User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 011

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

Please check something...

I've added a parent to Category:Gaelic games by year found in the orphanage, but we have no cat Category:Gaelic games nor Category:Gaelic Games. Perhaps you may be better positioned to think of a proper other parent to this tree being closer to the action than I. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That would appear to have the result of an inadequate end to a speedy renaming. The parent cats should have been carried over from the old categ, but were missed. Good to see that it's now sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

More Pastorwaynery

We have WestfieldIns, 70.104.102.253 (see e.g. page history of Jan Kowalski); and also 72.69.76.86 and 70.105.118.61 editing in tandem with WestfieldIns here. -- roundhouse0 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the strangely named Archbishop of Chiatura and the invaluable Category:Incomplete lists of Eastern Orthodox Christians, for which Wikipedia had been waiting with bated breath until today. This appears to be an attempt to bring order to Category:Incomplete lists, which is, intriguingly, a subcat of itself. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse Alert!!!!!!!

Before I get arbitrarily blocked by User talk:Daniel could you please call him/her to order? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

BHG, I'd suggest you have a glance at Talk:Great Irish Famine#Arbitration Committee mentorship before "calling me to order" :) If necessary, defer discussion to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Daniel 00:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary...didn't realise that User:Daniel was a mentor. I'm on a steep learning curve! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, folks, I'm staying out of that one. I took a quick look, and I think that many of those involved would benefit from taking a break and cooling down a bit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Unionists

Hi.

I don't believe an agreed resolution can be reached on the [Young Unionist] article.

The current edit states: 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members with Ian Paisley being posted on it'

I edited it to state 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members, including the current Chairman of the UYUC, a former Chairman and the current Chairman of the QUB YU Branch and the Secretary of the Belfast Branch, with Northern Ireland's First Minister Ian Paisley at the 2007 Battle of the Somme Service of Remembrance held in France being posted on it offline.'

As I have stated on the discussion and history pages the current edit gives the reader no idea what context the photograph was taken in. One could assume the photograph was taken at a DUP party political rally instead of a Remembrance Service in France with the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Traditional Unionist initially claimed the edit was vandalism, and then it was unreferenced. I cited the original and sole source, the webpage on which the blog piece and photograph appeared (http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/thier-name-liveth-for-evermore.php). He then claimed that the source wasn't reliable as it was from a blog. However as the blog piece is given as the reason for the website being down it is clearly relevant, in the same manner the article on the Daily Kos is a valid source for an article on that blog.

I would request that the article be edited to reflect the context the photograph was taken in. Cephalus (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, but my talk page is not the place for such a request: it should be made at Talk:Young Unionists, accompanied by an {{editprotected}} tag. As the admin who protected the article, I will not take a view on the substantive content disputes. However, use of the {{editprotected}} tag will draw the article to the attention of other admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you forgotten about something?

I see that you have returned from your long walk. I trust that you would not mind giving me your take on the matter of succession boxes? If you have time, that is. I pretty much do. Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Customs and practice for Documentary Credits

Can you help? This page was a viable page about an instrument used in more than a trillion dollars of trade anually. But, someone placed the actual text on the page in breach of copyright. Instead of removing the text, the entire page was deleted. The user who deleted it was User talk:^demon‎. I have left three messages on his page asking what to do and requesting its reinstatement, given that some editing had taken place to the commentary. His reply today was that he has no time. I am frustrated that he has time to delete it but not to correct what I see as an error, or even comment. Is there a procdedure to have the page reinstated without the text? Many thanks for your time. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that admins should be available for reasonable discussion of their actions, but it seems that this ^demon has desysoped herself, so I have reinstated the page and all its history, and then reverted the addition of the copyvio text: see revision history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work - very much appreciated. Alan Davidson (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My Talk page

Please would you restore it. Thank you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever did restore it. I didn't know how to. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

I now understand better about [[1]] and [[2]]. I would prefer to see them merged back instead of simply deleted though AFD, and as an admin I hold you to a higher standard to work toward doing this versus simply deleting the problem. However, I also see that Kitia may be the instigator who is unmerging the articles repeatedly, which may be the problem in and of itself.

The feeling the AFD is a revenge motive is due to your comment, "It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." It was made within 30 minutes of your first comment to Kitia.

I would recommend merging material back to list of supercentenarians and closing your AFD. Your thoughts? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re all the supercentenarian AfDs and Kitia's involvement: you might find this of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

David, yes I saw that. Hence why I brought it to attention. It appeared to be a canvassing attempt. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: by "you" I meant BHG. Obviously you, Guroadrunner, knew of the canvassing, but I wasn't sure that she was. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!!!! Guroadrunner (talk)

Guroadrunner, the bottom line for me is that wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is undermined by the presence of unreferenced or under-referenced stubs on non-notable subjects. I'm somewhat agnostic about how to remove the stubs, as long as they are removed, and the two ways of doing that are deletion or merger. If you check the history of this, I have put a lot of energy into creating the lists and merging the articles into them, as a courtesy to editors who may want to seek out evidence of notability. It would be entirely reasonable to take the quicker and easier route of simply AfDing these articles, but I have tried to be helpful by merging instead. There is no obligation to merge rather than AfDing, and such lists of paragraphs on non-notable people are themselves controversial, but I was following the merger path to help the editors who may want to improve those articles.

I only took the AfD path because the merger path was blocked. If I am going to be accused of a "revenge" attack for trying merger first, then there is no point in doing it: what's the point in trying a time-consuming compromise path if I then get accused of revenge? So as I work my way through the rest of the long list of stub articles on old people, I'll simply send the non-notable ones directly to AfD. Less work for me, no accusations of revenge, and the result is a solution with consensus support which makes it easier to deal with any recreation attempts by Kitia or others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies again. I saw the discussion from one side of the discussion but not the entire dialogue. I did not see that Kitia is blocking the mergers and forking the articles to being stubs. However, you are right that the community should assess and decide. It seems the information is more or less intact on the main article; it's just Kitia is forking it into duplicate individual articles. That's why I changed my vote from HALT (as in stop this AFD) and instead went to MERGE. Guroadrunner (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

HI BHG. I'm afraid to say Kitia has continued canvassing for support at the recent AfD's on the centenarians. Not sure if you can do anything about it but it should be noted when the canvassed individuals turn up to take part, as I'm sure they will at these discussions. - Galloglass 14:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note on User talk:Kitia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian

Supercentenarian

Good morning here from the States --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • contribs. Regarding the Supercentenarian articles, you have been proposing to delete, can you direct me to the guidelines on how to redirect the individual articles to the proper list and I will take this on is my pet project. Thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PS:: I guess I should have read the article above before posting :-) Shoessss |  Chat  15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot

Let the botting commence! Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians again

Topic article rule, my thoughts on the subject

I do not think that all of the year articles should be categorised that way, because all of the extra categories are already the parents of the eponymous category. The example quoted in the guideline is for George W. Bush and the category Category:George W. Bush. The category is primarily categorised in Category:Categories named after American politicians, whereas the article is in different categories: Category:1946 births, Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:American Methodists to name but a few.

It seems to me that, by adding an article to all of its eponymous category's parents, it eliminates the need for single-member categories such as Category:1789 in Ireland. If one find the article in any of the parents then there is no need to descend the further level into Category:1789 in Ireland to find the article. In the more recent years, e.g. Category:2007 in Ireland, the situation is different because there are many events from that year. The double listing might aid navigation in the reasonbly populated categories, but not at all in one article categories.

Maybe instead a navigational template added to the articles would help — say linking a full decade together? Tim! (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your note. I agree on some points here, but not on others.

1. Your last suggestion of a navigational template for the year-in-Ireland articles, is a great idea. I had considered creating something like this myself, but didn't find time for it. It'd be wonderful if you made one.
2. The Topic article rule offers various pertinent reasons for the double-listing, including "makes it easier to find main topic articles". That's certainly the case here: having all the 199x in Ireland articles together in Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland and in Category:1990s in Ireland makes them much more accessible than having to go into each annual subcat to find them. This applies whether the reader is starting from the category or from the article
3. I think you have a stronger case wrt the by-year categories which contain all the main articles, but I'm not persuaded. Many of the by-year categories should already be much more heavily populated with existing articles, and deleting the underpopulated categories just makes it more difficult for editors to populate them. There is in any case a general principle in WP:OCAT#SMALL that small categories are acceptable if part of a wider categorisation scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find the following templates of use: {{Year nav topic}} and {{Year nav topic2}} (I'm not sure the difference between the two). There is also List of years in Ireland providing a full lisiting of all of the year articles, I note that all of the articles link to it. Tim! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to self to come back to this issue, and to delay the section from being archived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

we'll see...

Well thank you for your support of my bold move! We shall see if lasts (I can only assume you have the same things watchlisted as I in regards to this latest shooting) :-). It wasn't meant as any offense to the creation editor, I hope it isn't taken that way....Happy editing, Keeper | 76 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem IP

Sorry to bring you this BHG but am having a problem with an anon user on IP 81.129.235.13 making unfounded acusations and attacks on me on the Southport discussion page. Never really had anthing like this before so not really sure what to. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Galloglass 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been slow in replying. I don't think that the IP is being at all constructive, but I'm not sure what to do. My brain doesn't seem to be in gear on this stuff at the moment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for really old people

Hi. You might, in the future, consider bunching a number of them up together into one mass AfD, especially those that seem uncontroversial to you. That way, arguments need only be made once, except for exceptions. This is especially true since citing arguments in other ongoing AfDs (such as "per XXXX above") is not quite good practice. I agree with you on most of them, but it is getting a little tedious to do the same thing over and over again. Just my 2c, Have a great day! --Storkk (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm sure you had your reasons to give them all separate AfDs, and I wasn't implying they all should have been under a single one. If you reply, please do so on my talk :-) (no need to copy my comments over, as I periodically annotate discussions on my talk page). Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I dislike disjointed conversations, so I'll reply here and leave a pointer for you.

Anyway, thanks for your msg. It's often a hard call on whether or not to combine, but the reason I didn't combine in these cases was because although the issues were the same in all cases (is there enough substantial coverage in WP:RS for these articles to meet WP:BIO), the answers and possible remedies varied case-by-case. A group AfD is a nuisance if some articles have a different case for to be kept, and in these AfDs some articles have been rescued by decent sourcing, whereas others haven't. It get very confusing to discuss which cited sources refer to which article, particularly when further discussion is often needed about the significance of the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

Could you have a look at this this editor keeps removing content from my talk page after i told them twice not to and now is getting abusive, thanks. BigDunc (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing content again here after another warning. BigDunc (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have asked him to stop again here thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, but it looks like Alison sorted it out for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Journalism scholars/academics

Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ([3]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. --Lquilter (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT again

Just thought you might want to know the debate has flared up again. It was changed again without consensus, so there is a massive debate going. People are trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch now. Personally my stance is that it just needs to go. It's a poorly conceived, unnecessary guideline that will never have consensus. Figured if you still cared now might be a good time to have some input. Wish I could actually work on things instead of arguing about a stupid guideline every two weeks. Every time I start a damn project they mess with the guideline and I have to stop and figure out what's going on. Ridernyc (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll take a peep and see where it's all got to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adelia Domingues

Just to let you know I found about five sources for the article so I think you should close the AfD. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of those look decidedly trivial (passing mentions in book, etc), and it's unclear which parts of the article they refer to. Have you actually seen these sources, or is this just a list that someone else sent you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:1710 operas

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1710 operas, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1710 operas 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:1710 operas, 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 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Something unspecified

Hello.

I saw the merge. The Category does not belong as a subcategory of the Cat:Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain. The Category should be somewhere else, but not in this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what you are referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of current practice at AfD

I didn't think it was worth posting this at WT:BIO, but I think I can explain the difference in our assessments of current practice at AfD. I get the impression that you were trying to judge the average opinion of everyone who posts at AfD. I prefer to look at the AfD closures and the closing admins rationale. The reason for this is that so many people post invalid arguments that aren't in line with policy, and its the job of the closing admin to assess the validity of those arguments when assessing consensus. So if, for example, several people post "Keep, because wikipedia should be about everything" on a particular AfD, the closing admin should ignore these posts, and so do I when assess the general feeling and practice at AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dingle CBS

I saw you just listed this article for AfD and I have commented there, however I just wanted to bring to your attention the vast number of vandal edits that came from the 87.33.182.X range on this article. I reverted the page back to a version from 2 months ago to clear all of the vandal edits out, and I agree with you the page is just a haven for vandal edits. If the school does prove to be notable enough however, I'd suggest page protection to keep it from being a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Probably best not to protect it while the AfD is underway, but I suggest you add a note there about protecting it afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:History of Warsaw

Could you please recreate History of Warsaw? I noticed that you complained about it being copyvio, but I got got rid of the copyvio (at least could you state the section I missed?). Besides, it was just pretty much a copy of the history section of Warsaw, so if you are going to attack History of Warsaw you should also attack Warsaw. As a side note, before automaticly deleting a promising article like this, try to improve upon it so that it does not have the issues it states. I will try to if you undelete this. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are actually starting to get on my nerves BHG. I thought that your disruption was limited to the super-cs articles, but now you are apparently targeting me (and Richard Norton: Do not come onto my talk page). Sorry if I'm being rude, but I will tell you exactly what happened. I created the article. Someone put a copyvio tag on it. I fixed the article and took off the template. I took a short wikibreak. Someone disagreed with me and put the tag back on. They deleted it soon afterward. I came back to Wikipedia. I noticed that the article was gone. I created a content fork from the Warsaw page and placed it here. Someone put a tag on it and, sooner than earlier, the cycle happened again. Except that you accused me of disruption when you have been very disruptive recently. I created the content fork because I was planning to work on it. I am really starting to think you have abused your admin priveleges and am about to report it. I know you will probably not undelete the article because of my statements, but this is my honist opinion and I would be very happy if you defy my beliefs and recreate the article anyway before I start asking other admins to recreate the article (or I could do it myself) ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

KItia, I am not "targetting you". While watching your talk page, I saw a copyvio notice, checked it out, and because there was still a copyvio, I speedy deleted it. If you have a problem with that, go to WP:ANI -- but I will probably get there first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS If you want to accuse me of "disruption", please do file your complaint. I'll look forward with some amusement to seeing what on earth you can put in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot

Any idea when you might do a run with your new BHGbot for the WikiProject Ireland? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, any thoughts on this BHG? ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

As promised, I rewrote the article, hopefully sufficiently enough to put you at ease for now. I will try and find more sources and information over the break. Right now I only used the sources I could find in five minutes and avoided using the GRG, but I think there's still potential for expansion... maybe even make him the second "old WWI veteran" to be a Good Article. Cheers, CP 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. If I had seen that before the AfD closed, I'd have withdrawn the nom. Go on, see if you can get it to GA status!

I think that this exemplifies the problem with the supercentenarian articles. Some of them could be really good articles that tell the story of a very long life, but far too many of them are nothing but trivia, full of original research and/or padded out with trite comments on the times the person lived in which just patronise readers. I have seen far too many which simply say "lived in three centuries", "lived through two world wars", "lived under 20 presidents" etc, all of which a moderately educated reader could figure out for themselves, and are added simply because the writer knows next to nothing about the subject of the article.

If only Robert Young, Kitia, Bart V and others had put some of their energy into writing a few decent well-referenced articles rather than creating countless unreferenced stubs, there would be a lot more material now on their subject. Well done you for showing that it is possible to write some decent articles on very old people! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that great of an article, but it's certainly much better than what was there before and it does have the potential for expansion (it took me less than an hour to write that; surely with the structure in place, either myself or someone else can off of that with more, or probably even the same, sources). I wrote John Babcock from a total of eight sources and got it up to GA status, so certainly there's hope for Hardy and some of the others. But I completely agree with the padding stuff. "Oh, I just realized that there's nothing else to say about this person so here's the presidents of the United States that she lived through." Ditch it. Oh, and thanks for reverting Bertolomi again, I see I'm not the only person watching him. Haha. Cheers, CP 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the seconding. I'm actually a lot happier with the article than when I wrote the above message. In other SC news, I reverted Bertolomi again and removed your "nofootnotes" template from Shitsu Nakano, since I in-line cited it back in August. Let me know if I missed something though (I tend to do that!) Cheers, CP 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have had a rethink on Moses Hardy. It did seem to me that you were doing yourself down a bit.

And, no, I don't think you missed anything on Shitsu Nakano — it was me who had missed that the two citations were in place. Clumsy of me; I knew I was getting tired, and should have taken a break.

Well done with the revert of Carmelo Bertolami. I suspect that Young has urge his flock to get to work, so I have now watchlisted it.

BTW, I have been monitoring the AfD closures, and they all look quite reasonable except for Delvina Dahlheimer. I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I'll have a look at it, though I'm not entirely sure. The reason I didn't vote on it originally was because I saw some good sources in my cursory overview and didn't have the time to do Mito Umeta style research on them. I will try to have a look before the issue is over and done with. Cheers, CP 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2004 Australian Divisional Election Results

BHG an editor Australia2world Has been going through all the Electoral Divisions and deleting in their entirety, the 2004 election results. I have asked the person to desist and have even offered to create separate pages for these results to be retained upon as has been done with Benelong if the editor will only give me a few weeks to create them. Despite repeated requests to stop, Australia2world has continued to delete. I don't really want to get into an edit war with this individual but they are making an unholy mess of these pages. Set against this, the editor is doing good work of adding all the new finalised 2007 results. Australia2world does appear to have a history of edit warring and was recently blocked for it. Being somewhat of a very part time editor here I'm not sure of the correct way to go forward so I hope you can suggest what approach to take. Thanks, - Galloglass 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See my comments at User talk:Australia2world#Deletion_of_2004_Australian_Election_results. I may not follow the rest of this, but if the sitution isn't resolved, please can you keep me posted? THanks.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. Btw could you put the semi-protection back on the Constantinople article as when it came out of protection the attacks from anon IP's have resumed. Thanks - Galloglass 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think I have now restored all the 2004 results which were deleted by Australia2world. I hope that they are not removed again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too. Will let you know if our hopes are confounded. I'll get around to separating the older results onto their own pages in a week or so, well at least for Queensland and see how that looks.

Considering how unwieldy some of our own current constituency pages are I was thinking of experimenting to see how one of ours would look with the same treatment, possibly Cambridge as I've been holding off on adding any older results there in case it simply made the page just too big. - Galloglass 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see the case for splitting out the election results when they get too bulky, but that doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near the case with Cambridge. There seems to be a better case for doing it to Cambridge University, but in that case the results seem to be 90% of the article; without the results, the main article would be unnecessarily short, so AFAICS a split doesn't really help.

None of the Australian divisions which I looked at included the results of more than 3 elections, and most had only two, so I don't see much need for a split there. But see what you come up with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I was planning on adding the Cambridge results back to 1832 as a starting point and going on back from there. Not sure theres really a need to do it with any of the historical seats as they won't be facing heavy traffic in a general election. If you've no objections, I'll give it a go and see what it looks like. We can always change it back or otherwise modify it if it doesn't work. Cheers - Galloglass 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl

Since you never got around to that WP:ANI posting, I did it for you. See WP:ANI#Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl. Mangojuice^talk 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v much Mangojuice, that was a good idea. Before ANI, I had wanted to finish trying to find a clean version of Warsaw#History in order to reinstate that text so that there was at least some content in the history section, but it took so long that by the time I reached my conclusion I was too tired to post any more. My comments on the copvio are at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio (where I largely agree with you), and I will now reply at ANI.

Thanks again for bringing the issue there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now posted my reply at ANI. Thanks again to Mangojuice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer

Hi Pedro, I was very surprised by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer as "keep", particularly by your comment that "notability of super centenarians seems intrinsic". That proposition has is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where it has received almost no support, and there are countless other current AfDs where the proposition that supercentenarians are inherently notable has been rejected. No-one at that AfD disputed the point that there is no substantive coverage, as required by WP:BIO, and there are no sources to support the claim that another supercentenarian is her sister-in-law.

In any case, the article has it stands has references for only her date of birth and date of death: everything else is unsourced, and I have been unable to find any references. Please will you reconsider that decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Sorry I haven't replied sooner - a bit busy - I have a kiddies Xmas party this afternooon (37 kids - joy..... !) and I've just nicked five minutes to get on Wikipedia. I felt consensus was a keep on this, but I also agree that my closing comments looks more like me adding a view rather than reflecting consensus, which is wrong of me. I've quickly tried to find some more supporting evidence, and agree it's weak when it comes to WP:BIO. I'm not fussed one way or the other, but I'm wondering wether it would be better to AFD it again rather than just delete. Bit of a tricky situation. Your input would be valued! Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I don't think there was consensus to keep:2 delete votes, 2 keeps, 1 weak keep or redirect, and (so far as I can see, tho I'm obviously biased), stronger arguments to delete.

You could AfD it again, but I suggest that given the lack of consensus to delete or to keep, the most logical thing to do is to merge the article to List of American supercentenarians, a list which was created for this very purpose. I'm not sure whether AfD rules allow a closure to be changed after yhe fact, but it seems to be to be a good case for WP:IAR to achieve a compromise outcome with minimal bureaucracy. What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry for being rude -- I should have thanked you for your very helpful reply. I know it's not fun having decisions challenged, so thanks for responding so openly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi BHG - Not ignoring this but maybe Monday before I can reply. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I hope that the devastation wreaked by the 37 children isn't too severe :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • What do you mean, the devastation wreaked by the 37 children? I'm a bit outraged if what I'm thinking is true. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It was a joke, Kitia. Pedro turned his back on a gathering 37 children to post here, and 37 children unsupervised can wreak havoc. I'm sure that there were others to help keep them under control, but I had this image of a large pack of children saying "aha! the coast is clear". When I was he age of Pedro's son, that always led to trouble ... -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Phew! Manic weekend over (all the kids got their presents and loved the entertainer so it all worked!) Just my Senior Citizens chairity party tomorrow and I can relax and enjoy Christams! I'm mildy baffled by the entry above from Kitia but there we go - I think you've explained it to the user :). Back to business. On balance I'm going to WP:IAR this and delete it without prejudice. There's just not enough sources for the minor notability claim. I'm not fussed on re-creation with citations, but I think you're correct. Very best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn You! Ha Ha - yes the redirect was the best, and serves me right for focusing on the meta bit and not the article. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro, that's great. Just for the record, could you perhaps leave a note at the AfD explaining that you reconsidered the initial closure? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

'Tis Done! Pedro :  Chat  23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The protection of the Ayumi Hamasaki article

You have protected the article Ayumi Hamasaki

Please look at the talk page under the heading "sales"

There was not an edit war. The other user was being disruptive, and made a racial slur towards me.

There was references provided to show why I removed certain information. The other user ignored it. I'm disappointed in your action. It is this type of thing that gives the Wikipedia a bad name. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia's protection procedures, but I don't see the need to protect the article Ayumi Hamasaki article, for now. The "edit war" was basically the above IP user removing massive amounts of information based on his own original research, and another user and I reverting that (the other user seems to have concluded that it is vandalism, though it is not.) The user citing copyrights from a musical sales chart, not knowing who added a reference, not being able to sign his comments, and mildly attacking everyone he encounters makes me believe that this is just another newcomer getting used to Wikipedia, and I don't see the need to protect an article for two weeks just because a new user's inability to understand Wikipedia policies. Anyway, your decision. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute, and the way to resolve content dispute is by discussion, not by edit-warring. I'm glad to see that you self-reverted a most inappropriate comment on the article's talk page, but this dispute will not be resolved by a continued cycle of removal and reversions.

I suggest that you return to Talk:Ayumi Hamasaki and discuss how to resolve this. If you reach agreement (or at least agree to disagree), then the page can be unprotected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories and years and decades and centuries

Hi BHG, I see you were not altogether taken with my removal of parent and, indeed, grandparent categories. The link made little sense to me as I know 1916 in Ireland cat be categorised as Category:1916 in Ireland. But you are saying that 1916 in Ireland can also be categorised under the parent Category:1910s in Ireland and Granpa Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland? I was assuming this was a mistake and was ready to exterminate. (Sarah777 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I think I was of the same mind as Sarah on this one; that articles are not ot be listed in both a parent and a subcategory of that parent, but can be listed in two or more different subcategories. Is there some clear policy on that? ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WW2c is quite right about the general principle, which is set out in WP:SUBCAT ... but there is an exception called the topic article rule (which I linked to in my edit summaries[4]). This makes it much easier to find such articles: this way, the "19xx in Ireland" articles are all available in one category (i.e. Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland), whereas they would otherwise be in separate categories, which makes it hard to navigate between them using the category system.

Sarah is slightly wrong in that Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland is not actually a grandpa category: its purpose is to group all the years together, whereas Category:20th century in Ireland groups them by decades.

BTW, I have been thinking that it would be useful to have a template to make the nav box for these articles, which could also categorise them. I'll doodle one tonight and let you know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be great...going through the years there are all sorts of variations in the categorisation; presumably like myself people new to "year" articles assume the conventional structure is wrong. - Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

worker's NGOs etc.

Hi BHG -- I had responded to your comment on the Worker's NGO's CFD (12/14) while you were on your wikibreak. If you don't mind checking back in on it, it would be appreciated. The sum of my suggestion is that you might try looking at the associated categories -- the overall * NGOs tree was created by a good faith editor in November trying to clean up Category:Non-governmental organizations, but without realizing that there was a whole preexisting category structure for other organizations. That editor is fine with the mergers (at least, agreed on my talk page to that). --Lquilter (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Warsaw

BrownHairedGirl

I originally created History of Warsaw because I planned to expand it--massively. As to the size of the Polish Wikipedia's article. Since the history section of Warsaw is OK, it does not need to be summarized and I took all the info into the History of Warsaw for a beginning. You have deleted it all the time, and I fear that I will have to recreate the article over and over again until you stop.

Please comment on my talkpage. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kitia, it's clear that you still have not read WP:SUMMARY. Please post again when you have read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD for a non-notable?

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

We have never interacted before but, I see that you have experience in the nominations of AfD's. The reason that I am contacting you is that I would like for you to look over the following article: Ángel Nieves Díaz. I don't know and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this person is just a non-notable common criminal who does not deserve an encyclopedic article.

I would nominate it myself but, since I have a tendency to make a mess out of the nomination process I thought that I would ask someone with experience in the process, such as yourself, to look it over and do the nomination if such a case deserved it. What do you think? Could you be kind enough to go to my talk page and let me know? Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, the first thing is that the technical process of making an AfD nomination is really quite easy: just put {{subst:afd}} at the very top of the article, save the page, and up pops a box which tells you how to do the rest: just two more steps.

Anyway, I have taken a look at that article, and it's reasonably well-written and well-referenced, so it's hard to tell whether all of it is actually based on the sources. I guess it probably is, though I haven't checked, but if the article is not deleted, it needs more footnotes and should be tagged with {{nofootnotes}} or {{morefootnotes}}.

To my mind it falls just on the notable end of marginal. There are plenty of sources, so it clearly passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO, that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I don't like getting into value judgements about whether a person is notable for a good or bad thing, so the fact that he was a criminal doesn't seem to me to be directly relevant.

It could be argued that Díaz is notable only for one thing, and thereby fails WP:BIO1E, but I don't think that's the case: it seems to me that the claim to notability has several points: a) the claim of FBI pressure to implicate Carlos Gallisá in terrorism; b) the killing itself and his subsequent conviction and appeal; c) the problems over his execution and the fact that these led to a moratorium on executions in Florida. With those three claims to notability, the only reason I mark his claim to notability as marginal is that some of the points are not clearly sourced through footnotes.

Finally, I think that there's a difference in European and American approaches to executions. The death penalty has been abolished in nearly every European country by the 6th protocol to the ECHR, and although execution my be regarded as a more routine matter in the United States, American executions to tend to attract a remarkable amount of coverage in Europe. So I think that Diaz's notability is international.

Anyway, hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl, thank you for your opinion. I really appreciate it. I will not fuzz with the article and let it stand as is. It is true, there are various factor which make the subject notable. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi BHG--You recently blocked User:220.253.16.5 (who seems to be the same as User:220.253.144.187) over edit warring with User:Aranherunar. After you did that, the anon removed all of the vandalism warnings and blocking notices from their talk page. I thought this was inappropriate and reverted the edit, leaving a note asking them not to delete talk page comments. Finally, they wiped their talk page clean again and left me a message saying that their talk page was none of my business and that they had a perfect right to "clean it up and remove outdated discussions."

Am I wrong that they should not be deleting these notices? I don't want to get involved in an argument with them, if they aren't clearly in the wrong, but it seems to me that a record of their past behavior should be maintained on their talk page. Please let me know whether I acted appropriately and whether I should do anything to take this further. LeSnail (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lesnail. The anon was allowed to remove warnings per WP:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. AS to the block notice, I think that the convention is that a block notice may be removed after 3 days or when the block expires (whichever comes first), though I can't find that written anywhere. So it appears that the anon acted within the rules in removing the notices, and although I personally I think that it's much preferable for all such notices to be retained and archived, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to that effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I don't particularly like that policy, but I'll let it stand. Thanks for the information. LeSnail (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

re: sockpuppets

user:You've Got Mail! may or may not show up on a checkuser test. The password for the account was openly posted on the userpage and so could have been used by anyone. I tested it - though just long enough to randomize the password so that no one else could abuse the account. I also indef-blocked that account as a "role" account so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Rossami (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. Yes, I'm aware of that. My reason for checkuser was initially to see whether there was any verification of the claim on user talk:You've Got Mail! that the account was created by Kitia, but that has now been confirmed by Kitia, so that aspect of the checkuser is irrelevant, and although it would be interesting to know whether the edits by YGM which clustered around Kitia's came from the same IP, I don't think that checkuser usually gives that detailed an answer. In any case, there seems little reason to doubt that it was all Kitia's work.

The reason I didn't withdraw Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia is that we don't have any similar confirmation wrt to I'll bust your beak! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which would be useful when discussions are still ongoing at Wikipedia:AN#Feedback.2C_block_on_Kitia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello BrownHairedGirl! How are you? I saw your contributions and I think you have done a great job. And, your name is interesting. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Is it true that you have made 90,000 edits? I saw that on your talk page. Your contributions are quite amazing. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CFDs (of course)

Hey, good to see you're back, BHG -- hope you got my email. I've just come back from a "rest-break" of sorts from CFD stuff, and I've been catching up on the CFDs that came up while I was away (including one of my own, wouldn't you know...). Anyway, there's a couple you might want to take another look at, as I've made new proposals since your last comments. One is for Category:Worker's NGOs; the other, where I think your input would be especially helpful, is for Category:Natural sciences.

PS - Here's one you missed while you were away -- I think you'll get a good chuckle! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Hi BHG I have a new article I have been working on about Process Management with regard to computing but I see that there is an article Process management which has a tiny section in regard to computing. So what I need to know is what do I call the article Process management(Computing) or something simmilar and also what do I do with the section regarding computing on the Process management article do I remove it or leave it, thanks in advance. BigDunc (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dunc

The closest thing I know of to a guideline on this is WP:SUMMARY, which is really about splitting an overgrown section out of an article, but I think it broadly applies here too, because although he starting point is different, the end result should be similar.

I suggest the following:

1. Write your article and call it Process management (computing)
2. At the top of the computing section of Process Management, insert {{main|Process management (computing)}}
3. Consider rewriting the Process management#Computing section so that it is a reasonable summary of your article, per WP:SUMMARY.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with another question thanks.BigDunc (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:2003 in Gaelic Games

Hi BHG - Excellent, saves me a load of work. I had changed a few other years as well.Ardfern (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

William Grantham

Hello, just to let you know I've completed (well, up to a point) the article on William Grantham, which you started back in June. It stopped mid-sentence, so I assume you were distracted and forgot about it! I ended up there while doing a short article on a 1906 by-election, one of my occasional forays into the history of early 20th Century by-elections. This one turned out to be rather more interesting than I expected. Rbreen (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, that's much better now. Sorry I left it in such a mess — I must indeed have been distracted by something. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive ... since you participated in this CfD, I wonder if you would care to comment on this posting at WP:COI/N regarding the plethora of unsourced articles created by ArleArt (talk · contribs) to populate this category that they created ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and breach of WP:3RR by Counter-revolutionary

Hi BHG. As I'm sure you have noticed Counter-revolutionary has been on a one man campaign for the past several months over the names in Prime Ministers info boxes. I have asked him on his talk page to undo his latest breach of the WP:3RR rule on this issue on the Margaret Thatcher article but he has declined to reverse the edit. So I'm afraid I'm now bringing it to you as the initial reversal was your own edit and the last two were of mine. I really don't understand where he gets the idea that the name should be removed completely from info boxes as the guidelines on this are very clear. Thanks - Galloglass 09:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see only three reverts in this case[5][6][7], so while it's edit-warring, it's not an unambiguous 3RR breach.

It seems to me to be absurd to have an infobox for James Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher which omits the name by which they were best known (the style on Anthony Eden and Harold Wilson sems much better, including both the name and the title), but unfortunately Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names doesn't specifically apply to infoboxes, so C-R could argue that we don't yet have any clear guideline.

This is a problem which arisen elsewhere, that infoboxes can become the cause of trivial edit wars, and we really need some solution to this in the guidelines. Unfortunately Counter-revolutionary's comment that "I deal in face, not consensus" suggests that he is not amenable to a discussion. :(

Since C-R doesn't want to discuss the issue, then it has to be raised elsewhere. In the spirit of centralising discussion (rather than having individual discussions on the talk pages of each of the biographies), may I suggest that you raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), with a note from the other page directing people to the discussion? A link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography would also be a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Year in Gaelic games categories

Just a quick note to say that I have tweaked the {{GaelicGamesByYear}} template so that it will add each of the year in Gaelic games categories to the appropriate year in Northern Ireland category, if it exists.

It will take some time for the cache to be purged, so this won't initially show up in the other categories, but it will be spread across them over the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that ,it we are adding year in Northern Ireland , should we (and by that i mean youself :) ) add year in Ireland/Republic of Ireland ? Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, it already does that. It adds year in Ireland and year in sports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Barn star

Hurrah! First the portal is featured, now a barn star, - poof! the RfA is like peanuts under a Christmas table. Thanks, Brownhair. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and sorry I couldn't support your RFA this time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lucy Hannah AfD

I see what you're saying in regards to it, no reason to have a whole one-sentence article in and of itself when it can be thrown with others. Granted, the third/fourth oldest person not having an article does seem kinda odd, despite the length. Obviously, unless a book of supercentinarians comes out or something, it probably won't be expanded beyond this. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, since it seemed like the others in the AfD didn't mind it. The lack of independent sources is troubling, and I can see why that would be cause for concern, so it took me a while to decide how to close. Short version: I closed it more in the keep/no con/delete mentality, if you want to merge then there was enough of a consensus for that that you can go ahead. And a Merry (belated) christmas to you as well! Wizardman 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I've reviewed Jack Dormand and have passed it due to it's compliance with all criteria, and more. Congratulations. Regards, Rt. 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yeeha! That's my first-ever good article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:) Rt. 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now requested a peer review, to see if I can get it near featured article standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your quotation. Nice touch, but getting back to the article—yes, a great job. I'm glad I was able to share your first GA bliss. :) Best regards, Rt. 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Marie Brémont article

So does it look 'sourced' now (i.e. 'notability established')? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Marie Brémont now just squeezes through WP:BIO, albeit narrowly. My only hesitation is that I'm not happy with the AP story being linked to a mailing list archive, which is not a reliable source. I looked on google news for a reprint of it in a newspaper, but the only instances I could find were on subscription sites. That's not ideal, but I think it would better to link to one of them than to have no link (either way, the slick.org reference is not appropriate). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand what you want, I will make these articles better, and I won't try to save all of them, just those that meet WP:BIO.

By the way, could you consider letting "Ryoung122" return one day, since he has a lot of sources in the newspaper archives: he doesn't have to use the GRG, he can use the sources that the GRG used. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have inserted a better AP reference. I'm surprised that it took you so long to understand what's needed by way of references, but glad we got there in the end.

As to Young, if it was up to me, he wouldn't be allowed back. Massive COI editing, massive disruption, campaigns of harassment, recruitment of meatpuppets, sockpuppetry, endless promotion of his own unreliable sources ... there were many many reasons for his block, and he showed no signs of any regret or any desire to desist from that behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well: I still find it very strange though that the "GRG" and "WOP" aren't considered to be reliables sources. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources; it's all explained there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

But how can a scientific website as the GRG's not be reliable: that honestly just doesn't make sense at all to me? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. The material on the GRG website does not indicate sources, authors, dates of publication, or any of the other verification features which are to be found in an academic publication. There may be some decent scholarship behind it (though personally, having seen Young's approach to sourcing, I think that's doubtful), but the site as presented gives no evidence of being anything other than a hobbyist's site. It's also not helped by exceptionally poor site design and labelling of pages (which makes it very hard to find material) and by the weirdly non-standard HTML which prevents the huge table pages from displaying in Mozilla Firefox — one of the features of academic sites is that they pay some attention to usability, because they are are subject to the quality control applied by universities and other scholarly ventures, and the presentation of www.grg.org is clear evidence that it lacks that sort of scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Two articles

BHG I've been over the 2 articles you asked me to review and they look pretty good. I can't see anything wrong at all with the Dromand article. The Baker article could do with the introduction expanding a little to include his political stance within the Liberal Democrats and also maybe his republicanism could also be mentioned at this point as well. One query really, was his daughter actually born in 2000, two years before he was married? Cheers - Galloglass 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion, Rather Than Discussion At WP:BLP

Since you're more involved with this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask you before making a bigger deal about this at WP:BLP. Today we have Carmelo Bertolami, Italian WWI veteran. Still alive, October 2007. Not still alive, November 2007. Problem? The only place reporting this is our good friends at the World's Oldest People Forum reprinted for convenience sake (feel free to remove from your talk page of course once it's been read):

Greetings,

I am sad to inform that we have lost another veteran, the youngest of the remaining Italians. Carmelo Bertolami, who was born in Novara di Sicilia on 8 december 1900, died in his home on 4 november, after a rapid illness.

Sincerely, Giovanni Alunni

The date of the message is December 10, 2007. I'm tempted to ignore all rules and count this as a reliable source if only because I don't think his death will ever be reported in a reliable source if it hasn't been already. I've reverted the additions several times for WP:BLP concerns, but I'd rather not semi-protect the page in this case. Thoughts? Suggestions? Cheers, CP 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like this. It seems to me that a reliable source is particularly important when asserting that someone is dead, and we agree that the World's Oldest People Forum is not a reliable source. If he was as notable as Young and others claim these old folks to be, then his death should eventually be reported somewhere in a reliable source ... and if not, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that he is non-notable and that the article should eventually be deleted. If there is no report of the death of someone whose claim to notability rests solely on their longevity, then I can't see the claim having any credibility.

So I have reverted the date of death, per WP:BLP and WP:RS. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. I do believe he's dead, for what it's worth, but I don't believe on sacrificing WP:BLP for my subjective opinion. The forum has asked for a proper obituary though, so we'll see how that goes. Cheers, CP 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach. I too have no reason to doubt Giovanni, but I think we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. And if WOP can help find a published death notice or obituary, that'd also help resolve the notability problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think if this has to be WOP as much as Giovanni Alunni. Giovannu Alunni is listed on the extreme longevity tracking, but then, well, I easily added the person for Germany. However, Giovanni is also listed on the GRG site. But I guess I'm arguing any individual is a better source than where an individual reports (such as reporting to WOP). Footnotes, anyone? Neal (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't care too much whether a source is located by Giovanni, by others in WOP, by Stephen Coles or Silvio Berlusconi or by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or even by Young (if he can take a break from the self-referencing). What matters is that unless there is a reliable, published source for the death, then per WP:V, wikipedia shouldn't be reporting Bertolami as dead. Being alive or dead is one of the fundamental elements of any biography, and it can't simply be footnoted as "some bloke told me". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, while noting that plenty of more notable people have had their dates of birth or death be unverifiable due to that part of their lives being obscure. But obscure sources are not necessarily unreliable sources. There probably is an obituary somewhere in a local newspaper, or a death notice at least. It might be acceptable to note that there have been unverified reports of his death. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"It might be acceptable to note that there have been unverified reports of his death." - did I really say that? Unverified reports? That has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever actually hit "save" on. Forget I said that, please! Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I take the view is that a good editor is not the one who claims never makes mistakes, but who is prepared to acknowledge and correct those that do happen. So, well done :)

Anyway, the second sentence of your suggestion seems to me to be spot on: there probably is a an obituary in a local newspaper somewhere, and while that sort of ref would not of course establish notability, it would be quite adequate as verification of his death. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Would you believe I was also thinking of a photo of the grave or memorial plaque? That is almost as intrusive as digging around for a copy of a death certificate. It is interesting considering how much time has to pass before something is old enough to be considered history and researchable in that sense. The correct distance to maintain is a published obituary. Anyway, expect a flurry of newspaper mentions as the last veterans shuffle off this mortal coil. Accompanied by undignified betting as well. There will probably be a similar phenomenon when the last man to have walked on the Moon dies. List of Apollo astronauts#People who have walked on the Moon and Vision for Space Exploration puts 2018 as a date for the next Moon landings (though I wouldn't bet on them keeping to that date). That date is about 10 years away. The youngest Moon walker is 72. Maybe the continuity will be maintained. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Battista Serioli

Hate to bother you again, but it looks as if we're going to have the same problem that we did with Bertolami. No reliable sources for life, none for death (this time both are covered by online forums), he's one of the "less than six monthers," so no chance of government recognition. Do you think I should wait a bit or nominate for deletion on the same premise at Bertolami? Cheers, CP 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

ColonelBurke63 (talk · contribs). Need I say more? Choess (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargh! Burkem rides again.

But not for long. Now indef-blocked. Thanks for the warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And again! GeneralRichey23 (talk · contribs). Choess (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Now indef-blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nóirín Ní Riain

Thanks for your critical remarks. I added sources to this article. The CD's and books (discography/bibliography) are all of my personal collection though difficult to mention as a source. I have lots of photographs but no permission to place. Searching for it. Grateful for new remarks. I am still a beginner on Wiki. Hans Sentis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Sentis (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

Hi BHG. Very many thanks for the barnstar. Helps to make all the work worthwhile - much appreciated. Ardfern (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

TheyWorkForYou

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I wonder whether as someone presumably very familiar with UK parliament websites, you could comment on the above which appears tagged for deletion on grounds of notabilty. I assume also I don't have the right to simply remove the tag myself.

Many thanks in advance

JRPG (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It's a very well run and heavily-used website, and deletion would be crazy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

Deleted some ill-formatted and duplicated material added by Philkon (talk · contribs) (see the diffs: [8] and [9]).

I have no idea what this is about or how it is supposed to involve me, but f you want to discuss something with me, please just write a brief description of the issue, and link to any previous discussions rather than copy-pasting them. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Camille Loiseau

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit of the Camille Loiseau page and merged it back to List of American supercentenarians. I'm still kinda new, but I think it passes WP:BIO because it was the subject of two published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Please note that super-oldsters do not have a policy there and WP:BIO is not official. Would you please revert back to my version if I can find more sources? My user account (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what gives you the impression that WP:BIO is not official: it is a long-established guideline with widespread support. You are right that it does not specifically mention very old people, just as it does not mention many other sorts of person, all of of whom are covered by the general requirement for substantial coverage in reliable sources.

I think you mean List of French supercentenarians rather than List of American supercentenarians. Neither of the references to Camille Loiseau is to a reliable source, so it is effectively unreferenced (http://gerontoprevention.free.fr/loiseau.html is a hobbyists website, while http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1191823.php/Camille_Loiseau_oldest_person_in_France_dies_aged_114 is not a source with a reputation for accuracy, and the coverge there in any case amounts to only 91 words, which is thoughly trivial coverge). Of course, if you do find substantial coverage in reliable sources, that might be enough to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO, but at the moment the text on Loiseau is effectively unverified, and arguably should be deleted even from the merged article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: My user account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked Kitia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)