User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 014

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

Could you have a look

As an admin I trust could you give me your opinion on this. IMO comments like this should never be accepted or made little of in the way Major bonkers is, thanks.BigDunc (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input BHG.BigDunc (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Editors certainly should take care not to cause offence, but it's also important to try not to take offence, and not to let these things esacalate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it is something that really annoys me, I have lived in England and had to put up with racist quips and when challenged they all give the same response as Major gave ah sure you can call me John Bull. If only people would stop using these words and realise it is offensive. BigDunc (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I still live in England, and I have had it too :( I also live in a predominantly muslim area, so I also know well how offensive that sort of thing can be to my muslim friends.

However, it doesn't help to escalate unless it's persistent. A firm but polite request to desist often does the trick, and is certainly worth trying as a first step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] At the risk of prolonging this discussion, I only came here to say 'Amen' to your wise remarks, BHG. May I suggest that you tag the discussion with a 'Resolved' tag?

As BD is here, I'd like to make it clear that I don't mean to be rude or belittle him, but really sometimes it's better to turn the other cheek and WP:AGF. Sometimes taking offense only serves to inflame the situation and, frankly, most of us are sick to death of the great Anglo-Irish edit war. Gibnews will get the message when he next logs on; let's all move on.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - Do you know where is Alison's thread about Vintagekit's User Page? That's the only reason that I was at WP:AN/I.

I found it last night in the latest ANI archive, whatever the number is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#User:Vintagekits_..._again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes. I did find it myself as well... I couldn't see for looking. Sorry to waste your time. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I was going back to ANI anyway to tag the discussion as {{resolved}}, which I hope it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider it resolved as on seeing someone was unhappy I reworded the last paragraph to reflect that the terrorist threat remains present but now comes from a different, closer, direction. However, the comments from Domer48 are totally out of order. --Gibnews (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't know what caused BigDuncDomer48 to lose his temper later on, but it was right out of order and didn't help at all, even though he was clearly deeply offended. But Gibnews, surely it wouldn't have hurt you to promptly apologise for any offence unintentionally caused? For goodness sake, can both of you please try to defuse this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think you meant Domer, Dunc was quite calm despite the trolling. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right, my bad; Dunc held his cool admirably, and i have coorrected my error above.

I wish that others had also done so :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk

You added an NPOV tag to this article and I would like to clean it up. I'm a bit of a newbie, but I'd like your opinion on what, in general, needs to be changed. Does it sound like an ad? Cheers! Fribbler (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, and sorry I didn't leave a more detailed explanation at the time. Yes, in a few places it does read just a little bit like an ad :) I'll add a few notes at Talk:The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Fribbler (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:The Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk#POV_problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you cast a wee eye over the article now and see if it's o.k.? Might be one or two things to correct. Fribbler (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi BHG - very many thanks for the final warning - I knew this excessive civility thing would get me into trouble. No more barnstars please - you can get too much of a good thing. Good to hear from you. Just keeping my head down and getting on. Thanks again. Ardfern (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm just glad that it did come across as tongue-in-cheek, because irony is notoriously difficult to communicate online. Anyway, I'll leave off the barnstars if you insist, and just enjoy seeing a steady accumulation of your chronology-building work popping up on my watchlist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Ireland article assessments - VUPP etc

Hello, firstly good job on assessing a lot of these. However looking at some of the assessments that you and others have placed there does unfortunately seem to be a fair bit of inconsistency. The difference between a stub and good article is obvious and even between a good article and a featured article, but the difference between a start article and a B class article isn't and often seems subjective and arbitrary depending on whoever reviewed it. To give one example, you assessed the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party article as B class and then returned to it later and changed that to start class without any intervening edits. A quick glance through B class articles shows Broadstone, Dublin and Buttevant both of which seem very short on references or Caesar Litton Falkiner which is very short on detail - contrast with Republican Sinn Féin which contains most of the necessary info that a reader needs but is only graded as start class. The VUPP article has a fair amount of refs and covers all the essential details. This was after all a party which existed for less than five years and was only a significant player for half that time. While all the details added can be expanded and elaborated on, beyond mention of the parties internal structures and organisation there aren't many other details that can be added. It could very well be a case of many of the B class articles being reassessed for consistency purposes. If you ever have a chance it would be good if you could add a few lines identifying strengths and weaknesses of the VUPP article so that the article can be improved. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Valenciano!

Thanks for looking at the assessments, and for querying them -- it's always good to check.

On the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party, yes I did initially assess it as B-class, but reviewed later and reckoned that I had been slightly too generous, because some of it was unreferenced, so I downgraded it. A borderline case, but when I checked again, it seemed to fall the other side of the line. I'm afraid that with the sheer number of assessments to be done (I have done over 6000 in the last few weeks), there just isn't time to write an explanation in most cases, but I have now tagged one of the unreferenced sections as an indication of the problems (referencing is the only thing I can see that holds it back from B-class).

We have in general started to be a bit stricter on B-class than we were in the eraly days, and are now working off a checklist borrowed from another project (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#B-class_assessment_criteria). Some earlier assessments may need reviewing, and I have just looked at those you listed: Broadstone, Dublin and Buttevant both have lots of detail, but few refs. On earlier criteria, they were probably just B-class, but on the stricter criteria they are start-class. Caesar Litton Falkiner as B-class was probably slightly over-generously rated even on the old criteria, though at that point it was a bit marginal, but it clearly doesn't meet the newer, stricter B-class criteria.

I was possibly a little stringy on Republican Sinn Féin. I saw two deficiencies there: some unreferenced sections, though not much, and a lead section which needs splitting up (it's a big wall of text). The latter isn't really enough to hold it back from B-class (it's more of a good article issue, and with a few more refs it would be a clear B-class.

Thanks again for raising those queries, and please let me know if there are any others you want clarification on or re-assessment, or you can list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All clear now - thanks for the reply. I logged back in after a gap to find half my watchlist filled with your assessments :) so I know you've been busy on those. The VUPP thing can easily be fixed - wish the same could be said for my p.c. so I'll probably ask you for a reassessment when that happens. Valenciano (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Feel free to ask for a reassessment at any time, or alternatively to list an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now got around to expanding the article and adding multiple references so could you reassess please? Also the article is currently at Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party but none of the sources use that, with Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party being the common title, so could you move the article to that? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

I have moved it as requested, and reassessed it. It's now a no-contest B-class, and should sail through a good article assessment; I do hope you'll submit it. If you have the energy for a more rigorous review, I think you'll find that it's not far off making the grade as a featured article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Could you ask this editor not to be canvassing on my talk page, and if they have to canvass, at least get the right page? Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The message doesn't seem to me to be partisan, and having looked at the contribs list there doesn't appear to be have been any extensive notification, so I see no breach of WP:CANVASS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

İmambayildi

Hi, if you are still online, I will have a move request from you regarding the article İmambayıldı. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here and will be around for another two hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, I was looking for the real spelling of the term İmam bayıldı. I saw that the article's name was based on the original Turkish spelling. According to that spelling, I should have changed the name to İmambayıldı, because it is the correct spelling in Turkish, namely without the space. Here is the link for verification. And I did so. Around ten minutes later, I noticed that the user Dumarest was trying to change the name back to the former one. I made a relevant discussion in his talk page. And he provided me with a link proving that the term is in fact within the English vocabulary, and hence it should have been spelled accordingly, namely Imam bayildi. Here is the link for your records. I gave the right to him and tried to move the article to Imam bayildi, but I saw that it was used before and I wouldn't make the move without the help of an administrator. Now I would much appreciate your helping me move the relevant article from İmambayıldı to Imam bayildi. Thanks in advance. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I hope there is nothing confusing with the subject. If you would like to ask any questions regarding the matter, I will be around here a bit more while. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and sorry for the delay (I got side-tracked). It's now moved, and it's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a petty problem. You have changed it to İmam bayıldı. There shouldn't be any Turkish letters. It should have been Imam bayildi, namely the pure English spelling. Or maybe your keyboard doesn't allow you to see the difference. Could you notice the difference? --Chapultepec (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could manage it myself hopefully. So there is no need for any further action. Thanks a lot for your help. Happy edits. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, and glad to see you got it sorted. I had spotted that there was a Turkish letters issue, but I must have got in the wrong way round. Don't forget the double-redirects! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Political History Series Navigation Templates

Hi BHG, I'd like your thoughts on this issue please. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Irish_Political_History_Series_Navigation_Templates. Tx Snappy56 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Imam bayildi

I am sort of apologizing to you for what I see may have been the mess I made, changing imambayildi to imam bayildi, and screwing up the redirects. I guess I really did not know how to do that correctly. In the page history I see that you had to do quite a number of things to clear it all up. Thank you. --Dumarest (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Party in Northern Ireland

Hello I am writing to you regarding the page Green Party in Northern Ireland I am trying to update the page with information This is my first time editing on wiki so forgive me if I've crossed the line However I believe you have incorrectly removed pieces I posted yesterday regarding Brian Wilson and John Barry. There people are important people in the Green party and reference to them must be included in the page for it to be acurate Can you please replace them ?

Regards Katrina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Kit Kat (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Green Kit Kat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related query, is it appropriate to cover minor local councillors in articles on their parties in such detail? A seperate article on people like Ciaran Mussen would almost certainly bite the dust in a deletion review but what's the policy on their inclusion in the party articles, where they may be notable in the context of that? Valenciano (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They should have brief mentions in the main article, but should not overwhelm it, and of course the content should be referenced. I have just trimmed the article substantially to remove a lot of the excessive and unreferenced material, and to try to restore some neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Derry

Hi. I notice here that you are able to uprate an article on other projects at the same time as you do it for WP:IE. Could I ask you to do that for Free Derry? It's still rated as Start on WP:NIR and I've had no response to my request for re-assessment there. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't like making an importance rating for other projects, but quality-class assessments are fairly consistent across projects, so I should have uprated the {{WPNI}} assessment at the same time as I did the others. Thanks for the reminder, and congrats again on improving the article. Go on, nominate it for WP:GA! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment and for the encouragement. I want to polish it a bit more and then I probably will have a go at GA. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glitch

Hi again BHG, I told you we would run into each other again! This edit removed substantial content from the page; the same thing happened to me once and I believe it to be a weird glitch in the software. Just letting you know; I've repaired the damage. Any substantive help or advice you can offer on the dispute on the talk page would be very welcome. Keep well, --John (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

oops! Thanks v much for the fix. It's a glitch in the script I use (User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js), which doesn't seem to handle cacheing very robustly. I have added my comment at Talk:Mairéad Farrell.

Hope you're keeping well too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your intelligent comment there. I've responded too; I don't think it will be helpful to get too deeply into the legal niceties of the jurisdictions of the various courts on this article about a person. The article on the court would be a better venue for such detail I submit. --John (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In principle, the detail belongs in the article on the court. However, the Mairéad Farrell article shouldn't be misleading, and the NYT report is demonstrably wrong in saying that Farell was "unlawfully killed". If the article is going to mention those reports (and I think it should), then it also needs to clear about what the court actually did. The distinction is subtle, but it is important that reader should not be misled: the does not make a judgement based on domestic law, so it cannot offer a judgement that something was unlawful. The ECtHR rules on convention rights, and that what it did here, ruling that a convention right had been violated.

In short: if the killing had been lawful under a British "Shoot Lots of Irish People on Sight Act", that wouldn't have effected the court's decision. What mattered to the ECtHR was that convention rights had been violated, regardless of what donestic law might say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I share your understanding of the legal situation. The problem is how to present it in a clear, coherent and NPOV way while remaining accurate. It is inherently difficult to summarise, even without all the partisanship that such an issue attracts. Yet to go beyond a summary leads us to even worse problems. I'm still thinking about what compromise I would like to see adopted there. I still think that a draft would be the best next step. --John (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the NYT isn't demonstrably wrong. Direct from the case - "Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law" (emphasis added), and that was found to be violated. Now as I said there, if it was an editor using that to come up with "unlawfully killed" there would be problems, but there's three separate reliable sources (and I've not even looked at offline sources yet) stating just that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was at any point in dispute that those rights were protected by law. The issue in dispute was a much narrower one: whether the necessary safeguards required by the convention had been adequately applied in this situation (the court found that they had not been).

Two of three "reliable sources" are in fact breaking-news stories, the instant report of a judgement not yet fully digested. It would be much more persuasive if you could refer to more substantial reports in the reliable sources, rather than to the first take off the newswires. Additionally, the Irish Times and NYT reports cited do not tie their use of the phrase "unlawful killing" to article 2, and it is a WP:SYNthesis to report their comments as if they did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding!

Been reading over your contributions in the Ireland sections. Fantastic job! Keep up the great work! ChildersFamily (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History of County Wexford

Can you please check this page again (History of County Wexford). Can you please leave a note stating what other changes I need to make. Thanks. Dneale52 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Installation of WP:FRIENDLY

I tried installing this, but I'm not sure I did it right...counld you help, if you have time? :) Thanks!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but there are two things to check:

1. Are you using the default monobook theme? If not, it won't work. To check, go to Special:Preferences, look at the "skin" tab, and check that it is set to "monobook.js" (default)
2. Did you remember to bypass your cache? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics

you put the WikiProject Numismatics box thing on Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) so I'm guessing your part of that project too, if you are there are a few articles me and some other fellow have been working on that u may wanna add to WikiProject Numismatics.

• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Finland)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France)

1. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2002
2. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2003
3. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2004
4. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2005
5. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2006
6. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2007
7. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin hipwell (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 April 2008

I'm not actually a part of that project, I just added their banner to an article I was assessing, as a courtesy to them. You may want to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Emergent Party prod

Heya - how you? I can't find the Emergent Party in the list of articles for deletion...is it somewhere else these days, I've not done a AfD for years, heh. doktorb _words^deeds 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya! That's because there is no AFD; the Emergent Party was WP:PRODded, not AFDed. :): So far as I can see, it has never actually emerged.

If you disagree with the PROD, just remove the tag, giving your reason in the edit summary; if you agree with it, you can add {{prod2}} tag to endorse it: {{prod-2}} will endorse a prod with no further comment; {{prod-2|[comment]}} will add a further comment.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yachts

No worries BHG. I hadn't even noticed that it was you until I got your note. —Moondyne click! 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle AfD noms

I've noticed that Twinkle is failing that one step, putting the template on the article itself. It's creating the discussion, adding to the log, and notifying the creator, but missing that one final step. It seems to be a known bug, but there hasn't been much movement on it lately. DarkAudit (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I must make sure to check my other recent AFDs. The articles I returned to had had all worked OK, but I must check the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment

Unresolved

Rayment has moved from angeltowns to leighrayment.com. That is fine so far as the templates are concerned (they have been changed) but none of the links to the old references work any more. Please would you do your thing with a bot and change them all to the template. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, drat. It's a big job, and may not be easy. It won't suffice to simply change the refs into template calls, because the templates can't replicate links to precise pages. I'll have to look and see it the site structure has changed in the moves, and whether it is possible to update the URLs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the bot will actually do this will it? We have references to Rayment in so many different formats that this is going to be a horrendous job :( - Galloglass 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done some checking, and the first checks look promising. I took as a example Thomas Nicholas Redington MP, having referenced him last week to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/dcommons4.htm ... and find that the same page now http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/dcommons4.htm

Other constituency article appear to have been moved in exactly the same way, so a simple regular expression can do the trick, replacing http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/([a-z]commons[0-9]?\.htm) with http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/$1

I then looked at the Glynne Baronets, which I had referenced to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/baronetsg1.htm ... and fins that the page is now at http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsg1.htm

That's another fairly simple regex job, replacing http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/(baronets[a-z][0-9]?\.htm) with http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/$1

... and all a bot needs to do is make a combined list of all the articles which are in the subcats of Category:British MPs and/or Category:Baronets, and the whole lot is fixed. (BTW, useless piece of trivia: CatScan tells me that are 719 articles on MPs who were also baronets)

However, there are other direct links to Rayment pages; the main ones I can think of are for peers and privy councillors, and since there is a significant overlap between them and the MPs+Baronets set, it would be most efficient to do the lot as one big job (to avoid beating up the server with multiple passes).

I have also checked the privy council lists, which are less encouraging :( Lord Pantsdown has a link to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/02PrivyCouncils--UK.htm ... but when I look at Rayment's new Privy Council lists, I see that they have been restructured, and that that he is now listed in http://www.leighrayment.com/pcouncil/pcouncil4.htm. This is a good idea, because the old privy councillor lists were so long that my browser found them uncomfortable to digest, but it means that a bot can't update the links :(

I hope we will be in more luck with the pereages, Can either of you find any direct links from peerage articles to the peerage lists on Rayment's old angeltowns site, so that I can check the link format? If I can figure out another handy regex, I can throw the peerage categories into the mix: Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Great Britain, Category:Peers of Ireland, Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and Category:Peers of Scotland.

I can then either ask for permission to run BHGbot to do this job, or (if I'm feeling too lazy to code the job) I'll ask another BOTmeister to do it for us. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many such as Earl of Gosford. And a number who should be in rayment-hc as well as rayment-b but are not. And others who should be in rayment-hc or rayment-b but are instead as Earl of Gosford (e.g. Williams Baronets). Michael Biddulph, 1st Baron Biddulph is one of many who are peers and should also be under rayment-hc. Thank you for taking responsibility here; would that everybody were to do so. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi BHG, following on from the Phoenix Park article changes, my user page is being repeatedly vandalised, it a bit annoying. I was wondering if you (being an admin) can help? Tx, Snappy56 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals blocked, comment on your talk page. Pls let me if there is any recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hello how are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev1232 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev's father Juan

Now I think you're right about deletion; it seems a pity to remove the most famous non-person in Irish politics...Red Hurley (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything was know an about him, or even if there were substantive accounts of the hunt for him, it could be an article. But "we know nothing" isn't an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Monkstown and other places in Dublin

BHG; I reverted your moves (Monkstown, Dublin to Monkstown, County Dublin etc) as they are going against agreed practice for Dublin suburbs and I realise that if you proceed unchecked you are quite capable of having changed 500 articles by the time I get up in the morning!. Say ten Hail Marys and and three Our Fathers and resolve to leave our suburbs alone. Harrump. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the postal address of the place has always been "Monkstown, County Dublin". How and where was it agreed (by who?) that it should be called "Monkstown, Dublin"? That usage would be unknown to anyone from that area.

"Dublin" is fine for the places within the city boundaries, but it's simply wrong for places outside City boundary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Killings at Coolacrease article

Dear BHG Thanks for your message. I've just taken a look at the article, and the Discussion Page. I'll post a response to the Discussion. Cheers, Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing edit attribution

Hi BHG, I have accidentially made some wiki edits while not logged in to my account. Are you aware of a way to reassign them to my user-name or anyone else I could ask? I only know of the defunct "changing attribution" request list.--Rye1967 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not that I know of. If there is a way, then the person who might know is User:Alison, who has checkuser rights and so may know her way around that technical side of wikipedia. When this happens, I have seen some editors leave a note on their user pages, though personally, I haven't bothered on the few occasions it has happened to me.

BTW, it's been good to see your username popping up again on my watchlist recently, after a bit of break. There aren't many editors working conscientiously on Irish politics articles, and your absence was a loss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

David Treacey

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Treacey -- not many comments were received last week so this debate has been re-listed for further input. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

With regard to this the use of loyalist vitriol on a talk page. This editor is violating WP:BLP in implying racism on this article. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Hope im not offending you by putting in quotes from BLP page i'm sure you are well aware of the policy, Thanks. BigDunc (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that loyalist vitriol is a helpful term to use in describing the comments there, and everyone editing these topics should take not to use terminology which unnecesarily polarises discussions. I have left a warning for Ulster Vanguard (talk · contribs) to avoid the use of political slogans, noting that the same applies across the political spectrum.

I doubt whether a reference to ethnic groups in the context of equal ops monitoring can be counted as racism; in England and Wales, it is a legal requirement that ethnicity is explicitly monitored by employers. The issue here is that wikipedia should put words into peoples mouths, so the description of Anderson's words should follow her use of terminology, by using a direct quote if necessary ... and the same principle should be applied to criticism of her.

To take a fictitious example by way of illustration, if X said that "not enough people born in London are being employed in the city's public services", it would be wrong for wikipedia to say "X championed London ethnicity" (X did not use the tern "ethnicity"), but quite fair to report both X's actual words and a scathing response from someone else which said "X's comments were nakedly racist in their effect in the city's immigrant population", providing that the criticism did not receive undue prominence in the article (relative to its significance in the subsequent debate on X's remarks).

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As you will seef rom the talk page, this user has left WP open to legal action.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TU as a self admitted member of the UUP are you making a legal threat? If not could you clarify.BigDunc (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats quite a leading question isn't it? Clearly I'm not, so why would you ask? Your attitude to wikipedia needs to change.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TU, as an uninvolved editor that wasn't how I read BigDunc's comments - I read them as simply pointing out that calling Hussey a loyalist, while arguably inaccurate, isn't a violation of WP:BLP. Looking at that and other conflicts on Ireland related articles, there seems to be an increasing and depressing trend towards throwing out kneejerk 'vandalism' and 'disruption' related warnings to rival editors without trying first to find common ground. Valenciano (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if I were Ross, I'd consider myself defamed.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Valenciano makes a good point. That debate has seen far too much throwing around of labels and also far too much taking of offence, as well as inappropriate accusations of vandalism, libel and disruption.

I have now protected the Martina Anderson article, and posted a warning to all editors of that page to calm down and to remember that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors can be applied to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, that's enough. The latest posts here ([1] and [2]) are continuing this disruptive squabble after a clear warning, so I will now seek probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For defending mysef from an inflamatory question? That's not very reasonable.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of arbcom's ruling in this matter, and you were all warned to stop this disruptive dispute, which has now spiralled away from the substance of the article into a which-editor-offended-who dispute. TU, I'm not singling you out; I will be listing all the participants in this dispute, and leave it up to others at Arbitration enforcement to decide whether and to who to apply remedies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article in question I have edited once in the past three days. So no edit warring, just dicsussion in which I have been subject to accusations of rule breaking, and criticised for not edit warring. And I'm being reported. Doesn't really make much sense does it?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough. I am not the one who will decide whether it makes sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind BHG let the dice roll, I feel I have nothing to answer for on this. I asked you to have a look at the situation to which you did, and thanks for that, and then I posted on the aticle talk page and then get accused of defamation and libel and legal threats are flung around.BigDunc (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're the one doing the reporting - so clearly you feel I have a prima facie case to answer. When I question that all you say is "enough". That'd not good enough to base an accusation on.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You will be able to see what I report, and you can comment there, as can any other of the five participants listed. However, I'm not going to set out the case twice just so that you can add more comments here as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I started writing the report yesterday, but in the end I decided that what with all the diffs required, it would take more time than I could be bothered to commit to this issues. I may file such a report in the future if this sort of spat arises again, but for now I'm going to leave this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pryor

Hi BHG. When you have time could you have a look at this newly created article. For a number of reasons I do not wish to give an opinion on this article. I don't really wish to say any more but trust in your judgement implicitly on this. Thanks - Galloglass 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I want to say is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Pryor ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category intersects Real Soon Now maybe

David Gerard said so. Wikitech-l thread here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I took a quick peek, but it looks like I shouldn't starting cooking Godot's supper just yet :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You frightful cynic, but if the category ids are there now it shouldn't be far off. And did you see the message about this? We do have category intersects right now. I never knew that, but I won't be so surprised if world and dog knew for years. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been just-round-the-corner for so long that I won't hold my breath ... but if it does start to surface, the interesting issue will be what form it takes.

This link really is interesting. Hideous syntax, inelegant results, but in some circumstances it could be useful. Thanks for the pointer! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of closed railway stations in Ireland

Well, i'm not sure which route to take, the alphabetical list i started off with, but i do get a bit lost, so i've drawn up a few maps of the network at its highest extent, and then i'm going county by county, so far i'm starting off with County Wexford and County Wicklow, then Counties Carlow, Louth, Laois, Kilkenny, Waterford, and part of County Cork (the Cork Albert Street to Crosshaven line, the Cork Glanmire Road to Youghal and Cóbh line, Cork Capwell to Macroom, Schull to Skibberreen, Ballinascarthy to Courtmacsherry, and Kanturk to Newmarket. The reason being is if i do it alphabetically, all i get is a list of stations, where as if i go by county, i get more of a story, so.....the East Coast line, Greystones was built when the DSE extended the line from Bray to Wicklow etc, Abbeyfeale was closed when the line from Tralee to Limerick was closed. I do appreciate your comments though, i just don't get much time to actually do anything o here. A "list" with only one article just looks silly, but i thought, why have lists, if they just lead to red links (ie doesnt exist), i'm trying to balance the two at the moment, any suggestions?Halowithhorns89 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Would it be better to start with one list, divided into alpahabetic sections, and then split it if and when it becomes unwieldy? That way there wouldn't be these one-item lists, and it'd be easier for others to add stations to the list, so it might not have to be only your own work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do beleieve i've found a way around the matter, bear with me a few days though. This has been a pet project of mine for years, i just didnt realise i could have it online And the lists of each letter should hoepfully just get longer as i fill them up. If i just concentrate on the lists at the moment, that 'll provide me (and others) with structure to work withHalowithhorns89 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and could you reply on my talkpage? i Just read your red box saying so Halowithhorns89 (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you are stuck into the project and intend to populate the lists more fully, then I have no concerns at all, and can only wish you good luck :) My concern was simply that there might be a collection of one-item or two-item lists, which is a nuisance for readers, but I see that you have already started expanding them, so that clearly isn't going to be the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Harney - vandalism

Hi BHG, Mary Harney's article has been getting a lot of petty vandalism lately. Maybe a short term protection is in order?, Tx Snappy56 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, yes, lots of tedious vandalism. It all seems to be from anon IPs, so I have semi-protected the article for 1 month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List of closed railway stations in Ireland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of closed railway stations in Ireland, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of closed railway stations in Ireland: D. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a combined list, transcluding the separate lists by letters of the alphabet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gender neutral language?

Don't ever use the word 'woman' because it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon 'wifeman' which not only indicated a married person of the XX genotype(unmarried was 'maegen' - maiden), and thus defined a 'female human' (neatly avoids the use of the word woman again - oh dear! this is difficult) in relation to a man, but was a masculine-gender word as well!

Reductio ad absurdum, but true nonetheless ;)

Urselius (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Words evolve over time :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Asgard Childers

I have nominated Asgard Childers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JulesN Talk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have added my comments at the RfD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yvette Cooper

Good heavens!!! Have you nothing better to do than defend Yvette Cooper and undo people's changes every minute.

I thought I was sad.

Cannonmc (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the commentary was that it was unsourced criticism of a living individual, which is not permitted: see WP:BLP.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that you are the anon IP who reinstated your attacks on Cooper (in this edit and this one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Hanafin revert

Why did you revert my edit to User talk:86.43.184.115? I was removing a warning which I had issued myself, and I don't see that it's appropriate for another editor to restore it.

The reason I reverted it was that I double-checked and noticed the edit by that IP had been self-reverted, so I removed my warning. If you feel it's appropriate to make a warning of your own, you are of course free to do so ... but I don't see why you felt it appropriate to obscure the fact that I had removed my warning.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asher196"

When I saw that you had reverted your warning thinking the vandal reverted their work, I was too lazy to issue my own warning. Your warning was still valid, so I just reinstated it. If you look at the edits to Mary Hanafin, you will see the vandal didn't completely revert their work, they just changed it, and ommitted information, constituting vandalism. I apologize.Asher196 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they evidently know how to use the undo button, so just removed their silliness without reinstating the words deleted in the vandalism. But when I saw that, I was amazed: I have never before seen a vandal try to undo the damage, even if the fix wasn't entirely successful. I know that there have been other repentant vandals, but this is the one I have seen.

Anyway, thanks for the apology. Have you considered installing twinkle to make it easier to issue such warnings yourself? It's really a brilliant timesaver for this sort of thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into Twinkle, but since I use Internet Explorer, it's apparently not an option for me.Asher196 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, every operating system which runs IE will also run Firefox (and popups work better with Firefox, which I find indispensable). Your choice, though :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta mess

Hi BHG, you've been vocal on the BC/BCB issue, can you think of any new way forward to resolve this? Seems like we've devolved long ago into endless shouting and thread-forking, I can't keep track of where it's all happening anymore. Can you think of any ways to segment these issues, get some groups working on them, and get them at least partly resolved? An ArbCom case is going to take a whole lot of our time and likely end up with a finding of "editors should be civil". Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franamax (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 March 2008

Sorry, I didn't have any inspiration ... and the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 turned out to be a damp squib. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested...

How do record holders prove their age? (BBC article) and British marathon man's number: 101, or maybe 94 (LA Times article). Guess who appears in the latter article?! Oh, and see Buster Martin, which had this added. All quite legitimate, as it is sourced, but I saw this and wondered what your opinion would be on all this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Buster Martin has been all over the news here today, and BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme concluded that there was no proof he was 101. Personally, I thought at the time that all the scrutiny was a bit mean, and that whether he was 94 or 101 made little difference: it's still amazing that he's so active at 90+, and that he deserves his place in the sun even if he was golding the lily a bit. He seemed commendably unfazed by all the fuss, but his boss was hilarious, citing on air three or four different dates of birth for Buster. It didn't help that two of them began "two thousand and ..."

I have no problem with quoting Young as the source if he has been reported in a reliable source, though I'm disappointed that the said Reliable Sources use such a flaky informant. I was amused to see Young relying on "his sources" in the NHS. Apart from the fact that the said sources have broken the Data Protection Act (and if identified face prosecution as well as dismissal), it's amusing to see Young relying on a wink from some contact rather than on documentation. It all confirms my general impression that (which was reinforced by my conversation with Stan Primmer) that Young's research methods have more in common with those of a tabloid journalist than of an academic researcher.

The main thing I noticed was that the Buster Martin article is primarily the work of an SPA, Kathlutz (talk · contribs). My guess is Kathlutz is not a new editor, but I'm not going to speculate further on who it might be. Well-written article, though.

I also note the involvement of Max Clifford, which raises a lot of question marks. Clifford is a very clever tabloid publicist who has invented things before, and I'd take anything with his fingerprints on it with a pinchbucketload of salt. To my eye, Buster Martin looks about 65. But then I do like older men :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I should let you know what Robert's response was - you couldn't really expect him to enjoy being compared to a tabloid journalist. In the case of most of his e-mails, I have not passed on the outline of his response to you, but this should be fairly innocuous, I hope. Anyway, the gist of it is that he agrees that the Buster Martin story is tabloid journalism - they built him up and equally they are tearing him down. I think he is also saying that the media misrepresented what he said, which was that without birth or marriage certificates, or other acceptable documentation, the claim of 101 can't be confirmed. He also explained the "unofficial" bit, and it seems he may be in more newspaper articles soon, so watch this space! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What's an SPA? I am a new editor. A friend forwarded me a newspaper article about the "101 year old marathon runner" and I got intrigued and started to search for information. I am fascinated by the way information is produced by the media ... how the media manipulate and how they are manipulated. Most of the original article was written by CloudNine (talk · contribs), btw.--Kathlutz (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, Kathlutz. Maybe BHG will retract her guess that "Kathlutz is not a new editor", but don't worry if she doesn't. Just continue to contribute good content, and that will be all that most people will worry about. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed Kathlutz's earlier reply.

Kath, I'm sorry if my earlier guess was misplaced, and I'm quite happy to withdraw it with apologies. The reason it arose is that this area has seen a lot of sockpuppetry and related misdemeanours, so I tend to check new contributors in this field more thoroughly than I would elsewhere. In this case, I saw a new editor who seemed to be very well clued-up on wikioedia policy and practice, which is unusual, and it is often one of the marks of someone who has previously been an editor under a different ID. Of course it's not necessarily so, and there are other possible explanations ... so it was no more than a questionmark. And as Carcharoth noted, all your edits seem to be very good work, which is very welcome! Keep up the goos work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:BoxCrawler

I appreciate that there was a need to block my bot so I thank you for doing so. However you should understand that this was not a malfunction. You created the Template redirect after the bot entered operation so I could hardly be expected to know about it. I'm glad you pointed it out and have added the necessary functionality. Please, realize that by blocking the bot indefinitely, knowing that it will stop editing immediately after the block goes into effect it is effectively saying that I, as the bot operator, wouldn't fix the issues raised which I have always done and will continue to do (please assume that I run my bot in good faith). The only thing accomplished by an indefinite block is to delay my getting back to work. Anyway, thanks again for blocking the bot and pointing out the enhancement. I have cleaned up all of the erroneous edits and would like to continue the run, so I would appreciate if you would unblock the bot at your earliest convenience. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was a malfunction.

I would expect anyone running a bot like that to check for redirects periodically (particularly before a major run), and not to simply assume that no new redirects exist, because it is critical to the bot's operation (I run a wikiproject banner bot myself, and this was one of the first issues which arose). Template:WPSCHOOLS was created as a redirect 5 weeks ago, so it's not exactly brand new. I wasn't questioning your good faith; I was questioning the care with which the bot was being run, particularly since since it was left to others to tidyup after the bot's previous malfunction.

I will be happy to unblock if your bot now knows about all the current redirects, and if such checks are going to be made routinely in the future. I'm delighted to hear that the first point is done; how about the second? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for such hostility. The only reason it was "left to others last time" is that they got to it before I went online. You should realize though that just because the bot doesn't do something you think it should does not show that it is malfunctioning. This is the first run that it has even been an issue and I already thanked you for pointing it out. I was also not aware of that particular tool and will use it in the future. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I was being hostile. That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if my reply came across that way. I'm surprised that you don't think that adding a duplicate banner is a malfunction, but I'm glad that things are now all sorted, so please can we both count this as resolved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely resolved. I'm saying that the action doesn't denote a malfunction because the function was not part of the specification for what the bot is supposed to do. I spec'd out the exact regex I used when I first requested to use the bot and the regex itself was part of what got approved. Not doing something that is not in the spec cannot really be called a "malfunction." It can easily be called a lack of planning on my part and I'll agree that it was, but it's not the bot's problem, it's the operator's. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are looking at this from difft angles, and probably getting caught up in terminology. My concern is with the outcome, and so far as I am concerned a bot which does a bad edit is malfunctioning. There are of course many ways in which something like that can happen — a coding error, a design error, a change in circumstances or whatever — but I think it's a great mistake to look only at the details of the spec without considering the purpose that the bot was created for. I don't see that it matters much whether the cause was glitch in the bot's code or a glitch in the parameters set by the bot operator; either way such a bot is doing the wrong thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Monkstown, Dublin

BHG, would you please stop edit warring and put Monkstown back to "Monkstown, Dublin". Making such a change to established practice re suburbs in Dublin and using Admin powers to force your pov is an abuse.

• There is no longer any such legal entity as "County Dublin"; if you insist in tagging the Local Authority after the name it should be "Monkstown, County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown".
• All suburbs of the continuous urban area have the same naming convention - "X, Dublin" - if you disagree with that the talkpages are the places to decide the issue.
• I am surprised and disappointed to see you behaving in such a manner.

Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I haven't used any admin powers.

I replied above to your previous comment about this: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Monkstown_and_other_places_in_Dublin. I'm not using local authhority address, but rather the postal address of the place, which has always been "Monkstown, County Dublin". I'm not aware of any widespread use "County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown" as a location identifier; since the Act somehow used that convoluted name it's techincally correct, but it's not common usage.

Monkstown, County Dublin is in Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin, which also includes Lucan, County Dublin, Lusk, County Dublin, Newcastle, County Dublin etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lusk and Newcastle are in rural areas. Blackrock, Dublin is a better example. Or Dundrum, Dublin. It isn't Dundrum, Dublin 16 (the postal address) or Dundrum, County Dublin. I think this is a matter of style and standardisation, not policy - and you have vapourised existing practice without a word of consultation. There is no need for postal addresses - where else are they used? Desist I tell you. Recant. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please chill a bit -- I have not "vapourised existing practice without a word of consultation". I moved one article, and when you unmoved it back with replying to my comment above, I moved it back again.

Blackrock, Dublin shoukd also be moved to Blackrock, County Dublin, since that's what it too is known as. Outside the city boundaries, the only place known as "foo, Dublin" are those within postcodes, and I quite agree we don't need those in the article names (though it wld probaly be a good idea to have them as redirects).

Your point about rural areas doesn't really work: Lucan, County Dublin is hardly a rural area, and hasn't been for a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lucan should be moved to Lucan, Dublin if we are to be consistent. I Christened Newcastle, County Dublin myself and added the county for geographical reasons after extensive field-work established it was not connected to the contiguous urban area. Aplgies for seemng unchilld but I was only usng the 2by4 on de dnky apprch and wsn't rlly srious abt the vapriztn. Btw I'm nt sayn ur a dnky :) Sarah777 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to be consistent, except by common name ... and Lucan is fine where it is :)

BTW, I like donkeys. Very gentle and kind characters with little drama: they are high up my list of creatures-I'd like to be reincarnated as :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Molly Childers

Hello! :)

I've seen both your notes on Molly Childers. I agree with you that she's notable, and was going to expand the page when I had some more time. Molly was involved substantially with the IVF (Irish Volunteers) and she was named secretary of that group alongside Alice Stopford Green. I have some references that can back this up as well. The "spy " allegations as refuted by Erskine Hamilton's daughter, are a smoke screen of sorts for a larger revisionist agenda trying to find reason to connect Robert Erskine and Molly to Lloyd George/Churchill/MI5 . There's simply no good argument for this as far as I've researched, other than attempts to hype up people's "new books" on the subject. The British papers are sealed and the one's that've been released have been blue inked, so it's uncertain that we'll ever find the truth on this issue till 2016-2022, when it's said, that the Queen will open up the Irish Files, and with it the proverbial pandoras box of pro and anti treaty hysteria. They will be interesting times ahead. Thanks for all your work once again! Talk soon, ChildersFamily (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, and sorry for my initially flawed assessment of Molly Childers.

I know that there all sorts of agendas at work in Irish history, not least because so many of the issues involved still have direct bearing on contemporary politics. However, that doesn't mean that all Irish historical writing is flawed, just that it needs to be scrutinised carefully, which is of course how all history should be approached anyway.

However, it's not wikipedia's job to take a view on the merits or otherwise of the claims, just to report them as accurately as possible, to report the commentary in a fair and balanced way.

It will be very interesting to see what is revealed in 2016-2022, but I have a gut suspicion that a lot of material will still be withheld as politically sensitive. In any case, intelligence files need to be taken with large pinches of salt, as a lot of British politicians found out the hard way in relation Iraq's WMD. This question may never be satisfactorily resolved either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Professor James Lydon of TCD used to insist that the most dishonest type of historian was the was the one who was not open and honest about his or her own prejudices; he argued that there was no such thing as impartiality in a discipline requiring so much selection and weighting of evidence, and so many different types of interpretation. That has always struck me as good advice: there's two ways to tell every story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would he have made of David Irving? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Jim was quite prepared to say that a particular historian was very skilled but started from a perspective which wouldn't work with that subject. And he was very scathing about misuse of sources; he's still alive, and I doubt he has changed his tune on that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It's sometimes difficult to separate wearing the encyclopedic hat you must wear while writing these pages; versus your own privately researched conclusions on the matter. I'm learning how to do it. :) Thanks again for your comments. ChildersFamily (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just hi!

I've been doing some tag cleanup work, and have come across your handle here and there - British Isles stuff. I have noticed you seem to have your head on straight, and then went to your page and saw you have a great sense of humor, too. Just wanted to say hi and it's nice to see a real person doing good work on WP - not so rare, but you know it's a mixed bag. No need to reply, just a smile.Jjdon (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oi! how dare you! I'm not real!!!!!

I'm a experimental bot being developed by the Peoples Front For The Liberation Of Saddleworth, as part of our struggle against both Manchester imperialism and the splitters and stooges in the Saddleworth Liberation Front and the Democratic Front For The Liberation Of Saddleworth (pah, it hurts even mentioning their names). Once the programmers are satisfied that my code has been perfected, the bot will be used to restore Saddleworth to its historic place in Yorkshire, while our huge armies defend the borders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Department infoboxes

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I've more work to do on the Department infoboxes and I understand at the minute they look like Ministers infoboxes! I plan to have the relevant Departments logo at the top of each one. I'm new to this so if I've done anything wrong help!!! Thanks.--Nanometre (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but that change wouldn't alter my view that all these templates are misleading and inappropriate, and serve no useful purpose. For a fuller explanation, see my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 29#Northern_Ireland_ministers_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

oops

Edited an archive of your talk page without looking at the notice at the top. Sorry. How on earth do you revive archived discussions anyways? Thanks for responding.74.131.105.46 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just open a new discussion, and add a link to the archived discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Rayment templates

Unresolved

Did I make a mistake on Glynne Baronets? I thought we'd want to have things as templates to have things centralized in case of another page move. Choess (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes :) I was going to msg you, but you beatr me to it.

Did you see the discussion above at #Leigh_Rayment?

Rayment has moved his site, as you are no doubt aware, and all links to the old site are now dead. The templates have been updated to point to the new suite, but when there is a direct link to a specific page, as there was with the Glynne Baronets, it makes more sense to convert it to a link to the new URL for that page rather than just a template pointing at the site's index page.

I'm going to try bot-updating all the specific page links (by converting hem to the format used on Rayment's the new site), and it'd be helpful not to have them all converted to templates in the meantime :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, bot-driver. Thanks. Choess (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot learner-driver, with L-plates battered from the errors, but I think this should be doable :) Fingers crossed ..... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were a driving school, you would be an instructor. Further to the above, can I draw to your attention 2 very similar templates one of which might prefer to be a redirect, namely rayment-b and rayment-bt. I am not feeling bold today. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet has yet another weird format. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has direct links to a Baronets list, a commons list, and a privy council list, which i think are all within the scope I have already identified. I'll try to get a bot on the case over the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now created Rayment-pc which did not previously exist. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Fritzl

This is subject to an afd in which I have voted. In retrospect I wonder if it should be renamed but I am very uncertain what it should be renamed. I remember you cast your analytical ability very effectively in a massacre case a while back and you managed to avoid upsetting anyone. Maybe this is another opportunity for you to apply critical wisdom. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eeeek! Will I hit it lucky twice?

I'll have a go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was WP:SNOWing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article has now been moved per WP:BOLD without consensus while discussion was underway. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The boldness of the move may have been inappropriate, but the discussion at Talk:Fritzl incest case seems to be addressing the issue reasonably constructively, so I hope that a consensus solution will be found. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Amused and supportive

I had to chuckle. The moment the KGVF afd closed "no consensus keep" you did the sensible thing and moved, merged and redirected as if ut had never happened at all. I think you made the right decision. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I probably should just have done that at in the first place rather than AFDing, but the AFD seemed to indicate support for the merger, so it seemed a legitimate response and less bureaucratic than a DRV (the no-consensus closure was just vote-counting). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Glenstal Abbey School references

Hello BHG, Can you please explain how it is possible to reference the material on this page (Glenstal Abbey School) as a huge amount of this info is only stuff that current staff/students/parents know. It is not written anywhere. Thank you. 193.1.100.110 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not written anywhere, then it should be removed from the article. Verifiability is a fundamental principle of wikipedia, and references are essential. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re Kathlutz

Thanks for this. Could you maybe drop a note at the editor's talk page? I could drop off a welcome template, maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the page you created for me. Lots of links to helpful information that I had looked for but did not find when I initially started to add content to the Buster Martin article. It was particular useful for me to read about verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Here's where I have some problems: Buster's biography - apart from the very recent years - is based exclusively on his words or his PR reps' words, as published by UK newspapers and UK TV. His biographical data - birth, marriage, wife, huge number of children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, long military career, including last year's incident where he says that he singlehandedly fought off three attackers late at night - have never been verified by an independent third party. What's astonishing for example is the complete absence of any family member at his 100th and 101st birthday party and at the London Marathon. Yet people - including journalists I guess - use information from this Wikipedia article as if it were fact and propagate it. Is there any way to put a tag or other warning into the article to make this clearer? Sorry if this is not the right place for discussing this issue - if not please point me to the right place. --Kathlutz (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Hockey Union Image & its use

Forgive me for bothering you but I thought you could advise - given your interest in all things Irish? The above symbol was removed yesterday from the Queen's University Hockey Club article. I re-inserted together with what I felt was a reasonable fair use rationale on the image page. The Union is the clubs and the clubs are the Union, so it was my opinion (admittedly) that they (the clubs) could use the symbol of their own organisation. I inserted a request to take any further problems to talk in the edit notes. I was rather quickly reverted (and shouted at!) by the same user. Rather than reverting I would appreciate your view! I must point out that I don't at the end of the day really care if it is there or not as the symbol will soon pass into history with the merger with the Women's Union. My main concern is that if it cannot be there then I will need to remove from all the other articles too. The article as it stands is still a work in progress anyway. ThanksWeejack48 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I really don't know much at all about the details of fair use policy, beyond that it's a difficult area (in that the Wikimedia Foundation has to be tough on this for legal reasons, but that its enforcement is contentious and difficult). May I suggest that you first try to discus with the issue with the editor who reverted, and if the two of you can't reach agreement that you ask User:Carcharoth for help? Carch seems to understand the issues very well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll probably just let it drop, I don't have the time to invest in the area of image copyright and hate the arguments that spiral endlessly on here. A friend of mine invested a lot of time taking photographs for insertion here and finally gave up after continued deletions because his photos also appeared elsewhere! I prefer to continue sourcing the articles I work on.Weejack48 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Silent Cry

I know it's probably not your usual area, but you wouldn't mind having a look at the above page would you? It's an upcoming album, but a tracklisting hasn't yet been released. Thus the only songs listed on it are three which have been confirmed by reliable sources. An anon user (so far using 78.148.101.199, 84.13.114.27, and 78.144.25.55) has been continually inserting a fourth, which they claim to have heard at some "secret album listening party" (example diff), the only reference for which is a messageboard. I've tried to explain to the user the rules about WP:NOR both on their talk pages and on the article talk page, but the user continues to revert, and is now resorting to personal attacks (here, here, and here). Any chance of semi-protection of the page for a few days? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Another IP: 78.150.252.205. Whoever it is is obviously on a dynamic connection. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. I have protected the article for two weeks per Wikipedia:Protection policy. See Talk:Silent Cry for more details. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A tracklisting has been released, would you be able to unlock the page at this stage? (See here.) Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 12:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a separation of powers in these matters, and as the admin who protected the page I prefer to leave it to others to unprotect or to perform a requested it. May I suggest that you use {{editprotected}} to request the change? I know this sounds a bit bureaucratic, but I think it's the fairest way of handling these things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Stroke City

Wow! Not even pre-1972? Thats a bit childish but I suppose everything Northern Ireland is! Thanks for the information I'll remember to keep things neutral.--Nanometre (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that some folks would argue that prefixing the name with "London" was childish, just as others would argue that taking it off was childish, but it's best to avoid such terms when discussing such a sensitive topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

True, although it was changed from Derry to Londonderry in 1603 and it's 2008. I'm not from Derry/Londonderry and thats probably why I don't understand the sensitivity and I'm young so I don't get some Northern Ireland things. You're right, childish wasn't the right word to use. Sorry and thanks for assuming good faith.--Nanometre (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and sorry that my reply came across as rather more growly than I intended :)

There's quite a good article on the name issue at Derry/Londonderry name dispute, which I think summarises things rather well. I think that these symbolic things remain sensitive when the underlying issues are unresolved, and despite the Good Friday Agreement and all the progress since then, there's a long way to go before in Norn Iron before people feel that these historical issues are no longer reflecting their current political issues.

Don't worry too much about not getting it all. Back in the 1970s, when the world's journalists were camped out in the Europa Hotel to film all the bombings, there was a standing joke amongst the journalists that if you thought you understood was happening, it was time to get out.  :)

Tempers can flare on wikipedia about Northern Irish issues, but you are clearly very careful to listen to what's going on and not take offence, so I'm sure you'll do fine. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Londonderry

Just as with the City of Londonderry Grand Orange Lodge, and Derry GAA, the office of Mayor of Londonderry is not affected by WP:IMOS as it refers to an office and not the city it's self. There us a discussion ongoing at Talk:Mayor of Derry on this that has achievied concensus to rename.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Mayor of Derry, noting that the city council website isn't much help. Sometimes, though, I think that a new name for the place should be chosen at random, just so that everyone is equally offended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics in Northern Ireland Councils doesn't work like that. Your opponents must be pissed off much more than you are for something to be worthwhile. At least at Stormont the less sensory aware politicians have minders. Illiterate Cllrs just make fools of themselves and the system.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A long time ago, a senior NI journalist told me that crucial thing to remember about Northern Ireland politics was that a huge number of people get out of bed in the morning with the sole intention that in the course of the day they will find something to be offended about. I think he was probably right, and that taking offence is often at least as strong a motive as causing it.

That's why I think it would be a good idea for the Shaun or Lizzie (or whoever has the power) to rename the town and all its institutions to some bizarre and unpronounceable set of letters. That way, you will all have something to agree on, which would be a thoroughly productive state of affairs :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why some of us try for a while and then give up. I'm around 6 months away from being away from it all. Its a noble cause, I think Blair's final words to the commons were important ones, but its tiring. There are just too many semi literate half wits around to make the pond suitable to swim in. I may return to it, but not for a while.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"some bizarre and unpronounceable set of letters" - or "the Irish language" as it's more commonly known. (note to every flamer that will be MORTALLY OFFENDED, this is a joke) — iridescent 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about English placenames: long collections of letters, many of which are randomly omitted from the pronunciation. Ever tried asking the way to Leominster?

BTW, that's a traditional Northern Irish gambit as a conversation starts to escalate towards a fight: whataboutery. I introduce it here merely to conform to local customs ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Towcester. (Having lived in both Wymondham and Hunstanton I can't really complain...) — iridescent 18:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see your Toaster and raise you a Green Witch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'll trump you with Clitterhouse. For some reason the WP page doesn't give a "correct pronounciation" in this case. Can't think why. — iridescent 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because men have no idea where the place is ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

← We know where it is; we just can't see any reason to go there since it's a bit tricky to find and there are a lot of more interesting places to visit nearby. Is it anywhere near Nether Button. (This map square must have the single highest concentration of ridiculous placenames in the world — "Tongue of Gangsta, near Mid Ho", anyone?) — iridescent 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Climax welcomes careful drivers, just follow that upward pointing arrow...

Last time Mrs Bencherlite and I visited the US, we enjoyed seeing the exit sign on the Interstate pointing to Climax. Even took a photo of it. Maybe next time we'll actually go there. Bencherlite^Talk 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't have that - don't be putting yourself donw;)Traditional unionist (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to visit the adjoining towns of Beaverlick and Big Bone Lick while you're there. No, really. — iridescent 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as well this thread is taking place after the 9pm watershed, or else I would have to censor myself from recalling how the British journalist Andrew Moncur used to wage battle with the typesetters of his Guardian Diary, by referring to the towns Scunthorpe and Penistone as often as possible in the hope that words would be split on the line breaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And being after 9pm, I can also note that the photo suggests that they don't use the missionary position in Michigan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I also note from the photo that you can get to Climax as long as you don't go too fast. Bencherlite^Talk 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you get there if you follow Wan King Path for long enough? — iridescent 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that where Wayne Kerr lives? Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

← No, he lives at the junction of Cumming & Seaman. (I can keep this up all night. So to speak.) — iridescent 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, the Tongue of Westerbister sounds very appropriate for this hour of the night. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it anywhere near Twathats? — iridescent 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Far enough for a man to get lost :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So you won't give me directions from Nob End to Buttock Point? We could end up at Hole of Bugars. Although it might make your Fanny Burn. — iridescent 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not :) The talking heads from a different Hole of Bugars are all talking about surges and collapses, and a Dimbleby is winning my attention :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

←I thought I would return to something serious, and found myself assessing this article ... which unfortunately has been sabotaged, because the NOR rules required the removal of this magnificent paragraph. It's pure genius: the best illustration of a stereotype that I have seen in a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion made me laugh ,i suggest you create a subpage for it and add it to Category:Wikipedia humor ,if you don't i'll be forced to follow Wikipedia:Hold grudges against you all Gnevin (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about POV tags

Hello Grownhairedgirl - replying to your message to me this morning. I am confused. First I want you to take my thoughts here as a desire to understand, not an argument. You wrote:

In particular, do not make accusations that a POV tag has been added "frivolously and/or arbitrarily", as you did not Talk:Finbar Wright; if you had stopped to read the article, the problems would be self-evident. Drive-by removal of tags warning of breaches of a basic wikipedia policy can be viewed as disruptive editing.

On talk:Finbar Wright he writes:

Does this really need to be spelt out before the article can be tagged (and thereby categorised) as being need in need of POV attention?

And yet on template:POV it says quite clearly:

Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute. For suspected POV issues which are not disputed, consider the {{POV-check}} template instead. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for more info.

Place {{POV}} at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article

I'm afraid that I want to do right by WP, and adhere to WP policy, but I am confused. It seems quite clear to me that then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article is pretty well spelled out. I won't quote more passages, but POV also talks clearly about discussion and consensus among editors - ? One of the common issues I have found on discussion pages is the question raised, "Who put that tag, and why? - We have no such issues here."

I do desire to do things properly and with AGF, but I'd appreciate it if you could help me see the light in this seeming contradiction of policy...Thanks.Jjdon (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, POV-check would have been a better template to use, and I have no problem with that being pointed out. My objection is that you said that the tag has been added "frivolously and/or arbitrarily". It wasn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will change that language. It is my feeling that what is pretty clearly written as WP policy - discussion and consensus of editors within a topic - is not just a law-and-order attitude, but the right way to behave in this arena. And in the POV cleanup pages it also states, "If anyone disagrees they can just put it back...." Your point of AGF is well put and well taken, and I do not see this as a personal issue myself. My own feeling is that when Finbar Wright asks, "Does this really need to be spelt out before the article can be tagged (and thereby categorised) as being need in need of POV attention?" That the answer to that re:WP policy is, and should be, "Yes, it does" in order to have that dscussion and consensus. Anyway, just my thoughts. I'll take your advise seriously, and please understand that I have no desire to be disruptive, just helpful.Jjdon (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid that I still think you are missing the point here. This isn't a heavily article with lots of discussion on the talk page; it's a short article which has never been discussed between editors before on its talk. Adding a POV tag without comment to an article with active editors can be disruptive, but the point you are missing is that this article is a blatant hagiography. There's nothing subtle about it, no nuance: it's the sort of thing that is written by a publicity agent, and that breaches the fundamental WP:NPOV policy.

Now, that's the core point here: the issue is the flaws in the article. However, your only concern seems to be that there wasn't a note on the talk page ... in other words, your complaint is about process rather than substance. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but I'm sorry to say that you seem to be approaching this as if it was :( You are still saying that is "policy" that such a note has to be added, but so far as I can see there is no policy which says that. (see WP:POLICY)

You also say

Finbar Wright asks, "Does this really need to be spelt out before the article can be tagged (and thereby categorised) as being need in need of POV attention?"

No he doesn't. I see no evidence anywhere that Finbar Wright says any such thing: I wrote that.

Look, you have only been editing wikipedia for a few weeks. New editors are very welcome, and we have specific policy of not biting newcomers. But I really think that you would be better advised to spend more time editing and creating content and familiarising yourself with wikipedia's conventions (and especially with how editors use them) before setting off to enforce all apparent breaches of what you think is a policy but isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

>in other words, your complaint is about process rather than substance. I get it, and probably this has gone on enough. My "complaint" (wrong word, but close enough) isn't the process, it's the confusion I've seen that it brings without having some. But I will take your words to heart. I've actually been in WP on some level for several years - not quite the newbie, but not an old vet, either. >You are still saying that is "policy" that such a note has to be added, but so far as I can see there is no policy which says that. I use template:pov as a guide - perhaps policy is a strong word. But this is just FYI - I get your point, and I get your point about process/substance. Thanks for illuminating things...Jjdon (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm here, I'll also comment here rather than open a fresh thread elsewhere, as I have a virtually identical concern regarding your removal of the "frivolous and arbitrary" {{pov}} tag I put on the blatantly non-neutral Zlarin. Yes, {{pov-check}} would have been better, but it's virtually defunct, especially given that {{pov}} is the tag FRIENDLY uses. I appreciate you're acting in good faith, and your enthusiasm for the minutiae of the project is welcome, but please familiarise yourself with the way things work here before you start lecturing everyone on how to do their jobs (while editcounting is A Bad Thing, BHG and myself between us have 500 times your number of mainspace edits — I think you can trust us to be familiar with WP policies...) While I don't want to sound too patronising, if you're going to go round citing policy to everyone you probably ought to familiarise yourself with the non-negotiable core policy of WP:IAR and its baby brother, WP:WL. — iridescent 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, BHG - I was led here by a post from Irisdescent on my talk page, so here we are. I'll say to both of you and all that I consider myself spanked. I will say in my defense that I am not WL, am quite AGF and a very rational and reasonable person. My path in this is pretty simple: I would go to a page and find an uncommented tag by someone 200 edits before, who often never returned to the page (in history) again, and editors who were bewildered at what it meant. Since my research into WP:POV and related pages showed me that WP "policy" is otherwise anyway -or so it says - I thought it would be useful to address that. I still do, but I consider myself spanked, and won't continue on that path, or be much more sensitive if I do. I never took the posture that "WP says so, so it must be so" though I can see it might seem so. My feeling is that when WP:POV states that a tag must be documented in the discussion page, that that is good for WP not out of pedantry but because it leaves a paper trail for the future. Anyway, that is only philosophy - I would hope that you can take the "you're acting in good faith, and your enthusiasm" part as being my main motivations. There is much to do in WP, as you know, and I was trying to pitch in. If I perhaps was TOO enthusiastic, then I guess I need to consider myself spanked.Jjdon (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, don't worry about it — iridescent 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seyhan Kurt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Seyhan Kurt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You efforts are indeed very much appreciated! You shown wonderful patience and persistence in maintaining calm in a highly contentious area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer to nominate me for Admin (it isn't the first time someone has suggested it to me ... and I appreciate the vote of confidence each time I'm asked). But, honestly, I prefer to stay a regular old editor. If I ever change my mind, I'll let you know. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

VK's proposed return

Your input and comments are welcome on the talk page here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. Giano (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess tool

BHG, I'm seeking tool techno help. I've been participating in the WPMILHIST Tag & Assess drive, and will start doing the same work for WPBIO. I saw there's a T&A tool (User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js) and I tried to install it on my monoskin. I haven't done something right as the tool doesn't show up when I'm on article pages. I see that you added your name to the list of users for this tool on March 13th. Can you look at my my monoskin and tell me what to change, or refer me to someone else who can help me with this? Thanks (from one BHG to another)! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you haven't filled in the blanks, as it were. Gimme a minute or two, I'm just testing a setup that I hope may work for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, I hope. See reply on your talk. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Technology Barnstar
		Thank you for the fix! The tool works! Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Remembrance Day Bombing

I can't thank you enough for your timely intervention on this article. I would be equally grateful for your opinion on the problem. The link in question is http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Sunday_Tribune/arts2007/oct28_Enniskillen_airbrush__SBreen.php Rather than put words or thoughts forward at this juncture could I ask you to read this reasonably short article and advise me who you think the target of the bomb was? Should your findings not agree with mine then I will voluntarily withdraw from the editing on the article. GDD1000 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that there was an edit war, so I protected the latest version (which inevitably is the wrong version.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get involved in the substance of the dispute. That's what the article talk page is for ... and if that fails, you should try dispute resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that it's the wrong version you've protected. It's the content of my link which seems to be the problem and you're right it is part of an edit war which has spilled over from the Ulster Defence Regiment website. I have mediation going on there so I'll have to wait and see what happens. Thanks for your reply. GDD1000 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your reluctance to become involved it seems you may have been the catalyst for concensus on this matter. I can't thank you enough for that. To paraphrase WSC, It may be the end of the beginning.GDD1000 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I have helped in some way to build a consensus, that will be a successful outcome, but it doesn't look like it's there yet. Good luck to all involved in reaching agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll get there and as the newbie I really appreciate your considered opinion and advice. I hope I can justify the trust you've placed in me.GDD1000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm actually not being particularly trusting of any of the participants in that discussion. That's why I haven't unprotected the page, because there doesn't yet seem to be an actual consensus. I think that a consensus could be found, and I hope you'll all get there, but there's more work to do, and I;m not betting on the outcome. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My intentions are honourable. I'm just stubborn when I think I have justification. I made some mistakes and paid for them but I'm wiser now.GDD1000 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, all of us make mistakes. What matters is how we recover from them :)

I suggest that the ideal outcome of discussion like that one would be to have a fully sourced section on the target of the bombing, in which the positions of the various parties are set out, with appropriate sourced interpretations of the parties' positions. As I have just noted at Talk:Remembrance Day bombing, so far there are only two sources under discussion, which seems completely inadequate for such a widely-reported event. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we could wander into trouble however if we started including too many facts. It would overshadow the intent of the article which is simply to report the bomb in an encyclopedic way. I came across this information when writing an item for the UDR page. Unfortunately I didn't consider that the disagreement from there would spill over into here. Despite sticking up for myself I've really had enough of the bickering and am looking for an easier ride here.GDD1000 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoping we can work together

Hi BHG, Carcharoth pointed out this conversation on your talk page. I had a chat with Brion Vibber last weekend, and he thinks category intersection will be happening fairly soon. Since it is already available in search, I'm hoping we can reach some sort of consensus about a way to create broadly populated categories that can be used both now with search and latter with a full featured version of category intersection. I'd appreciate your opinions about my posting at WT:CAT. I know we've had some different ideas about categorization in the past. If you and I can come up with something we both like, we can probably convince a good many other people. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk block

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.

---

BrownHairedGirl , please undo this block, quickly. You are absolutely the wrong person to block this user. And Vk had agreed not to edit, for now. There was no reason to re-block. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was merely restoring the status quo ante, undoing a unilateral action which pre-empted a decision at ANI. There may well be a decision by the community to lift that block, but until that decision has been made, the block should remain in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There did seem to be an agreement that the unblock was incorrect. BHG seemed to be acting on the decision of a wider community discussion, not acting unilaterally. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete misunderstanding of a consensus based decision. There was not agreement ironed out that either the unblock or the reblock were correct based on consensus. Both were untimely, and ill thought out. Two wrongs do not make a right. That is why we sanction admins for undoing each others actions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo, please re-read what I posted at ANI, where I have shown that there was a consensus that the unblocking was inappropriate while a discussion was ongoing.

Please let's return to discussing the substance of whether or not there is consensus on a set of conditions for Vk's unblocking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I support your block following consensus at AN/I. --John (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 BG(UTC)

I support the idea of putting aside the meta discussion about if there was consensus to unblock or consensus to reblock and pursuing the more productive discussion on what the community expects from VK when unblocked. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider the re-block to have been unnecessary and deliberatly provocative. Vintagekits had agreed not to edit pending terms being discussed, this was a needless act. Giano (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, there was no intention to provoke, and you should assume good faith: I have clearly explained that my intention was solely to restore the status quo ante, and to allow the community to make a decision on whether a conditional unblock was acceptable. The reversal of a premature and unilateral reblock is not needless, it's a matter of allowing discussions to take their course, rather than being bounced into any particular outcome. You clearly disagree with that assessment, but please can you have the manners not to accuse me of intentional provocation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you should have considered the appearance of your actions before taking them. Giano (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, just read WP:AGF. It's not that long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, putting stringent and wikilawyer-proof provisions into place before considering an unblock will actually be in Vk's own interests, as even his supporters acknowledge. Deacon's unblock was premature and disruptive; restoring the block pending real consensus to unblock was a good move and I applaud it. --John (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) BHG, sorry to budge in, but "premature and unilateral" is a summary of my unblock that is inaccurate as well as being unfair. As such it is just like the evidence you posted on AN/I when you announced it, and like your unfortunate and as it turns out ironically clairvoyant accusations of wheel-warring. You also blocked just after I said I could restore the block ... but why did you have to rush things when he'd already promised not to edit? What was the big rush? There were lessons about the unblock that I apparently should learn (not rushing), but you did it and announced it at the same time. I don't think you should be surprised then that there is criticism here, esp. as your actions contradicted your and other people's recommendations to me. I think it would be best if you - esp. having a history of involvement - restore the unblock for present. This isn't personal, and there's no, btw, hard feelings here I hope you understand. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, just read the responses to your unblock. "Premature and unilateral" is a reasonable summary of that discussion.

Now, let's get back to the substantive discussion of whether VK's block should be lifted, and on what terms, from which we were all sidetracked by the premature and unilateral unblocking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd expect repeating these assertions would make any difference. The unblock was performed in reaction to the opinions on a discussion on his page. In that way it was certainly not unilateral and I've not heard any convincing reason why it was premature (though lots have SINCE stated it). It was unilateral in the sense that only I performed it, but that is meaningless as only one person can ever hit the block or unblock button, as you yourself know. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators should not use the tools in ways that likely to cause conflict when other viable ways of fixing a situation exist. Yes, originally many people noticed the unblock and spoke out saying the unblock was premature, but there was not agreement to fix that by reblocking. That is because it is well understood that reversing another admin block or unblock is drama provoking in and of itself. There was no need for an immediate reblock to protect Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim had said that he was reconsidering whether to reblock but wanted more time to decide. Given this, your actions was not based on consensus, and also premature. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can agree that it is best that no further blocking/unblocking should be done until there is a clear consensus and put the whole "who was wrong" game in the closet for a little while. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree that no more blocking and unblocking should be done until Vk and the Community can agree on his status. But discussing BHG actions is a separate issue. Administrators need to get clear feedback when they do something that is problematic. Otherwise they will repeat the mistakes. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo, you have made your view clear, that you are one of the few people who believe that it was a mistake to undo a premature and inappropriate unblock. You're entitled to your view, but now you are not discussing, you are just repeating yourself. It's time to move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators need to discuss their actions. Patiently explain why they used their tools in a particular manner. You did not seem willing to discuss. Instead you wanted to "move on". I want to discuss this with you. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo, I have patiently explained at great length and now my patience has run out. If you still believe that I am spawn of satan for restoring the block pending the outcome of discussions, you are free to open an ANI complaint, but please stop repeating yourself on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Flo is not one of the few. You have made a big mistake, you always seem very keen for others to admit their mistakes, obviously you are not of that inclination. You have abused you tools. Giano (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I heard you first time, Giano, and while I'm always ready to admit my mistakes I simply don't agree that it's a mistake, and you and Flo repeating yourselves like a pair of broken records won't change my mind. If either of you (or anyone else) believes that VK should be unblocked pending the outcome of discussions, go ahead and propose that at ANI, but please stop this repetition here. (I may delete any more of it from you two). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG. I (and others) spent the best part of 6 hours cajoling yesterday behind the scenes trying to hold this together by email, stop the various sides from escalating the meta-discussion, keep the probation discussions on track, and stop someone else from reblocking. Not because it was wrong that Vk be reblocked (quite the opposite), but because for this to have the best chance of working things have to be done the right way. The right way out of this was for Vk to hold off from editing (which to his credit he did) and The Deacon to come around to the community consensus and right his mistake, which he appeared just about to do. The timing of your intervention was unfortunate. Nevertheless, I do understand. I thought it was pretty remarkable that, in the face of such overwhelming opposition to the unblock and The Deacon's apparent dismissal of them, no-one had reblocked for so long. I didn't really expect it top survive that long. I just wish you could have held out a little bit longer, especially when The Deacon had indicated he would reconsider sometime today, the calls for him to reverse his unblocking had increased overnight and Vk has already indicated he would not edit anyway. But whats done is done and at least the status quo has been resumed. My feeling is that this had left some wounds and that there will be more to said about this at a later time - but for the moment I echo your call, one thing at a time and lets focus on Vk's conditions now. Rockpocket 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, you have yet to answer my and other peoples specific concerns. Why was this block needed when Vk had agreed not to edit?

Why did you do it when Deacon of Pndapetzim said that he was considering revering the unblock himself if he did not see support for it?

Why did you do the re-block "yourself" when you are aware that you doing it would cause more conflict than another totally uninvolved administrator?

Why did not you not make a comment about the block and leave it to a completely uninvolved administrator to decide?

You really need to think twice before using your tools. While a block can be easily undone, the damage from a premature and ill thought out use of the tools can not be easily repaired. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FloNight's concerns. Rockpocket and John have been highly uncivil to me for my unblock, which I think given their long history of negative relations is highly understandable. However, they kept their tools to themselves. BHG, in fairness, you were in an extremely delicate situation with a similar history, and using your admin powers to restore this block in that context could be seen to border on abuse, or certainly can be construed as such without stretching the imagination too much. This is in addition to the other particular relevant circumstances outlined above. VK, or any other ordinary user, has to be able to trust the system that hangs over him if you expect him to respect it. Therefore this is not such a distinct issue as all that ... it could be part of it (and arguably admins perceived as being biasedhave been part of it for a while, but that's another matter). If you are not going to overturn your decision, I hope you will at least let FloNight organize some kind of decent way out of this situation and co-operate with her request for discussion if she still regards this as useful. None of us want this situation to take up more time than it has to. Again, no hard feelings I hope. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that Flo is asking questions rather than just saying bad bad bad, I'lla nsxwer them

• Why was this block needed when Vk had agreed not to edit?

Because a) the unblock pre-empted a community decision about whether Vk should be unblocked; b) once it was removed, we only had Vk's word on his conduct, and the whole discusion on conditions would be unnecessary if there wasn't a strong consensus that the community cannot AGF with Vintagekits

• Why did you do it when Deacon of Pndapetzim said that he was considering reverting the unblock himself if he did not see support for it?

Because given the time that had passed since the unilateral and premature unblock, and the ongoing meta-dispute over the unblock, Deacon's statement that he was merely "considering" an unblock offered no hope a prompt end to the meta-debate.

• Why did you do the re-block "yourself" when you are aware that you doing it would cause more conflict than another totally uninvolved administrator?

Any administrator who does anything with regard to Vk automatically gets labelled as partisan. The mud gets thrown regardless of who does it

• Why did not you not make a comment about the block and leave it to a completely uninvolved administrator to decide?

See previous answer

"You really need to think twice before using your tools. While a block can be easily undone, the damage from a premature and ill thought out use of the tools can not be easily repaired."

In response to that, Flo, all I can say is that you can get the hell off my talk page and go and take some basic civility lessons before starting to read WP:AGF. I did think twice, more than twice; I thought long and hard, and concluded that on balance it was the best thing to do in a difficult situation. I was prepared to discuss things, but you still want to snipe by suggesting that an action you think was faulty was the result of some not thinking twice, then you haven't bothered to AGF ... and you can go and talk to yourself somewhere else. I'm not wasting more time on such petty sniping.

I started drafting a long reply to Rock's thoughtful comments before I saw yours, but at this stage I'm not going to post it in public, because if this conversation remains open it will only be abused by folks like you who prefer hectoring and attacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (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.

<ahem> If I post down here in very small letters, perhaps no-one will notice that I'm here. For what it's worth, I think that it was the right decision (and I would support an unblocking); the last thing that's needed is any raising of the temperature, though, which is what the premature unblocking achieved. Sanity prevailed - well done! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia

hey BHG how are you? how long have you been on wikipedia for? Leoenroysh (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Academics?

How is the basketball team in this edit an academics-related page?? Did you intend to write something else instead? Neier (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that everyone knew that Dart Killester only used basketball as a cover for their real work of collectively writing deconstructionist academic papers on 19th-century Argentinian literature, and that they publish it in peer-reviewed journals under pseudonyms culled at random from the 1938 Buenos Aires phonebook? (They are believed to have adopted this cover to avoid any prejudice against intellectual past-times, and retained it because the grants available for sports are much better than those for literary criticism)

Seriously, I'm sorry, that was a clumsy mistake by me. I must have clicked the wrong button on twinkle, and it's now fixed. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrior IP

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I left Sir Fozzie about this last night but I think he might be away. Would you mind reviewing this disruption by User:Edgerunner2005 and the IPs making the same edits--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, but now reviewed.

80.192.60.20 (talk · contribs) had made 6 almost identical reverts over 3 days, the latest after your warning, so I imposed a 24-hour block.

68.2.74.58 (talk · contribs) had made one similar edits, but only one, so no grounds for action.

Edgerunner2005 (talk · contribs) has not broken 3RR, but the edit pattern of this SPA is almost identical to that of the IPs. I suggest that you request a checkuser on all three. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this BrownHairedGirl - much appreciated--Cailil ^talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:80.192.60.20 is back and is pushing again. Here are their recent edits after returning form their block.

• Feminism:[3][4]
• Sexual objectification‎:[5]
• Discrimination:[6]
• And this lovely piece of vandalism to Talk:Feminism/to do:[7]
  

I've opened an RFCU so I'll update you when the results come in--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very clear report. I have blocked the IP for 1 week, since all that IP's edits are vandalism.

Well done opening the checkuser request; it looks like a commendably clear report, and I'll be interested to see the results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this again BrownHairedGirl but it seems the above user is back again as User:80.192.60.134[8][9]. They've also made this very nice post to WP:RS/N about me[10]. I'd appreciate it if you'd have a quick look--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And more[11] and more[12] from 80.192.60.134. Looks like the RFCU came back as "unlikely". 68.2.74.58 might be a proxy - I'll check that out. Other than dealing with 80.192.60.134 I'm going to leave the sock-puppet issue sit unless it continues. If that happens I will then bring it WP:SSP.

As a matter of interest did you get the email I sent a few weeks ago about old (but live) calls for meat-puppets by a leading men's rights activist? If not I'll make a short post about it here--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. While there may be an arguable case for some of the edits, it's not easy to discuss them when the editor concerned jumps between IP addresses and a registered username. There has also been a spate of trivial vandalism to the article Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I have addressed by semi-protecting the page. Let's see how things settle down thereafter.

I did indeed get your email, and I'm sorry for not replying. Every time I read it, I reckoned it needed more thought, so I marked it again as unread, but I should at least have given you an acknowledgement of it. I'll look again now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As regards that email - I'm happy to let the first half (wikistalking etc) lie and see how all that pans out in future. The second half - the meat-puppetry stuff - might be old but I think it could be a factor in cases like the above IP. Especially the targeting of myself and of WP:GS--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think BrownHairedGirl does this look like my friend is back?--Cailil ^talk 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what on earth to make of that. The comment hardly makes sense, but it the only edit by SorsImmanis1 (talk · contribs), so I'd be inclined to just ignore it unless there is more from that quarter.

It does rather remind me of the time last autumn when I had a barrage of meatpuppets of Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) coming here to post abuse in response to his mass emails denouncing me in all sorts of terms; some of the posts were more weird than abusive, like this one you received. Amyway, they eventually stopped.

Sorry I can't offer any more helpful suggestions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah it's okay, I've been getting hang-up phone calls tonight and text messages (from unknown numbers) that just say "hello" - so I'm a little on edge. In this case I could be wrong about it being the above IP - SorsImmanis1 has a myspace page[13] and he's German - so either he's a different person or he's using proxies or he's somehow connected to one of my adopted Trolls.

I don't know how you find it these days but I've been dealing with trolling since I started whacking moles on WP in early 2007 but since November (and all its drama) the level of trolling has just gone through the roof. Every week I see, or hear about, another sysop who's sick of the drama. Sooner or later the community will need to address this issue - WP is an encyclopedia, it isn't Bebo or Livejournal--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that community is slowly moving in that direction — arbcom is now getting a wee bit tougher — but it's far too slow for my liking.

I'm horrified, though, to hear that you are getting harrassed in real life, and I quite understand that you must be feeling on edge. How horrible :(

The community doesn't presently appear to have any mechanism for dealing with this, and maybe in the end it is the sort of thing that has has to be a police matter, but I'm hearing too many accounts of this for my liking. Wikipedia really does need to step up its own response to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(out dent) *Sigh* Yeah, I'm back about this again. It seems my first gut reaction was correct. This from SorsImmanis1[14][15] is exactly the same as the IPs. It seems Edgerunner2005 was just an opportunist troll and is unrelated to SorsImmanis1 but the IPs are something else. Any advice?--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC) BTW can you see a justification for the tags that SorsImmanis1 added to Feminism?--Cailil ^talk 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Cailil, and I'm overstretched and I just don't have the energy to add anything sensible here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All things come to those who wait[16]. I'd like to run through the evidence of disruption here quickly. 80.192.60.20 blocked for vandalism on April 24. Returned and blocked (for a week on April 25th). A checkuser declares 80.192.60.20/80.192.60.134 obviously the same person[17]. On April 29th 3-4 days into their block they created SorsImmanus1 to block evade[18]. They then waited until their account matured and thus by-passed semi-protection and have continued to perform the same edit as the IPs[19] and have since been trolling talk feminism. The account revealed their IP here. Is there anything that can be done about the fact that this account is created to evade a block, to game semi-protection and is actively povpushing?--Cailil ^talk 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like this case is closed ... for now[20]. Thank you for your help, advice and patience with all of this--Cailil ^talk 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I retrieve webpages?

Thank you for your earlier help. I cannot figure out how to set up references to webpages so that I get the publisher and the date I retrieved the page. For example I want a footnote to look like this:

"Myanmar: Death toll more than 15,000'. CNN. May 5, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-05-05".

How do I get the "Retrieved on 2008-05-05" bit? --Kathlutz (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See Template:cite news. Just fill in the fields, and all should work.

e.g. {{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/somestory |title=Myanmar: Death toll more than 15,000 |publisher=CNN |date=[[May 5]], [[2008]] |accessdate=2008-05-05}} will produce this output:
"Myanmar: Death toll more than 15,000". CNN. May 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So I have to fill in everything myself, including access date etc.? I thought there was some mechanism to have this done automatically. --Kathlutz (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not -- it's all manual. You could use {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2}} to generate the date, but that's a lot more typing than just writing the date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

5 tildes (~~~~~) will automatically insert today's date. — iridescent 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea in theory, but 5 tildes creates this: 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

... which is the wrong format for the accessdate field, which is supposed to be in YYYY-MM-DD format (see the instructions at Template:cite news). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well... doesn't take that long to type the date... — iridescent 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing a dead conversation - but there's now a ticky-box under "gadgets" on preferences, that adds a "cite" button - when you click it, it fills out the access date (among other things) automatically — iridescent 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's a wonderful gadget, and well worth waking the dead for :) Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sean O'Rourke

Hi, I'm a little confused by the message you left on Sean O'Rourke. I thought that the best way to verify that he was a journalist at RTÉ was to go to the RTÉ site and see that he's listed as a journalist there. I understand that it's often better not to use sources affiliated with the subject, but I would have thought that for something like this (Does he present the News at One, or not?) a simple check of the site is the most reliable way, better even than finding a third party. If you have a minute, could you explain to me what you would consider a good source here? Thanks! FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

There's no prob at all with adding a reference to the primary source (and it's probably a good idea), but the problem is that this article has nothing other than primary sources. If the only coverage of Sean O'Rourke is in primary sources, then the article fails WP:BIO, and should be deleted as non-notable.

As to where to look, I'd suggest newspapers. You could try a Google News search, though it doesn't include all papers, so it's best to try the newspaper website directly -- http://www.tcm.ie, http://www.independent.ie, http://www.ireland.com etc. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

I wondered if I could bother you for some background, as it seems I got dragged into the subject I tend to avoid (It makes the Irish and English parts of me glare at each other). Is there any kind of strong 'rawr' feeling over the use of Ireland/RoI, I mean, since Ireland/RoI gave up claim to NI, arn't all the horses dead and buried in the race? Narson (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In that race, horses are never buried :(

I gotta go out now, but I'll reply later tonight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG you never go out. I don't think I've ever logged on and not seen you turn up somewhere. — iridescent 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all tricks with mirrors :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. Having read over the history of this (rather idiotic) debate this morning....y'think I can deny my Irish ancestry, hand in my British passport and just declare myself to be french or something? Narson (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't be first to want to want that. But I think that most nationalities carry their own bits of idiocy, and the French have their moments too. On the other hand, they do have the all-time-best national anthem :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The german one isn't too bad, the only perk of Schumacher winning so much was I got to listen to that :) Well, thanks for the patience and hopefully this will all settle down. I am still suprised to see an Irish editor with their head over the parapit, I've got so used to dealing with a select group of Irish editors who generally decide to push an anti-British POV on Falkland articles that I was starting to lose my good faith. I thank you for restoring it. Narson (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:UserTalkReplyhere

This template is a great idea, but it tends to appear on top of some text at the bottom of my talk page. Take a look at my talk page as it is now. If the window is large it is OK, but if you make Firefox smaller it overlays the text. I can not see a way of fixing this. Can you? --Bduke (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried {{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=yes}}, as documented at Template:UserTalkReplyhere? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just realized that it is only with "cat=yes" that this happens. With no cat parameter it is fine, if I comment out the stuff that puts a cat on my talk page, which I probably should not have anyway. --Bduke (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you using Internet Explorer? ISTR a few glitches with that browser, which I didn't pursue. If you want to experiment, you could just subst the template and try tweaking the bottom position until it works for you. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am using Firefox. I tried subst'ing earlier and playing around, but I got nowhere. I just do not understand the code. It has to be in the ifeq clause. What do 5em and 1em do? Actually I did not try tweaking that clause, but I still really do not know where to start. Where is ifeq documented? I can not find it. Thanks for your help. Maybe I'll just have to remove the category. I do not really need it. --Bduke (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ifeq is a parserfunction, documented at m:Help:ParserFunctions. However, that's not really the issue here: the ifeq just says

If cat=yes, then use the css bottom: 5em

otherwise bottom: 1em

The "bottom" is a CSS property, which is defined here. If you are not familiar with CSS, beware: some people find the concepts which underly it quite difficult to understand, and while I;m sure you'd get there, it might be a lot of work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that explanation. If the 5em used if cat=yes is changed to 4em, then it only overlaps a little with the last line of text and it is still readable. If it isvchanged to 3em it does not overlap with the last line of text, but overlaps with the top line of the category box. I recommend changing it to 4em. --Bduke (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Clare Short

Hi again BHG. I do not think that this is an adequate reference for the subject belonging to the category you restored. Please find a better reference or, per WP:BLP, remove the unsupported category. Thanks. --John (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John, what's going on here? I noticed on my watchlist that you were depopulated a whole categtory on the grounds that it was "unverifiable", and I was doing some expoloration of the extent of this before messaging you to ask you to stop. The reference I cited is to The Independent, a respected English newspaper, and it says clearly of Frank Short that

His father and Ms Short's father - who is from Crossmaglen, across the border in Co Armagh - were brothers.

So we have a clear ref in a national newspaper that Clare Short's father is from Crosmaglen. In what way is this inadequate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You'll wish to read Wikipedia:Categorization of people; the key test is whether the person's ethnicity is relevant to their notability. In this case I do not believe that the reference establishes this. If you disagree, let's go to Talk:Clare Short, ok? --John (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a wind-up? Before 1997, Clare Short was famous for two things; the anti page 3 campaign, and parliamentary support for Troops Out. Of course being from Crossmaglen is relevant to her career. — iridescent 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) For goodness sake, John, hold on -- this is much wider than Clare Short. Clare Short's Irishness has frequently been a factor in her political career, and the same goes for Kevin McNamara, who you also removed from the category even though he is best known as Labour's Northern Irish spokesperson who was sacked by Blair for being too nationalist.

Please repopulate the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Please provide proper references or undo your edits. Thanks. --John (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't know what your game is here, but it only took a few seconds for a google search to throw up plenty of references. There is no WP:BLP issue here (being of Irish descent is not a form of criticism), and the edit summary you added about this being "unverifiable" is patently false, as you could have determined with a moment's checking. Only controversial or disputed points need to be removed if unreferenced; are you seriously disputing that Clare Short was a supporter of Troops Out?

I don't know why you are doing this, whether it's vandalism of POV-pushing or what, but it's definitely an abuse of AWB. I am very surprised and disppointed that an admin should be doing this, and since you don't want to be sensible I'll now take this to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; I am confident that I am in the right. Maybe think a little before you go to a central venue on this one, as I'd hate to see you looking silly. I'm going out for the next few hours. See you then. --John (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, what do you imagine the relevance of Short's support of Troops Out would be to her having Irish ethnicity? The category I removed was not [[Category:Supporters of Troops Out]]. I'd be pleased if you could withdraw your angry words above; my edits (which involved a great deal of work, and were discussed at the category talk page) were done with the good of the project in mind. We cannot in good conscience ascribe living people an ethnicity, whose only connection with Ireland is having an Irish surname. 90% of the entries I removed were like that. If someone's ethnicity is important and significant, it will be easy to find reliable sources stating why it is important and significant, if the reliable sources cannot be found, the category does not belong in the article at all. Just basic WP:V. I'm really surprised you don't see that. --John (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ballard Long

Hi,

The discussion page for this article appears to be corrupted, at least when I view it; as you seem to have been the last to alter it I wonder if you could work out what has gone wrong - me I'm a computer illiterate ;) so have no chance.

Urselius (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edit didn't cure the problem, and a bit if testing showed that it's some obscure bug in {{WPMILHIST}}, which has decided to have a fit if given a class=start parameter. I can't see what's causing it, but have left a note for the military history project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I don't mean to stir things up, but how did Wikipeire manage to get this discussion to mediation when as far as I can see the vast majority did not want it? --Jack forbes (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not stirring ... the strirring is Wikipéire's relentless campaign. That case is not actually at mediation, which a formal step in the dispute resolution process, it's just at the Mediation Cabal, which is an informal process.

If anyone pops in to mediate, they can mediate between Wikipéire (talk · contribs) and himself :)

The mediation request is actually rather funny, because since Wikipéire possesses The Truth, any solution which doesn't produce The Truth as the outcome is obviously flawed. What he really wants is arbitration, but there is no arbitration for content.

One of these days, I'm sure that someone will open an RFC/U on Wikipéire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You only have to take a look at the Scotland and Wales page to see what kind of guy he is! I've already left him a message on his talk page that thank god he is not a typical Irishman, and if he was my Grandparents would turn in their graves(they came from bray). Might sound cruel, but I don't really care. --Jack forbes (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there has been so much distressing stuff in Ireland (not all of it arising from the 800-year tangle with our nearest, and much larger, neighbour) that most Irish graves see a lot of spinning :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I fear that Scotland and Ireland have much in common. Unfortunately many of my countrymen were used or were too happy to take part in some things I am ashamed of. Thats the problem with being a proud Scotsman with mostly Irish blood, but things are changing in Scotland! --Jack forbes (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Things are changing in Ireland too. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Ooops! Sorry about that. Fergananim (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to do was broaden the range, as it were, of the articles. The more categorys they are listed in the less chance they remain obscure names and dates. Did'nt think of the problem inherent; sorry for putting you through so much work! Fergananim (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure you were acting in good faith! And there are a lot of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and conventions to get used to :)

The problem is that the more articles which are included in a category as well as sub-category, the harder the categories are to use, and it also creates category clutter on articles. I quite appreciate you wanting to raise the prominence on articles you have worked on, but if that approach was applied to all Irish biographical articles, we'd have about 15,000 articles in Category:Irish people, so it would be self-defeating. The best way to increase the prominence of an article is by appropriate interlinking.

Anyway, your work had a very beneficial side-effect, because it prompted me to do a big clearout of Category:Irish people, which didn't just include the articles you had added; I dispersed lots of other articles to the appropriate sub-categories. So it's a win-win all round :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice and assistance

Hi, I don't think we've had reason to communicate before now, but I see you are very active in a lot of articles I have in interest in, and you are an admin. My edit history shows that I look at articles that use the term British Isles, and where it is used incorrectly or inappropriately, I correct it. I assure you, there's no anti-British agenda, and my edit record shows that a very very high proportion of my edits remain. I'm always happy to discuss my edits, and give the logic and reasons behind each edit. If I get it wrong, I apologize and move on. But as I said, most of the time, I'm right. There was an RfC some time ago on this same issue, and it fizzled out but generally upheld that I was editing in good faith and that my edits were fine. Recently, there's been a number of incidents involving a user, TharkunColl, who has been blindly reverting my edits without discussion or explanation. I reported an incident at ANI, but nothing was done as it was deemed a content dispute (although I'm still puzzled as to this being a reason to OK his behaviour). Today, Tharky has done the same thing. There are a couple of threads on his Talk page and my Talk page.

So, can you take a neutral look? Let me know if I'm being an ass or if (as I feel) some editors are trying to bully me from performing perfectly legit edits. I'm not trying to drag you into this, although I would welcome your involvement. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG for your info (if you're not already aware) this sorry saga has already been the subject of an RFC. — iridescent 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, with respect, I had already mentioned the RfC, and the previous sorry saga appears to have escalated - probably because the result of the RfC upheld my edits and showed that my behaviour was in good faith (and still is). I'd like to point out that there are 3 separate things going on here, and it is best to treat them separately while understanding the connections.

• Recently, there has been an escalating campaign by many editors to stop Bardcom - even though they don't try to (can't) fault his edits. Several anon IP addresses have been involved, and a number of brand new editors have appeared that are taking an interest. Several anon IP addresses were blocked for blindly reverting...
• Bardcom is examining articles with the term "British Isles" and changing those articles that he believes are using the term incorrectly. Is this wrong? Is his behaviour against policy? Are his edits bad? Is he being abusive/aggressive? etc.
• Tharky is blindly reverting Bardcom's edits without discussion or explanation. Several times. I've tried to discuss edits, etc, but Tharky just keeps on reverting.

I requested neutral advice because I respect the Wikipedia community and would like to avoid an edit war. I am trying to be reasonable, and I recognize that sometimes it takes an outside view to advise. --Bardcom (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Bardcom for your question and to Iridiscent for the link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom. If this isn't resolved it may be time for an arbcom case, but I don't want to try to be a one-woman arbcom :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. I respect your decision. --Bardcom (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just happened to see this- is this lot forum shopping again, they have turned up on WP:AN because they weren't happy with the responses they got on WP:ANI.Merkin's mum 23:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, probably more a case to say that you've turned up again. And again, with nothing useful or helpful to add to the discussion. But I suspect you're probably being entertained or getting a kick out of it. Funny how I ask one neutral for advice, and two editors pop in with nothing helpful to say. --Bardcom (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was here because brownie posted to my talk page about an unrelated matter- see below.:) Merkin's mum 23:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite my inclination to keep out, I did take a quick look at a few recent edits by TharkunColl (talk · contribs), and I can see that there are grounds for concern there. This edit replaces a link to an article on people with a link to a geographical article, which in the context seems strange, and I see some similar troubling edits.

However, I also see a series of edits in which you have reverted Tharkuncoll's edits as vandalism, which they clearly were not. For example, you may have grounds for questioning the appropriateness of this edit by Thark, but you were wrong to revert it as vandalism (see WP:VANDALISM#What_vandalism_is_not). Using vandalism as a label in a dispute like this doesn't help.

You really both need to cool the rhetoric and try a centralised discussion on this, or you are both likely to end up at arbcom on conduct grounds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. I marked them as vandalism because they fell under the category of "sneaky vandalism" - reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.. Remember, this was after close to 30 reverts by Tharky the previous day, and I opened an AN/I thread and he started to discuss his reasons. He then chose to continue his disruptive behaviour with fresh articles. Actually, I still believe I would mark them as vandalism. He has since started to give reasons in his edit summaries. On a related issue, this is the 2nd time that someone has used the phrase to cool the rhetoric. I try to take great care that I assume good faith and keep my cool - I do not believe I have posted any heated rhetoric (although it can get very tempting at times). Can you point out somewhere? Finally, you say we may both end up at arbcom - I feel like I'm going round in circles sometimes while trying to get a "fair" hearing and some "neutral" advice. I'm not breaching any policies, I'm remaining very civil, I'm always assuming good faith, my edits are good, I don't vandalize. Yet other editors and admins appear to assume that I must be doing something wrong since there is such activity on my Talk page - and yet despite this, my edits are still good and still holding up, I still remain civil, etc. I was hoping that a new admin, who is neutral, would give me a fair crack of the whip. I'm not looking for an admin to come wading into the middle of this issue and scold the bullies, I'm looking for feedback, and advice. Perhaps a public forum like this isn't the place - feel free to mail me if that is appropriate. And thank you for taking the time to look at the edits. --Bardcom (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brownie

I was in Brownies and guides but had to leave both because I was bullied lol. Your suggestion 1.5 is good, but it looks like 1. will go ahead- I don't know VK's work much or the stuff involved. He must be popular with some people at least for people to be doing all this for him- not the average blocked user. Merkin's mum 23:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor you, I hope that bullying didn't leave too many scars. :(

I think you may be right that option 1 will proceed, but we'll see; the discussion still has a bit to run yet. Yes, Vk is popular with some, but also v unpopular with others, partly because a lot of his editing involved articles relating to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, where attitudes tend to be polarised and passions run high. Vk did some very[] good editing, but also indulged in some outrageous misconduct, so the polarisation of opinion is not solely on political lines. Anyway, if we can all draw a line under it all, it'll be a big step forward. :) Fingers crossed! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had a lot of bullying- yes I was scarred for life maybe lol but perhaps got some (usually imperceptible) positive qualities from it, you never know.:) Editing articles such as those wouldn't be my idea of fun lol. Hopefully Vk's being banned from them will be better for any stress or blood pressure he might ever have, as it would be for anyone.:) I can't understand people who fight on wiki for fun, some people genuinely seem to enjoy it (this wasn't aimed at the lot above, but in general) for instance some people are nearly at 3RR limit every day, and stuff like that. It would be healthier for them if they took up airsoft or something instead.:)Merkin's mum 23:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I've been meaning to drop you a line at some stage to say how thoughtful I found your commentary on (what we might call) 'the Vintagekits situation'; not just recently, but in past discussions - it's been consistently precise, humane (always a plus), and usually you manage to illuminate some over-looked aspect. (The Gilbert O'Sullivan, however, might have been a bit too far!)

Yesterday, in preparing my response for the WP:AN/I discussion, I had been looking back over those past discussions (in particular this one - it repays reading today). As I wrote on WP:AN/I, to me the single most serious aspect of this case is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. If it is ever traced back, whoever the perpetrator is should face instant banning; no ifs, no buts. Frankly, I think Rockpocket has done a magnificent, and wholly under-appreciated job; I also think that, although he's had plenty of support from you and the other 'involved Admins', he's been precious little from the ArbCom itself or, indeed, some of the cheerleaders involved in this issue.

Re-reading my submission, it does seem pretty harsh and fixated on 'ancient history' (ie. the events of the last six months), and I rather regret that tone. That said, and I'm sure that I don't need to provide you with diffs, since the ArbCom the two sides have managed to keep apart from each other: the canard, which has been repeated by both Vintagekits and Giano, that I and the rest of 'the Kittybrewster axis' have been winding-up Vintagekits (and that this somehow justifies his behaviour) is demonstrably false, because since the ending of the ArbCom case we have all been very careful to keep apart from each other.

I've now edited the post; however I do still see Option 1 as a climb-down; there's been no punishment for his sock-puppetry and multiple voting: he will have got away with it. This hardly sends a message to behave well in the future and nor does it support other editors who have behaved themselves. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may post here to shed some light on this matter. The harassment that I have experienced is a serious matter. It is to me, anyway, and in more general terms the problem of editor harassment is something we as a project are failing to address adequately. My experience is actually rather tame compared with what some editors have, and continue to put up with all because they contribute as a volunteer to this great project. I believe it is only a matter of time until things get out of hand and wiki-harassment turns into something more serious for someone. When that happens, I expect we will begin to see moves to address this problem. But there are efforts behind the scenes to help, and if someone is suffering from harassment then they should let someone know about it (email me, if there is no-one else).

That said, there is no way one can prove involvement of Vk or any current editor in the anonymous harassment of me. The only person (or people) that can reveal that information are simply not going to. We are therefore left with the balance of probabilities. But as Vk repeatedly points out, even if he is entirely uninvolved, the finger would get pointed at him and the real culprit would be well aware of that. So does that make it more or less likely that he is innocent or guilty?

From my point of view, it really isn't worth making an issue out of it any more because it simply can't be resolved. Moreover presenting all the evidence for the community to draw their own conclusion would mean revealing the personal information publicly, which was the goal of the harassment in the first place. The best I can do is for the harassment to stop, and that appears to have happened (though I can't be sure, due to the nature of some of the tactics).

Very likely as a consequence of all this, certain other "campaigners" have taken an interest in me. Therefore its no great revelation for me to tell you that my occupation is as a researcher. And, one of the good things about being a researcher is that I am pretty good at researching: finding, collating and connecting information, understanding probabilities and putting them all together to understand how things happen. Therefore I am pretty confident that I now know roughly how this happened and who is behind it. That is going to stay off-wiki for now, though if you would like more information feel free to email me. Would I like some "natural justice"? Sure. But I'd rather look at the bigger picture. The person (or people) do not hate me. They hate what I represent. And I am a willing representative of a system that is flawed with its own inherent biases. So if we can resolve some of the issues that contribute to that, then things can improve for everyone.

I really appreciate, Major, that you see how unfair our system can be and, particularly that you are willing to speak up for me. But you are fighting something pretty fundamental: that Wikipedia is a left-leaning institution. We, as a community, are not about punishment or ensuring people have paid for their transgressions. If we can ensure that they will not happen again then whether someone has gotten away with it doesn't really matter. If Vk is back editing then I'm pretty sure my personal issues will not continue, if only because there is no longer a fall guy to take the heat.

So, this is a very long winded way of saying I don't believe my problems should be a central issue to the debate. Vk has a documented record of harassment under his own name. When presented, that wasn't sufficient for ArbCom to block him at the time. So my feeling is that if editors take that behaviour into consideration and still decide to !vote to unblock, then it doesn't really matter whether there was additional harassment or not. Rockpocket 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for taking up so much of your Talk page, BHG, but just to wrap up this thread - ) To come back on a couple of points; to be fair to him, Vintagekits has always denied being responsible for the harassment. I don't know the details of it, nor do I particularly want to, but it rather seems to be an example of a teenage 'good idea at the time' as opposed to something more deeply unpleasant - I hope so, anyway.

I agree with you that 'something needs to be done' to protect editors, although that's going to be difficult to arrange. There's a case in the UK at the moment (Girl gang killed neighbour with 'internet' bomb) which I can just see being repeated between rival Wikipedia editors.

Finally, there's nothing particularly wrong with being 'left leaning' (although I probably sway a bit more the other way!); in particular, the 'letting bygones be bygones' characteristic is an attractive one. Ultimately, as I wrote on Bielle's page, the policy ought to be to encourage good editors and try to remove or reform unpleasant or disruptive ones: time will tell! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - the other thing that I find badly-organised is the way in which ArbCom hands down its decision and then provides no support or other monitoring; it's just dumped on the Admins to deal with as best they can. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

So, when are you going to warn Snappy for continuous breaches of WP:CIVIL? Or is it only me and some other like-minded editors are expected to be civil? (As I have stated before, Wiki-civility is simply a tool used to attack those the Admins would seek to supress). Also; it does take two (at least) to edit war - so why are we not pointing this fact out to the other warrior? Sarah777 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, if you want to make a complaint, please can you provide some links and/or diffs rather leaving me to guess?

However, I presume that you are referring to the discussion at Template talk:Irish_states_since_1171#Correction_to_template. You posted there yesterday to "ask Snappy not to start edit-warring" ... and I responded by pointing out that it takes two to edit war.

So why are you complaining that I didn't point this out? That's exactly what I did. You were both edit-warring, but you were the one who chose to complain about it, so the observation was inevitably in a reply addressed to you.

As to WP:CIVIL, I have read and re-read the section. Frankly, if any warnings are due, they are due to both you and Snappy; both of you for edit-warring, you for pushing your POV as the only legitimate one, and deriding anything else as non-neutral. You goaded Snappy into sarcastically calling you "petal", so maybe Snappy deserves a warning for that ... but frankly, rather than cluttering up both your talk pages with warnings, I prefer to hope that you can start actually discussing things. So far you are the only editor seeking one outcome, and three editors agree on another. A majority isn't always right, but simply telling the others that their view is an "error" does not help build consensus.

WP:NPOV says that "policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly", and if the template cannot accommodate the different points of view, then the template fails WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly correct. It does fail WP:NPOV. Isn't that what I'm saying? "You goaded Snappy into sarcastically calling you 'petal' " - I'd have to quibble with that as from my perspective he was goading me. But I'm currently ungoadable. Sarah777 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael McGlynn biog

Hi BHG

I see you've put some useful remarks about our badly written article on Michael McGlynn - I've removed the Peacock Terms... and accidently your notification of them. Apologies for my lack of wikiliteracy... To add to this I have cleaned up the article and added a discography. Please feel free to suggest further changes and modifications as you see fit.

thank you for all your hard work.

Lucy Anuna (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian Cowen

Hi BHG i know you had a good reason to revert here [21] but i honestly can't see the difference. Can you clarify for me and did you mean too remove {{Navboxes}} also ? Gnevin (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff of my revert doesn't show a removal of {{Navboxes}}; maybe some other editor did that? (tho it still seems to be there, as I think it should be)

Anyway, the effect of the revert was to restore day-first date format ("10 January 1960" rather than "January 10, 1960"). That can be overridden in Special:Preferences (see the date and time tab), and I think that if you have that tab set to a particular format, you'll see no effect. I have set it to "no preference", so that I can see how the dates appear to unregistered readers, who I presume are the overwhelming majority (and even if they ain't, we are creating this for readers, not for us editors!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had intended to add the df switch when I created the template but the then got lazy, thanks for giving me the kick up the ass too finish it off Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't intend any sort of kick, let alone to your poor donkey :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

revert -- Template:bda does the same job with simpler markup, so there is less chance of it being broken) I don't really understand , do you simply prefer the bda template due to less fields in it? Gnevin (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the simpler markup: {{bda|1960|01|10|df=y}} versus {{BDA|B|1960|01|10|{{`}}|{{`}}|{{`}}|df}}.

So far as I can see, both produce the same output (" (1960-01-10) 10 January 1960" versus "{{BDA|B|1960|01|10|'|'|'|df}}"), so why use a template which requires all those extra brackets and ticks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because {{BDA}} ,requires knowledge of just one template to cover every BOD and DOD possibility {{BDA}} uses {{bda}} so the outputs are the same. so when some one passes on you just the add the DOD details such as

{{BDA|B|1960|01|10|2008|5|12|df}}

{{BDA|B|1960|01|10|2008|5|12|df}}

{{BDA||1960|01|10|2008|5|12|df}}

{{BDA||1960|01|10|2008|5|12|df}}

The {{`}} isn't required it only helps with the spacing 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Has that clarified the template for you ? Still have objects to adding to Cowen? If so not to worry Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cowen doesn't appear to be likely to die soon, and when he does the article will get plenty of attention, so I wouldn't worry about that. In the meantime, the collection of null templates as parameters merely adds complexity to the markup, increasing the possibility that someone will inadvertently break the template (as well as looking ugly).

So yes, I do object to adding it. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've said the null templates aren't required just help the spacing ,

{{BDA|B|1960|01|10||||df}}

, will give {{BDA|B|1960|01|10||||df}} but ok no worries Gnevin (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD question

Hi, BHG. Is it permitted to post a neutral 'please see here' message on the talkpages of users who've voted on a previous AfD for a particular article (I'd be posting to all participants, for and against) - or is that a breach of WP:CANVAS? Thanks, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as the message is neutral in both content and in distribution, that's fine, and I think it's actually a good thing to do.

A "please vote to delete this rubbish" would be unacceptable no matter what the circulation list ... and a message sent only to selected participants would be unacceptable no matter what the content ... but a neutrally-worded "see this AFD" is fine if sent to all participants in a previous AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot requests

Responded on Bot Requests. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. Betacommand is basically right, you were making it more complex than it needs to be :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. He's normally right. :P Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to delete the new redirect template Template:Wikiproject Ireland after Steve is finsihed as he now is. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The redirect is now an ex-redirect, it is no more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we also delete the templates Template:Irelandproj & Template:WPIRELAND now that they are empty and don't want to have any more redirects. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that {{WPIRELAND}} should stay, for the benefit of editors who are used to that format of project banner name. I queried it when it was created, but I found Badagnani's response persuasive.

If we delete {{Irelandproj}}, we'll break a lot of links in talk archives: see this list.

So long as we do the occasional check on the list of transclusions for for Irelandproj and for for WPIRELAND. I think that the benefits outweigh the downsides. Does that make sense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope someone remembers to check. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally take a peep every month or two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assessing the Sermons page. I still need to add a few more resources. After that, I will try to put up some pages for Swift's "Irish tracts" and then one on the other Irish pamphlets. Also, work on Molyneux. That way, there will be a greater resource on early Irish constitutional independence movements for those interested in Irish history. By the way, The Drapier's Letters is up for FA review. There are some complaints by some grammarians to specific parts, but you might be interested in checking out the page and/or commenting on the Feature Article Review. Ottava Rima (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 14 April 2008.