if you can sort it out. regards--Vintagekits 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any news with regard to this?--Vintagekits 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a msg on Kittybewster's talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Grand, I have seen his reply also. I am not sure "noted" cuts the mustard tbh. I would prefer he actually put them back into their correct titles, with the exception of those which you believed to be correct titled of course. Finally, I am not sure what his reference to the tit-for-tat proposal is about - I dont think I have titted or tatted! If he feels I have incorrectly titled articles for boxers I would be glad to rectify them. thanks for looking into it and regards.--Vintagekits 18:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think that would be better, but as long as articles are disambiguated where needed I don't think that it's a big deal. And when it comes disambiguation, I don't take the narrowest possible definition of "needed"; I recall someone once arguing that Dorset South was sufficiently distinct from South Dorset that no disambiguation was needed :(
  But aside from disambiguation, I am puzzled as to why the baronet-naming issue seems so important to both of you. In the spirit of the abcom decision, wouldn't it be better for you to stay off Kittybrester's case, just as he appears to have stayed off yours and you asked Rockpocket to leave you alone? There's enough bad blood between the pair of you to fill many a swimming pool, and it seems to me to be much better for both of you to stick to your own areas of interest and exprtise.
  Anyway, I should have given you a warmer welcome back to my talk page after such a long absence :) It's nice to have you back, and I hope that in future we can all go the extra mile to minimise any conflict. ONIH sets a great example: avoiding the minor disagreements and concentrating on churning out lots of good articles, such as the recent one Rose Dugdale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see it as a breach of the Arbcom - probably enough to be put on probation. Considering the massive deal Rock made of my revert I would say that it was a pretty big deal - I dont think that ignoring this because of the arbcom is an issue - infact quite the opposite this was one of the issue that was brought up in the arbcom as being a bone of contention.--Vintagekits 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can bring it to ANI if you want to (tho please cite this discussion if you do), but my best advice to both of you is to stay off each others cases and out of each others areas of interests, in the spirit of this finding of arbcom.
  I'm also concerned to see two AfDs (Nuttall, apparently WP:SNOW-kept and Borwick, still open); neither was nominated by you, but it's not at all helpful to see what appears to be a resurgence of Irish Republican editors targeting British articles for deletion (by a new editor on their first day who made two AfD noms within their first 30 edits). Tit-for-tat AFDing was one of the disruptive features of the previous long-running dispute, and I would be just as concerned to see similarly frivolous nominations of republicans, as we had earlier in the year. Mercifully, that doesn't seem to have happened so far, but this appears to be heading back towards a resumption of the old lines of battle. Please draw back, and just lets some of these minor things go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here but Kittybrewster has had a constant long-term interest in Baronets for possibly obvious reasons - he is one. Referring to the recent "The Troubles" ArbCom it was stated that those involved should not intrude upon the obvious areas of interest of those 'named'. I think its unlikely that Kitty has been busy on Ulster pages or indeed on anything much to do with Ireland, nor, indeed on boxers. Maybe Vintagekits could explain what his great fascination and intense interest is now with Baronets - how it ties in with his normal interests so evident from his contributions history. From where I am sitting the principal breach of good faith and the Arbcom seems obvious. David Lauder 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

David, you are very welcome to comment, as are others, so of course long as anyone joining in stays civil and tries to seek consensus. It seems to me that there are two issues here: Vintagekits straying into an area where his previous involvement has been controversial (potentially problematic), and kittybrewster apparently breaching the guidelines (also potentially problematic). I think it's much the best to separate the two issues, and to note that because of the history of this dispute Vintagekits' involvement in baronet issues is unlikely to prove constructive, however good his intentions. I have asked Kittbrewster to sort things out, and I think that there is a much greater likelihood of everything being resolved amicably if Vintagekits now withdraws from the issue having drawn attention to the problem. I see no reason to question the good faith of either Vk's note to me or Kb's moves, and I hope that anyone else who wants to comment will likewise assume good faith. Let's just leave it that, and not talk ourselves into raking through the embers of a dispute which consumed so much time and energy? If anyone has some energy to spare, then it woukd be best to use it try to find solutions - would you perhaps like to help Kittybewster clarify where things have got to with the article names? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

About the Jewish scientist category discussion

I first must say that if it was me to decide than you been chosen for having the most elegant nickname on wikipedia :). Any way, I replied to your last comment there.--Gilisa 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very sweet of you. Actually, I have long regretted choosing that name, because apart from being too long, I think it sounds too childishly cutesy for a woman getting close to middle age, and I think that it probably encourages some of the macho male editors to be more inclined to try to push me aside :( I definitely wouldn't have used it if I had thought that I was going to be a long-term contributor, but I never intended to be.

One day I decided I try editing wikipedia to see how it worked and needed a user ID. For some forgotten reason I had just been thinking about the Van Morrison song "Brown Eyed Girl"; I don't particularly like Van the Man anyway, and to my mind that's a long way from being one of his better songs (it hasn't a fraction of the depth of Saint Dominic's Preview). But my imagination was lazy that day, so I adapted that song title, thinking that it would be as much a throwaway identity as the meaningless colorless green ideas-style ID I once created for one-time use on some site. Unfortunately, editing wikipedia turned out to be more addictive than crack cocaine, and by the time I admitted to myself that I was hooked, I had enough edits clocked up that a name change looked likely to be rather disruptive. So I'm stuck with it, like one of those people who never shake off a childhood nickname, except that this one is entirely my own fault!

Anyway, on the substantive point, I think that you misunderstood which part of WP:CATGRS I was referring to, probably because I was not clear enough. I have replied at the the CfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always change it, you know... User:Cold Eyed Killing Machine and User:I Run Over Animals for Fun are both still free. (User:I hate everyone and User:Kill immigrants are already taken, though, as is my personal favourite User:If it weren't for bad faith I'd have no faith at all). — iridescent 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had considered something along the lines of User:Hormonally-crazed pedantic bogtrotter, but you ideas suggestions also have potential :) But if I was going to rename myself, I think it would be to something studiously neutral, albeit possibly relating to some aspect of Irishness such as th fact that we were busy establishing universities all over Europe while the rest of Yurp was still trying to figure out how to invent woad ;) Anyway, I'll stick with what I have, for better or worse: the results of renaming a user always seem to me to be a bit messy, BrownHairedGirl is on so many pages now that I think it's easier for everyone if I stick with it.  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but think how high a search-and-replace of every occurrence of it would push your edit count - you might knock Rich Farmbrough off the #1 spot. — iridescent 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And crash the severs in the process .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Wanted To Let You Know

There is a conversation at the village pump about WP:Music, seems they are having the same exact problem we were having at WP:Fict. I posted talking about our issue and pointing issues with the multiple notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_guidelines_for_songs.3B_resolution_needed Ridernyc 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have commented there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have commented there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kelley AfD

Split out from the original talk page section and refactored here. Carcharoth 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the AfD notice off David H. Kelley and put an oldafd notice on the talk page. Any steps I missed? I'll leave an AfD regular to properly close the AfD itself. Carcharoth 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith, but I think you got things in the wrong order here. The AfD notice should not be removed until the AfD is actually closed. I suggest that you revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's process for the sake of process. The order doesn't matter that much, but leaving a large gap of time between the bits of the process might mess things up, so I've done all the other bits as well (I think). If I've missed anything, let me know. Carcharoth 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit terse, but was just about to go away from my desk for an hour so had to be brief. Yes, all fine now that the AfD is closed, and the talk page notice is fine too. You're quite right that the order doesn't matter much (though in case I get distracted in mid-process, I usually try to do a closure first, tidyup afterwards). My concern was that I had read your comment as being that you wouldn't close the AfD, which left open the possibility that the AfD could still run one for few more days without the pointer to it from the article, which would be unfair to anyone else who might have wanted to contribute if they had seen the notice. Sorry if I was being alarmist! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NUI seats in the Dáil

discussion continued where it started, at User talk:Red King#Patrick_McGilligan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Isaura Navarro

Can I ask for your assistance on the above page please due to current vandalism/edit warring? I have attempted to discuss this with User:Recicla but they seem intent on continuing to revert changes. I believe that their reversions of sourced material represent vandalism and/or a breach of WP:3RR Thanks, Valenciano 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article now protected: see Talk:Isaura Navarro. You were both edit-warring, so I have also issued WP:3RR warnings to both of you. On wikipedia, content disputes are resolved by discussion to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Best wishes to both of you in resolving this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I was aware 3RR didn't apply to reverting vandalism. User:Recicla/85.53.31.112 was indeed asked to discuss concerns over the article's content on the talk page [1] and another user asked them to stop doing this [2] but was also ignored. As their response to requests to discuss the article's content is to accuse me of belonging to some faction of the Valencian United Left Party (!) it hardly bodes well for reaching agreement! Valenciano 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Vandalism, I see good faith edits by a new editor which may not have been appropriate (I'm not going to try to be a one-woman arbitrator over content!), but which are also unlikely to have been done with any knowledge of he relevant wikipolicies and paractices. Please do try to discuss the matter in a friendly way, and to WP:AGF. We all had to start somewhere as editors, and sometimes it takes a bit of time to explain to people about how to approach issues such as verifiability and neutrality, and it seems to me to be likely that Recicla did not understand what she or he was believed to be doing wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair dos BHG and don't be too hard on yourself - I've always found you a good one woman arbitrator. :) The user also edits on the Spanish Wikipedia so is not really a newcomer, although 3RR doesn't yet apply there. I will try to reach content agreement with Recicla, although it's been a bit frustrating to date that attempts to do so have been ignored or rebuffed in favour of accusations linking me with a political party solely because I translated some sourced stuff from the Spanish article. Valenciano 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so nice about it. Olive branches don't always work, but they are usually worth trying, and sometimes it's possible to be pleasantly surprised. I know that you have experience to give them a good try here on the "we got off to a bad start" sort of line, if you have the energy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've asked Recicla again to discuss it on the talk page, so we'll see what happens. What happens though if Recicla continues to remove the material? I have two sources for it and they include the second biggest daily newspaper in Spain - if someone constantly removed links to a story published in say the Guardian or Times then what to do? A further problem here is that I do have numerous references for things that I propose to add but they're usually in Spanish or Catalan since Navarro is a local MP. Can any admin add material that I propose on the talk page or does it have to be you? Thanks, Valenciano 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you try discussing it but can't reach agreement, then it be something to take to dispute resolution processes. Having protected the page, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on content, but I'd suggest that a good read of WP:NPOV should give you some useful ideas. The two questions I would ask would be a) is the contested material accurate and referenced to reliable sources, and presented in a balanced way? b) Does its inclusion unbalance the article by over-emphasising one part of the subject's life? The second question can be harder to answer, but having taken the procedural step of protecting the page, I don't want to suggest how to answer either of them in this case.

However, if you use {{editprotected}} on the talk page, the page gets categorised as needing admin attention, and you'll usually find someone along pretty quickly to take a look. Any admin can do that. And it can be any admin.

I understand you completely. The sources are good including Spains second biggest daily and I've found a third source which is in the biggest selling regional daily in the Valencia region. As it happens I *do* believe that the current version is biased against the subject and that's something I hope to rectify and have already proposed rectifying on the talk page by the inclusion of an alternate take on the events, but it is up to the other editor to discuss this, not just remove material. Anyway, just want to say thanks (yet again!) for your time and assistance on this issue. Best, Valenciano 12:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in resolving this. A fair dose of patience is requiring, often with a large measures of WP:AGF, but in general it's rare to get stuck at a complete stand-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)

Dear BHG, one must at least respect such a powerful opponent as oneself. However, please do consider that your actions may have negative consequences on the future education of the world's children. Your actions have no impact on research or the older scientific community, which regards Wikipedia with disdain and little more than a kid-pedia. The fact that I risked a lot of reputation to come here and educate the under-30 crowd should say a lot about me. In addition to my own article, Louis's article, the supercentenarian trackers category, etc, we now have pro-myth opponents seeking to undo the work done to stop the myth-makers, from the USA and elsewhere. That at least two of the pro-myth crowd (that insisted Mary Wood was '120' in 1908, when evidence showed otherwise) chose to violate COI and opine against me on my own AFD page says a lot. Whether an individual article or a collective article exists, there certainly needs to be one. As Guinness World Records said in 1979:

The Guiness Book of World Records, discussing old-age claims, frankly warns readers: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity.”http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/moments/oldfolks.html

Is 'process' more important than truth? Actually both are important. Truth must be arrived at through process. I find it incredulous that, though CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc all find me notable, Wikipedia does not. Yet what is on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia today? A fake story about World Wrestling Entertainment, Vince MacMahon, and Bret Hart. If that's what Wikipedia wants to be, then so be it. But I had hoped it would be an actual fact-based encyclopedia. Children today are educated through TV, video games, and Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they knew that "Quahog" was the town where 'Family Guy' was located, but had never heard it was a clam. Apalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, on wikipedia as in academia, truth is established by referenced, verifiable use of existing sources which establish the accuracy of the article, and we use the same process to establish notability of the subject. If those are available, then a deletion nomination by me or anyone will be overwhelming rejected, as happened quite rightly with my AfD for David H. Kelley.

I'm afraid that I don't have the energy to explain any further why a one-line quote in article about something else does not establish notability of the person quoted. And when it cones to vanity, I suggest that you consider very carefully what's written at WP:COI, and particular how relevant the concept of vanity is to someone who is the main defender of their own claim to notability and who makes claim about their own role which is self-evidently false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One does not have to be the 'primary author' to be in a work. Besides, I disagreed with the 'academia' assessment. My work is a hybrid between academia and the popular media. To judge me on my merits for academia alone is only half the story. I am listed seven times in that citation. In fact, it could be said I was the source of the source, which is more notable than being the mere article. When the article writer wanted a list of the world's oldest people, they turned to me. So, if you don't think that's a valid reference, that's your opinion, but it's not a 'false' reference.

Also, I believe you missunderstand the meaning of a 'trivial' source. If there was a fire in Manhattan and the New York Times asked a bystander what happened, being mentioned in that would be 'trivial' because the subject was the fire, not the person, who doesn't even have to be an 'expert', just a 'witness'. If, however, an article uses an 'expert' to back up a newspaper assertion, that is a 'horse of a different color.' A story about the world's oldest person or even just the oldest in a state must be based on some authority, who decides if that person's claim is true. To use an analogy, it's not simply about drug-testing athletes, but there is an authority. For example, if the New York Marathon said that Martin Lel won, that even if the story is about "Martin Lel winning," the validator of the results is not an insignificant or 'trivial' mention. Note that when the long stories are collapsed, often the remaining result still mentions the validator. For example: http://www.topix.com/who/robert-young

Hmmn, even though 3 of the articles are about my namesake, 'Father Knows Best,' the other three appear to be related to me. Topix.com is NOT a trivial site...it combines the news from many major newspapers such as NY Newsday, Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, etc.

The bottom line: even IF my article is deleted, that only will be a miscarriage of justice, not a fair result. And I stand by what I said that 'started' this: "World's Leading Expert." If that sounds arrogant to you and you have proven yourself to be one of the top-10 most powerful people on Wikipedia, fine. But just remember you had home-field advantage. So, have a good day and you can think what you wish, but Guinness World Records is the #1 best-selling book of all-time (the Bible is usually given away free, as the most widely distributed) and is used as the 'final arbiter' of longevity. Even Time Magazine said as much in 1997. I guess, though, Time Magazine isn't a valid source.Ryoung122 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic point but Guinness World Records is most certainly not the best selling book of all time - the total sales of every issue ever of 100 million are less than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Ten Little Niggers/And Then There Were None (both 110 million) and a lot less than the non-religious leader, The Little Red Book (900 million). — iridescent 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, there is no way on earth that I am one on the ten most powerful people on wikipedia. Iridiscent pointed out to me that I have one of the top ten places in the list of edit counts, but that's only trivia: it's largely a function of doing a lot of semi-automated housekeeping, and it has as much relevance to anything as how many jelly babies are left in the jar in my living room. I am one of about a thousand admins on wikipedia, that's all ... and the point you may have missed is that I am intentionally anonymous: there is not and never will be a wikipedia article on BrownHairedGirl. I have achieved the measure of notability I wanted elsewhere (with the large press clippigs file and all), and if someone else wants to write an article on my role in the real world, I'll watch from a distance (there are plenty of sources out there) ... but I do not and will not try to abuse wikipedia to boost myself or the people with whom I have worked in real life.

If you really believe that you are notable, you would do best to follow WP:COI and leave that to others to decide: you'll find that decisions are usually made fairly and generously and that errors are rapidly corrected. But the more you continue to use wikipedia as a vehicle to boost your career, and to disrupt its proceedings in the course of an aggressive pursuit of that goal, the less that editors will be inclined they will be to give your case the benefit of any doubt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I 'agree' with some of your points. It is better to follow WP:COI where applicable. But did it ever occur to you that, deep down, what I was really doing is 'testing' the material to see if others approve or not. Apparently they don't, so that means that we at the GRG are not doing a good enough job of educating the public.

Because you occasionally seem reasonable, I have posted the below commentary. This is basically my viewpoint. I think the current AFD's for my article (and possibly Louis Epstein's) is wrong, simply because the standard of 'academic' is being applied, when I am really a hybrid, academic and organizer. Louis is not an 'academic'. Amateur astronomers have discovered comets, and been deemed notable (such as [[Shoemaker-Levy). Thus it isn't fair to apply an 'academic' standard when the real measure should be: Impact. Did these people make a difference? Is there work cited by others? Are they in the 'historical timeline'? If the answer is 'yes', then they are notable, from a history viewpoint. I don't really fit well in any categories. Nonetheless, I am 33, not 80. Time will tell.

To me the issue still remains: Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. The article extreme longevity researchers should focus on, mainly, the group as a whole. Each Wiki-link provides more information on the GRG, Stephen Coles, the Max Planck Institute, James Vaupel, Guinness World Records, etc. Even A Ross Eckler Jr. The only thing missing is: what did Louis Epstein and Robert Young do?

It therefore stands to reason to have a separate, Wikilinked article that gives background information on that. Due to COI 'issues,' it seems the majority of Wikipedians simply can't see that this was an organizational issue.

Fact: Louis Epstein almost single-handedly kept the 'tradition' alive when Guinness deleted the 'national longevity recordholders' after the 1991 edition. By 1998, through Louis's efforts at http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html, the GRG decided to pick those up, and went from '2,000 hits'/year to 100,000+ hits a year. Let's face it, Dr. Coles and Epstein together made a more powerful team than alone. In 1999, I joined the team. I had been keeping my own private lists since 1988, and by 1999 I had my own, rival lists, which the GRG also posted (though it's not a complete rivalry: Louis keeps middle names, while I keep places of birth and death, and about 95% of the cases are on both lists, even though I have about 1100 and he is behind, at about 1000).

In 2000, a competing group, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, invited myself and Mr. Epstein to Rostock, Germany and started the FIRST International Conference on Supercentenarians. Thus we were there from the very beginning. How rapidly did things evolve? From that first meeting, the Social Security Administration decided to launch a study, and Jean-Marie Robine decided to start the International Database on Longevity. Notably, by 2002 the Epstein/Young lists were cited as 'the' lists by major, published works:

[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The IDL database is complemented by an international list of supercentenarians gathered on. the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages

Though critical of some demographic deficiencies, my lists have continued to grow. In 2002, I founded 'World's Oldest People' which, while just a Yahoo webgroup, has been cited on the Yahoo front page portal as a source for 'more information.'

Today, virtually all the scientific publications cite the Epstein or Young tables, even though there are two camps: more liberal, American, and 'anti-aging' are the GRG, Rejuvenation Research (with Aubrey de Grey), and the SRF. More mainstream/European and concerned with demography are the Max Planck Institute in Germany, the International Database on Longevity, INSERM (with Vaupel/Robine/etc). Recently the New England Centenarian Study has upped the ante:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505

Also, some have taken a less scientific, more popular-media approach. In 2002, the Earth's Elders Foundation hired me to help them put together a book on supercentenarians, which led to an exhibit at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Elders-Wisdom-Worlds-Oldest/dp/0976910802

Note also that Guinness World Records, aware of the Epstein/GRG connection, decided in the year 2000 to rely primarily on Mr Epstein and myself as consultants for the world's oldest person titles, which included oldest person, oldest man, oldest American, oldest twins, etc. They continued to do 'oldest British person' by themselves.

In 2001, I scored my first 'hit' with Marie Bremont, whom French researcher Jean-Marie Robine personally thanked me for getting her into the Guinness Book. Since 2001, every titleholder has come from either myself or Mr Epstein. In 2005, I was promoted to Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records. Hence, I now oversee claims from the entire world.

To User Brown-Haired Girl, this was simply an ego-trip. I note she claimed she had a 110-year-old aunt but refused to divulge who it was. Let's face it: if you don't like a program on TV, don't watch it. But don't interrupt everyone else's viewing.

Note that I'm the only person in the world who is involved in every organization primarily cited by the media or research articles concerning supercentenarians: the GRG, the Max Planck Insitute, the NECS, the SSA, GWR, and the SRF.

As such, I argued that I was 'notable' NOT based on the qualifications of an 'academic' but as an organizer. I note that this field is not yet taught in schools as courses, but it is beginning to 'seep' in. Ironically, in two of my classes material used by the professor included me in it. One student recognized me from the WOP book.

Yet I realize there's no use trying to climb uphill, but there must be a certain lower limit to this current 'bear run' against supers. I believe that removing the Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues will result in better treatment in the future. When the current hysteria, which has extended to even tagging William Thoms (is his article now suspect as well?), is quite ridiculous. Nothing short of a 'Nobel prize' will seem to placate these invidiuals, even though Wikipedia is chock full of articles on no-name drummers from some third-rate kids' band, or college football players who scored ONE career touchdown...like Keeley Dorsey.

Thus, it seems three things need to happen:

1. The use of a third-party, reputable editor who can 'filter' information, thus avoiding charges of COI or bias.

2. As time goes on, more material will prove me right and when the time comes, someone else will resurrect what was destroyed.

3. In the meantime, perhaps a paragraph or two in this article about the '1990's and the '2000's would give an opportunity for the above 'history' to be incorporated. Because, remember: I do hold a degree in World History.

I don't see myself notable as an 'academic'(yet) but as a 'media expert/source' and an organizer, not just of lists, but of groups. That I was a founding organizer of the SRF is already documented. That I was the only founder not yet with a graduate-level degree speaks to my ability already.

http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm

That Guinness decided to hire me, when they could choose anyone else, said something. That I've already topped out in the sub-field (can't go higher than #1) means that I will be shifting my focus to the academic. I don't expect to be 'famous' immediately. Further, I do not seek the 'American Idol' type of fame, fame for fame's sake. I do seek to change the public's mindset about human longevity, longevity myths, and the potential for scientific and public enhancements. That the next time someone advocates that Mary Wood is 120, Micajah Weiss is 114, or that William Coates is 114, they'll take a step back, think critically, and say: where is the evidence? What are the chances? Because if only 1 in 10 million people lied about their age, if we have four people: one is 114, one is 95 but claims 114, one is 90 but claims 120, and one is 80 but claims 130, who will be the last to die? Chances are, the REAL supercentenarian will NEVER outlive every false claim. And thus the need for age verification.

Beyond that, listmaking, there are issues of extrinsic/intrinsic aging. The GRG has already identified new causes of death at age 100+ that haven't been considered as likely until now. The GRG has also developed new hypotheses as to the gender-specific aging differential. By 2010, the USA will have over 100,000 centenarians, and over 100 supercentenarians. Thus it will also become an economic issue as well as a science one: because it's not just the number of people, but the number of years. 100,000 times 100=ten million years. That's a lot of years on this planet.

Yet, ten years from now, I may be DEAD, who knows? Promise does not equal results. However, if health allows I have already developed several theories which, within the next two decades, may establish a separate notability as WP:ACAD which I admit I do not yet meet. So, please stop with the GSU-checking. I only graduated 3.96 with triple honors, sorry.Ryoung122 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, WP:COI isn't optional, and nor are WP:TPG or WP:CANVASS; the policies and guidelines have been developed over several years, with a lot of input from other people, and the major ones are pretty durable. They work well as tools to help editors improve the encyclopedia and maintain high standards. If you thought you were testing the material, this is not the way to go about it, and all you have achieved by this exercise is to damage your reputation and that of the organisations with which your affiliated. If you want to write material for wikipedia, you need to learn what's acceptable and what isn't, and the fundamental problem here is so far you have rejected every request that you read and try to follow the guidelines and policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More Ryoung122 misconduct

I thought you should know BHG that Ryoung22 has admitted creating a sock puppet User:Aslan119 see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 for the details. Watching the AfD debate on Robert Young's article there is some very unusual posting activity to say the least. I have not seen anything like it since ThePiper et al was engaged in creating trouble earlier in the year. I think some of them need to be looked into, especially the two with minimal posting history. - Galloglass 12:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for that. I was on my way to ANI with the evdence of his canvassing ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), so I'll add the sockpuppet to the list. I have taken this to ANI: see Ryoung122: more canvassing and a sockpuppet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he is argumentative and has been warned about canvassing and that a block would be appropriate. Followed by a bit of mentoring if anyone can be bothered. I don't think he is wicked just protective of his area of interest. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but I have grave doubts. Even when he is repeatedly warned about guidelines and policies, he continues to ignore them, and his main agenda seems to be self-promotion. If someone has the energy to try mentoring him, I certainly wouldn't stand in their way, but I don't see any signs that he is willing to work with wikipedia's conventions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared to place a lot of money that Habib Miyan would not survive AfD. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If he has ever read any of the guidelines on posting, it doesn't show. He appears to believe such things as guidelines and rules are for other, less informed editors. - Galloglass 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

'Fraid you are right, Galloglass :( I have tagged Habib Miyan for cleanup and evidence of notability: I think that Miyan may well be a highly notable subject (as either a fake super-old person or a real antique), but the current shot, messy and single-sourced article neither clearly asserts notability not providences evidence of it. If Young or some other editor has the sources, a story such as this could be a worthwhile demonstration of how cases such as this are analysed, particularly in countries such as India which have not had universal registration of births for as long as most European countries have kept such records. So we'll see: this would be unlikely to survive AfD in its current state, but it might just be the stub of a rather good article. I hope it'll be given time for someone to improve it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG go check the admin notice board. It looks like Ryoung122 wants to take his harassment of you to new heights. - Galloglass 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Galloglass, I have just been there. Robert Young's choice of section heading is magnificent, one of my all-time favourites: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Extremely Urgent: User:Brown-Haired Girl launches all-out assault on the GRG and myself, and by extension Guinness World Records and the Western media. The said "Western media" must be united in outrage that someone is asking for more citations of publications in the aforesaid western media ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow thing Robert Young's; Crimes against Formatting outweigh anything you could do to the western media! :D - Galloglass 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the ANI discussion based on the fact that it's not an admin incident and there isn't really anything else to discuss in that arena. If you disagree then please feel free to reopen the discussion. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm delighted it's over, and I certainly don't want too reopen it! I just wish that there had been some way of it not all ending in such a trainwreck for the individual. Thanks for closing the ANI discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Index of deleted categories ...

You may find this useful at some point ... User:ProveIt/index. Feel free to add stuff you think is appropriate... It came out of a discussion I had with Sam at the last meetup. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Tho keeping it uptodate requires extra work after CfD closures, and I'm not sure I'll have the energy. May I suggest that it's too useful to be kept in userspace, and should be moved to wikipedia space, perhaps as Wikipedia:Index of deleted categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended to be an exhaustive list ... although I think that such a list ought to exist someday. I'm planing to write a robot to create that list. The current list I've been maintaining myself, and do plan to publish it, or at least make it more widely known eventually. But at the moment it's good enough to be useful and I've started sharing it with a few people I trust. I think the global exhaustive index should just be an alphabetical list of category names, where each name is a link to it's deletion discussion. The current list is indexed by topic, and then by date ... and thats something a robot isn't up to. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Will this make you happy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Gamble_%28centenarian%29 Ryoung122 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually enjoy seeing stuff deleted, but sometimes it has to be done. That one, though, has a stronger whiff of hoax than anything else I've seen in a while, and I'd be surprised if anyone finds any reason to keep it. Well done {{prod}}ding it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I question whether anybody is notable purely by virtue of age. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability, as I know now, is determined primarily by whether the person is covered by 'multiple independent sources.' Whether your personal bias is 'for' or 'against' notability by age, this is the standard. I think it's ridiculous that people that score one career touchdown in college, and whose defining moment is that they 'died unexpectedly' on the practice field, to be a problem:Keeley Dorsey. He is notable for 'dying,' not for what he did as a player...even if his promise was far greater.Ryoung122 11:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just deleted a whole paragraph of an AfD debate copy-pasted here by Ryoung122. Robert, I have reminded you of WP:TPG often enough, and have had enough of your spamming of my talk page. Please don't post anything to my talkpage ever again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Wright (baseball)

Just wondering why you placed an {{unref}} tag on Bob Wright (baseball)? Every thing in the article came from the source listed. Please enlighten me -- thanks! --Fabrictramp 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

'Cos I was careless and attached the wrong tag :( Sorry, and thanks for to Canadian Paul for removing it. I meant to tag it with {{refimprove}}, and will do so now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Geobox categories

Hello. User:Caroig recreated geobox categorisation system, although it was deleted by you in WP:CFD. Categories which are generated by his template now are e.g. "Citys with geobox" or "Rivers with geobox". All are shown in the main namespace, again. Do you think they should be thrown to CFD:SPEEDY ? Or his template maybe should be altered again, in order to not generate categories. It is a recreation of deleted content. - Darwinek 15:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have just speedily deleted them all as recreated content per WP:CSD#G4 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Geobox). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germaine Haye

I expanded the article, though it's still a stub. 3 international reliable references, and an interesting story - she was a published author. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done with the expansion. I will comment at the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:StanPrimmer

BHG have a look at the above individuals contrbution to the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles. Its so badly presented and formatted I think it can only be a sock puppet of a very recently banned individual. Take a look and see what you think. - Galloglass 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same comment, but see it's already been made. Pete.Hurd 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. It might be meatpuppetry (which on wikipedia is treated the same way): see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 (2nd). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, further comments made on SSP page... Pete.Hurd 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfD on Stephen Coles is looking like sock/meat puppet central! At least it’s easy to tell who is doing the posting by stream links to sources that don't even mention Stephen Coles half the time. I would not like to be a journalist let alone an academic working from any information collated by this gerontology research group if this is an example of its output. All very very dubious indeed. - Galloglass 12:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The credibility of that group is being very badly damaged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What about User:131.96.70.143. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What about User:131.96.70.164. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Both now blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have just been through the contributions on those two anon IP's most of which were to remove notices you'd posted on articles requesting improvements. I've restored them all now but you might want to consider semi-protecting these pages as Robert Young appears to be on a dynamic IP address and you can be assured he'll be along later to remove them again. - Galloglass 13:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have semi-protected them all. I must check whether Young is on an autoblock. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP continually reverting material

Hi BrownHairedGirl;

I am messaging you, as I have messaged about three others, because I see that you are an administrator and fairly active at WP:AN/I. I have a situation that I posted about there that has received little attention outside of one comment. If you could comment there, it would be fantastic, or possibly also lend me some advice as to what I should do. I would really like to restore the changes the anon user has made, but I do not want to risk edit warring or breaking the 3RR. You can reply here with personal comments (your page is in my watchlist now) and at AN/I about the situation. Thanks! Charles 02:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I would like to help, but am a bit overstepped at the moment, dealing with a campaign of disruption by a user who is now blocked, and I don't have the time. --14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am sorry you have to deal wit disruptive users; I can understand the pressure and time it takes to deal with it. As of now, the IP was banned for 48 hours, but I think it's a meatpuppet (registered user is doing the same thing). I'll try to get the admin who blocked the IP to take another peek at it. Charles 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, could you get Charles to realize that he is actually doing exactly what he's accusing me of and stop.

No content in Category:Estonian male singers

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Estonian male singers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Estonian male singers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Estonian male singers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why I created that one? Must have been some stray article needing a home. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Robert Morrison (missionary)

Hello, I noticed that you moved this page to disambiguate it back in 2006, but I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input.Brian0324 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for your msg; I have replied at Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PW?

This seems like a familiar collection of interests and traits. -- roundhouse0 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's got his fingerprints all over it, and I'll block Lakemont (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock of Pastorwayne (talk · contribs). He must have figured by now that he's easily findable, so I wonder what the purpose of this could be. Attrition, perhaps? There's another bunch of useless categories in there that need deletion :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It quacks like a duck. Does he get credit for persistence? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not as if he's even subtle over it. Galloglass 11:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a lot of dealings with PW long before things started to boil once he created categories, and in many ways I rather like the man. He doesn't have huge aspirations to vanity, he just wants to document his church, and wants to be fair about it all so wants to help a bit by categorising other religions. He had a really hard time getting his read around why his categories were so controversial, but if he was really devious or malicious in intent, he could have behaved much more destructively than he did, and the crudeness of the sockpuppetry confirms my suspicion that the problem is more a lack of understanding than of malice, and the sockpuppetry is just a testing of the waters.

It's not going to help him get unblocked any sooner, so it wasn't a very effective productive form of testing, but I'd still like to see him unblocked if only he could acknowledge that any sockpuppetry is a no-no. It's clear from his talkpage that it's the only thing in the way of his unblocking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Many of his actual articles, especially the biographies were excellent and very readable. If he were to sneak back on and just confine himself to those then I don't think anyone would object. - Galloglass 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We have from PW's own hand Category:British Continuing Anglicans and from Lakemont Category:American Continuing Anglicans. It's difficult to believe that PW has in fact abandoned his touching but wholly erroneous belief that he can satisfactorily categorise all strands of Christianity. It really requires substantial research to do any one strand properly. (I think some sort of test in logic should be passed before one is allowed to make category edits.) -- roundhouse0 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the edits of a banned user may be reverted. Special:Contributions/Lakemont - jc37 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out as well. - jc37 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm overstretched, and don't have the time and energy needed for the cleanup :( Can anyone else do some of the tidyup? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have quite a collection of suspect PW-like ips at User:Roundhouse0/test6. (The ips rarely create categories, thankfully.) -- roundhouse0 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's now PinkyFloyd, started on 11 Nov, and almost certainly 70.104.102.253 (see history). -- roundhouse0 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai is Anti-Romanian

He has started a crushade against Romanian editors. He blocked them and he revert their work. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have sent me a link to the logs of times when other admins have blocked Mikkalai, which tell sme nothing about what is happening. If you have evidence (diffs, links) to think you believe that Mikkalai has done wrong, and you want admin involvement, then you can make a complaint at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So he's not just a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte? That's the only POV-pusher on Romania articles that I know of...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Geobox categories (3)

Would you please read Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-11-11? I haven't recreated the same categories, the system now works in a completely different way according to the suggestions in the numerous debates. If you have any objection, please state them clearly so that we can address them. Yeah, I noticed you didn't bother to answer my post at all though you suggested I posted any objection first there. The debate didn't have any outcome, you just closed it based on your personal view though they were many opposing views. If we aren't allowed any decent discussion again the only step that remains is arbitration because one of the paramount Wikipedia principles is severly attacked here. – Caroig (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You've deleted a part of the {{Geobox}} without any rationale based on your false assumption. I live in a different timezone and need to sleep sometime (and work as well) but as soon as I have the time I'll call for an arbitration and issue an ANI complaint. This is real unprecedented, no discussion was allowed before, no discussion is allowed now, false arguments have been used many times, you didn't bother to asnwer my post (yet you had time to answer countless other posts). – Caroig (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't get to reply: I was trying to think of a diplomatic way of saying that the arguments you had other with other editors in the leadup to the CfD were not relevant either way to the merits of the categories, and I'm afraid that the issue got overtaken by other events, and got lost in a flurry of other postings to my talk page :( My fault, not yours; but your next step was deletion review, not re-creation of deleted content.

However, the new categories are substantially the same as the old ones: they categorising articles according to the presence of an infox, which is a self-reference (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). The closure was based not on my personal view but on guidelines and precedent, and there are are countless precedents at CfD that such self-reference categories may be used for maintenance, but that they belong on talk pages, not on articles (such as is done with wikiproject tagging), and I'm afraid that slight tweaks in the structure of the category names doesn't alter that problem.

I'm happy to discuss this further, or if you like you can take the issue to deletion review. However, I suggest that it would be more productive to either track template usage using Special:Whatlinkshere or to use talkpage categories.

In the meantime, if you feel that I have broken other categories through my edit to {{Geobox}} template, I'd be happy to discuss how to fix that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One quick suggestion: instead of auto-categorisation, you could use the same conditional logic to transclude blank templates such {{Rivers with geodata}}. That way you still get fine-grained tracking of {{Geobox}} usage, without attaching self-referencing categories to articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-11-11 clearly states that those categories can be, after the work has been done, renamed to some normal categories with no reference to geobox whatsoever so what the new categorizing scheme does is it assigns the articles with a Geobox a category, say you want all villages in Illinois be placed in Category:Villages in Illinois so the template can be set-up to do just that and nothing more. The old version created hundreds of red-link categories (which was bad), the new one didn't create any and it works in a completely different way, it's not a slight change. Those users, who suggested creating some sort of "categorization" do not find the use of "Whatlinkshere" useful and besides it will be against policies for templates. This all started as a denial to participate in any discussion by User:Darwinek and continued in a debate full of full allegations and false statements which I was willing to ignore. I still believe that your decision was just personal and strict interpration of the guidelines (which was opposed as well). This goes beyond the scope of just these categories, there are countles self-reference technical categories with no use for readers at all (Articles with unsourced statements from October 2007) yet these can exist (beacuse it is stated someplace they are useful) and I see many other categories whose meaning and purpose is not clear. I insist the basic principles of Wikipedia were severely "breached" and I see no alternative than call for an arbitration and ANI to get this clear. (I mean is Wikipedia driven by strict rules that equal law, and some legal language was indeed used in the discussion - isn't this against some wikipolicy? - or is consensus, common sense and the usefulness for the project still prefered?) – Caroig (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If the aim is to create auto-categories of the form Category:Villages in Illinois, there won't be any problem with that at the category level; the problem is with the categories based on the presence of geobox.

The reason that categories such as "Articles with unsourced statements from October 2007" are tolerated (not without opposition) is that they are by design transient: the design is that will be emptied as soon as the problem is fixed, and one the month is over they will start to shrink. The geobox categories were the opposite: permanent, and intended to grow, and not identifying a problem to be fixed.

Anyway, if you aren't satisfied with my explanation, the next step is deletion review, which is set up precisely for this sort of purpose. You can of course complain elsewhere, and I'm not going to try to prejudge what sort of answer you would get if you go to ANI or wherever, but when there exists a procedure specifically for the purpose of re-assessing CfD closures, it seems odd not to use that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Before, you had suggested to first post here befor going deletion review which you didn't bother to answer for almost two weeks while answering thousands other posts. I also posted the matter at RfC but it didn't get any attention. It is not an issue of deleting the category, it's about breaching basic Wikipedia principles. – Caroig (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already apologised to you for the delay in replying to your message, but you do now have a reply. If you had gotten fed up waiting, you could have posted a reminder message to me or quite properly opened a deletion review on the grounds that I hadn't responded. On other words, my lack of a reply didn't cut off other routes for you.

The principle that I see at work here is that XfD closure are not a vote count; the closing admin has to weigh arguments against policy and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus). You are quite entitled to take the view that I didn't weigh those issues properly in this case, but that's what WP:DRV is for — to assess whether the closing admin's assessment of the arguments versus policy was correct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion at CfD was forcibly closed (could have been relisted to allow for further discussion, nobody spoke about vote count but the discussion was far from a rough consensus, it was just strict guidelines interpretion against votes for common sense and usability, opinions of other experienced users might have been requested) and the delay in your answers I do not think WP:DRV would get enough attention and fair treatment.

Obviously more users during the debates didn't bother to look into the problem at all and I'm afraid you didn't look into how the re-instated system works either because it couldn't have created more and more categories as you suggested but users could have set up temporary categories for the transition period and remap them to existing categories when the work had been done or the they could have easily mapped the Geoboxes for a particluar region to some existing categories right away and thus no Geobox/geodata related categories would have been set at all. As I said before, this goes far beyond just deleting the categories, there were much more unfair issues involved (before you got involved) and I see no alternative then to call for arbitration, not another forum for categorizators. I'll state all reasons then lead me it there. It migh take some time because I need to somehow relax from Wikipedia a bit. – Caroig (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The re-instated system re-created the deleted categories, which was all I needed to know before removing them as re-creations. One thing I did notice was that there were several cases where #REDIRECT had been used to redirect one category to another, which is not approved practice (for technical reasons); {{category redirect}} should be used instead.

As to further steps, if you want to try routes other than DRV, that's your call, though you should consider the possibility that this might be regarded as forum-shopping. I do hope that whatever you do, you will first read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, and consider assuming that the debate was closed in good faith. Looking at your message here on October 31, I am struggling to see the good faith there, particularly in the closing sentences. Your further comments don't encourage me either, so I think this will probably be my last comment here. I will instead open a deletion review myself, where you are welcome to comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem with category redirects, didn't now that. As I said the arbitration has far more reasons than the final deletion by yourself and I'll explain my reasons there. It's difficult to assume good faith after all that was written before CfD which was just the last straw, hope you will read those too, both your links above provide good material for the arbitration, thanks. – Caroig (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review requested

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 13#Geobox_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your willingness to face the wrath of the Department of Homeland Security and the whole world by removing nonnotable Yahoo Groups linkspam. What kind of 110 year old knows how to use a message board anyway? SmashvilleBONK! 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes I wish I was better at choosing the easy life, but I have never been one to draw back just because some folks like being threatening. --01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems caused by your removal of Geobox categories

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

---

Hi. Your recent edit[14] of the Geobox template caused apparition of "|}" at the beginning of every article with a geobox (e.g. Bratislava), but I am not able to fix it. Could you look at it please? Frankly, that error is more disturbing for me than a bunch of categories that you removed by your edit. I really hope it will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you a lot in advance. Tankred 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that by removing the second "|}". Tankred's original fix was OK, only each page cache needed to be purged (for each and every page using the Geobox). BrownHairedGirl could have at least checked if her action weren't causing any trouble. – Caroig (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a fix takes two steps. Thanks to you both for tidying up, and sorry that the first step wasn't perfect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time you tweak any template code it's advisable to first try it out at a sandbox. Similarly to what we do with {{Geobox/test}}. Or at least check if your edit isn't causing any trouble. – Caroig (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time I have to fix a template which has been misused in this way, I will do the simplest things which works: revert to the state that the template was in when the categories were successfully removed the first time round. I have apologised for the mistake, but I hope you will remember that my intervention would not have been necessary if there hadn't been a re-creation of deleted content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2007 (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.

prods on super-centenarians

Perhaps these should go to afd, since they will probably be contested--and might just possibly be notable if better sources could be found. I removed some prods that I saw. This does not mean I am out of sympathy with your actions on this type of material--I have !voted to delete several such articles. You suggested listifying, but in the current mood towards lists, I wonder whether such lists would not be soon deleted. Possibly the solution might be to propose a merge? --or did you try that already.DGG (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, prods are intended to be removed if contested, and some of them were testing-the-boundaries prods; I think it'll be interesting to see which (if any) of prods survives, and to what extent there is a mood to distinguish between someone who was once the oldest in the world and someone who was fleetingly the 5th oldest in France or wherever. I decided not to send more to AfD immediately, because AfD's capacity isn't limitless, and it's currently rather swamped by the various sorts of puppetry.

I think that lists may turn out to be wrong label for one of the possibilities I had in mind, which was something along the lines of articles with a series of one-or-two paragraphs on each person, some of the entries being a lot shorter than that. Anyway, we'll see where the consensus heads on all this, and what we end up with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those "one-or-two paragraphs" things are lists! See Wikipedia:Featured lists (eg. List of brain tumor patients). Carcharoth 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WPIRELAND

Not really, because there are several dozen other redirects from "WPNATION" for other WikiProjects for nation-states. The standardization of redirects makes editing much easier when one is adding templates very rapidly. Badagnani 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you find yourself in need of references

First, thanks for all your hard work lately and for keeping your cool. I thought I'd let you know that I have membership access to ancestry.com and subsequently to any American census records available on there. So if for some reason you find articles that need additional references for census data, let me know and I can look them up. I don't know what to do about the membership-only aspect of the content on ancestry.com, but I can at least double check it and cite the census rather than some other third-party site. Since the census is a public record, perhaps it would permissible to use screenshots of the census pages as a reference? I'd have to check Ancestry.com's terms of use agreement. Just let me know if I can help, I've only run across a couple of the articles you may be watching where this could be an issue. Thanks again! Katr67 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(To Katr67). Haha, Katr67, I don't have a membership with ancestry.com because it requires money. Robert Young does. I've suggested to Robert Young that he takes screenshots of the site and use it as source. But what he does is copy/paste them from ancestry.com to his Yahoo group and use the post as source. It would be too intelligent to take the screenshot. Of course, you don't have to take the entire screenshot, showing your browser and Start menu. Just break it down, by cutting the image to show the necessary part. And since I don't plan on having a membership, I'm glad you also came up with that idea. Since Robert's Yahoo group requires membership, a link to his post on his board from the Wikipedia articles is also meaningless, because it requires members to sign up. I've taken the liberty to screenshot some of his posts and use that as a source instead, and he was okay with that. But I agree, we should screenshot the original source (ancestry.com). Since Robert is banned, we can work on screenshotting the censuses together if you want. Neal 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

My mom has money, not me, don't tell ancestry.com. :) Just let me know where you might need to improve citations and I can upload the (cropped as necessary) screenshots to commons. Thanks, I think now that the furor has died down we can reach a reasonable compromise on some of the articles that are worth keeping. BTW, I saw where you had uploaded a screen shot to your website and refed that, but your site seems to be down? So I took out your reference. (Sorry BHG, go ahead and move this to my talk page if you want.) Katr67 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's okay, although, you can probably upload to Wikipedia images instead (if they allow that). That would be more appropriate. Oh! And I give my condolenses to BrownHairedGirl for posting this conversation on her talk. Neal 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

That's OK. This page is bursting browsers already, so a few KB more won't make much difference :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Craig_(Irish_Professor). - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The nominator should have told me, but at least it's now all closed and done. Very time-wasting, though. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another to look at please

Could you have a look at this for me repeatedly warned but has took no notice thanks. BigDunc 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Job Done thanks in any way. BigDunc 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to help, but glad to see that it's been dealt with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi there. I was looking back over the Stan Primmer business, and I noticed this long comment you made. Do you think next time something like this happens you could consider following JzG's example of using the {{welcome}} template? I should have remembered this myself, but I can understand that sometimes spotting the new editors can be difficult in cases like this. Carcharoth 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at how I deal with IP vandals and other newbie vandals, you'll see that is normally do use that template, unless the person is blocked. It seems to me to be either useless or insulting or both to say "welcome" to someone when the door is locked against them or you are asking for that to be done.

JzG was probably right to extend the welcome once the block was lifted, but it would have been premature to do it beforehand. And in any case, I wouldn't have wanted to extend a welcome in that case. We don't, sadly, seem to accept the merits of sometimes of sometimes blocking meatpuppets, and I respect that, but nor do I feel inclined to extend an unrerserved welcome to them. If someone else does that, I won't object, but when the signup is clearly done in such bad faith as Primmer's, I'd prefer a more tailored welcome which stressed that partisan recruitment and campaigning is not acceptable, and hoping that after a bad start we can all move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought that tailored welcome already existed, but maybe I'm imagining it? Carcharoth 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That reminded me that I'd never really checked, because I tend to use either {{welcomeg}} or nothing (the vanilla {{welcome}} is too short for my liking). But I found Category:Welcome templates and a list at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates; there's quite a variety there, including several, for miscreants who we hope will reform, but nothing approaching the welcome-meatpuppet-who-we-hope-will-reform that I would have liked. I should write something, but don't have the energy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar, happy I could contribute! Wim. --Crusio 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot seeks approval

For the benefit of anyone watching this page who might be interested, I thought I'd note that I have created a bot called BHGbot, to be used for a limited number of specific purposes. BHGbot has not been approved: see the request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot.

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#BHGbot_to_tag_WP:IE_articles.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot update

Trial run now completed, full approval requested. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot#Trial_run_complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Protections

I noticed you s-protected some of those gerontology and supercentenarian articles. Do you think 2 months is a bit excessive? Anyway, I'm currently reading the GRG and Stephen Coles AfDs... Carcharoth 02:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that it will turn out to be excessive, but that it seems to me that it probably needs to remain in place for as long as Young is busy trying to recruit meatpuppets. The flurry of emails from Young urging disruption was still ongoing yesterday, and semi-protection ensures that only the meatpuppets who stick around can edit. That gives them a chance to learn about policies and guidelines, not least because it much more likely that the welcoming committee will give them one of the welcome templates we discussed yesterday.

This seems to me to be a good way of dealing with this situation, by taking people sent here on a mission and steering them down a path of learning wikipedia's way of doing things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also still unhappy about some of the fall out from this. See here, where the edit summary incorrectly refers to Ryoung122 as a banned user. I'm also unhappy that an indef blocked template has been put on his user page. This means that his user page and user talk page may be deleted, making a mockery of my suggestion that he take time to cool off and then refile an unblock request and see if he can edit Wikipedia productively. Do you think you could talk to Maxim and ask if he is prepared to redo the block for a year, to avoid this deletion of user pages problem? I would ask Maxim myself, but the last few talk page messages I left haven't got much response. Carcharoth 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns about that edit summary need to be raised with the editor who left that edit summary, but I would note that while it was incorrect to claim that Young was actually banned, it's a minor error: the edit was a reversion of the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. I too am unhappy about the fallout, and in particular I am seriously concerned that from some quarters there seems to be so much effort put into ensuring that every dot and comma is crossed in dealing with an editor who waged a massive campaign of disruptive self-promotion, and when blocked continued it by using sockpuppets and trying to recruit an army of meatpuppets. (For one example of where this succeeded and had to be reverted, see User talk:Bart Versieck) What's going on here? WP:NOT#ANARCHY, and the project needs to protect itself against those determined to disrupt it to promote themselves and their colleagues. I'm seriously perturbed by some of priorities displayed here.

Personally, I don't support shortening Ryoung122's block; he showed no sign before he was blocked of wanting to work within wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and his subsequent actions have confirmed that in spades. I have been involved in online projects, groups and communities for more than fifteen years, and I have repeatedly seen how huge amounts of energy can be expended on dealing with a very small number of disruptive individuals. I'm a great supporter of giving people plenty of warnings, but there comes a point where it's time to say enough. Sometimes, further down the road, the persistent trouble-makers come back saying "I screwed up big time, and hope you will let me back", and if they are promptly readmitted in good faith at that point, most of those folks turn out to be great. But plenty of them don't get to that point, and readmitting them in the hope of a change hardly ever works. The important thing seems to me to be remember that "indefinitely blocked" does not mean "irrevocably blocked"; the indefblock should be lifted if Young agrees to make a fresh start, but I can't see any reason to believe that will happen within any particular time frame. I recently dealt with an wild editor who returned after a six-month block as bad as before, and although I tried extending good faith, the reality was that nothing had changed. It seems to me to be a very bad idea to give Young any grounds for thinking that he can just hold out for a particular period of time before returning to continue as before. OTOH, if he makes an unblock request with the appropriate assurances, then he should be unblocked, whether that's in a week a month, or a year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Is there a way to avoid his userpage being deleted? The indefblocked tag automatically puts it in a category for deletion. Do you think that is the right thing to be done? Would you delete his user page after a month as a "temporary Wikipedian page"? About disruption, the thing to be careful about is not to cause disruption by the actions of defending against disruption. It's difficult, but it can be done. New users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. If we lose them, we are nothing. Carcharoth 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete Young's page myself, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to do so. Personally, I'd prefer if the userpages of indefblocked users were simply blanked and retained, which is what Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages says should be done for sockpuppets. It seems perverse to retain the sock's pages, but not those of the puppetmaster, and I'd support a change in the practice here. But unless the general approach is changed, I don;t see any reason to make User:Ryoung122 an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way is there a way to kick out admins ? There may is point where the good things admins do, is outweighed by the power misuse. Each democratic system has checks and balances, what must happen that a amok running admin (I dont say this is the case which BHG) must leave wikipedia. As a simple user and former donator of wiki I simple would like to know this. Chris Quast

A bot edit

Please have a look at this edit made by your bot [15] ,ThanksGnevin 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. It was actually a manual edit done while I was testing the Kigbotk plugin, and when I discovered that AWB was still logged in as the bot, I set about getting AWB logged in as myself. (I had thought that using IE to log out as BHGbot would log out AWB, since it uses much of IE, but I now that it doesn't. Another learning step). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries , as in a manual edit and as such just a typo it's nothing to worry about . I thought the typo was in the bot's script which would of been a problem Gnevin 11:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would have been a problem, and thanks again for pointing it out. Bots need to be watched very carefully, and it's good to know that BHGbot is being watched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Help Request

• Hello there, thanks for the message on my talkpage, but could you assist me and tell me what I have done wrong. You said I deleted a discussion on a talk page or removed the contributions of another editor. I don't recall doing this, and I have looked at the page link you sent me but I cannot find what you are referring to(sorry, but I have spent most of my available wiki-time over the last 2 days trying to get unblocked!). I don't think you responded to the email I sent you previously, but if you can help me with this, please leave a message on my talk page. I don't have any wish to contravene a wikipedia rule or policy.

Thanks,Cjeales 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply The link she pasted on your talk page shows a 'before' and 'after' of the edit. In other words, the left shows what the page looked like before your edit, and the right shows what you added/moved out. Hope that's clear. Neal 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

I have replied to the email from Cjeales, which I had missed until the note here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks (re: Erdos Numbers)

You posted at my Talk, with my reply following: ANI re your canvassing ===

{{ANI-notice|WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've rebutted you at the indicated link, and IMO you are deliberately making ad hominem and unfounded accustations, at the vary least with out adequate research (you accuse me of not notifying YOU of a thread which YOU had already posted to. Obviously I figured you already knew about a thread that YOU had posted to.) Your incessant spam on this matter, with accusations of personal attacks intermixed with personal attacks, is abusive and I'm complaining about it. Pete St.John 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A good faith report of canvassing is not a personal attack, and I did not post to the DRV on Erdos numbers for over 12 hours after your canvassing (at 14:42 today). You are of course welcome to make any reports to ANI, as you see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant votestacking

Jc37, since you were the first admin to notice Pet St John's canvassing, I'd like to notify you that I have lodged a further complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The_votestacking_exercise_continues. Whilst now being conducted mostly (though not exclusively) on the maths wikiproject, the attempt to "get out the vote" continues more than 24 hours after you first drew Pete's attention to WP:CANVASS. As noted at ANI, I have never seen anything else on wikipedia remotely resembling this effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll respond at the user's talk page for unity-in-discussion reasons. - jc37 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One small concilliatory note

BrownHairedGirl, I've recently become very aware of the extent and breadth of your contributions. I am in awe of that. I personally know the dismay one sometimes feels when great effort appears unappreciated. That pain I do not wish you. I have multiple complaints and I'm doing something about them, but if you do feel that, even fleetingly, in this matter, I honestly regret it. Pete St.John 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, sorry for a belated reply. I'm afraid that this talk page has become so busy in the last week or so that it's gotten very hard to keep up with everything. So I'm sorry that my thanks for your kind note are so late, but I do appreciate it.

I don't honestly think that extent of contributions should be a determining factor in general, but I have learnt over my time here that some editors develop particular experience in some areas, and one of the fields I have chosen to specialise in is categorisation. I go into largely because some of my early efforts at categorisation got shredded at CfD, which felt at the time like a dark and obscure place, a hostile environment operating to rules I didn't understand and which often seemed to be completely hidden. So I decided to get stuck in and learn how it worked.

A few thousand CfD debates later, I think while there are many areas on wikipedia I have little knowledge of (such as RFA, RFC), I have a reasonable understanding of the complex conventions at work in CfD. Some things have improved in my time there: there is a greater use of lengthy explanations of closures of hotly contested issues, WP:OCAT has been hugely expanded to clarify the conventions, and contributors are encouraged to explicitly link to guidelines and policies and precedents. Little of that is my doing, but it's been good to see it happening, and also good to see some of the debates becoming more reflective (contributors are no much more likely to be challenge to explain why they recommend a particular outcome).

One of the things I draw from all that is a strong sense that the category system is not widely understood, to the point that we almost need a WP:NOT document for categories. For example, one prolific category creator approached categories as a way of tagging articles, which doesn't work. Other editors miss the limitation of categories that they are a binary switch: an article is either in a category or not, with no room for explanation or qualification, so categories needs to be restricted to items which are not dependent on qualified or nuanced judgements. There are many other conventions such as consistency in naming format (to make categories easier to use), and when taken together it can seem all like an impenetrable forest of mumbo-jumbo :(

However, it serves a very important purpose. Without constant pruning, the category system could end up as an un-navigable mess, a morass of overlapping and inconsistent categories cluttering each article. With categories (unlike wage packets), less is usually more.

So I hope you'll forgive me for making a suggestion to you. After fighting the battle, it has now reached a conclusion. I know it's not one you like, but after 2 DRVs, I find it hard to see anyone finding merit in reopening it, and your canvassing will not stand you in good stead if you go to RFCU or to arbcom. I really cannot see any outcome other than a lot of your time being spent to get nowhere or to get another rap on the kunckles.

You clearly have a huge amount of energy and a passion for wikipedia, both of which are great attributes, and I would love to see those talents being used in something forward-looking: the project needs that energy! So would you like to consider climbing back on the horse and joining in CfD on a regular basis? There is a lot to be done, sorting out the viable categories from the junk, and spotting duplicates. With your mathematician's logic, you clearly have a great aptitude for the job and I hope you' consider it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I can surely sympathize regarding the "deluge"; I've lost edits to conflicts, on my own talk page, which may happen to you alot but is crazy novel to me.

I accept your usage of the term "fighting a battle", btw; it has been one, and in the context of debate it does not connote evil in se, so I'd put it that way too.

As to the battle being over, however, I emphatically disagree, as indicated by my "strenuous objection" in the ongoing "vote". First, one of the deleted categories (last I looked) is in a new CfD (not my doing) (with aforementioned "vote"). I agree we're both disinclined to "take the fight" there. But more importantly, I believe procedural errors were made (not just by me) and that it is harmful to the community if there is an unmitigated perception that admin fiat trumps consensus (such a perception has been expressed at the math project page, prior to my involvement).

There are two main possibilities; yes, in wiki, admin fiat trumps consensus. In which case I am contributing at the wrong site, no hard feelings. The other I see is that no, while in instances bad decisions happen, as in all human endeavour, on the whole, consensus is meaningfully weighty. I would have much less personal rancor if "editorial consensus" conflicted with "math content consensus"; I'd fight for the latter but appreciate that wiki seeks and needs a higher consensus than subject matter expertise. In this case, however, it is my definite opinion that a broader consensus was knowingly subverted. So I continue to fight.

And yeah, I have trouble with that "brevity is the soul of wit" thing too, despite years of practicing with sonnets. They mostly sucked. -- Pete St.John (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Irish categories

BH, could you check this out and see what makes good categorisation sense. Regards (Sarah777 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Have replied at Talk:List of castles in Ireland. If I'm not making sense, pls poke me again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now done: see List of castles in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Amritsar

redirect Jallianwala Bagh massacre -> Amritsar massacre ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which you may want to join in. It's an interesting dilemma: Jallianwala Bagh seems to be the term used in India, but Amritsar elsewhere. WP:NC may help: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and there are over a billion people in India, so I think that if we assume that a fair proportion of them are English-speakers, but a quick scan through Languages of India finds no numbers. If in doubt, I'm inclined to prefer the name used by Indian people, on the grounds that they were the people massacred and it was such a huge massacre that it's a crucial part of Indian history. (That wasn't the answer I expected to give when I started reading about it, and, as usual, YMMV). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

suggested compromise on supercentenarians

I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. DGG (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, lol, wdf, so you posted the same thing on all 3. Am I to say the same things on all of them? :P Neal (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Record-holders for each country sounds like an excellent solution, and you may have noticed on the PRODs that I suggested that the stub bios belonged in lists? Not sure what you mean by world record-holders, but I would suggest listifying them all unless they are fully referenced to reliable sources and have notability clearly established by WP:BIO. Any which are subsequently expanded to pass WP:BIO individually can be split out again to individual articles. How does that sound?

The thing to remember about notability is that (with a very few exceptions) it is not based on what a person has done or why they might be notable, but rather on whether they already been taken sufficient note. This is a more important point than it might sound, because it derives from wikipedia's role as a tertiary source: we don't assess primary sources, bur rather reflect that which has received significant coverage in the secondary sources.

I have very little doubt that the subject of "oldest person in the world" or "oldest person in country X" is likely to be clearly notable, but we shouldn't presume that each holder of that title is individually notable. That doesn't losing any sourced information, but it does mean merging them to a list unless notability is established. (and as Carcharoth had rightly noted elsewhere on this page, a list doesn't just have to be name+dates, it can include a few paragraphs on each person). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on the transclusion (merge) of the two (previously) largely overlapping List of castles in Ireland. Much better now. N2e (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Allister

Can I ask that you s-protect as an i.p. user (most likely a former banned user) has continued to alter it despite the consensus of about 5 editors. p.s. How about the Spain politics cats above? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Allister now semi-protected for 2 months. Will get back to you this evening of the Spanish categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young's puppets

Various contributions from the sockpuppets and meatpuppets cajoled into action by blocked Ryoung122 (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

people over 110 year old tracker

Hi - I noticed something about a debate regard the tracking of people over 110 years old. And that you were significantly involved in it.

I haven't followed it in detail tho and I'm not part of the wikipedia edit community.

Just wanted to mention that I sometimes check in on that page out of interest, and quite like it as it is.

I also check in on the surviving WW1 vets page quite a lot. My great grandfather was one.

Just thought I'd add in my comments that I enjoy the pages in their current form.

Please take this into consideration if poss. Thanks.

all the best,

Mic (S Korea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.167.204 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 November 2007

I guess that this is the result of more of Robert Young's stealth canvassing, and I notice that you don't even mention which page you are referring to. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that wikipedia has strong policies of checking the accuracy and notability of the articles you can read, and that all articles are subject to review if there is any concern that they don't meet those standards. That means that some articles may be deleted if they are not verifiable and don't demonstrate that the subject is notable. There are many other websites which are operated to lesser standards, which you can use if you prefer ... or maybe you'd like to help us in our ongoing work to maintain the quality of wikipedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you attacking etc

title shortened from "Why are you attacking and deleting everything about Super-Centenarians and Longevity, and so on?"

Why are you attacking and deleting everything about Super-Centenarians and Longevity, and so on?

I think it is good reading, compared to the stuff that you contribute. As far as I think, I think your Adminstration powers should be taken away from you. The power is going to your head. I am making a formal complaint.

I enjoy reading about what Mr. Robert Young puts in here. It helps with genealogical informations.

Richard Girouard of Montreal, Quebec, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip69 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to another of Robert Young's sockpuppets or meatpuppets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• rofl* BHG, is your world only black and white? Meens: If someone has a different opinion on your sc-doing he only can be a puppet of RY? Think about it.

  89.60.175.237: so me, Canadian_Paul, AnonEMouse, DGG, etc., are all puppets of Robert Young? Think about it. Anyways, all the meat puppets have been lifted to my knowledge. That's StanPrimmer and Cjeales. By the way, since you're from Germany, the Sarah Knauss article from the Germany Wikipedia has been deleted twice (as of 2006), so maybe you could help with that. Neal (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

  Don't be silly, I never claimed that Canadian_Paul, AnonEMouse, DGG were puppets; I was referring to the new editors who signed up in response to Young's email campaign, some of whom posted here to complain after Young told them to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  Neither did 89.60.175.237, but under his logic, "If someone has a different opinion on your sc-doing he only can be a puppet of RY?" which I agree that some of us have different opinions. Neal (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

  Yes, difft ppl have difft views. But the fact remains that Young has been been repeatedly calling for people to join wikipedia to do his bidding, and if they do do they fit the definition of meatpuppets. I respect those experienced editors who hold different views, but people who join any project just to support someone who has been evicted for disruption should expect not to be taken to seriously. The anon IP here clearly hadn't read one of the basic WP documents, [[[WP:NOT]], which says "WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory: "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." That's why I labelled this anonymous editor a meatuppet, per WP:DUCK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  Er, so 89.60.175.237 is now a meat puppet for posting on your talk? I thought he had to vote in an AfD. Anyways, I didn't look at his contribs. Neal (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

This is Gunther - the one on the cactus

This is Gunther - the one on the cactus see: http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/kaktus.jpg

I admire your productivity and passion by which you are able to continue to administrate so many wikipedia sites. I share lots of your interests:Canis beagle owns me, I prefer gender neutral speech, I like to the right things (clime the cactus, touch the heavens with my feet), I have lots of Ireland friends (but am bohemian).

I am not asking you for anything, just let you know that, most likely, by accident you blocked my IP address while editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Coles

Cheers, Gunther Kletetschka --Kletetschka2 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kletetschka, I'm, not sure what you mean. An IP address doesn't get blocked while editing an article, and you were logged in while you posted this. However, I saw that one of the AfD pages has been protected (not by me) as a way of slowing down the floods of puppets, and maybe that's what you saw? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group articles

I've been looking at your various taggings of various articles about oldest people or gerontology researchers for Notability, PROD, or AFD. Most are good - I think I even deleted one of your AFDs myself, just today. But a few - just a few - have been a bit overenthusiastic. Alphaeus Philemon Cole I think is one I found - his obituary was in the New York Times, as well as another NYTimes article I couldn't read so didn't link to, his papers are in the Smithsonian Institution, he was president of a number of societies - and, ironically, not a bit of this notability had to do with him being the world's oldest living man. He was just notable as an artist, and as an artistic historian/bureaucrat. I wonder if, by chance, you could recall some other articles that implied their subject just possibly might have been notable, and either look at them again yourself or bring them to my attention. There were quite a few that you tagged these past days, and it would be a shame if good articles went down with the dross. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to scrutinise them: the more eyes the better. I have just been looking at the Cole article again, and I think that it is an interesting example. At the point when I tagged it here, it was well written and clearly asserted notability, but had only a single source. So I tagged it with {{refimprove}} to stress the need for more sources, and with {{notability}} because with only one reference it did not at that point meet WP:BIO. Now, after your good work, it clearly does, so it seems to me that the tags served their purpose.
I'll review the others tomorrow, and see where we have got to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested to know that the following article is being discussed at: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher). - Galloglass 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Could you please look at this; I think the article should now be tagged as clearly breaching Wiki NPOV Policy Attempts at discusiion-- Aatomic1 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the people removing the category have been involved in the protracted discussion, yet the people adding it back haven't taken part in the discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think those who added NI related incidents to this category had a good idea of the issues it would open up. To remain consistent with the Wiki no-revert philosophy I think the Parity Principle must instead be employed, to achieve balance and consistency and WP:NPV. (-- Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Funny how Aatomic1's link leaves out their little bit of disruption. ---- Domer48 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we not go down this route again please people. We've just finished a several month arbcom in this area. Time to start compromising and agreeing however painful it is rather than standing like immoveable objects which go know-where. - Galloglass 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Parity (objective consistency) isn't negotiable. So long as we remember that is the CORE of WP:NPOV then there should be no trouble. (-- Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Optimist ;) - Galloglass 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is we were agreeing. Rather than removing the incorrect and POV cat the second it was added, I took part in a discussion and when consensus was in favour of removal I removed the cat. Then the usual suspects who hadn't even bothered to take part in the discussion started an edit war to retain the cat. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen the consensus. I do see this straying over numerous pages. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus. Some incidents are classed massacres, some aren't. The cat is being removed from incidents that are not classed as massacres. I notice your initial adding of categories only tended to focus on articles about The Troubles, no recent attacks on London were added. I'd hoped the ArbCom would have reigned in the disgusting POV pushing by certain editors, onviously not... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be the right page for you to attack me. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Galloglass is right. The list of names in the revision history for that page all looks horribly familiar :( So I'm going to take off my calm admin hat and rant a bit.

There seems to be general agreement all round that in that Birmingham incident, 21 civilians were killed and that six decent men spent the best part of their lives behind bars after having confessions beaten out of them and then finding that the prospect of the justice system drawing "unhelpful" conclusions was too much an appalling vista to be tolerated. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is plenty of room for brief mentions of some of the real people whose lives were blighted or ended by the conflict, whether being peeled alive by the Shankill Butchers like Tom Madden or blown up in Omagh or in Talbot Street. What on earth is the huge problem with a few lines of text listing their names?

There is an ongoing discussion about the usability of Category:Massacres, which might yet reach a consensus but hasn't so far. Yet once again, editors on both sides have forgotten that while it has to be right, it doesn't have to be right now, and that an edit war resolves nothing. I can see arbcom's probation being applied here to several people, but I'm going to be lazy for a change and leave it to someone else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_warring_related_to_.22The_Troubles.22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir Howard Douglas, 3rd Baronet of Carr and MP

Hello,

I saw that you were interested in baronets who were also MPs. My 4x great-grandfather, General Sir Howard Douglas, was 3rd Baronet of Carr, and served as MP for Liverpool from 1842-1847. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvalin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 November 2007

Sorry, sometimes I hit the sensitive touchpad on my new laptop with my hand, and it causes me to send a message before I'm done. Anyway, if you have any questions about Sir Howard Douglas, please let me know. Cvalin (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My laptop has a little button with an X in it which turns off the touchpad. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Henry Douglas of Carr/Sir William Douglas of Kelhead

Hello Again,

I noticed Kittybrewster had made some changes to one of the pages on my watchlist, and went to look at the changes. Once there, I realized that previously an anonymous user had gone into the article I had written on Admiral Sir William Henry Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Carr, and took it upon his/herself to completely rework the article for Sir William Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Kelhead. I wanted to undo all the previous changes, but I thought I should check with you first, since you are both an administrator and a member of the Baronetcy Project.

I had created a number of links to my article, from Admiral Sir Charles Douglas, Sir Howard Douglas, Carr Baronetcy (which has since been incorporated into the Douglas Baronetcies article), and others, and those links all go back to the incorrect person now.

Thanks! Cvalin (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened, in this edit. I have now merged both of the "William Douglas 2nd Bt"s to Douglas Baronets, since neither of them is sufficiently notable (per WP:BIO) to have their own article. Sir William Douglas, 2nd Baronet is now a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for straightening that out. Cvalin (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi BrownHairedGirl I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeee-ha! We a-goin' {{WikiProject Ireland}} tagging. Well, one of these days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesuit colleges

You might look again at your [[16]]. As the category now stands, they all appear, with varying degrees of clarity, to offer degree courses. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right, and thanks for checking. Nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Journalism academics

Hello, BrownHaired one: I have no idea what you might say, but if you can scrounge up some time, I think this discussion would benefit from your participation. Best, Cgingold (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sad and dissapointed

I have no hope that any words or evidence can be mustered by ANYONE to change your small-minded, puritanical stance against gerontological information on wikipedia. It seems to me that something is notable when it can be verified, and when a large amount of people are interested in it. Frankly, other than some random page-browsing, all I use wikipedia for are the "world's oldest people" articles. Wikipedia, for the fleeting moment, is the easiest way to keep on top of these issues, and I personally resent your attempts to make finding this information more difficult. You are making the world of scholarship and information a poorer place indeed, all out of a misguided and crusading insistence on the LETTER of the code, not the SPIRIT. Even if you have no interest in them, you have never been able to explain to my satisfaction just what harm results from those articles remaining online for those who DO have an interest. You are the definition of a "spoil-sport" I don't go around deleting long dead baronets just because no-one has heard of them. Try as I might, I cannot "assume good faith" from someone with such censorious zeal. Does the sheer number of people you have made unhappy cause you to think you just might possibly be on the wrong course? Probably not. And by the way, I am not a meat-puppet, sock-puppet, or any other sort of puppet of Robert Young's. I've never met or corresponded with the man. I just enjoy his work, because he is a CREATOR, whereas you, madam, are a DESTROYER, and can only ever leave the world a worse place than you found it. Feel free to delete this now and continue your smug witch-hunts. If silence is consent, I cannot remain silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.44.2 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2007

Whoever you are, I have a simple suggestion for you: don't tell me, show me.

Rather than posting a diatribe, why don't you go to the top righthand corner of this page, and click on the button to create an account ... and then start writing properly-referenced articles on people whose notability is clearly established (there are plenty of supercenteranrians whose biographies coukd be written to that standard). Those articles won't be deleted, and if you need help in doing that, you'll find plenty of people eager to help you along the way, and plenty of praise too.

On the other hand, if you just came to rant because you think that wikipedia should include lots of self-promotional hype by people who think citing yourself is a reliable source, or that this is the place to write puff-pieces about themselves and their colleagues, then you are going to be disappointed, because this is an encyclopedia and not an indiscrimate collection of information, and it has standards to uphold. If those standards offend you, there are zillions of blogs, myspace pages, and other sources for you to enjoy.

Have a nice day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Reply: Okay so you're from Apollo, Pennsylvania, using Verizon as your ISP. Anyways, I agree about registering a new account on Wikipedia. Then you can help and support. And make Wikipedia better! Anyways, I note 3 current supercentenarian articles for deletion in the past couple days:

• Germaine Haye, 113, by BrownHairedGirl
• Emma Carroll, 112, by Smashville.
• Marie-Rose Mueller, 111, by HisSpaceResearch.

The rest by BrownHairedGirl were added for stubs and such. You really should look into articles nominated for deletion, not one's tagged for improvement. Neal (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Albert Einstein would have had bad luck with you, BHG, if he wanted to present his Theory of Relativity, cause he was the only source back then. Dont you see your wrong argumentation? In this special topic (btw by far more interesting to people than MPs form 1700 in ??) he and a few more are the top sources. And why should an expert in this era dont use his own sources ? I also see there is much "garbage" on wiki, but also a source of info from people for people. I think there must exist something like a accessranking of the articles, and if one would use this as one criteria of notability (something is somehow noteable if there are people how are interested in it) than i am sure most of the MPs would be in the 1500000+ region and most of the sc in the top 50000. Chris Quast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.138.130 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007

You are quite right about Einstein: he could not have use wikipedia to publish his theories, because wikipedia has a strict ban on original reasearch. It wasn't me who thought of that; it has been a policy of wikipedia since long before I joined, and is shared by most encyclopedia. Go and read it if you want to, and if you dislike it, you can register an ID and argue for it to be changed ... but don't expect a rapid result. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But with this policy wiki never can get academic. At least not in new special fields. Cause there are always front line researchers, and how should they put there knowledge to wiki ? If this knowledge is scientific common sence it last maybe 5 years, wow cool, wiki always on the top !! And normal contributers also cant put it to wiki because they simple dont know about it. I think it is by far more likly a nonexpert contributes/writes an bad article than an expert do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.138.122 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any such experts should publish their material in the normal way for experts: in peer-reviewed journals, where the research can be properly examined. Wikipedia cannot do that sort of testing of new fields, which is why we leave it to others to do the testing. But look, I'm not going to argue this out with you. Please stop using my talk page to complain about wikipedia's policies; anything further will be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DATABASE?

As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've responded (and requested clarification) there. - jc37 (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unit display/doc

I replied to your message here: User talk:Patleahy#Category:Unit display/doc. -- PatLeahy (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

scholars and academics

I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. --Lquilter (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to my comment being there, but while you obviously had good intentions, I think that it was a mistake to copy the discussion rather than linking to it. Apart from the risk of a content fork, the copy you place on Category talk:Scholars by subject is already out of date, so folks reading there will miss part of the discussion. Please can you remove the copied material and just leave a link? Thanks

(BTW, once the CfD has closed, it'd be fine to copy the debate and wrap it in {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on archive top/bottom templates. (I had hoped to not have the larger conversation swallow the smaller one. Obviously it's relevant but there are issues relevant to the larger conversation that aren't relevant to the smaller one. Oh well. Can't control WP, I guess!) --Lquilter (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Thanks for cutting it back to the link ... and I think that the discussion at Category talk:Scholars by subject is a useful and timely one. Well done for starting it off, because whatever solution is agreed, we do need some solution :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tx. Like DGG, I'm trying to work on academics and other topics that are systemically under-represented here. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously weird, what's wrong with fictional celebrities? <evil grin>
Seriously, tho, great work. My briefs forays into that area have shown surprising gaps in the coverage scholarships in general, and sorting out the categories will help a lot. Pls do lemme know if I can help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will, certainly -- I've been very appreciative of your efforts on cat guidelines, too. Regarding your latest proposal, I have been thinking that WP:CAT needs some information about tagging. I'll comment there. --Lquilter (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll follow! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Seminole War ships

Thanks for the heads-up on this issue [17]; it has been resolved [18]. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad it's fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish politics categories

Can I create categories myself (and if so how?) or does this need to be an admin? I've noticed that Wikipedia is seriously lacking in Spanish politics and elections articles and I've started creating them but lack the relevant categories. Cats needed would be Category:Spanish Parliament Electoral Districts with a subcategory Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Congress of Deputies (or similar wording). Eventually a second subcat Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Senate would need to be created, but there are currently no articles for it until I get around to creating them. I believe that would be a much better home for articles such as Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District) and Asturias (Spanish Congress Electoral District) rather than the generic politics in Spain category.

Similarly Category:Members of the Spanish Parliament or Category:Members of the Spanish Cortes Generales with a sub-category Category:Members of the Spanish Congress of Deputies and eventually a second subcat Category:Members of the Spanish Senate would seem to make sense. Thanks, Valenciano 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't need to be admin to create categories, although sometimes I wish there was some restriction on category creation, because not all editors think as carefully about them as you are doing!

Anyway, well done writing the articles, and you're right that they need a category.

I suggest a bunch of new categories, mostly using your well-thought-out names:

1. Category:Cortes Generales (Spain)^*, with parent categories Category:Politics of Spain, Category:Government of Spain, Category:Parliaments by country and United Kingdom
2. Category:Congress of Deputies (Spain), with parent categories Category:Cortes Generales (Spain) and Category:National lower houses
3. Category:Electoral Districts of the Cortes Generales (Spain), with parent categories Category:Cortes Generales (Spain), Category:Elections in Spain and Category:Constituencies
4. Category:Electoral Districts of the Congress of Deputies (Spain), with parent categories Category:Electoral Districts of the Cortes Generales (Spain) and Category:Congress of Deputies (Spain)
5. Category:Members of the Cortes Generales (Spain)^*, with parent categories Category:Cortes Generales (Spain), Category:Political office-holders in Spain
6. Category:Members of the Congress of Deputies (Spain), with parent categories Category:Congress of Deputies (Spain) and Category:Members of the Cortes Generales (Spain)

• I'm not sure whether the term "Cortes Generales" needs disambiguation, but I'm sure you can make a wise decision on that one.

As you'll see, I haven't suggested any senate categories yet, because my head was starting to spin and I thought we might overload ourselves if we try doing everything at once.

I hope this all helps. Do you want to take a look at that and see what you think? Once we've been through the list, I can give you some pointers on how to create them (WP:CAT has some guidance, but it's a little sketchy). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All that looks good and I really don't want to go to the other extreme of overcategorising them. There's no other Cortes Generales that I know of but I can't see that it will do any harm to specify the country for those unfamiliar with the term. The Senate can be sorted out in due course once I know how to create the categories - there are 45 more articles to be sorted for the individual constituencies of the lower house first, not to mention potentially hundreds of pages on MPs past and present. On a similar question, an infobox/template for the constituencies would seem to be a good idea too so any pointers you could give me on that would be great. -- Valenciano (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, but I have now created the following categories: Category:Members of the Congress of Deputies (Spain), Category:Members of the Cortes Generales, Category:Electoral Districts of the Congress of Deputies (Spain), Category:Electoral Districts of the Cortes Generales, Category:Congress of Deputies (Spain), Category:Cortes Generales.

As you'll see, I omitted the disambiguator on Category:Cortes Generales, because the main article Cortes Generales doesn't have one, and the convention is to follow the head article.

Hope this helps, and good luck :) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job really appreciate that! Valenciano (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have also done some populating of the categories, so that they won't be deleted as empty, but there's lots left for you to do :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of national supercentenarians

First of all, let me just say what a great job I think you're doing with the supercentenarian lists. Maybe when people actually see what the lists look like (ie. a biographical stub rather than just the bare bones), the opposition to the lists will be less. One question, however. Someone has brought up the concern that Marie Brémont should have her own article, rather than a redirect. Her situation is a little different than the usual, as she was at one time the world's oldest person and has a number of sources to establish notability, including a BBC obituary. While I'm not a huge fan of all these perma-stubs, I think Marie Brémont might have a legitimate claim to her own article. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. Cheers, CP 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thanks for your kind words on the merger. The crucial thing, as you may have seen, is that nothing gets lost, it's just a matter of putting all the short paras in one place.

I dunno whether you spotted it, but the articles that I have merged have been those which don't meet WP:BIO, i.e they lack substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Maybe, for some of them, or even all of them, someone will unearth the necessary references to establish notability, but until then, there are no grounds for an unmerger.

That's the situation that Marie Brémont is in: only one reference. Even if she was also a stunning singer and war hero and the oldest-ever astronaut, she does not pass WP:BIO until there is evidence that others have fund her notable enough to write in detail about her. If that's available, an unmeger would of course be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully they're watching your talk page as well, but I'll let them know about your response. Maybe they know of a few more references. Cheers, CP 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Was wondering if you were aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. Neal (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't, so thanks for the heads-up. I have made my comment at the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

suggested_compromise_on_supercentenarians

User talk:Ryoung122#suggested_compromise_on_supercentenarians

Isn't this a reasonable compromise at all though, huh? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. There's no need for any special arrangements like that. If the article meets [WP:BIO]], it should stay, and if not should be merged; it doesn't matter whether the person is the oldest in the world or the 20th-oldest in their village.

That's the problem with all of this — too many people have not read WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal at User talk:Ryoung122, in case you missed it. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have commented there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice required

I am coming to you for advice on a point of Admin. I chose to approach you because you and I have a poor record together, and therefore nobody can accuse me of crawling along to a pal (by the way I still feel profoundly displeased with the appalling way I believe you, and the closing Admin, behaved at that WP:CFD regarding Scottish MPs several months ago, but let's leave sleeping dogs lying).

The thing is, a User who I have a strong personal distaste for, has been edit warring his way through Wikipedia for some months now. This kind of activity is not entirely unusual here at Wikipedia, but what I do find remarkable is that he never misses an opportunity to make blatant personal attacks on my good self, usually in Edit summaries but also on Talk pages, whenever our paths meet. Even my most vigorous opponents in the past have knocked that childishness on the head after a while, but this guy just keeps going, and I am sick to the back teeth of the lack of Admin action.

To the particular case in hand: User:Breadandcheese has been gaily edit warring on the Inverness article ever since his attention was brought to it by this (failed) attempt at civil discussion by Ben MacDui. I kept out of the Inverness dispute until yesterday. I would like to say that it was due to self-restraint, but that is not true: I was on holiday, here (note: if you have any good sense you will not follow my example).

Breadandcheese just breached 3RR this morning, but I am buggered if I am going to waste my time reporting it. For a start I did not bother putting upp the 3RR template on his Talk page yesterday evening, although why that should be necessary I do not know, cos he has been made aware of it before.

Anyway, apart from the particular unpleasantness at Inverness, how the hell do we get it through to this idiot that he cannot just launch into attack mode the second he sees me? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see why I did not bother putting on the 3RR template yesterday evening:

• [19]

He seems to be under the misapprehension that he has not breached 3RR. Perhaps this point ought to be clarified for him by an Admin, as he seems deeply disinclined to believe me. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Last time I was in Egypt I had put a knife to the throat of a coach driver who was trying to rape my friend, so I certainly won't follow you to Hurghada! I'll holiday in places without such bad echoes for me.

Anyway, thanks v. much for asking for my thoughts on this. I think that our previous disagreements were in a rather narrow area, so hopefully they can be contained there. I guess that temperamentally there is a bit of a gap between us too: you can be rather fiery, and I can be rather tenacious, which is probably a bad combination. So I'll try to look at this one as honestly as I can, and you can make what you will of my answer.

So: the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of the saltire in infoboxes on Scottish articles, in particular geographical articles, as discussed at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag. From what I can see, there are three possible options:

1. Use the Union Jack
2. Use the saltire
3. Use no flag
4. Use both flags

… with a further question, I suppose, of whether there should be consistency.

The relevant guideline seems to be WP:MOSFLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations, which notes that the "exact definition of a 'state', 'nation' or 'country' is often politically divisive and can result in debates over the choice of flag". That seems to me to be the central point: the flags are divisive and will lead to debate. There are many people (including me!) who would be horrified to see a union flag attached to Scottish places, because it would look like a unionist political statement, but others who would regard a saltire as a political statement. Both flags are, of course, equally defensible as statements of fact (Inverness is in the United Kingdom, and it is also in Scotland).

So it seems to me that the only neutral way of using the flags would initially appear be the use of both flags ... but I also think that might just get up the noses of both sides, and annoy more people than would be annoyed by just having one flag. That doesn't seem to be satisfactory, because while many Scots do identify with both flags, there are others who identify with only one or the other (personally, it gets up my nose to see a union flag flying in Scotland, but plenty of folks disagree).

This points me back to the solution arrived at for Northern Ireland, which is to limit the use of the flag. The Ulster banner has a much shorter and narrower historical usage than the saltire, and N. Ireland doesn't has a choice of at least four flags rather than just two; but the general principle arrived at is not to use any of the divisive flags except in situations where they uncontentiously reflect the actual usage on the ground at the time in question.

That suggests to me that the Saltire should be applied to pre-union articles in Scotland, and to issues relating to unambiguously Scottish issues such as Scottish sporting teams and events or to the devolved institutions of government and politics in Scotland ... and that the others should usually avoid a flag. (I haven't checked all the Scottish cities and major towns, but I notice that neither Edinburgh nor Glasgow currently have a flag.)

Sorry: that isn't the answer that my heart would I'd like to give, but it does seem to me to be most neutral and least divisive solution, and above all the most likely to be a stable solution. However, I note that so far there doesn't seem to be consensus for that approach at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag. Maybe an RFC is needed?

I don't want to condone the edit warring, but it seems to me to be more important to try to find a durable solution than to hand out blocks wrt to the revert wars shown in the revision history of Inverness. One option is to protect the article to enforce a cooling-off period, but I'm reluctant to lock down a whole article when the dispute is over a tiny part of it. Since the discussion at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag seems to be deadlocked, I suggest that an RFC is in order; if editors can agree to go to RFC, I hope that they would also agree to neither add or remove a flag until the RFC is over.

I hope this helps, and feel free to pick up on anything I have written here if you feel I have missed something or misinterpreted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, after reviewing the edit war, I changed my mind and have now protected the Inverness article for two weeks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I've only just read this, and I need time to cogitate. However, if I may quickly point out one fact: Template:Infobox UK place was enforced pretty-much unilaterally by English Wikipedians. Zero consultation was undertaken. WP:SCO was not even notified until about 2 weeks after the event, let alone consulted. And when Scottish Wikipedians did get involved we were unanimously opposed to the deletion of Template:Infobox Scotland place. However, as I am sure you are aware, within a UK-wide debate Scots are a tiny minority, so guess which side "won"? In my opinion, if WikiProject Scotland wants to restore our own Infobox place we should be allowed to do so. Many issues are just different in Scotland, not least usage of the national flag: even official govt policy and guidance diverge dramatically north and south of the border, let alone the facts of actual day-to-day usage.

Anyhow, I must get off to work. Sorry to hear of unpleasantness in Egypt. However I cannot say that I am surprised. Maybe I was a bit naive, but my first trip to an Arab country has proved a bit of an eye-opener. I was horrified by some of the nasty/ignorant people we encountered, which is a real shame, cos we also met so many truly talented and welcoming folk too. Isolation from Western Europe is really hurting the middle classes there I think - the older people have been to universities etc in the West, but the bright young ones just cannot get visas since 9/11. Looks like the main victims of "Islamic" terrorism are... muslims! --Mais oui! (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just a quick reply, but I think you may have a good case for restoring the Template:Infobox Scotland place, because as uou say so manyb issues are different (constituencies, local govt, multiple languages etc). May I suggest that an RFC might be appropriate? Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Samaritans (charity)

British or international - but surely not wikiproject Ireland. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Ireland and UK, surely? (the artucle says that they work "throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland.") So I have added the {{WikiProject United Kingdom}} banner.

The most directly relevant would be a wikiproject dealing with voluntary organisations, and I eventually found {{WikiProject Organizations}}, so added that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

That is just petty Kitty; some editors have included some Irish roads in WikiRoadsUK; I welcome their interest - so long as they are not claiming in any article that the N11 is a "British road" I totally welcome their interest in Irish roads. BTW; any reply to my question on the "massacres" page? Kitty got yer tongue? (Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

If that's a question to me, pls could you link to the relevant page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry BH - nothing to do with you - Kitty has been following me around and I have an extensive watchlist! Apologies. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You're a great contributer to wikipedia and i feel at lot of people forget about you even though you are great, welldone , keep up the good work Mr.whiskers (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I hope you are doing well -Thank you-

Hi! I hope you are doing well. Be encourage you are trying to do the best you can. Thank you for all you are doing concerning Wikipedia. Thank you again=RFD (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Noel Dempsey

I think that the Noel Dempsey article should be unprotected now as the controversy surrounding him has blown over and he did give a reprieve to learner drivers by extending the limit to June for those on their 2nd provisional. Having it protected now is hindering the articles progress. --Netwhizkid 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but it's now unprotected. Hope this works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:School massacres in Scotland

cfd?? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An upmerge was tried here and again here. My view is that all the categories with three or less articles should be upmerged. Sometimes in two directions, to both Category:School massacres and the relevant "Massacres by country" country category (presuming there are more than three massacres other than school ones). The only "school massacre" categories large enough to be sustainable are the USA and Canada ones. Some people claim this is US/Canada-centric, but if there is a real imbalance in the geographical distribution of such incidents, then Wikipedia should mirror that imbalance. Carcharoth 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In general I agree, but there a few other categorisation principles at play here, both the resukts of numerous Cfd debates. One is that if a category is big enough to to be subdivided, then some small categories are an acceptable part of that process of division. The other is that for historical and cultural reasons, there has not usually been a minimum threshold applied to the creation of a Scottish category as a subdivision of the UK. In this case, it looks to me like the UK category is the least justifiable one, since it is only a container for the Scottish category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yah. But in this case it was a category being divided into 36 articles (USA), 6 articles (Canada) and then 9 other articles in 7 other country categories. Of those 7 categories, two had 2 articles in them and five had only 1 article in them. Clicking around 7 categories in order to find 9 articles seems like overkill to me. Carcharoth 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have looked again at the whole massacres question, and I think you are right here, because the overall number of articles in those subcats is too low, and the existence of two useful subcats doesn't make for a pattern (I think it'd be different if there were, say, 20 well-populated sub-categories as well as the tiddlers). If you want to nominate the baby categories for upmerger, I'd be happy to support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 22#School_massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122

I saw your message on his talk page; maybe you could direct him to the Arbitration Committee mailing list if he wishes to contest his block (as is the advice given to sockpuppetteers/banned/indefinitely blocked users).

Just a suggestion. --Solumeiras ^talk 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You may not have seen this part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#You_have_been_blocked where RYoung122 made his initial request. And from what I'm getting at (unless I'm wrong), there's a time limit before making a 2nd request once the 1st has been answered. Neal (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Solumeiras, that was a good suggestion. I have left a note on Young's talk page: see User talk:Ryoung122#Unblock_requests_may_be_made_by_email. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst basically on the same subject, I've just reverted an attempt on Young's user page to help him evade the block and talk page protection. This was done by another editor for which you can see from the contrib history and is overt in its desire to go around the rules. Should I leave it with you or do you think this is worth reporting at WP:ANI? ---- WebHamster 01:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hamster, for doing that. You were quite right, per para 3 of Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process. As to ANI, I honestly don't know, or at least can't think about it now, but I'm sure that you can make a wise decision. I have just posted the following in this edit to User talk:Ryoung122, and I am reposting it here in case that page is deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

---

If he is ever unblocked, then I definitely agree that mentoring is needed. Careful mentoring.

But to get unblocked, I will continue to argue that he needs to demonstrate a clear understanding of why he was blocked, and to give unequivocal assurances that he won't repeat that stuff. In other words that he will learn how to use talkpages properly, that he will not edit any articles related to himself or his colleagues, that he will stop adding his own publications as sources to wikipedia articles, that he will stop using wikipedia to publish more of his original research, that he will not canvass or votestack discussions, that he will stop making malicious and unfounded allegations of votestacking by others, that he will not use sockpuppets, that he understands that if blocked he should not ask other editors to edit on his behalf, and that he understands that AfD discussions on the notability of articles are a routine part of wikipedia maintenance rather than grounds for calling on hundreds of people to abuse wikipedia admin.

I know that's a long list, but it's simply what every other wikipedia editor has to abide by. I have been quite shocked by the harassment to which I have been subjected by Young (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment). I will not repost here everything which has been said, and I don't even have all if it because my sources have deliberately witheld from me the worst of it, but if the long history of misconduct is brushed aside simply because Young has an idea for an article, I will consider taking out an arbcom case or whatever.

However, I ask you to consider whether it is fair to ask me, as the victim of the harassment, to have to go through all the prolonged hassle of an arbcom, on top of what has been done. It's bad enough to have been subjected to barrage, but an arbcom on top if it all seems like too much.

I have already considered simply quitting wikipedia and scrambling access to my accounts (this one plus BHGbot), simply because of the harassment. I don't think that I should have to do that, but if wikipedia is to be an environment where a systematic harasser has such a determined advocate that I have to constantly choose between sodding off or reminding him of what's going on, then I have to wonder what's the right course. I'm not a quitter, and I have in my time told more than one eejit who put a gun to my head to get lost and grow up, and I have lived at various points in dangerous circumstances, with several death threats and one actual arson attack on my home ... but I now choose a quieter life.

Editing wikipedia has had its good points and its bad points, but I have stuck with it because overall it has been fun and I have enjoyed it, and as a result I have had the chance to work with some great people, with a huge variety of approaches. But if it's going to be a place where a man can set about his sort of sustained harassment of a woman, I'll have to wonder whether I'm in the right place. I can see now why so many women on wikipedia choose gender-neutral usernames and take care not to reveal their gender. I used to think that was unnecessary, that wikipedia was a civilised enough place that I didn't have to adopt that sort of gender-neutral pseudonyms which I use elsewhere, but I'm now beginning to think that I made a very big mistake in that respect.

But if all the history of harassment is set aside just because the harasser has an idea for an article which interests an admin, I'll have conclude that I was wrong, and take time to consider what I do next. Sometimes, it's best to accept that one is in a places which it is best to get out of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2007 (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.

Hello BrownHairedGirl, if you do choose to leave Wikipedia, I'm sure you will be missed. In any event, I certainly wouldn't quit Wikipedia over Robert Young. He shouldn't be that important in your Internet life to affect such a decision. But I do suggest people can be part-time Wikipedia or take short vacations from the Internet. I myself have been part-time with Wikipedia only until a couple days ago. Anyways, I'm all into the no-stress philosophy. Therefore, if taking a short break is helpful, or being part-time, take it, but quitting entirely isn't worth it. Neal (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

(Echoes the above.) I can easily understand why you feel this way, but I hope that you feel able to stay. Your tireless work for WP would be sadly missed by many editors - in particular, your work at CfD, where I see you most often on my travels, is always conscientious and productive. Take a break if you need it, but come back afterwards please! Bencherlite^Talk 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Echoes also). One of the problems with harrassment and intimidation is that it is ongoing and relentless. Only if one is following the various pages at the time can one keep up with the feelings that are engendered. Given that I did so in this case, I can well see why BHG felt personally attacked (which she consistently was) and that Robert Young also felt he personally was being attacked (whereas what was actually under attack was his understanding of wiki-rules). However I am not aware that attacks against BHG have been focused on gender - although there may have been off-wiki stuff which was. In any event, the loss of BHG to the project would be a great loss and simply is not warranted by this latest spat. Never let the buggers get you down. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. echo. Unfortunately the list goes on about those that have been under the wrath of Robert Young. I myself have been under his fury several times. Matter fact, in August 2006, I was on the verge of being banned by Robert in his Yahoo world's oldest people group. The secret to my stable relationship with him, is that he is an explosive kind of guy, whereas I'm good at receiving the anger. Therefore, we don't get into that bad of a dispute.

I also see believe we should be looking forward to the future. But before we do that, I'm going to bring up the past again, about last night, which I have written a poem about.

I was looking out at the moon,

through the windows in my room.
I realized I was no longer alone,
when Robert Young called me on the phone.
I felt as if I were in danger.
Hearing his voice expressing in anger.
He was raging mad over false accusations,
I couldn't help buy give my recommendations.
I don't know whether to say I might,
I didn't feel as if he were bright.
He sent all those meat puppet troops,
that came from the Gerontology Research Group.
If he could excuse my pardon,
but the GRG was just a walled garden.
I never knew anyone who was so stubbornly bold,
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
that fought so much for the articles of the extremely old.
For someone who's name was Young.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

He certainly can be dumb.

Neal (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

• echo all above - the more RY rants on, the more he shows himself an idiot, whatever the forum. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi BH I know you have chided me for it in the past for fighting fire with fire but I do really believe that women are targeted for extreme attention in the hope that they will crack and give up. There as so many examples in my brief time here - you probably know them. I certainly don't want to suggest you keep at something you feel is stressful but I'd hate to give the b******s the satisfaction of "winning". Stay if you can; maybe concentrate on the IrlProj for a while - we badly need a bit of help! (Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

I was going to award you a flower - but the last time I did that was when GoldHeart seemed under pressure and well.......bad call!! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BHG the harassment generated by this one individual has been awful to see and no one should have had to put up with it. And yes I do think a good proportion of it is because you are female and that many of these men conducting this harassment on the basis they think they can be as obnoxious as they want to women and get away with such behaviour (as indeed they probably do in life). Well don't let them grind you down girl. You've brought a real sense of rigour and improvement to a notable percentage of articles in this encyclopaedia and the vast majority of us have reacted to you pointing out sourcing problems by editing accordingly. If the gerontology and Tolkien groups want to react by abusing the messenger rather than making improvements, then that’s their loss, not ours. It short BrownHairedGirl wikipedia would be a very much poorer place without you, and don't let a few obnoxious fools with testosterone poisoning get to you! And this is a man speaking... - Galloglass 13:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the sort time I have known you all I have seen is good constructive work, as with several other female editors I have interacted with. Be strong and don't give in to the intimidation of it all. If you do, then they win and Wikipedia will be worse off for that. As Sarah says the Ireland Project can do with some more help if you need to refocus on something different for a while. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the above text, I failed to see how the incident involved gender. Mainly because I could think of an alternate incident, except with a guy. RYoung122 and Canadian_Paul had a similar fight, which eventually went to the notice boards in August 2006 because the 2 couldn't get along, all because Canadian_Paul nominated a 114 year-old woman for deletion. I suppose this was the case of Robert's block in August 2006. This led to Canadian_Paul nominated more and more supercentenarian articles for deletion. As usual, Robert posted on his boards about Canadian_Paul, as well as a list of all the articles he nominated to deletion. In other words, anyone who nominates a supercentenarian article for deletion is a threat to Robert, regardless of gender. Neal (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

You can take a look at the logs from the notice boards, but more particularly the request for admin page of Canadian_Paul, where he was asked if ge got in disputes or fights with other Wikipedia users. Sure enough, Canadian_Paul had to mention his incident with Robert Young, and also Bart Versieck. Neal (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

I do applaud in general the effort that this editor has put into Wikipedia, but I think sycophantic acclaim is completely unwarranted and undeserved. I'd reccommend a refresher course in the principles of Wikipedia and to not get bogged down in the pettyfogging minutea of some policy page somewhere - you'd probably make (even) more meaningful contributions then. RichyBoy (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"sycophantic acclaim" ain't something anyone with more Userboxes than edits is ever likely to suffer from! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

• I am not a great fan sycophantic acclaim; it puts pressure on the receiver to live up the Compliment; keep your integrity...but I do think you are great! Aatomic1 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My entry

Dear BrownHairedGirl

Not wanting to risk a POV flag again (or Barry Manilow!) can I pass on some updates for my entry amongst English MPs?

Select committee memberships: I have this week stepped down from the Communities & Local Government Committee following my appointment last month to the Environmental Audit Committee instead. EAC vets the environmental impact of any government department or policy. These changes should be verifiable on www.parliament.uk or by ringing the relevant select committee clerks on +44 (0)20 7219 3000.

Leadership contest: I'm again on Chris Huhne's campaign team in the new leadership contest against Nick Clegg.

Campaigns: As shadow environment minister, I'm now a bit more cautious about biofuels arguing for the importance of clear certification to ensure they are sustainable; I have also campaigned for a tough climate change bill, and against government planning reforms which threaten local peoples' rights. All verifiable from Hansard or on www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/martin_horwood/cheltenham.

As MP for Cheltenham, I campaigned vigorously against a new Parkway railway station on greenbelt land between Cheltenham and Gloucester which would have taken services away from Cheltenham (or more properly Cheltenham Spa) station. See my website www.martinhorwood.net for press releases, etc.

Hope you're well and keep up the good work.

Cheers Martin Horwood MP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.169 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but...

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Because you deserve it. Keep up the great work. Kbdank71 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The result

This discussion relates to CfD 2007 November 13#Category:Korean_fruits.

I think the discussion process for the deletion on the Korean fruits category is not balanced. Except two people, the voter for deletion of Korean fruits are Japanese editors or of JPOV per history. Especially, three of them are famous for their anti-sentiment. As Badagnani's saying, they are using it as another battleground of Japanese-Korean dispute. The biased consensus can't be true 'consensus. --Appletrees (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above comment, I think any discussion that does not go Appletree's way, is biased, and any editor that does not agree with him, is obviously a racist and probably Japanese. (I hope the sarcasm was obvious in my comment)Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your false accusation is out of logic. I haven't said any single comment that they of course including 'you' are a racist at all. Besides, didn't you label editors on the other opinion as trolls and KOV Pushers? Sennen goroshi's race card and framing are clearly seen at Talk:Korean cuisine, Talk:Ahn Jung-geun, and so forth. The editors revealed their nationality past or on their user page, so your wording sound absurd. And your disruptive behaviors are not welcomed from editors into Korean-related articles.--Appletrees (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD is not a vote, and I did not count heads, I looked at the strength of the arguments (see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus). It doesn't make much difference who made those arguments; what matters is that the arguments to delete were more firmly supported by the relevant guidelines.

Also, while I'm happy to discuss the CfD closure, please do not use my talk page to exchange insults and allegations. Please discuss this WP:CIVILly or discus it somewhere else. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification because I don't know much about Wiki rules. I'm getting to know them step by step. However, people's opinions are somewhat used as a ground to delete categories. I initially thought the deletion is not a big deal at all, because I made it just in a couple of minutes. However, the proposal rationale and participants look biased, so I objected to the underlying intention. Anyway, I'm sorry for your page overused by the quarrel. Take care. --Appletrees (talk)

Hey, it takes time to learn the rules, so don't beat yourself up about that, and you did exactly the right thing in asking me to explain my actions if you were puzzled or unhappy abut them. If you are not happy about the CfD closure, you can of course ask for a deletion review, but DRV asks you to discuss it with the closing admin first. So you got some of the procedure right without knowing it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

cool message thingy

Hallo BHG, I've just recycled the "cool message thingy" too, thanks - it's a neat idea! I've also created my first talk page header, largely based on it, and nicked recycled the idea of including current date and time. Could you point me to any useful documentation about how to do that sort of thing (ie layout and fonts etc for userpages etc), other than just recycling other people's nice examples? Thanks! PamD (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! To make it easier for others to use, I have made it into a template: {{UserTalkReplyhere}}.

In think that I found some of this stuff in Category:User talk header_templates, in the Help section, but most of it I nicked recycled off others and tweaked, and/or developed myself. The footer is an adaptation of an idea I saw use on one pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, but I can't recall which it was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, nice idea, but there's a possible problem with the template... I had to fiddle around with the spacing a bit to prevent the block from overwriting the last message, as I haven't got a "categories" bar at the bottom of my userpage as you have. PamD (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much for telling me. I have now tweaked the template to take a parameter if the talk page is categorised, which fixes the spacing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Unionists

Can you upgrade the protection on this to full protection please? At the moment all you've done is shut out one side in a content dispute, which is against the protection policy. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now-fully-protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former designated terrorist organizations

Hi, I was wondering whether you were going to do another CFD for this category. I just wanted to know if I should start recategorizing them. [20] Oh and I'm defiantly stealing the cool message thingy. Thanks VartanM (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, VartanM, but I have to firmly correct your awful use of language: this was not theft, it was recycling, which these days appears to be a more strictly enforced moral imperative than previously fundamental social norms such as not killing too many babies on a tuesday morning.

As to those categories discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:Former_designated_terrorist_organizations_.282.29, I do think that they are a bad idea ... but it also seems that few (if any) editors agree with me, and there is a clear consensus to categorise that way. So I won't be CfDing them (that would be pointless), and you should feel free to implement that consensus. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my awful use of language, lets call it barrow, wait that means I have to return it. OK fine I guess I can call it recycling. Back to the category, I think you had a very strong argument for the deletion. I'll get to renaming tomorrow. Have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving. VartanM (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish supercentenarians.

Yo - thank you for contributing to the Katherine Plunket article. I'm sure there are other Irish supercentenarians around. A to do list for you (no rush). Here's some articles you can start in your free time, with sources. And then you can probably start an Irish supercentenarians category/list pending the Dutch/French/British/etc. don't get deleted. You're probably the #1 person in WikiProject: Ireland, that knows the most about supercentenarians by now.

Born and died in Ireland.

Maggie Dolan 27/07/1893 - 02/12/2004 111 years 128 days
-Source: http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2004/07/29/news/49193.html as Ireland's oldest woman and titanic survivor. That's 2 titles!

Born in Ireland but died somewhere else.

Catherine Furey 06/04/1893 - 30/11/2003 110 years 238 days source: Emily Schoenhofen/NECS.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5089/is_200312/ai_n18498893 Ireland's oldest woman dies.

Born somewhere else, died in Ireland.

Elizabeth Yensen 25/07/1895 - 04/12/2005 110 years 132 days - spent the last 70 years of her life in Ireland
-Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4715067.stm per Ireland's oldest woman celebrating 110th birthday.
-http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2005/12/11/elizabeth-yensen-78057-16470944/ Just mentioning her death.

By the way these were all checked and none of them exist on Wikipedia. Neal (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the note and for the kind words, but I doubt I'll pursue those articles, partly because I don't want to get stuck into this field and more importantly because on the evidence above none of those seem to come near meeting WP:BIO. Other Irish ppl who could be aded to the list are even further from notability, and I only created the List of Dutch supercentenarians etc to demonstaate how to cover the subject without creating a collection of permastubs.

Katherine Plunket caught my eye because of the note on WT:IE and her overlap with my interest in politics, and then she turned out to have been notable in other ways and to have a close family connection with me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Riders on the Storm

Thanks - amended. I see RY's revenge above! Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

references for roads

Hi, You put an {{unreferenced}} tag on A58 road. I can't see anything controversial in this stub article, and WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Are you challenging the facts in the article?

I've clicked around various other UK road articles, and can't see any where there are references given for the actual route of the road, as opposed to specific bypass construction, incidents, etc. What sort of reference would you expect to see? The available 3rd-party source is any road atlas, but is it a good use of time for someone to work through every single UK road article and add a formal reference to an atlas? There's also [21]. What do you think? Just curious, really, as to what sort of sourcing you'd expect to see on this article and the vast number of similar ones!

There doesn't seem to be a WikiProject as such on UK roads, just some people who've put a lot of effort into creating templates and list pages - I'm not a roads specialist myself, just created A660 road because it's my local main road, and edited A58 road with which it intersects in Leeds. I included a link to the SABRE site as "External links" - would you accept that as sufficiently referenced? PamD 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. It's a fair question, I'm not sure that I have easy answers either way, but I should say at the outset that I do admire the good work of the editors who have created the articles on the UK's roads. They are are a set of well-presented, consistently structured and carefully interlinked articles, and I'm actually rather surprised to hear that there's no WikiProject behind them, because I don't often see such a well-structured collection without a WikiProject co-ordinating several regions people.

However, WP:V#Sources says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I am inclined to be a little sticky about this point, because Wikipedia's reputation is weakened by the number of unreferenced or under-referenced articles. It use {{unreferenced}} and similar tags a lot as an invitation to editors to bring articles up to that standard. {{Fact}} tags are used for particular points which might be challenged, but I don't think that the absence of such weak points removes the need for reliable sources; my my understanding is that it just removes the need for inline citations.

Now, as to A58 road, I have no personal reason to challenge the facts of the article, because it's a road I know (at least for some of its length), and the facts appear to be accurate according to my knowledge. The problem is that my own knowledge of the road is not a reliable source :) ... and that per WP:V#Sources, articles should provide pointers to somewhere that they can be verified from reliable sources by a reader who has no personal knowledge of the subject.

I had encountered the problem myself when I created A961 road, and the solution I adopted there was to reference the road atlas from which I drew the facts, and I tagged the A58 when I checked it for comparison and saw no references.

I like the SABRE site and have used it a lot, but I don't think that it can comes near meeting the definition of reliability at WP:V#Sources or in WP:RS, so I think that it's a very appropriate external link, but inadequate as a reference. Some roads are well-documented on the Highway Agency website, but it focuses more on road projects and traffic information than on providing than on documenting each road, so it seems to be useful mostly as a primary source for verifying projects affecting trunk roads and motorways.

What do you think of maps as a reference? It seems to me that anything using Ordnance Survey data is highly reliable for publicly-accessible areas (the only glitch I'm aware of is that they censor the maps of some military areas). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know some of these roads, do you want to contribute photos of them? :-) Carcharoth 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a good photographer. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Google map of A660? (I got the idea from an A1nnn road I found by clicking on random roads for ideas). Do you reckon Google maps is reliable and stable enough to use? It's a bit fiddly to do - I'm having a go at A58 but it's hard work. PamD 11:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of using google maps a reference, because its data sources are unclear and it is in places rather patchy. For UK mapping, the Ordnance Survey is widely acknowledged as reliable, and seems greatly preferable, though a Google maps link could be a handy extra ref for those who want to check online. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I've now added Google maps to A58 road and A65 road, and must get on with some real life. I don't think OS offers any way to trace the whole of a route - one could just cite "Ordnance Survey" as a source, because of course any one road will be shown at multiple scales anyway. We could add a ref to [22] to every road page, I suppose (whole country route planner at 1:625000 scale). Seems a little pointless. PamD —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A ref to the link you provided is fine if the article has actually been checked against that source. But referencing is essential to verifiability, and I'm a bit disappointed to see it described as pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" means that it can be verified. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. from WP:V. Is anyone likely to challenge the route of a main road? If they do, anyone interested can check that material in any hardcopy road atlas or on many available websites. There's so much more on WP that is controversial or dubious that I don't really see the need to pursue references to road atlases for all existing road articles. PamD 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that UK roads are one of the more easily verifiable issues, and the references should not be a high priority. But the articles should be referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi BHG: I've just discovered that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads (newly renamed/merged from "UK Motorways" project, and I'm not sure that even that one has been around for long!). That would be an interesting place to discuss the whole issue of what constitutes good references for roads. I see they list SABRE as a resource. Cheers, PamD (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, SABRE is listed as a resource because for some of its more prolific sites (e.g. CBRD), the DfT have actually pointed queries there. Quite a number reference their sources too. Will ^(talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good! If SABRE is acceptable as reliable source, that solves the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as SABRE is a network of sites, there's variable reliability. Most of CBRD, Pathetic Motorways, Roader's Digest, and (all of) the Motorway Archive are definitely reliable, and most-if-not-all of the sites have done their research. Will ^(talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic Motorways is one of my favourite scarily-detailed-websites. I visit it from time to time just to marvel at how much detail there is on such an obscure topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to join the discussion at the WP UK roads on sources that PamD has raised or can I copy this over to the thread so that a wider range of people will see it? Regan123 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Small Wikiworld - my interest in roads came from reading the "pathetic motorways" site and uploading pics to SABRE :) (Sarah777 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

Royalty - Nobility - Peerage

Royalty <> Nobility <> Peerage

Example is Robert Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe whose talk page includes WPBiography. There seem to be a large number of peers who are therefore nobility, whose nobility does not make them royalty. I think royalty-work-group needs to be re-jigged somehow. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, using CatScan, and found 388 articles in both categories (if you want to replicate my search, it will take a few minutes, but just follow this link).

I suggest that a peek in that list of intersections is probably a good place to start any cleanup, but that you will probably need beforehand to have some consensus on a definition of "royalty": after how many generations do the children of children of monarchs cease to be labelled as royal?

Anyway, in case it helps, I have processed CatScan's output into wikilinked lists, which I will dump in your userspace as User:Kittybrewster/Royalty-nobilty intersect and User:Kittybrewster/Royalty-nobilty intersect talkpages. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have raised the question at [23] but my feeling is that someone who can use a bot needs to be WP:BOLD. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The first thing would be to define the bot's job :) Note, BTW, that Queen Victoria is in the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII is in both lists. Very royal. Do you not think the bot-mistress could guide herself? - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The aforesaid bot-mistress is always keen to help, but her bot is not authorised for such a task, and it takes about 2 weeks to get authorisation. However, if you place a request at WP:BOTREQ, someone will probably help, otherwise you could ask User:Kingboyk (owner of Kingbotk) or User:Reedy Boy (owner of Reedy Bot), and I'm sure they would be happy to help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have looked again, and it no longer seems to me like a job for a bot: too many people from outside the UK, or from long ago, and I think that individual assessment is needed. The list also includes several princes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) You might want to check this list of auto-tagging edits: quite a lot of false positives there. I have fixed a few, but there are many still to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh; yes. As you say, individual assessments would be best. Tricky. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A little template help (if you have the time)...

Nothing special. Just one thing: is there a way to make a navbox stick to the bottom of a talk page, like the box you have created for yours? I have developed a navbox for my user pages (to fit in with the main user page's "proper article" theme) and I want to add it to my talk page, but cannot find the way to avoid its going up with each new section. Can you help, please? Waltham, The Duke of 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if you want it to stick to the bottom, you can't create more space the way you can with a CSS float:right or float:left, so you have to make it very compact. My little note was developed from some links at the bottom of a set of wikipedia pages (can't recall which), but those links took little more space than my reply-here note. If you can get your list of links down to something that short, it's do-able, but it won't look anything like your big template box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dan Evans

A tag has been placed on Dan Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hammer1980·^talk 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BHG, did you really write an article about "the driver and owner of the Destroyer monster truck"? — iridescent 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When passing sentence, I request that the court also take into account my role in the sinking of the Titanic, and my single-handed responsibility for the eruption at Krakatoa.

Actually, I had made Dan Evans a redirect to the dab page at Daniel Evans, and some trucking fan had overwritten the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

cfd Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease

Should be Deaths with .... Nobody dies from it. Some die from complications arising from it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. It's easy enough to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Deaths_from_Parkinson's_disease&action=edit then {{subst:cfr|Deaths with Parkinson's disease}}, and it displays the text you need to copy into another link to edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I've asked for arbitration concerning the Geobox categories here. – Caroig (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made my statement: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement_by_BrownHairedGirl. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging empty categories

You seem to be speedy tagging categories that have been empty for three days. The speedy template suggests that categories need to be empty for at least four days to qualify. I know this is a trivial difference, but perhaps we should wait one more day to ensure that nobody complains on a technicality. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. You have a point there, but lemme explain what I'm doing. These are all orphaned categories which I have found in Special:Uncategorizedcategories, most of them with zero content, although some of them have a few words and some are articles in category space. If they were articles, he would be deleted almost immediately by a bot, and I see no point in leaving them to clutter up the the Uncategorizedcategories list again. Special:Uncategorizedcategories is regenerated every 3 or 4 days, and each time there are about 100 new orphaned categories, nearly all of which empty: no text in the category page, and no articles. It has taken some faitly intensive work by a group of editors to reduce the backlog there from over 1000 articles to the point where the list is emptied each time, and a delay will simply lead to the backlog building up again. I generally dislike calls to WP:IAR, but this seems to be a good case for its use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you leave some sort of message explaining this with each category? Better yet, can we create a new speedy template for this situation that does not have the "wait 4 days" message? If you need my help creating the template, please let me know. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A new template seems like a great idea, and by far the best solution. I have created one at {{Db-catneworphan}}, and will propose a new speedy criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"pseudo-redirect"

Not really ... I've been doing that when I come across an empty cat which I know doesn't qualify for C1. I don't want to bother CFD with a bunch of empty categories, but at the same time I don't want to kill new ones. The result is that they stay in the orphanage until they become old enough to kill as C1. The real issue is that it's hard to know how long a cat has been empty ... it's obvious when it's new but often not otherwise. Usually I'll leave a note in the edit history that says something like Speedy delete Nov 30th, etc. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you think about making a template for this ... to be deleted, but too young for C1? Probably would make sense, now that more people have started working on the orphanage.. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found {{Db-catneworphan}} ... pretty much what I had in mind, although perhaps there could be something that said when it would qualify for C1? -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For example A-Class soil articles ... no real reason for a redirect, but too recently emptied for C1. -- Prove It ^(talk)

Update link please

Can you update the links from Gaelic Games to Gaelic games in {{GaelicGamesdecade}} and its peers and {{S-sports}} , Thanks Gnevin (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I could unprotect the templates if you like, but since they should very rarely need, it seemed best to protect them. Lemme know if you want then unprotected.

It seems to me that since the capitalisation has been changed on the main article, it shoukd also be changed on all the categories, so that Category:1998 in Gaelic Games→Category:1998 in Gaelic games, Category:Gaelic Games in Northern Ireland→Category:Gaelic games in Northern Ireland, Category:Gaelic Games grounds→Category:Gaelic games grounds etc. What do you think? I can do the speedy CfR nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that BHG, keep up the good work. I'd agree with renaming the Category's can you do that as your the expert in this sort of thing :) Gnevin (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Gaelic_games_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done They have now been renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Request/suggestion

This falls fully under the heading of "you in no way have to".

I'd like to request that you nominate Category:Women by occupation and its subcats for discussion at CFD.

Yes, based on your previous comments, I will presume that as nominator this would be a nomination to "keep", but as the page is Categories for discussion, I don't see this as a problem at all.

I just feel that, as you appear to be the topic's main proponent, you would be the best to illustrate the reasons for keeping.

I only ask that you please consider this. - jc37 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair suggestion. I'll think about it, but it won't be this week, because I will be away for a few days. My initial reaction is no, because we have a clear guideline on this, and there is no more reason to problematise these categories than any other sex, gender or ethnicity categories. Another possibility is a group nom for the lot, but another possibility is an RFC about the high levels of aggression which some male editors have displayed to these categories over the year or two I have been watching them. I don't think that the issue here is really about categorisaton :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas X Russell

Did you see this (in "constantly vandalised") - can it be speedied? Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Ok - done (was copy of entire G bush page if you didn't see)Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:hndis

I made a request for editing the protected template, {{hndis}}, which you just edited. If you're still online, could you make the requested edit, please? It is widely used and quite broken right now. jwillbur 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else got it. jwillbur 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that :( Thanks for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding categories and lists

After reading your reply to my comment on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_26#Category:People_with_ADHD I spent some time reading the policy pages related to categories and lists, but still don't feel that I have a good understanding of when categories vs lists vs nothing are most appropriate. You obviously know much more about this than I do since you are an administrator and active on the CfD page. Could you articulate for me in a little more detail why Category:People_by_medical_or_psychological_condition is not an appropriate category? --Triggtay (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because although there is a psychiatric label for just about every variety of human experience or human personality, the application of those labels is both selective and arbitrary, depending as much on the culture of that time and place and the personal preferences of the psychiatrist involved as on the person being labelled. There is widespread dispute, for example, over whether ADHD is ever a useful diagnosis: see Controversy about ADHD, where critics note that "diagnostic criteria being sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually anybody with persistent unwanted behaviours to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another".

Psychiatric diagnoses are labels whose meanings and significance vary so markedly in time and place that they have two major deficiencies as categories:

1. They are effectively subjective or arbitary (per WP:OCAT)
2. They don't group together similar articles, which is the main point of a category

Additionally, they don't indicate how long the diagnosis was sustained for.

A list of the people given these labels can give some indication of time and place of diagnosis, allowing the reader some indication of the context of the labelling, but a category permits no such nuance or contextual info: an article is either included or excluded, with no scope for any nuance or clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on changing links to redirects

If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could share your thoughts in this discussion at WP:VPP on the issue of changing links-to-redirects-that-are-not-broken. I contributed one example of an edit for comment, and there was consensus that it was an unnecessary edit. I then went off in search of further examples for comment and found a similar sort of edit which happens to be by you. I mentioned it in discussion at WP:VPP. I put it forward as stimulus for further discussion, not as criticism of it. John Broughton suggested it could be the result of using popups with the option "Automatically fix links to bypass redirects and disambiguation pages" enabled. I'd appreciate hearing your views as an experienced editor. I am hoping to generate some discussion of the issue, and see if there is a consensus for clarifying certain aspects of the related guidelines. I look forward to hearing your thoughts over there. Thanks. - Neparis (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

You know, protecting a template after reverting it without any motivation whatsoever isn't particularly convincing. Indirectly describing my edits as vandalism also strikes me as being needlessly hostile.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, please try to check the facts:

1. I did not do the reversion: that was done by Chris the Speller [24]
2. I did not protect "without any motivation whatsoever"; I protected to avoid ping-ponging on a template which is used in thousands of disambiguation pages. Such ping-ponging of heavily-use templates imposes heavy and un-necessary server load
3. I did not describe your edits as vandalism, either directly or indirectly. The edit summary for the protection says "Changed protection level for "Template:Hndis": high-use template, being changed without discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop]". That would have been better phrased as "changed without consensus", but neither is vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Japanese citrus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have explained my rationale there, for the reviewers to make of it what they will. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of StanPrimmer

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

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Thank you for your apology and for supporting unblocking me. I hope that we can work together in a spirit of cooperation to provide accurate information on supercentenarians to the public via Wikipedia. StanPrimmer 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stan. I don't have any particular interest in supercentenarians (nor any particular antipathy to them), so my involvement will remain limited to checking that any articles on them do establish notability (see WP:NOTE and WP:BIO) and are properly sourced to reliable sources (per WP:RS), without linkspam such as all the references added by Young to his yahoogroup (which is not a reliable source) and to GRG. It is important to note that "being a supercentenarian" is not evidence of notability (see WP:BIO); I have suggested many of the articles on non-notable supercentenarians should be merged into lists. User:Carcharoth has a lot of experience of this sort of merger-into-lists and may be able to help with advice on how to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

We clearly have different views on the notability and significance of supercentenarians. Although you state that you “don't have any particular interest in supercentenarians (nor any particular antipathy to them),” your contributions of late are devoted primarily to this subject. The changes you make would seem to have the purpose of downgrading many references to them. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the controversy began as a result of your deleting brief biographies of supercentenarians as being not notable. In reaction to this an editor proceeded to flag some of your entries on other subjects for deletion. Things then escalated into the battle with Robert Young that became a war of words rather than a rational discussion. Your current actions continue the controversy by being antagonistic to a subject of great importance to many people.

Your own interests, aside from supercentenarians, seem to deal with the history of members of the United Kingdom Parliament. This is a topic that is of no interest to me nor to many others. Because it is of interest to you and, I presume, to others, I would never consider attempting to delete entries on this subject, nor would I support someone who did. I would ask that you give the same consideration to those of us who study supercentenarians.

Supercentenarians are not important just be cause they generate new entries into the record books. They are important because scientific study of them has the potential to increase healthy longevity for all of us. A basic requirement for research into the biology of supercentenarians is to know who they are and to know with confidence that their ages have been validated. The only reliable sources of this information are the Gerontology Research Group, the World’s Oldest People international network of volunteers moderated by Robert Young, Louis Epstein, the International Database of Longevity directed by Jean-Marie Robine, and Guinness World Records. Citation of any of these primary sources in Wikipedia to indicate validity of the age of a person is legitimate. The work that the people in these sources do is not trivial. I have only been involved in the investigation of two cases, so I am not an expert. I played a minor role in the validation of Maggie Renfro, and two years ago I investigated the claim that Maria Olivia da Silva was 125 years old. However, her son told me (in Portuguese) that he was 58 years old. No woman 66 or 67 years old has ever given birth by natural means. Therefore, I had to conclude that her claim was false. My limited experience in this field has given me an appreciation for the detective work that those who are expert apply to determining which claims are valid and which are false.

Comment inserted here by NealIRC deleted: Neal, please read WP:TPG, and insert any comments below other editors' comments. And secondly, don't use my talk to discuss the scientific issues. Those are not relevant to the question of how much of this stuff to include on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you don’t like Robert Young. He has a passion for the demographics of supercentenarians, and when someone attempts to denigrate this subject, he counterattacks in a fiery and abrasive manner. Nevertheless, he is very good at what he does to determine the validity of claims to extreme age. I have learned to separate his personality from the quality of work that he does. I hope that you can come to the same appreciation.

Here’s what I would like to see occur in Wikipedia:

1. Continue to maintain lists of the oldest people in the world.

2. Maintain separate (not merged) brief biographies of each person named in the List of Living Supercentenarians.

3. Only those whose ages have been validated should be included in these lists.

4. Generate a discussion as to what conditions should be met for the biography of a supercentenarian to be continued after that individual has died. Certainly the biography of anyone who was the oldest person in the world while alive should be maintained indefinitely. If someone dies after barely making it to 110, the decision might be to not maintain their biography after they die. The cutoff point should probably be somewhere between these extremes.

5. Cease the rampant deletion and merging of information on supercentenarians, a practice that is extremely divisive and that generates considerable hostility toward the administrators of Wikipedia.

6. Recognize that simply reaching the age of 110 makes a person “worthy of notice,” an expression that is part of the Wikipedia definition of “notable.” The application of this term to supercentenarians named in Wikipedia is consistent with the occurrence of many articles in the popular media about supercentenarians, including both local and national newspapers.

With regards, StanPrimmer (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the problem is, having a consensus between Wikipedian users is different than a consensus between non-Wikipedian users. Neal (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi Stan, thanks for your message

The first thing is that it's very nice to be able to discuss these issues calmly.

However, I suggest that you should do a little more checking into the history, and not just believe what Young has told you (you did say that I should correct you if you are wrong!). My experience of him on wikipedia has been brief, but it started with a chance encounter which to which Young responded with with he described as a war.

I first encountered Young in the course of my ongoing work cleaning up malformed or superfluous categories on wikipedia, several dozen of which are considered every day at WP:CFD. On 1st November, I nominated for deletion more than 60 malformed categories on one day, most of which aroused little comment, and a few attracted some debate; as usual I changed my mind on some in response to other suggestions. However, one of those categories had been created by Young, who reacted like a raging bull, drowning out any attempt to discuss anything in screenfuls of largely irrelevant verbiage (even including copy-pastes of screens of google results); some of this stuff was deleted from the CfD debate (see Cfd Nov 1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers, but more discussion spilled onto my talk page.

The ferocity of the reaction and the fact that the category included an article on him prompted me to look further into what was going on here ... and I found that the article on him also was largely written by him (in clear breach of conflict of interest guidelines), and contained many unreferenced assertions. This is not easy to do by mistake: every time someone starts a new article on wikipedia, the following message is displayed above the edit box:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Spam.

Note what is written there: not may be deleted, but will be deleted. Pretty clear, isn't it? Just the sort of thing which someone who claims to be a brilliant researcher should notice.

Young's autobiography had been nominated for deletion back in August, but survived in the hope that the article would be improved. However, it hadn't been significantly improved, so I nominated it again. (Please, read the the debate in full, including the 4,000 words added by Young)

Young not only disrupted the AFD (in which he should have commented only sparingly, if at all, per the conflict of interest guidelines), he started canvassing support (in breach of wikipedia's rules on canvassing and votestacking), and making piles of malicious and unfounded allegations. For example, he even accused me of votestacking: I'm still waiting for any shred of evidence. Through all this, I kept on trying to engage him in dialogue, but as this talk page shows, it was futile; not only did he dump tons of irrelevant copy-pastes of Google hits, he couldn't stick to one thing at a time, so every dialogue meandered uselessly. All this led to him being indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia (not by me), and whatever chance he had of being unblocked has been seriously damaged by his use of sockpuppets to evade the block, and his by recruitment of others to edit on his behalf. (Those, such as Bart Versieck who have done so are risking their own blocks for that behaviour).

As one example of his limited reasoning, he described himself as being "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet.". I repeatedly asked him to consider that claim, and he stood by it.

Faced with that level of reality disconnect, I started to look further at the rest of the articles Young had been involved in .. and I found the same conflicts of interest (puff pieces on his colleagues), as well as many articles on old people where he cited his own mailing list. So I started to nominate them for deletion where appropriate.

Stan, I don't know where you stand in the issue of standards in research, but for my academic colleagues (in law and the social sciences), it's a hot topic. When there is evidence of plagiarism, fraudulent use of research data, claims unsupported by evidence, etc, inquiries are mounted and reputations tumble. Yet here I was finding someone who claimed to be a world expert on a subject, linked with lots of academics, who couldn't participate in a reasoned debate, whose articles had as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and who reacted with stunning ferocity to any scrutiny.

The issue is not whether in like or dislike Young (although I do thoroughly dislike the macho bully-boy tactic of trying to recruit hundreds of people to denounce me on the basis of the lies he circulates in his mailing list), but rather of how wikipedia is going to uphold its standards when it has been misused by a self-promoter whose idea of accuracy and verifiability are so poor.

The reason that I have been going into such detail in an area where I have no particular interest is simple: from what I have seen of Young's claims and his uses of sources here in wikipedia, I wouldn't trust his research on the time of day, so there a lot of articles needing cleanup.

One thing I must stress, though, is that you are mistaken if you think I have denigrated the subject. I have said very bluntly how shocked I am at Young's misconduct, how little credence I can attach to his claims as a researcher, but the denigration of the subject arises only if Young can't separate him from the subject. The irony of all this is Young has said that Guinness dropped the subject of world's oldest people for years because of all the hype and false claims, yet Young has reacted with fury to any investigation of his own self-promotion. All of this leads me to conclude that while the topic is an interesting one, the work of the Gerontology Research Group now seem sto me to be decidedly dubious, because at this point, I see no reason to trust its senior claims investigator as a suitable person to validate anything.

Now, on your individual points:

1. Continue to maintain lists of the oldest people in the world.

So long as they are properly referenced to reliable sources, they should stay. Wikipedia has a lot of very good lists, and even has a category of featured lists for the best ones.

2. Maintain separate (not merged) brief biographies of each person named in the List of Living Supercentenarians.

Wikipedia doesn't treat supercentenarians differently to any other people: the criteria in WP:BIO apply. I have been going through these articles in the last few days, and found some which clearly meet those criteria and some which don't. If you or any other editors can add more references to non-trivial coverage published in reliable sources, then more of them will have articles. If they remain unreferenced or single-sourced, they are likely to be deleted or merged.

3. Only those whose ages have been validated should be included in these lists.

That's a reliable sources issue. Validated by who, and published in which reliable source? No need to answer that here, but it's the test which should be applied. In this context, note WP:NOR: it isn't enough for someone to say "I checked this", because that's original research, and it's not enough for someone to circulate something on a mailing list. This may sound like pedantry, but it's fundamental to wikipedia's position as a verifiable tertiary publication (in other words, wikipedia distils from secondary sources, not from primary).

4. Generate a discussion as to what conditions should be met for the biography of a supercentenarian to be continued after that individual has died. Certainly the biography of anyone who was the oldest person in the world while alive should be maintained indefinitely. If someone dies after barely making it to 110, the decision might be to not maintain their biography after they die. The cutoff point should probably be somewhere between these extremes.

Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between the notability of dead or living people (WP:BLP requires us to take extra care with the portrayal of living people, but that's a different issue). Once notability is established, it's permanent unless the original assessment turns out to have been wrong. But nobody ceases to be notable just because they have died.

5. Cease the rampant deletion and merging of information on supercentenarians, a practice that is extremely divisive and that generates considerable hostility toward the administrators of Wikipedia.

Sorry, the answer here is a firm "no". Deletion is a common practice with non-notable people (i.e. those who don't meet the standards set out in WP:BIO), and merger is a compromise used in some cases if notability is not established. This all comes down to the test of notability, which I'll come back to below..

6. Recognize that simply reaching the age of 110 makes a person “worthy of notice,” an expression that is part of the Wikipedia definition of “notable.” The application of this term to supercentenarians named in Wikipedia is consistent with the occurrence of many articles in the popular media about supercentenarians, including both local and national newspapers.

Again, no. I don't want to be rude, but I'm afraid that this suggestion implies that you haven't fully grasped how the concept of notability works on wikipedia (not surprising, because it's a subtle point, not explained in WP:NOTE as clearly as would be ideal, and it took me a long time to grasp it).

The crucial thing in all of this is that wikipedia is is a tertiary publication. In other words, we don't do research on primary sources (that's WP:NOR) and we cover those subjects which have already been found notable by others. So we don't make our own original assessment of notability, we follow what reliable sources have already found to be notable, and the test we use is whether the subject has been the subject of substantial coverage in those reliable sources, with multiple instances preferred.

As you may have noticed, there are some cases where it has been agreed that a particular class of person has a rebuttable presumption of notability. Those are cases when it can be reliably assumed that the substantial coverage is available, even if it hasn't been found yet, and there is very strong resistance to adding anything to the list (there is more interest in removing presumptions of notability). There are many reasons for the reluctance to add, but one of the strongest is a general aversion to "instruction creep", to adding more and more detail to the already lengthy collection of policies and guidelines on wikipedia.

In this case, I can't see a strong case being made. If all we have from reliable sources is a brief born/died/nationality, then anything else is likely to be either original research, or single-sourced (the first is a non-no, the second is undesirable).

As I have just explained to Bart Versieck, merging articles doesn't mean that they are permanently merged, because if notability is established later, they can be split out.

Sorry this is such a lengthy reply, but I hope this helps to explain more about how wikipedia works. One of the main reasons that all this stuff became so contentious is that Robert Young was either unable or unwilling to grasp the fundamentals of what wikipedia is and how it is constructed. I hope that you, as an established academic, will find the concepts more familiar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just read all this, and can I just say that I agree entirely with what BrownHairedGirl has written here. It is a very good summary of how these policies and areas of Wikipedia work, or should work. I may disagree on exact interpretation sometimes, but the essence of what she has said here is dead on. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth, for that comment. I know that you and I seem to have clashed a few times recently on how to get to where we want to get to, but it's good to be reminded once again that we are broadly agreed on the destination ... even if, as you say, we argue about the nuances.

The only thing I would add is that my comments about merger may be out-of-date: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here’s my understanding of how the “super” controversy developed. Someone posted a reference to Mary Ramsey Wood being 120 years old in 1908. Robert Young found evidence that she was really only 97 or 98 at the time of her death. His findings were rejected by some as being original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. In order to support his status as an expert in the field of validation of supercentenarians, he improperly posted his own autobiography. In the process he did not take the policy of COI with sufficient seriousness. To him presenting accurate information about Mary Wood and other false claimants was more important than Wikipedia rules that were not otherwise followed consistently. The current version of the Mary Wood article indicates serious doubt about her age claim.

In November after the Mary Wood controversy, you nominated for deletion many articles on supercentenarians followed by Robert’s autobiography. Robert and his associates felt like this was an attack not just against Robert, personally, but against the entire genre of the study of supercentenarians. They reacted vigorously in a manner that shocked you and several others. In order to understand their reaction you need to have some insight into the mindset of those participating in the World’s Oldest People (WOP) network. Accurately defining the current limits to human life span is their passion, their primary interest in life. When a supercentenarian dies they grieve his or her loss. When they have a birthday they celebrate with them in spirit, if not in person. They take great pains to find documents that support an individual’s claim to longevity, but they don’t let their zeal for finding people of extreme age prevent them from calling attention to those who have made false claims. There is much discussion on WOP about the cases that may result in validation, invalidation, or uncertainty. Some individuals who really are the age they claim can’t prove it for lack of documentation.

It was in this context that the controversy developed. Extreme statements were made on both sides of the conflict. Some of the accusations against Robert were valid, but many were not:

1. He acted contrary to COI policy in posting his own autobiography. Valid. He should have dealt with the Mary Wood controversy in a different manner. However, I did not notice anything inaccurate in his bio.

2. His claim to being a Senior Consultant in gerontology for Guinness World Records (GWR) was challenged. False. Unfortunately you can’t find support for his claim on the GWR website. However, I have copies of photos taken of the 2008 hard copy version of the GWR book that prove his claim to be true.

3. His statement of being a lecturer on gerontology was accused of being false by you. False. His statement was misinterpreted. He has not been nor has he claimed to be a university lecturer in the sense in which a professor would be a lecturer. He has, however, lectured on gerontology at several conferences. Here are some specific references:

Integrative Medical Therapeutics for Anti-Aging Conference Oct. 28 – 31, 2004 SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31 8:40am-9:10am Validating Supercentenarians: Investigation of Claims to Authenticate Age; Robert D. Young. Senior Claims Investigator, Gerontology Research Group http://images.antiagingconference.com/files/1103/aalv04_AB2.pdf

6th International Workshop on Supercentenarians Taormina, October 2-3 2005 Hotel Villa Sant’Andrea Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Monday, October 3rd, 2005 11.00-11.30 Robert Young: Age 113 Before 1960: The Case for Delina Filkins and Betsy Baker http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/23312.3112487793-Workshop%20Program.pdf

Workshop on Supercentenarians Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research May 8, 2002 at the Hilton Atlanta, Georgia, USA 9:45 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Problems with Supercentenarian Theory: How More Data May Change Present Extrapolations” 11:45—12:45 p.m. --- Block 3: Centenarian Recruitment and Age Verification in the Georgia Study (Chair: L. Poon) Participants: Willard (Bill) Rodgers, Robert Young, Michel Poulain, and Leonard Poon http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/15716.951751709-Workshop%20Program.pdf

4. Accused of exaggeration when he said he is "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet." Overstatement on his part was misinterpreted. Robert’s statement was in response to being compared to 'rat catcher for the local council,' an inappropriate personal attack. If Robert had capitalized “world’s oldest people,” his intent would have been clearer. Preferable wording would have been that he is the leader and moderator of the World’s Oldest People international network of volunteers who discuss and validate supercentenarian claims. The “entire planet” part of his statement is overblown, but the more than 800 members of the WOP do include many of the countries of the world. Without checking to make a more complete list, I know that the following countries are represented: USA, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Japan, and Australia. The WOP needs representatives in Russia, China, India, Africa, and South America, but these countries are deficient in adequate documentation of births in the late 1800’s.

5. Accused of canvassing. True, but under extenuating circumstances. When Robert informed participants in the WOP about events in Wikipedia, attacks against the subject of supercentenarians were threatening to either remove it or relegate it to the level of a little league baseball team. You stated that you had nominated “more than 60 malformed categories on one day” for deletion. Key categories nominated for deletion included the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and the biography of L. Stephen Coles (both have survived). The biography of Gertrude Baines was flagged by you, questioning her notability, even though she was listed by Guinness World Records as the 10th oldest person in the world (now 4th oldest), had appeared on CNN, and had been honored by President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger. (This flag has since been removed.) Under the circumstances it is not surprising that one who was severely beleaguered would ask for help. It is also not unreasonable for an outside group that is well-informed on a topic to provide the benefit of their knowledge to those who haven’t followed the subject as closely.

6. Accused of sockpuppetry. At least partially false. The following were accused of being sockpuppets of Robert Young: StanPrimmer: I proved that I was not a sockpuppet and was subsequently unblocked. Gunther Kletetschka: See my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kletetschka in which I proved that Gunther is not a sockpuppet of Robert Young. [Cjeales] denies being a sockpuppet and has been unblocked. Chip69: Robert claims he doesn’t know who this person is. Neither do I.

7. You accuse Robert of poor accuracy and verifiability and imply that there is “evidence of plagiarism, fraudulent use of research data, claims unsupported by evidence” in his work. False. I have previously described the rigorous methodology employed by Robert Young and his associates to validate or invalidate claimants to extreme age. I base this statement in part on working with Robert on two cases plus plans we are developing for a database to contain information about supercentenarians. I also base it on reading discussions of a number of cases on the WOP. However, you don’t need to take my word for it. Dr. James Vaupel, the Founding Director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany (http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/), is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir/532030848?pg=rslts), and he has recognized the value of Robert’s research (http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf; http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/23312.3112487793-Workshop%20Program.pdf; http://www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/15716.951751709-Workshop%20Program.pdf). Jean-Marie Robine, the founder of the International Database on Longevity (http://trends.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile.html?id=1053), has also acknowledged the work of Robert Young (http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf). Robert has also coauthored two scientific papers with Tom Perls and others (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x; http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/9/1028). Dr. Perls is the Director of the New England Centenarian Study (http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Content.aspx?DepartmentID=361&PageID=5925), a major study of centenarians in the United States. As you know Robert is the Senior Claims Investigator of the Gerontology Research Group (http://www.grg.org/calment.html). In a recent list of “Validated Living Supercentenarians” (http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM) 75 individuals were listed. Robert Young was involved in the validation of 30 of them, more than any other validator.

Unfortunately you have had a bad experience with Robert that has led you to have no confidence in his work. This was due in part to Robert’s not having learned how to deal with controversy in an effective manner. However, your own language has been less then temperate as well, and your emotional involvement has affected your objectivity. I will try to influence Robert so that after an appropriate time he can return to being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. StanPrimmer (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Last reply to Stan Primmer

Hi Stan, I don't know what you are trying to do here, but although I have tried to engage seriously with you, you continue to make a load of statements which are simply wrong in fact. (I can only presume that this is happening because you are making the mistake of relying on Young's warped accounts of events).

• "In November after the Mary Wood controversy, you nominated for deletion many articles on supercentenarians followed by Robert’s autobiography."
  I had never heard of Mary Wood until Young mentioned the article in the AfD. Nothing whatoever to do with me, as you could have determined if you had checked. Secondly, I did not nominate any supercentenarian articles before nominating Young's autobiography. It was only the bizarre claims made by Young in the course of AfD which prompted me to look further, first at the artucles on his chums, and then later at the articles on other supercentenarians. That order of events is important: at every point, it was the outlandish nature of Young's behaviour which prompted me to look further. The suggestion that one day I somehow set popped up out of nowhere to delete a raft of supercentenarian articles is simply false
• His claim to being a Senior Consultant in gerontology for Guinness World Records (GWR) was challenged. False. Unfortunately you can’t find support for his claim on the GWR website. However, I have copies of photos taken of the 2008 hard copy version of the GWR book that prove his claim to be true. Primmer, I object very strongly to your use of the word "false": I and others repeatedly sought verification of that point, because given the rest of Young's behaviour, third party evidence was needed. Quite what "Senior Consultant" means is another day's work; I have seen the term mean anything from a top doctor in a British hospital to low-wage salesperson.
• "Accused of exaggeration when he said he is "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet." Overstatement on his part was misinterpreted.". No it wasn't: I and every other commentator knew exactly what he meant. The problem was that despite the gross exaggerations, he kept on repeating the point, and objecting to anyone challenging it by pointing out the huge difference between that claim and a consultancy role of checking facts on old people for one publication. Young's claim was like an mail-sorter in the international depot saying "I am in charge of the entire" world, rather than "I am in charge in this office of sorting post destine for he entire world". For someone who claims to be a debunker of hype, this sort of exaggeration is a shot in the foot of his own reputation; the fact that he kept on insisting on the truth of thos overstatement is what has destroyed his credibility as "debunker of hype", which is what he has repeatedly claimed his role to be.
• "His statement of being a lecturer on gerontology was accused of being false by you. False. His statement was misinterpreted."
  Again, Young made a misleading claim, which in the context of the rest of his self-promotion made it appear that he was a university lecturer. No, he did not say "I am a university lecturer", but he used a form of words which most readers would interpret that way. Young has given a few lectures, or more precisely presented a few conference papers, but a lecturer is someone who regularly and frequently lectures, and Young isn't. He's a researcher who gives a few talks, which is very diferent matter.
• "Accused of canvassing. True, but under extenuating circumstances. When Robert informed participants in the WOP about events in Wikipedia, attacks against the subject of supercentenarians were threatening to either remove it or relegate it to the level of a little league baseball team. You stated that you had nominated “more than 60 malformed categories on one day” for deletion. Key categories nominated for deletion included the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and the biography of L. Stephen Coles (both have survived)."
  Once again, Stan, you simply have not checked your facts. Gerontology Research Group is not a category, and nor is L. Stephen Coles. Both are articles, and were nominated for deletion on CfD 13 November and CfD 11 November respectively.

Now, if you check back in the archives of Young's mailing list, you will find that unless he has subsequently deleted the material, his canvassing campaign began shortly before the 11th November and sometime after the Category:Supercentenarian trackers was one of the 60-or-so catgories which I nominated for deletion on November 1. Whether it preceded the nomination on 7th November of his autobiography I can no longer confirm (not having access to his mailing list), but my recollection is that it started in response to the CfD on the category, sometime between the 2nd and the 7th.

Those dates are important, in fact central to all of this, because the point is that Young started canvassing and campaigning before the 11th November at a point when the only items facing deletion were as follows: one category (which did not contain a single supercentenarian) and one article (again, not about a supercentenarian), but about Young himself.

You mention the article about Gertrude Baines. That was tagged by me on 11th Nivember], not for deletion but for improved references and for failure to meet the notability criteria. The references have not been improved, and the article still doesn't meet WP:BIO.

Anyway, I'll stop this dialogue here. I had hoped when you joined that maybe you might be more willing to try to learn how things work here, and to carefully check Young's versions of events rathe than just repeating them, but that doesn't seem to be the case, and I don't hav time to go round in circles on this stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Australia Club

Just curious, BHG, but how did you come across the category of Australia Club members in the first place? Where was it linked from that you stumbled upon it? As I said, I'm just curious. It always amazes me where I end up in terms of article obscurity when I'm reading articles. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it in Special:Uncategorizedcategories, which I tend to refer to as "the orphanage": it's a list of uncategorised categories generated twice-weekly by some bot, and for the last month (since someone pointed it out to me) I have been trying to empty it pronto whenever a new list is created, which is why I have had such a large crop of CFD nominations on mondays for the last few weeks. Most of what's there is speedy deleted, but the populated categories come to CfD, including Category:Members of the Australian Club.

When I first tackled it, Special:Uncategorizedcategories had 500 entries, and took all day to purge. Now, it's just what gets created between the times the list is created, usually about 75-150 categories.

If you want obscurity, the orphanage is an interesting alternative to the random page generator :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I might check it out. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A little advice please

Could you give me a little advice on this please BHG two editors will not enter any discourse on the article I have put Citation tags in which keep getting removed and spurious refs inserted links to last fm and links to compilation cds to show this artist is signed to warner. I have checked amazon music to find out about this mans music nothing came up and also google all to little or no avail. Trying to imply that he is notable because he worked on remixes to famous artists, never worked actually as far as I can find with any of the artists mentioned. Thanks BigDunc (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dunc, would like to help, but I'm just about to go away for a few days. Messy issue, because it's just short of 3RR and not quite vandalism. Maybe you could ask at WP:ANI for advice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping half an eye on this, I'll post about it in-depth on the article talk page later. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks BHG and I look forward to your input ONIH. BigDunc (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unpiping David Martin's dabs

I'm glad you noticed, as it was you who taught me this. While performing the merge of Dave Martin into David Martin, I piped every link through the text, "David Martin", believing I had seen this style elsewhere. Then I saw your edit comment on this same page from about a month ago. Not wanting to disappoint you, I unpiped all the links in the edit you saw. I would not have known the right way to do it without your help. Best regards, Hult041956 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's really nice! I often think my I'm too pedantic about thr edit summary I use when I tidy a dab page, but even you're the only person who ever read it, it's been of some use :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The present user, alas, has at times himself been accused of pedantry. We fussy types need to hang together. ;-) Hult041956 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

draft article on women in occupations

Hi BHG - FYI, I drafted Occupations, gender roles, and women's history and will begin drafting relevant articles for individual occupations as appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I can't help myself at the moment, but it might be a good idea to drop a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Notice Board and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. There are some very knowledgeable academics there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Begun a series at Women in the workforce, Women in medicine, and other drafts at User:Lquilter/done#current drafts -- feel free to edit draft articles in my sandbox. My plan is to sketch out outline sections, add some basic info, enough references to survive AFDs, and then move to mainspace as stubs. Each one is different and I am by no means an expert on the various professions, the notable historical figures, and the national/regional histories -- so ideas, input, etc. on subtopics & links & whatnot would be greatly appreciated. --Lquilter 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

While on the subject of original research and golden oldies, what think you of the 1897/1907 debate on Ruby Muhammad? I note that at least two websites, genarians.com and Dead or Alive info have already changed their information based on the Wikipedia entry. The German Wikipedia entry, meanwhile, has completely discarded the notion that she may have been born in 1897. When I brought up the World's Oldest People forum for debate as a reliable source, no one seemed to mind, so I left it as it was. Now that the debate has been revived, however, I thought I'd get your input. The only sources that claim the 1907 birth, at least one's that don't seem to be getting their info from Wikipedia, are Robert Young's site and Robert Young's fan site. Strikes me as very ORish, especially since someone pointed out that the evidence listing her as born in 1907 also lists her as being white (although I may have misinterpreted this, I'm no expert). Cheers, CP 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Paul, that's very curious. I have removed it as unpublished original research (a yahoogroup and a http://www.supercentenariancentral.com/falseandunknowncases fan site] are not reliable sources). One of these days I'm going put a day aside and deal with the rest of the heap of original research. Some articles, like this one, just need to be trimmed of the OR, but some are going to end up completely unreferenced. At this point, I think that the unreferenced articles should simpy be deleted, and the rest trimmed back to what the reliable sources say. It's just too hard to tell how much of this stuff is genuine when so much of it is based on the unpublished OR of a hype-merchant. That's the biggest irony of the whole thing: Young claimed to have made his name as a debunker of myths, but has been busy using wikipedia to publish his original research when the public can't even see his account of the evidence he claims to have accumulated. Very shoddy stuff indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm not totally off-track (yet). I performed similar functions on Hryhoriy Nestor. I might have to explain to User:Plyjacks what WP:NOR entails. Cheers, CP 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Will be looking into the link Plyjacks posted on the discussion. However, I'd probably rather Google this person myself and see if I can find other references. Neal (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

E-mail from Robert Young. Reply to CP's paragraph.

1. How would CP know where NN&C gets their info from? That's an unproved assertion and should be disallowed.

2. The evidence from the 1910 census does NOT list Ruby as 'white'...FALSE. Any citations for that claim? However, I do seem to recall someone finding a 'Ruby' born in the 1890's that turned out to be 'white'. So, CP doesn't have his story straight.

3. The WOP is a 'private' group...well, I guess you could call Wikipedia a 'private' group...they don't let everyone in, do they?

4. Actually, the research was done by Filipe Prista Lucas.

Reply to BrownHairedGirl's paragraph.

Actually, if we go by 'verifiable sources'...the disparaging remarks made by BHG are 'unsourceable.' NO ONE outside of Wikipedia has challenged the reliability/believability of the data. The REAL irony is that BHG has concocted a fantasy world where she is 'right' based on faith-based original research, and where I am 'wrong' (even though I can source my statements, and she can't).

I'm probably the only 1 who notices this, but, the fact that Robert links to his WOP post as source/reference and blocks non-members (private) sort of makes it a good reason to sign up and join his group, right? Neal (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't matter who does the research, it's WP:OR unless published in a WP:RS. Private or non-private, a mailing list is not a WP:RS. And not everyone is allowed to sign up, so it's not publishing ... furthermore, claiming that it's a good reason to sign up is actually another reason not to allow those links: if the am is to recruit members, it's clearly spamming.

Finally, please don't go posting stuff from Young on my talk page. Anything further will be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I meant people had to sign up in order to see the reference/citation. This is a good way for Robert to bring more members by requiring membership. Anyways, I think I'll go back and remove all the WOP links, particularly by doing the URL search for articles. Neal (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Good idea: all the links to WOP should all be removed.

PS Everyone can read wikipedia. WP also allows everyone to edit, unless and until they abuse the trust which wikipedia places in editors. It seems that Young still hasn't grasped these concepts. And I don't expect him to grasp them either so please don't post here any more of the emissions of this self-promoting harasser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you're on Wikibreak, but I'm just recovering from food poisoning and just got around to seeing this note. I'm a little bit sickened that I replied to him when he raised these questions with me privately, and yet here they are posted without my responses. I won't waste your time repeating my answers, especially since he wanted to "discuss central issues privately." What nonsense all of this is. Cheers, CP 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel

Hi, BHG - I hope you will take a look at the analysis & comment I appended on the CFD for Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel in support of renaming to Category:Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regards, Cgingold 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I just saw that you're on Wikibreak. Hope you return refreshed and in good spirits! CG

Stardust Fire

Could you give me a bit of advice on this Aatomic1 seems to have a thing about adding lists of dead and I dont want to get in to an Edit War thanks. BigDunc (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, Dunc, but I dunno that I can help. I have very rarely found myself agreeing with Aatomic1, but on this occasion I think he is right: WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clearly refers to the subject of an article, not to people mentioned in an article. If it wasn't for the fact that people died there, there probably couldn't be an article on the fire. I really don't understand why people want to delete such lists, unless they overwhelm the article.

The best comment I have seen on all of this is here, by Gaimhreadhan (only a few days before he died): have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article".

Maybe it's just something that's part of the world I grew up in, where, death really mattered. If someone you knew died, you went to the funeral, no matter what church it was in, or even whether you like or hate the person, just to pay your respects and because death matters. That business of death being important is what troubles me about the the deletion of this list. The dead here were ordinary working-class Dubliners who met a horrible end, and when I read the list, it prompted me to re-read the whole article twice, trying to imagine what it must have been like inside there, as well to wonder what about the poor girl from Kells who'd come all the way for the disco. Those folks were all within a few years of my age, and seeing the names makes it real for me.

I know I'm letting own emotions get in the way here, but I just keep on coming back to the same question: if we can't name the dead, what's the article for? It's not about a burnt building, that's for sure.

Anyway, sorry Dunc: I know you're a thoughtful person, but I can't understand where you're coming from on this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple really. The article is about the Stardust fire. What made it notable, is the number of people killed, and the ongoing action of the relatives for justice. The key things here are the Article = Stardust and what made it notable = number killed. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clearly refers to the subject of an article, which is the Number killed. Now my rational is this: there is an ongoing discussion here. Rather than see it through to the end, and resolve this once and for all, we have the same thing being spread across another article. Is it not reasonable to address this discussion first. BigDunc understands this issue over lists, but I differ only in the fact that :::I find this new one is only being used to make a point plain and simple. It is that which I find objectionable. --Domer48 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer BHG my objection to the list in NO way takes away the enormity of what happened that night 2 people from my area died that night and I live 10 minutes from the site of this tragedy I have campaigned with my local Cllr for a new tribunal and against the issuing of a pub licence for Butterly but I feel Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article this list does not warrant a seperate article or am I reading that wrong? thanks. BigDunc (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Like BigDunc I attended vigils and supported the campaigned so you could say there is a conflict of intrest. On the other hand the point BigDunc makes is still valid. --Domer48 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your replies. I think that BigDunc hits the nail on the head when he asks whether "this list does not warrant a separate article". That's my reading of it: that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL means no separate article for the list, and no separate articles for individuals notable only for their tragic death ... but that it does not deprecate a short list of the dead in an article on the event itself.

I have been doing some further checks on other fires, (which has led me to start creating Category:Fires by year), and so far I have found New Cross Fire which does have a list and Bradford fire which doesn't. I'll do some further checking and draw up a longer list, but the New Cross Fire seems like an interesting comparison, because it was such a similar event (that similarity actually became part of the debate, because the black communities of South London were disgusted that the London media ran huge coverage of the Stardust fire, but very little of the disaster in their own city; the possibility of arson was also a contentious issue inn New Cross, albeit the other way round). I guess at one level we all have an interest in this one, because I think that most people in Ireland have strong feelings about the fire, but it's still a fair distance from the sorts of involvement defined in WP:COI. Maybe, though it does suggest that we will need someone from another continent to sort it out.

It seems to me that the mediation at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and has degenerated into an argument which only risks building more antagonism. I suggest that an RFC is appropriate. If you like, and if aatomic1 agrees, I'd happy to draft a summary of both sides views to launch the RFC. Obviously I will post it only if all involved agree that it's a fair summary of the situation. Would you like me to try? (No offence at all if you say no!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine with me BHG thanks again. BigDunc (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection, thanks very much for your considered responce. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• No objection Aatomic1 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I too agree with aatomic but didn't want to get sucked in. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then who sucked you in? BigDunc (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be agreement for the idea from the main parties to the dispute, I'll try drafting something later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help BigDunc (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really kind of you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Sorry BHG is this RfC going to deal with this article exclusively or is it going to take in to account Aatomic1's disregard for this process which is still on going and continued edit warring on Birmingham Pub Bombing article. BigDunc (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a difficult question. It seems to me that there are two ways of approaching this: either to try to take one thing at a time and deciding who is right or wrong in a piecemeal way without really resolving the issues ... or to try to reach some agreement on the wider question, to bring some principles to apply to all the specific instances, whether we are talking about fires or bombs. (In saying that, I'm not suggesting that the answer has to be the same for both, just that what I'd like to see out of the RFC is something, or some set of things, which could answer the questions about both fires and bombs. That may be the same answer or it may be different ones).

What I had in mind was very much the latter. It seems to me that the mediation has not produced a clear outcome, let alone one which everyone can live with, and that while the mediation was worth trying, it hasn't worked in this case. Given that, I think that it seems to me to be best to try to get everyone to agree to a new process to find a solution, and that the best way to deal with any edit warring would be to protect the articles if necessary. I would hope that anyone involved in the RFC would understand that edit-warring while the RFC is underway is not a clever thing to do, because everything will be more heavily scrutinised.

So I'm thinking now that what we need is in fact a policy/guideline RFC seeking clarification and expansion of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, because the current wording doesn't mean the same thing to different people. How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the mediation is that it has produced a clear outcome. The editors who want to include the list have not come up with a single decent reason for it's inclusion. And I feel are refusing to actually discuss points simply posting links in Aatomic1's case and I think the mediator Dreamafter feels the same (but I cant speak for Dreamafter on this).BigDunc (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. Whatever else has happened, there is no agreement on the solution, and that's why I said above that "it hasn't worked in this case".

It seems to me that the question now is whether the editors involved now want to proceed towards an RFC to clarify the policy, as suggested earlier? I thought we had agreement earlier on to do that, but maybe that was only because we hadn't clarified what sort of RfC. I don't feel that an RFC/U would be helpful, or that an article RFC would do anything other than to displace the dispute to somewhere else, but that a clarification of the policy could resolve the issue.

Do folks still want me to proceed to draft something? If not, I will step aide and use my time elsewhere, because I don't want to try to force anyone to a table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct is not the issue. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• As per my original comment I have no objection to any RFC. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct is not the issue I beg to differ! "My reading of the mediation is that it has produced a clear outcome. The editors who want to include the list have not come up with a single decent reason for it's inclusion." Could not have put it better, so I put it on the mediation page as well. Conduct is not the issue please! --Domer48 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we have got to now. Is there still consensus to try a draft for a policy RFC? That's the best I can suggest, and I'm happy to do if a draft if folks want to try that route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I personally would be grateful for a draft. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefare a WP:RFCC with good reason I think. The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. When the mediator has to revert an editor involved in the mediation twice you have to consider bad faith. Having had to be warned to revert the mediator is just to undermine their role. Edit warring only makes that task more difficult. All I want is reasoned discussion, and I don't think we have been getting that. --Domer48 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage anyone from opening an RFCC if they think that is appropriate, but I don't want to be a part of it myself. That's partly because I dislike the way the at such procedures, even when justified and needed, seem to me to be likely to be a rather bitter experience for all concerned, and partly because having just had accumulated a lot of bruises from an editor wholly unrelated to this dispute, I don't feel like getting involved in another battle.

The other reason, though, is that at some point the substantive issue here has to be resolved in a way which can allow for much clearer guidelines, which can be applied across all articles rather than just these ones. The messiness of this dispute seems to me to make that clarification of guidelines more pressing than ever. Mediation was a good step to try, but it clearly has not produced agreement on this case, and in case would not have broader implications.

That's why I have advocated a policy/guideline RFC, as a step to develop a broader consensus across wikipedia on how to fill the gap in the guidelines. Whatever happens wrt to a WP:RFCC, something needs to be done to plug the gap in the guidelines, but since there's clearly no agreement between the parties here to try that, I'll drop out now.

My best wishes to all of you. I hope that however this is resolved, we won't still find so many talented others engaged in such protracted disputes over relatively small parts of articles which are crying out for much more substantive improvements. Both the Birmingham pub bombings and the Stardust fire were very significant events, and it should be possible to write featured articles on both of them but while everyone's energies are directed to these small points, they are destined to languish in start-class. That's a terrible waste of everyone's talents :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coming way late to this party - I too would definitely welcome your drafting an RFC - and thanks for offering. As an aside - would it be possible to restore Dreamafter's mediation pages and put them somewhere accessible to all? I was gobsmacked to see he'd deleted everything relating to several months work by all sides. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the support for a policy review. The mediation went round in circles. Lots of asserting that points weren't being addressed and then when they were addressed the assertions were repeated again and louder....hardly productive. Hughsheehy (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City, Tampa, Florida

Hi BHG.. I wonder if, after your wikibreak, you would like to check out the situation at Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and its talk page? I am inexperienced in article writing and also with regards to situations like this, but the original author is hostile about any changes in his work on the article, calling those who would question the tone and the encyclopedishness of the article itself sockpuppets, malicious, malevolent or worse. I wonder if you would lend your considerable experience to this matter and perhaps help cool Zeng8r down? I have no idea how to talk to him, and perhaps you could offer more valuable advice or help reach a compromise, more than I ever could. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)