User talk:BrownHairedGirl

09:34 Thursday 23 May 2024

Archives January 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2006 October 2006 —January 2007 January 2007 —March 2007 March 2007 —

Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl)

• Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:

• sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
• indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)

Wikipedia Admin

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my request for adminship in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have administrator powers on Wikipedia. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why ... and I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

DEFAULTSORT

Thank you for adding {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} to the following articles:

• Elijah Embree Hoss
• Arthur James Moore

It is a neat feature, and I plan to start using it. --Kevinkor2 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! BTW, I found a neat script which helps in converting existing category entries to use DEFAULTSORT: User:DStoykov/defaultsort.js. It creates a new "defaultsort" tab at the top of the page you are editing; when you click that tab, if all the categories are indentically indexed, it creates the DEFAULTSORT entry.

To use it, to just edit your monobook.js page and insert the following line:

importScript('User:DStoykov/defaultsort.js');

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've just been using DEFAULTSORT for some of the children's author pages I've been working on - it's brilliant - thanks for doing Eleanor Farjeon, who is on my watchlist, so that I discovered the script when I looked through your talk page. I've also, thanks to your reply to Kittybrewster changed my signature to look a bit like yours. I'd also like to have the script to let people leave a message for me on my talk page that I've just used to get to this editing screen - seem to have seen something like it on other user talk pages - is it somewhere easily accesible, or can I copy it from your talk page??? Anyway, a BIG thankyou from me for making my Wiki-ing a little easier ... Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS have moved my comment to here as realised I'd duplicated the heading, so the request for the edit screenspace code may seem odd here - I'd still like to know how to get it, though! --Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

James Fall

Please improve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cfd on Category:People executed by Italy

Hi, I noticed your comment on the discussion about renaming that category, and I don't know if you noticed, but Category:People executed in the United States remains under its current name, despite having a speedy tag for several days. I'm not sure if it should be renamed since there is a different between a federal execution and an execution by a state, but I don't think that tag should be sitting around forever. Mister.Manticore 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

[1] Michael G. Davis 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Return of the return of Pastorwayne

For your information, a couple of new categories created by Pastorwayne have landed at WP:CFD (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17). It may be worth discussing category creation with Pastorwayne again. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also noted. Let's see how the discussion turns out. I'd like to see what the community consensus is about these categories, before we decide that he's far afield of the category creation rules. - jc37 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well!

That went well. — scribblingwoman 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not particularly, no, but I do not appreciate the snide remarks. If people are interested in disussing the matter at hand without invoking ad hominems, I'm all ears. >Radiant< 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness to all, it was a bugger of an issue. BrownHairedGirl, I've now seen your now deleted message to me, I hope my contribution at User_talk:Radiant! is sufficient response. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey, Radiant! Like I said in response to your message on my talk page, I don't think anyone was being snide or ad hominem. Yes, Ben, it is a buggar of an issue (glad you didn't say "b*tch." ;-) — scribblingwoman 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Scots-Irish?

Are you Scots-Irish? (I ask because of your comment at WP:CFD.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually describe myself a common-or-garden Western European mongrel; my ancestors have been evicted from enough countries to make a rather good travelogue. But there's a fairly high dose of Scots-Irish in there, which I suppose is why I do have a bit of a fascination with how Scots-Irish culture developed in the USA. There are some bizarre twists to it all, such as the way that country+western music developed out of the musical traditions of the protestant Ulster Scots, and then in the 1960s and 1970s came back across the Atlantic to become of the dominant musical genres in the predominantly Catholic Republic of Ireland. There are a lot of interesting twists to it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

closure of women television writers

I'm afraid that I can't quite follow everything that has happened with women television writers. What happened with the closure exactly? Awadewit 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd want to know

User:Radiant! filed a complaint on you yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing; I don't know why people can't deal with some of these things in a direct and civil way, and at least let you know. By the way, I appreciate you letting me know you were approaching him on the issue, and wish we could have convinced the fellow to look at and discuss the issue before bringing it to Deletion Review.A Musing 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! He made some cryptic comment on his User page about canvassing. Looks like a pre-emptive strike. And yes, I also appreciate the heads up. I am surprised he wants to get into an examination of the whole thing, because his behaviour has been pretty iffy at various points.— scribblingwoman 08:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought

If you don't want to escalate this into some personal dispute, stop making personal remarks about the subject. If you had begun with discussing the subject at hand rather than personalizing the issue, we wouldn't be having this dispute. >Radiant< 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, please can you tell me where exactly I made a "personal remark"? The closest I can see to that is where I questioned the appropriateness of you closing a CFD on a hotly-contested issue where it appeared to me that you had taken a stance on the issue. You may think that my concern was unfounded, but I was not making a "personal remark", just asking you to consider whether your actions were clearly impartial. I know that you think that my concern is misplaced, but that's not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• "I don't think that it was appropriate for you to close the discussion, since you had already taken a stand" appears to be personalizing the issue. I do agree that it is not a personal attack, and believe I haven't called it that. I do not actually have a "stand" on gender issues and I would appreciate it if people did not assume such. That may not have been your intent, but it is easily interpreted that way (e.g. note responses by Dweller and Iamunknown on the admin board, and response by Scribble on my talk). Asking four or five users that you know to agree with you to weigh in on the debate has the impression of making it a pile-on. I know I'm as fallible as the next dolphin and I'm quite willing to entertain and discuss the suggestion that I am wrong on any particular issue, but I would appreciate such suggestions not starting with allusions to bias. >Radiant< 13:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I think we'll have to disagree on the substance here: it seems to me that there are plenty of discussions here where you have taken a clear view on the merits of gendered categories. At the time I initially raised this, I did so as a question, but subsequent research has tended to confirm the answer I feared. See, for example, User talk:Scribblingwoman#Writers, where you wrote "In general we tend to treat both sexes as equal, and as such we don't subdivide profession categories into their male and female counterparts (nor into black-and-white, or straight-and-gay). That is not to say we don't cover women's history in writing (because we do, of course) and a category of writers active in women's rights would be interesting."

I read that as amounting to a view that gender itself is not a relevant factor in writing, but gender activism is relevant (I hope that's a fair summary). That a perfectly legitimate perspective, and you're quite entitled to hold that view, but it is not the same as saying that you don't have a stand on categorisation-by-gender.

But let's step back a bit from the substance, back to the point of principle you raise. Are you really saying that it is never appropriate to raise with an editor the question of whether they acted impartially, and that any such suggestion should be taken as an unacceptable "personal remark"? I have had my impartiality questioned on several occasions, and I know that's it's a very uncomfortable process. But I also know that impartiality is a very important pillar of wikipedia, so I regard it as being a good thing that other editors watch out for any bias on my part. I'd far rather be challenged to re-examine my own actions (even if the challenges turn out to be wrong) than to find that I have made a poor decision because of my biases. My response to that sort of challenge is to accept it if it has merit, or say that I disagree, but that the other person is free to take the matter to review. What I don't think I have the right to do, though, is simply to delete any such criticism and deprive others of the opportunity to review my actions unless they burrow through revision histories.

Unfortunately, however, what you have done by deleting that discussion is to obstruct others from forming their own judgments. Why? If you are reasonably confident that you are right, why not simply leave to comments to stand and ask others to draw their own conclusions from your record?

In the process, you have also removed most of the record of that discussion, including the parts which show why it was important to discuss the closure with some others -- you had read some the keep !votes as being happy with a merge, and having the other editors involved showed that was mistaken. I'm sure that it was a good faith mistake, but it was only cleared up because I had invited the other keep voters to join in -- not because they were people I knew to agree with me, but because I felt that their votes had not been properly weighed.

This was not a vote-counting exercise, it was a clarification exercise. Even if I had spammed 100 editors with an invitation to "pile in" (rather than simply asking those whose votes I felt may have been misinterpreted), there was no vote-counting to be done: you could simply have closed the discussion, and stated what conclusion you had reached ... which might quite reasonably have been "sorry, I disagree with all of you, so please take the issue to DRV if you want to".

Anyway, I'm off now to DRV. Since you have reverted every attempt I have made to restore the deleted discussion, I will repost it here on my talk page as part of the record of how we got to DRV.

What a pity -- I'm sure that this could all have been much more amicable if only you didn't keep on deleting any comments you dislike :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just one point. When I said "In general we..." what I stated was not my personal opinion, but noting that in my experience usually things turn out that way on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 07:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Settlements

Could you please consider reviewing your vote on category:Settlements in Israel as the reason you put forward for opposing it is an exact reflection of the reason it was nominated in the first place. It is not the category for the settlements in the specific Israeli sense. The category I think you thought you were voting to keep is Category:Israeli settlements. Oliver Han 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oliver, and also to Dugwiki. I had indeed misread things, and have changed my !vote accordingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

changed my recommendation on Category:Settlements in Israel

Hey there. Just a heads up that I changed my recommendation on Category:Settlements in Israel based on my apparent misunderstanding of what was going on. Apparently there are TWO categories with very similar names - Category:Settlements in Israel (which is the villages and towns of Israel) and Category:Israeli settlements (which is specifically the settlements in the disputed territories). I rescinded my opposition and recommended renaming one of those categories to help disambiguate them. I'm mentioning it to you since you specifically cited my opposition as your reasoning for opposing the rename at [2]. Later! Dugwiki 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Closure of CFD on Category:Women television writers

Following the closure of the April 11 CFD on Category:Women television writers, I was concerned that the CFD had been improperly closed as a "merge" when it sou have been "no consensus". As recommended at WP:DRV#Purpose, I therefore raised the issue on the talk page of the closing admin (Radiant!), at User talk:Radiant!#Closure of CFD on Category:Women television writers.

A useful discussion then started, which was unfortunately deleted by Radiant on this edit, because he objected to some of the issues raised. My attempts to reinstate the discussion were reverted, and all that now remains on Radiant!'s talk page is a subsequent discussion (see "How I would have closed it" which includes a review by BenAveling, whose conclusion was that "I would suggest taking it to DRV after all". Radiant did not rely to that suggestion, nor to BenAveling's later suggestion "that you IAR and reopen this one for further comment. Otherwise, as an act of good faith, you might consider taking this to DRV yourself and asking them to reweigh the arguments.".

I think it is regrettable that a closing admin has simply deleted a discussion on a closure because he didn't like some of the things said, and regrettable that he didn't take up BenAveling's suggestions. To add my disappointment, Radiant! also lodged a complaint about me at WP:ANI (see WP:ANI#Canvassing), without notifying me that such a complaint had been made, so my response was rather belated.

Anyway, since I have tried and failed to raise the matter with the closing admin, I will now bring it to deletion review. I have reproduced below the discussion which was deleted by Radiant! from his talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Radiant, I was concerned about the way that the CFD was closed, so rather than going straight to deletion review, I followed the guidance there and raised my concerns with the closing admin. I tried to do so as politely as possible, and reviewing what I wrote, I don't think that I did badly, but I'm sorry for any offence caused. I was not trying to be be snide, I don't think that I wrote was snide, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I do understand that having one's actions criticised is an uncomfortable experience, but it's an integral part of being an admin that one does tasks which are subject to scrutiny. Sometimes that scrutiny may feel unfair or unjustified, but I do think that is important to assume good faith and not just dismiss criticism.

Since we appear to be unable to find agreement, the discussion here is part of the background which should be cited if/when the issue is taken to deletion review. Removing it because some of it is unwelcome will impede the deletion review, so I have reinstated it below. I'd be grateful if you let it stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted discussion of the closure

Hi Radiant, before going to deletion review, I wanted to raise with you your closure of the April 11 CFD on Category:Women television writers.

I have two problems with this decision:

1. I don't think that it was appropriate for you to close the discussion, since you had already taken a stand against Category:Women writers in the relisted CFD after DRV. You voted to "delete" on 08:42, 26 March 2007, citing your concern that it was not technically feasible to categorise every woman writer. It seems to me that it is indeed workable, if sub-categorised, and I am concerned that the campaign by some edotors to delete the sub-categories may have the effect of justifying the original objection by removing the solution. Given the position that you had taken, would it not have been better for you to refrain from closing this related CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I think that in counting the votes, you were wrong to conclude that there was a consensus. I count:

   • 6 "keep" !votes (from A Musing, Scribblingwoman, Keefer4, BrownHairedGirl, Awadewit and Susiebowers);
   • 4 "delete" !votes (Brandon97, Oliver Han, Abberley2, Haddiscoe)
   • 4 "merge" !votes (Dugwiki, Doczilla, Dr. Submillimeter, Vegaswikian)

   That amounts to 8 out 14 votes to merge or delete, which is 57%; it's not even a supermajority, let alone a consensus

3. As I understand things, the instructions for closing admins are not simply to count votes, but to weigh the arguments, and on that basis some of the merge or delete !votes should have been discounted:

   • The nominator, Brandon97, voted to delete on the sole grounds that the categ contained only 2 articles; but by the time the CFD was closed, it contained at least 56.
   • Oliver Han voted to delete because "I don't know or care whether the programmes I watched tonight were written by men or women", which is fine for him personally, but Oliver's personal preferences are not part of the guidelines on categorisation.
   • I could go in through the rest of them, but none of the merge or delete votes addresses the tests set in the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS, and the keep !votes did address those tests.

   So if we discount the irrelevant !votes, there is not even a bare majority to merge/delete, and probably a consensus to keep.

May I therefore ask you to promptly reconsider your decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also notified the other keep !voters of this discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are misstating the situation. First, most of whom you call "keep !votes" did in fact say "keep or merge", and several of whom you call "delete !votes" said "delete or merge". Second, it is false to say that Brandon's sole argument was category size, as he also called the category unnecessary. And third, I am far from involved in gender issues on Wikipedia, and a single comment on a lengthy and heavily-participated CFD is not "taking a stand". >Radiant< 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, it is two "closures" (#1; #2) and two "delete" (#1; #2) votes, by my count. I'm not saying that they all aren't defensible; I'm saying they are there. — scribblingwoman 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is in fact only one. The other issue you cite is "women television writers", which is what we're discussing here. I'm sure you don't mean that closing a debate means you can't close that debate you've just closed. >Radiant< 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I mean that there seems to be a pattern to your interventions in discussions of gendered categories. We all have opinions; yours seems clear. — scribblingwoman 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you can't read my mind, please do not make assumptions like that. >Radiant< 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Scribblingwoman, if you really believe that Radiant made a mistake in assessing consensus, you know where DRV is. Insults made here are unlikely to strengthen your case. If it's worth anything, I think Radiant made the right choice in weighing the competing claims and arguments. Remember, XFD is not a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a reasonably close reader would see that the arguments posted by those who said to "keep or merge" are to keep, and, if it must be merged, to merge into women screenwriters rather than into television writers; such statements as scribblingwriter's "keep, or, if it absolutely must be merged..." I do not view those as votes for merge. My own was (regrettably) likely the least clear on this, and I set out my reasoning solely for the keep and argued accordingly. I'd suggest a closer reading of this.A Musing 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, thanks for your reply. First, I'm not concerned for now about the difference between the "delete" and "merge" votes, since both would have led to the removal of the category (that's why in my comment above, I counted them together). However, I have just reviewed the "keep !votes", and I think that you have misread them:

• Three are straightforward "keeps", with no mention of "merge": that's 50% of the keep votes, so it's manifestly incorrect to say that "most" said "keep or merge"
• The only one which could be reasonably read as "Keep or merge" is that by A Musing (and see A Musing's comment above on how that was a misreading)
• the remaining two are of the form "Keep, or ifi t must be merged" ... in other words, "I want this kept, but merger would be better than deletion". It seems to me to be a serious misreading to consider those votes as advocating anything other than a keep as a first preference.

You are right that Brandon also described the category as "unnecessary", but "Unnecessary" on its own tells us nothing; it's a meaningful reason only if stated as "unnecessary because". The only explanation of why he considered it unnecessary was its underpopulation, a problem which was resolved before the CFD was closed (and which is in any case not grounds for deletion unless there is no reasonable prospect of expansion).

It's also not true to say that you have made a "single comment" on the subject: at 15:15, 16 April 2007 you !voted to delete Category:Women screenwriters (see this edit). Do you want me to check previous CFDs too?

And BenAveling, you are quite right that XFD is not a vote. On those grounds, I would argue that all of the merge/delete votes carry little weight because the failed to address the tests set out in WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

If anyone wants to add anything further on this subject, please add it here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I posted a response on Scribble's talk page. My point is not that you're wrong, because this is an issue of opinion rather than fact. My point is that the situation has quite a lot of complexities. And yes, we need cat intersect. >Radiant< 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu

Hello. Have you ever come across Andrea1952 (talk · contribs) in your editing? She seems to have an interest in matter genealogical and a liking for a book called Ancestral Root of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700 by Frederick Lewis Weis. Some of the material she's adding, to Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster for example, is rather Burkemesque. Not really my field (except that I'm always suspicious of genealogical tat), so could you have a peek at Angela's edits if you get a moment? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It does look rather like Burkem's approach, although slightly more focused and at least there is a cited source, albeit one which doesn't sound very persuasive. Like you, this is not my territory, there do seem to be quite a lot of changes which appear to be rather odd, so I think that some requests for restraint would be useful .... but I haven't the energy to them myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not entirely my hyperactive - and even paranoid - imaginings. I'll see if I can solicit some more opinions. Thanks for checking! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

Thanks for the note. If the category is reinstated then let me know and I'll add the other 30+ articles to the 65 or so which were already in there. Random Passer-by (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_23#Category:History_of_Kurdistan

Hi, I replied to you there. -- Cat ^chi? 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel I am violating WP:POINT or disruptively editing, please bring it an WP:ANB/I or else please WP:AGF. Namecalling and accusations deter users and should be avoided. Thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this probably will end up on WP:ANI, but I stand by what I wrote. Please do not delete the content of CFD discussions as you did in this edit. As to WP:AGF, please read it: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a query

Hi, I know you've got lots else to do and think about, but I was hoping for a reply to my query posted a couple of days ago. I've copied it below, together with the thanks - which are still very much relevant. It may have slipped your notice as I posted under DEFAULTSORT, so am reposting here under a new heading

Hi, I've just been using DEFAULTSORT for some of the children's author pages I've been working on - it's brilliant - thanks for doing Eleanor Farjeon, who is on my watchlist, so that I discovered the script when I looked through your talk page. I've also, thanks to your reply to Kittybrewster changed my signature to look a bit like yours.

I'd also like to have the script to let people leave a message for me on my talk page that I've just used to get to this editing screen - seem to have seen something like it on other user talk pages - is it somewhere easily accessible, or can I copy it from your talk page??? Anyway, a BIG thankyou from me for making my Wiki-ing a little easier ... Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in anticipation, Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, but thanks for your message -- I'm afraid that I had indeed missed the original. Glad you found the DEFAULTSORT script; it's a very useful thing.

The link to leave a comment is not a script, just a link which I copied from someone else

My own link is:

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&action=edit&section=new <span style="color:yellow">Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl)</span>]'''

... but if you want to use it on your page, it would be:

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Abbeybufo&action=edit&section=new <span style="color:yellow">Please click here to leave a new message for me (Abbeybufo)</span>]'''

... or, if you prefer not have the colouring:

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Abbeybufo&action=edit&section=new Please click here to leave a new message for me (Abbeybufo)]'''

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll copy this and use it soon --Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gossip

You seem to be under the impression I am simply nominating articles for deletion because they match *kurd* string. This has no connection to reality. Number of nominations are merely directly proportional to the number of creations. My nominations are strictly based on WP:CAT, WP:OC, WP:V and WP:NPOV. CfDs should be discussed based on the topic at hand not based on the nominator. As per WP:NPA, I ask you not discuss the contributor. If you feel that my edits are disruptive, please take it to WP:ANB/I or involve dispute resolution. -- Cat ^chi? 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly: are you really trying to say that you are simply making CfD nominations at random? The pattern of nominations speaks for itself: a series of nominations of Kurdish categories, accompanied by a flurry of noms for categories which use similar concepts.

I'm aware that a very similar set of issues was brought to ANI last year: see ANI Archive102: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts ... and I'm sure that you are aware that there is a current discussion at WP:ANI#Vandalism_-Antikurdish.

I'm sure that it would be useful to raise this at ANI, but it is also important that contributors to the CfD are aware of the context in which these categories have been brought to CfD.

Menawhile, I note that you were subject to mentorship for a year after an a previous RFA: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, again for Kurdish-related issues. It would be helpful if you would re-read that discussion, and avoid repeating the smae cycles again: you seem to be engaged in an ongoing conflict at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My arbitration remedies have expired and they no longer apply. I am processing Category:Kurdistan in the light of WP:V, WP:CAT and WP:NPOV. They were mass created so it is only natural for them to be "mass nominated" - though I was kind enough to spread it to a few days allowing more room for discussion on individual noms. I feel categorization of Kurdish related topics should follow wikipedias core values. WP:ABF really doesn't suit you. Allow me to clear up a few things.

The ANB/I link you provided has been initiated by Moby Dick who was found by the arbitration committee to be harassing me. Moby Dick is currently prohibited to even participate in votes after I participated in them. The arbitration committee actually reviewed that ANB/I post as evidence and did not levy a remedy over it to me. The same ANB/I post is also the time I realized Moby Dick was a User:Davenbelle sockpuppet. A few weeks later there was an arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick.

On my noms I use a rationale quite different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A number of these categories were either created or spread by people like User:Moby Dick who has an ongoing topic ban on all Kurdish and Turkey related issues. He is prohibited from even editing Turkey or Kurdish related topics. He was blocked for two weeks just today for using User:Diyarbakir as a confirmed sockpuppet violating his harassment and topic ban remedies (majority of the random tagging by the "Kurdistan" categories was his doing).

You should also be aware that I am a commons administrator. All Kurdish related images such as the Kurdish flag or Kurdish inhabitance maps are at "my mercy" on commons. The fact that I am not deleting them just because they do not fit my political views should at least imply that I am not trying to be malicious here.

More so I would welcome you to read my rationale at the now archived #Vandalism_-Antikurdish. Those 4 bullets are not a political statement but a CfD rationale. Please read them with an open mind.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, I have read that discussion and I am not persuaded by your defence (although the case set out appears tome to be more a matter of disruptive POV-editing than vandalism). The bottom line for me is that while you are careful to use CfD arguments, the pattern of your nominations and other edits does show a fixation on removing Kurdish categories, to the point of repeatedly renominating the same categories and (if I read the ANI comments correctly), apparently depopulating these categories. As discussed before, your other nominations (such as the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Cities_on_the_Great_Lakes?CfD for Cities on the Great Lakes) appear to be very flimsly-based in themselves, and selectively chosen to create a precedent to bolster your case for deleting Kurdish categories.

I'm astonished by your penultimate statement. You seem to be saying that your failure to abuse admin powers should be taken as evidence of good faith wrt to categorisation; but I'm sure you now that if you did, those admin powers would be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying people can mass create POV categories and it is my fault for nominating them for deletion? My Great Lakes vote had nothing to do with kurdish issues. Someone whose intention is to POV edit would not be showing any restraint now would he/she? -- Cat ^chi? 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that there has been a mass creation of POV categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A wanabe country is not a pov term? -- Cat ^chi? 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan defines it as follows: "Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds", which seem sneutral enough for me. The POV issue here is solely yours: that because Kurdish nationalists want a country called Kurdistan, the geographic and cultural region should not be used for categorisation. The issue has already been discussed to death, and your continued pursuit of a partisan POV is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ballot-stuffing"

Hi Wasserman

I was surprised to read at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Anti-Judaism the following comment from you:

I normally respect many of your views BrownHairedGirl when it comes to categories, but in this case (and with the other "anti-X" cats.) you and the other ballot-stuffers are dead wrong. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the CfD discussion, and I'd be delighted to see a substantive response to my more detailed explanation of the problems I perceive with the category. However, the reason I am leaving a message here is that you have made a serious allegation, viz that I am engaged in ballot-stuffing: I would be grateful if you would either substantiate that allegation or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed apologize, because reading back over that comment I do certainly seem quite harsh -- I can be kind of mouthy (typy?) sometimes...sorry about that! I was referring to how editors totally uninvolved with those particular categories basically just went down the list and wrote "Delete" three times in a row, not even thinking twice (or three times) about it, not even caring because they know nothing of the topic(s). However, I now notice that you all seem to be the people that regularly 'vote' on most category related issues, so I suppose that you all do certainly have a certain degree of authority/expertise when it comes to categories in general. Again, it was indeed a rude comment and I am sorry about it, though to be truthful I did sense a great deal of groupthink going on there at that time (i.e., no one offered any actual REASONS for deletion besides "per nom"). I actually sort-of shot myself in the foot right afterwards though because I then went straight down that list of nominated categories and added "Strong keep" three times in a row just like you all had added "Delete" three (or more) times that day, all to the same lists, all the same people, all in a row (this is what I meant by ballot stuffing, not 'sockpuppets' or anything like that). I don't know though -- I still don't understand all of the features and protocol of Wikipedia so I can seem pretty lost sometimes, so please excuse my general ineptness around here. I'll do my best to tone down my sometimes smoldering rhetoric in the future though before I go mouthing (typing) off again; I also made a few snide remarks about trivialities such as spelling at the same time that I now regret, so if that person is reading this I apologize to them too. --Wassermann 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As another token of my gratitude I'd like to give you the userbox dealing with gender-neutral language if you'd like to use it, since I just read that you prefer to use it when you edit Wikipedia -- hopefully it shows up here somewhere...

mankindThis user supports the use of gender-neutral language.

Well, I wish this userbox was a bit more 'upbeat,' like instead of having "mankind" brutally crossed out (as in "STRIKETHROUGH MANKIND!") it would have a more positive construction, something to the effect of having "humankind" with a nice check-mark beside that gender-neutral wording. So, as it stands this userbox might look a bit nihilistic ("SCRATCH OUT MANKIND!"), but indeed it represents something very important in our post-postmodern world. Cheers! --Wassermann 09:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply: I have gotten sidetracked a few times :( Anyway, thanks very much for your apology -- we've all shot our mouths off a few times at moments of stress, and I've certainly done my share! Thanks, too for the user box, which I have just added (and yes, it could be more elegant! but I'm very poor a graphics, so I'm afraid that I have no idea how to achieve that).

You're right, I am one of the editors who regularly participates in CfD, which is something I kinda drifted into after finding that categories I had created or was involved in maintaining were nominated for deletion. The background to the CfD discussion on Anti- Judaism is numerous CfDs (some of which I contributed to at length) where we found two persistent problems with such categories: As the definitional threshold, and b) their use as attack categories. Since then there has been a gathering momentum of CfDs to remove all similar categories, and inevitably most editors who have been involved in the earlier CfDs don't retype all their previous comments, just referring to the earlier discussions. My view on those categories is that unless someone can show a way of structuring and monitoring the categories to avoid that particular problem, they shouldn't exist. One example of the sort of thing that I would want to avoid with those categs is your suggestion that Jesus should be categorised in Category:Anti-Judaism;m that just seems to me be stretching things, and risks leading to all christians being categorised as anti-Judaic.

I do of course agree that there is such a thing as anti-Judaism, and that it's an important topic; but on the evidence so far, it seems to lack clear enough boundaries to make a useable category. I'd be delighted if you could prove me wrong :)

I think, though, that are right to point to a lot of deficiencies in CfD: it works well on relatively simple issues, but seems to me to deteriorate as the issues become more complicated. The risk of herd-voting is one of the problems, and the unstructured nature of the discussions makes it far too easy for them to lose focus if the discussion involves a variety of issues. Additionally, too many discussions take place without enough input from editors with expertise in the topic under consideration, and that's one are where I think some reform is long overdue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonesmen

By your request I've split the nom. I wasn't sure which section to apply your response to, so I have commented it out so that I could ask you where to put it (or so that you can make two different comments instead, if you prefer). >Radiant< 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep breath

Right, that's better. I refer to this previous posting on your talk page, now in your archive, and which was addressed to Vintagekits:

However, the big question for me is this: your main area of editing work appears to be Northern Ireland. Is this recent bout of multiple-article-editing on baronets anything more than an attempt to provoke Kittybrewster?

I hope its not, and that my suspicion is unfounded, but ... I do suspect that this practice of pushing the same point of principle simultaneously over a batch of articles which Kittybrewster has edited is some sort of form of stalking designed to create arguments with KB without going onto her talk page. I hope it is not, but I also hope that you can see that this is what it looks like, so I'd be grateful if you could explain more about what's going on here. I don't want to be unfair, but I am struggling to find a benign explanation. Can you help me out? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We now have this AfD, which follows further considerable discussion by this editor on a related previous AfD.

I have left my own comments, which speak for themselves and refer to yet another bone of contention, being a recent discussion on the terms 'killing' and 'murder' here.

I do nothing more than bring the matter to your attention. Res ipsa loquitur. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I see that you are already aware of this matter.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What a deeply unedifying discussion: it's like usenet at its worst. Far too few editors trying to step beyond their own points of view :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I think I've got the Wikipedia equivalent of earache. I'm having one of these at the moment and raise my glass to you. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A Żywiec beer bottle and filled glass

Elections by year CFR

Good work nominating the elections by year categories, hopefully we can set a better naming convention :) What do you think about Category:Elections in Europe, 2007? I'd be tempted to delete it as an unnecessary subdivision, particularly as we are heading towards diving all elections by year up by country? Tim! 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for you note ... and glad to see that the CfD for US elections by year seems to have mostly met with support (though I'm puzzled that there were 5 responses there, but only one to CfD for Elections in Mexico by year).

As to Category:Elections in Europe, 2007, I think that it should be renamed to Category:2007 elections in Europe for consistency, but not deleted.

In general, I support the move away from by-continent categories, but whatever anyone's POV on the process of European integration (it has very strong proponents and equally strong opponents), it has meant that elections in Europe are much more closely-related than ever before. There is, for example, intense British political interest in the French presidential election, not just because France is the UK's second-closest neighbour, but because the elections's fundamental question (whether France allows Sarkozy to lead it down a British-style neo-liberal path) will have major impact on the directions taken by the European Union. The same applied to the German federal election, 2005.

So I think that elections in Europe by year is a very useful form of categorisation, and I'd be inclined to create more categories for 2000 onwards. Does that make sense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a good point, and I suppose it can also enclose European Parliament elections by year as well. Tim! 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I thought too, and meant to say so, but got sidetracked into recatting Category:Elections in Germany. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just nominated Category:Elections in Europe, 2007 for renaming to Category:2007 elections in Europe: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Elections_in_Europe.2C_2007. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Khaleeji female singers

Hi. I'm posting this boilerplate message to everyone who commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 22#Category:Khaleeji female singers. I've added some comments on the WP:MUSICIANS project position, as requested, plus a few observations of my own (such as the fact that Khaleeji appears to be a dialect, not a language), and some or all of those might affect your position in that debate. Xtifr _tälk 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonesman

In reference to the discussion about the Bonesman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Category:Bonesmen

I agree that this article should remain as the Skull and Bones for the name of the article. -Signaleer 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about User:Wassermann

Hi BownHairedGirl: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kickboxers by nationality

Please do not unnecessarily populate this category. The category is useless - is does not provide any required categorization. If you look at all other martial arts, none use this scheme of "martial art by nationality". Basically, Category:Kickboxers is a listing of kickboxers by nationality. The two categories you added Category:Kickboxers by nationality in already breaks down kickboxers by nationality. Take a look at all other martial arts and the overall hierarchy before making any additional changes. This category really should be deleted. --Scott Alter 01:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have just taken a wider look, and you're right that the rest of the category tree has not been completed. But it ought to be, so that all martial artist artists are under one subcat of the appropriate national sportspeople category, as with Category:American sportspeople. In the case of Category:Kickboxers by nationality, all that is needed is to move across the national subcats of Category:Kickboxers, which is about two minutes work with AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you take another look at my comments I just left at Category_talk:Kickboxers by nationality? This should explain the way it is done, and the unnecessary need for your proposal. There is already Category:American kickboxers in the appropriate categorization. --Scott Alter 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why bother adding an unnecessary level of Category:Kickboxers by nationality. What else would be in Category:Kickboxers besides Category:Kickboxers by nationality? --Scott Alter 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have replied at Category talk:Kickboxers by nationality. As what else could be Category:Kickboxers besides Category:Kickboxers by nationality, well lots of things, e.g

• a category of olympic kickboxers, if it's an olympic sport
• a category of kickboxers by grade, if the sport has something like karate's belt system

I don' know much about kickboxing, so those specific suggestions may not hold, but you see what I mean. There are plenty of ways of categorising sportspeople other than by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see what you mean, but in most (if not all) martial arts, these other classifications do not work. There is no grouping by position (as in other sports). There is no differentiation between Olympian, professional, amateur, or others (you are either notable as a master practitioner or you are not known). There is usually differentiation by rank (belt/grade), but this changes relatively frequently and is an irrelevant way to search for someone (even within the same martial art, ranking usually cannot be compared evenly between schools). The only thing I can think of is by weight for wrestling (which is debatable if it is even a martial art). I have yet to see any valid way to order martial artists besides by nationality. But I'll go ahead anyway with the extra level of categorization. I hope you see that my point to delete the category was to maintain consistency. No other martial art used the "by nationality". So, now that this will stay, all martial arts will need to use the same schema. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts to comment on my new proposal. --Scott Alter 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

More trouble

Burkem22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's now launched into some mad fantasia wherein the de Burghs were "Kings of Ireland". If you can reblock, hopefully in a few days I can start cleaning up the nonsense. Choess 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not moving on this one more quickly, but glad to see that he has been blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

I've nominated List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, you are of course free to nominate the list for deletion if you see fit, and I thank you for notifying me that you have done so. But I was surprised by the somewhat vitriolic nature of your nomination, which was based on an entirely false presumption and a misreading of the CfD: please read WP:AGF, and then try to explain to me how creating a list was trying to subvert a consensus which I supported. That might make some sense if I had opposed consensus (though you should still assume WP:AGF), but it would make little sense to try to undermine a process I supported. I have made a more detailed reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007 May 1#List_of_Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices, but I am disapppinted that you chose not to discuss this simply on the merits of the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for your graciousness. FYI, I used {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} to post the above message on your page, so the words are not mine. Personally, I do have a sharp edge to my writing sometimes, and it's not the first time someone gets startled by my words, but I would not call it "vitriolic" -- because I have not been anywhere near "vitriolic" for a very long time on Wikipedia. In the early days, meaning about three to four years ago, I used to get into some arguments with a couple of notorious antisemites on Wikipedia and I used some salty language to counter their hate, but after the dust settled, and most of them were (basically) dealt with (even though there are plenty more lurking), I generally avoid what you think is "vitriol" but which is just me trying to be very clear about what I perceive to be a very serious pocedural mistake that could have serious ramifications (in this case, creating a list while a category is up for a CfD -- which to me is the parallel of emptying a category while a vote is still in progress, the latter being clearly against the rules.) By the way, as I have mentioned elsewhere, can you cite clear examples where lists were created during the time a vote to delete a category with the identical information? I have never come across such a situation, which is why I regard what you did as such a serious breech of procedure. Please be assured that I know full well that you are motivated by positive motives and that you have a sterling reputation on Wikipedia. I have noticed your editing style and comments the last few weeks as your editorial presence has entered into the domain of articles and issues that touch upon Jews and Judaism, and I hope to be able to continue to count upon you as a friend and resource of sanity and responsibility. At this point I have said what I can at the various pages, and I do not think it wise for me to add a lot more without repeating the same points. So let's see what the verdict will be. I would be happy to hear from you at any time. Sincere best wishes, IZAK 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, thanks for your reply, but first things first.
You wrote at AFD that I had acted to "counteract and pre-empt a similar vote". I have explained why you are wrong about my intentions, and if you were to assume good faith you would not have made such an assumption that I intended to counteract a vote. Asking a question "why did you X?" is fine, but that's not what happened here. Please will you be kind enough to retract (and preferably strike out) that mistaken allegation on the AfD page?
There are substantive points here to which I could reply, but as long as the allegation of attempting "to counteract and pre-empt a similar vote" still stands, I don't see much point in continuing a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ok, let's deal with what you (not me) consider to be "first things first" (again do not misunderstand me, I am being open with you): Before we go any further, can you please explain what you mean when you wrote (in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24#Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices) the words "I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information." Isn't the point of having a vote to delete the category with that information to actually delete that (what is in my view useless) information? And would it not be odd if while we are debating to delete (or keep of course) in it's "categorized" form, someone goes on their own and sets it up in "listified" form defeating and in effect pre-empting the whole exercise, purpose, and result of the vote because having the vote is not just an objection to a "categorization" in limbo but it's also a vote against retaining that information in any form at all. Can you understand that my response to you is in the context of the process that was/is taking place, and that to me you are breaking the rules because to my recollection I cannot think of one case where someone went ahead and transferred information from a category to a list during a CfD vote about that very category (I know that I am repeating myself somewhat.) It is the height of pre-emption and counter-action at work. That it was your finger that "pulled the trigger" then you must take the hit. That's how I see it, unless you can show how else one could have dealt with and responded to this obvious mis-step with it's far-reaching ramifications. (I.e. Should we "advise" editors that they should just create identical mirror lists or articles for categories that are voted upon for deletion? Can you imagine the "fun" we would have keeping track of both items at once. Total editorial bedlam would ensue -- and we would have to "double list" for deletion both the category and the list at the same time, which I have now done by nominating the list to join its mirror categeory -- not a pleasant task, but very necessary.) IZAK 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, please: you still misunderstand the basic point that a list is not a category (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for a more detailed explanation), and that far from CfD being inherently about deleting information, the fact is that "preserving the information" is frequently an explicit goal of CfDs. (Of course there are CfDs where the aim is to resmove the information, but those are actually very rare). The reasons why categories are deleted is many and varied, but it to understand this situation it is essential to remember categories have a different purpose to lists (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes again). One o the most common objectives is to avoid category clutter, so the practise at CfD is to retain only categories which are both useful to navigation and which record defining attributes of the articles concerned. It is very common for categories to be deleted when lists are retained, but once the category is deleted, the info is irretrievably gone unless a list has been made already: there is an undelete facility for articles and lists, but once a category is emptied, that's it. If a list is created, it can still be deleted; but if it is not created, it's a pain-in-the-neck to recreate it. In this case, I am neutral about the merits of the list, and my intention was simply not to see it disappear by default: I have no problem with a decision under due process to delete the list, but a CfD decision is not a default decision to remove a list. If you look at CfD debates, the existence of a list is frequently cited as an alternative to the category to allow the information to be preserved. Here are some examples:

• CfD April 20: Cat:Dog breeds recognised by the American Kennel Club, where the existence of lists containing the same info is praised and cited as a reason why it safe to delete the category.
• CfD April 19: Cat:Linley family the nomination says "There is no need for this category as a navigational hub as the four articles within it are all interlinked" ... in other words, the aim was again to preserve the info
• CfD April 19: Cat:PETA supporters: an interesting case, where editors expressed doubts about the merits of the list, but acknowledged that was a separate issue.

I could list plenty more such CfDs, but the point is well made at AfD by A Musing: there are some categories which are collections of information that ought to be deleted, but each case has to betaken on its merits. I have so far seen nothing at the CfD to suggest that this was info which as not appropriate for wikipedia, and despite repeated requests you yourself have chosen not explain why you think it is inappropriate. You would do well to re-read the CFD. You will see there that I explicitly stated that I had created the list, and you will see that no-one else had any objection to it, and that at least one editor explicitly cited the existence of the list as assisting their desire to delete the category.

• If creating the list was such a bad thing to do, why has no-one else objected or supported your objection?
• If creating the list was such a bad thing to do, and I was trying to subvert consensus, why do you think that I was explicit at CfD about the creation of the list?
• If creating the list was such a bad thing to do, why has no-one supported your AfD nomination?
• If creating a list from a category is such a bad thing to do, why is it so often explicitly suggested by editors at CfD?

I have tried repeatedly to explain why I did what I did in accordance with my understanding of what CfD procedure is, and I hope that you can at the very least acknowledge that this was done in good faith, and not as part of some attempt to counter the CfD. I think that you have made an honest mistake in misunderstanding the purpose and practise of CfD, but even if you had been right in your understanding of CFD, there was no need to launch into and defend allegations of trying to subvert process. IZAK, you are hard-working editor, and you clearly have strong views about the merits of lists and categories of Jewish people. I'm not sure whether I agree with those reasons, but I don't doubt that they are honourable ... but as you'll see from the CfD, the lack of civility noted by several editors is hindering your chances of removing the article. I want to hear the substantive (rather than procedural) case for removing it, but I'm still waiting. I assume good faith and presume that you have such a case: rather than stretching my good faith, why not just set out those reasons? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again BrownHairedGirl: Again, as some have done, you are lecturing me about the differences between categories and lists or the subject of categories versus lists and vice versa which is all a waste of time because I am very familiar with all of this and agree with your descriptions about the roles of categories vis-à-vis lists etc. So I am not discussing that subject at all ! My complaint is that at the very moment a CfD was taking place about a category about a very specific subject namely, Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices which contains only seven articles (from a desire by an editor to "combine" the subjects of the justices' Jewishness with being US Supreme Court justices), you went ahead and created the List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices with the glib explanation of "I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information." (Now it so happens to be that these justices have very little to do with Judaism as such. They are ethnically Jewish, and a few are even married to gentiles. But they are not deserving of special note as "Jews" any more than the Catholics and Irish-Americans who have reached that post. But again, that is not my main concern here.) Being faced with possible deletion because of its CONTENTS (not just because it is only a "category" and not yet a "list") you went ahead on your own, in the middle of a debate, to preserve the very contents, and therefore thesis behind those contents, i.e. that there is some kind of strong or serious connection between their Jewishness and of becoming/being justices (otherwise why would it deserve either a category or a list?), which there is not, beyond the normal political calculations (by the President, Congrees, and other politicians) that go into the choice of any and all US justices and not just these. At any rate, you have still not cited a single example where IN THE MIDDLE OF A CfD an editor went ahead to create an exact mirror list of that category's names or articles in order to "preserve" the CONTENTS of the category which by definition IN THIS CASE definitely meant preserving its seven biographical articles. As I have said this is no different than someone who goes ahead and empties a category before a CfD vote is closed, and in this instance you did the reverse by on your own volition deciding to "preserve" the information in the category in case it would get deleted. It is your action in the midst of a debate that so alarmed me because it seemed that you were upending the CfD debate and in effect "closing it" by creating a list with the exact same seven names in it. You should have waited till the CfD debate was closed not to arouse any criticism or suspicions because no-one is a mind-reader to know why strange activities are taking place that are presented ex post facto. Perhaps you could have created a page such as User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices and kept the information over there waiting for the debate to end and the CfD to be closed so that your actions, especially as an Admin, appear to be neutral. Remember the important maxim from the important English case, a judge over there said: "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done". IZAK 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, if you were alarmed, you could and should have assued good faith and asked why I did what I did. Instead you launched straight into an allegation of "sleight of hand", and despite repeated explanations from me and from others, you maintain the insistence that I must have acted with malicious intent.

I'm afraid that difference between a category and a list is crucial to what happened here, which is why I pressed that point in my replies to you. No-one else at the CfD or the AfD or at the village pump supports your interpretation of the situation: doesn't that tell you something?

The point at which you lose me is when you say that "You should have waited till the debate CfD debate was closed not to arouse any criticism or suspicions". Bizarre: you would apparently prefer that I did something underhand than doing it openly and advertising my actions. Sorry to disappoint, but subterfuge is not my style.

Finally, after half-a-dozen or more requests, you have offered some reasons for why the list should be deleted. I have no idea why you were so reluctant to do that, but this is the wrong place: you should explain that at AfD, where it should have been part of your nomination.

Anyway, you have now had more than enough of my time; if you still need to vent your anger, please go and find someone else to abuse. Do not reply here: any further postings from you on this subject in my talk page will be deleted, and may be the subject of a WP:ANI complaint.

I will not vote at the AfD to either keep or delete: as I have explained at length, my reasons for creating the list were procedural. I wish you luck in your efforts to have it deleted, but I thank you'll find that your case will be better received if you try to make it with civility and stop assuming that other people are doing something mischievious.

Over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A deleted category

Hi. I noticed you closed the debate on the Marx Brothers category. I found your decision surprising. I did read the previous debate and considered the arguments presented and its place within the category system, I concluded a keep result was inevitable. It was at best, as you said, a case of no consensus 'no consensus' on that discussion; this included a comment that the category was depopulated and consideration was therefore difficult [accord] so soon after previous debates. The nominator did not give a clear reason for deletion and gave no chance for the category to be restored. The insubstantial reasons given are based on poor analogies to other categories and a seeming ignorance of the subject's notability. The user seems to feel a family name is the basis for deletion and his userpage verges on the macabre. Can I suggest take a little time to reconsider your action on this matter. Thanks. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)/20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I spent quite a bit of time looking at the CfD debate before reaching my conclusion. As you'll see, I didn't say that there was 'no consensus on that discussion'; I said that 'merely counting votes would suggest "no consensus"', and CfD is not a straightforward vote count. So I re-read the DRV and the previous CfD as background, and weighed the arguments.

The keep arguments were surprisingly weak:

• "A major group with lots of articles relating to it." (Mike Selinker). Sorry, but plenty of poor categories are well-populated, and size alone is not a reason to keep. I don't know what is meant by "major group".
• "The category will be well populated, and serves as a parallel subcategory within its supercategories. Moreover, it's an obvious category, to anyone who isn't neck-deep in WPness.". (TheEditrix2). Again, the only case made to keep the category seems to be that a lot of articles could be put in it.

And that was all the keep arguments: two short contributions with reasons which don't stand up, and no policy or guidelines to support them. So what if it could be big? To take an absurd example, we could create Category:People who own cars, and it would be huge, but it would still be a useless category.

On the delete side, we had two contributions:

• Otto's lengthy nomination, which said "This is an eponymous category which is unnecessary to link the brothers together because of the extensive interlinkages between the articles on the brothers, the Marx Brothers article, the articles and navtemplate for the films and so on.". Ottos is right that CfD rarely keeps eponymous categories, and he explains that the test by which why any of them are allowed to exist is not met by this category.
• A Musing's argument clinched it for me: that the templates and the Category:Marx Brothers (film series) solved any navigatonal requirement for the category, and so far as he was right: it does indeed seem to do the job.

So I concluded that deletes had shown that there was no need to create an exception to WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people, and that the keep arguments were weak. That made it the closure a clear call as a deletion.

I do, however, share you concern that the category was not repopulated. I'm afraid that what happens when a category is emptied is that the list of articles in the category is lost, because it only exists as a series of tags on the individual articles. Unless the category membership has been manually listified before deletion, then there is no admin trick to restore the category tag to articles. For CfDs where I'm interested in keeping the category listing, I sometimes use AWB to make a list to store offline ... and while it'd be nice to have that done routinely when a category is deleted, it's probably too much work. But in this case, I doubt that it would gave altered the outcome.

Anyway, there's my explanation, and I hope it makes sense. If you still think I closed the CfD wrongly, then please feel free to take it to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. My apologies for a poorly worded paraphrasing of your term. I meant to suggest that I thought the verdict was no consensus, sorry about that. I will try to address your comments in order. It seems to me that the substance of the keep argument, presented by editors who claimed an interest in the category, was that it contained a large number of articles and was useful. I believe the template is evidence of a complex of articles, but this only links within the complex and not to the rest of our document. Any article within the cat would be closely associated with the subject, I can not see overcategorisation as a problem. The reasons for keeping categories need not be given if they are shown to be useful, presumably these are familiar to to the debate's closer. These were also given at the nomination to overturn, a more clearcut discussion. IMHO, problems of miscategorisation should occur at the article to be included, that is where the edit is made (or reverted). A sizable group of meaningfully linked articles would be the definition of a category, I suspect keep supporters thought of it this way; people would want to use it and were baffled that it had been proposed for deletion. Large size is a reason to keep, if the links are valid and meaningful; it is a reason to split it.

Whether or not CfD keeps eponymous categories is the subject for another discussion, I would suppose that many passing through the process are well deserving of deletion. WP:OC softens the blow for family historians and the celebrity obsessed, I imagine. The nominator, when discussing the exception, happened to give the reason to keep it and pointed out a reason to delete the Category:Marx Brothers (film series), as per your "test". Otto was right, he has been doing a lot of the other nominating (and indulging in a bit of the old ad hominem). Pointing out that this cat does not include the other works or themselves is academic, I suppose, as I imagine it will be deleted by the same (misapplied?) criteria. Any 'navigational (or other) requirements will be lost, it only clinches the demise of anty categorisation of the subject. I fear that it is being deleted by misapplication of guidelines designed to rid wikipedia of meaningless or superfluous categories - these are both harmless and useful. I admire your effort in finding substance amid comments regarding Karl Marx being categorised and other meanderings off topic, but I think you have overlooked the subjects relevance to the exceptions of the general rule. I'm glad we agree about the need for documentation of category members before deletion. Given the potential for loss of information, perhaps some whiz could make a bot part of the process - at least above the speedy delete process. There are some tricks for recovering this information, so I am told anyway. BTW, this was not a step in a WP:DRV process, I merely wanted an exchange of views. There is a famous quote by Groucho about clubs and members, so I doubt he is turning in his grave over this :-) Regards ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure of CfD for Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Hi Jc37, I was very surprised to see that you had closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24#Category:Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices as a "keep". Are you sure that was what you intended to do?

Counting !votes, I see 10 to upmerge or delete, and one to listify; there are five delete !votes. So on a simple headcount, there is a clear supermajority to remove the category, with upmerger as the preferred destination.

Your explanation was puzzling: "The consensus seems to be that Category:Jewish American jurists is a valid category. (The many Keep/UpMerge comments, among others.)"

First, were discussing Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices rather than Category:Jewish American jurists, so the merits of the former category are largely a separate issue. And secondly, I don't see what led you to consider the upmerge votes as being akin to a keep.

Please can you explain this? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. In my original closure comments (which I edited down), I had a comment about thinking that I was going to hear an outcry from vote counters, but I added a link to consensus, and removed that line, in the hopes of WP:AGF : )

This isn't to suggest that you're just "vote counting", as I note in your discussion about Marx Brothers above, you seem well-enough versed in consensus over "voting".

I suppose the shorter answer is that I don't count boldened text, but I read the rationales. Quite often, reasons for deletion or keeping or whatever are quite different, and should be weighed on their own merits.

As for the "longer answer", there were a few main concerns, the chief of which was whether insection by ethnicity was appropriate in this case, or over-categorisation. I felt/feel that this was settled by adding the keep voters (or rather at least those who had no problem with such an intersection), to those who suggested an UpMerge to Category:Jewish American jurists. Simply comparing/contrasting those with those who opposed that idea (which didn't necessarily include all those commenting - For example, User:IZAK's apparent "concerns" about lists of names had more to do with concerns of abuse of the intersected lists, than with questioning the appropriateness of such intersection for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia).

So if the question of intersection by ethnicity has consensus, then there was merely whether to address some remaining concerns, such as concerns of whether Category:United States Supreme Court justices should be spilt in any way, and a concern of whether Category:Jewish American jurists should be split in this way. There seemed to be no consensus on these points, so I merely left a note suggesting some ideas for those who might wish to further organise the categories in question.

And as for listify, since there was consensus for the intersection, this falls under WP:CLS, and a list and a category could very well exist side-by-side. (And I did note at the time that the attempted AfD of the list was nearly unanimous in keep - though looking at it now it seems that someone has suggested a merge.)

Hopefully this clarifies. And if you have further questions/concerns please feel free to share, I have this page watchlisted now : ) - jc37 05:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 articles for deletion

Or is it articles for deletion, 2007...

I note your change of category for Irish general election, 2007 placing it in Category:2007 elections in Europe instead of Category:Elections in Europe, 2007. The two phrases have completely different English language meanings; the former meaning over 2000 elections, and the latter meaning elections in the year 2007. I fail to see how it makes any sense whatsoever to rename to use such an incorrect phrasing.

Any chance we could use proper English at Wikipedia for once? --zoney ♣ talk 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zoney, the category was renamed in A CFD discssion: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Elections_in_Europe.2C_2007. Category names always a bit of a compromise because they are inevitably truncated, and for a variety of reasons we have evolved a convention of putting the year first. It's not perfect grammar, but then anything this side of "Category:Elections in Europe in the year 2007 CE" has deficiencies too. --06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, CE is not generally used except by those attempting to push a point or changes the status quo. It's a bit rich that anytime anyone disagrees about something here people just throw their hands up and point to a discussion that took place on some obscure page with a half-dozen contributors deciding a convention for something in Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to have some way of making decisisons, and category names are handled at WP:CFD. It may not be perfect, but everyone is welcome to contribute. The "Year stuff" format for category names is widely used in wikipedia categories (see Category:2007), but its not a wikipedia-only thing: see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6518947.stm, where the BBC uses the title "2007 elections". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You seems a nice person, LOL :) Good luck.

For replying (if you wish): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megahmad&action=edit&section=9

Congratulations

On becoming an administrator. I'm rather pleased you're not one of the teenage schoolchild variety. I note on your User page you describe yourself as reasonably sane, but I can't help wondering how long you will be able to maintain yourself in that stance! Good luck! Regards, David Lauder 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been an admin for about a year, so if I still appear vaguely sane, I have evidently managed to disguise my decline resaonably well ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shows how demented I am becoming. I forgot it was 2007, not May 2006! David Lauder 15:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance

Could I bother you firstly by asking you to look at User:Skomorokh who is vandalising the disambiguation note at the top of Sir Robert Lauder of The Bass. Thanks. David Lauder 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, have used a standard templaye. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

James Strogne

Due to a move war caused by an editor who is unwilling to accept the naming conventions, it's currently at this incorrectly spelt title, and can't be moved back to due the redirects. Can you use your mop to move it back tp James Stronge please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now, all of you, please stop eedit warring! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please would you speedy delete James Strogne and Sir James Strone, 9th Baronet (spelling errors). And please would you rename Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan as Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet which I can't do. James Stronge definitely needs to be a disambiguation. The 9th Baronet was Sir James for a short period only. Thank you. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have speedy deleted those mis-spelt redirects, but I'm not going to move the main article until there is a consensus on where it should be. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{cult-film-stub}}

Actually, in looking at the SFD page I'm unclear as to how to actually nominate the thing. I withdrew the nom; your help in re-nominating would be greatly appreciated. Otto4711 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#.7B.7BCult-film-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Cult_film_stubs, and I hope I got it right (it's along time since I did an SfD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Indiana Jones Artifacts

So I hereby give you this, You deserve it. R_Orange 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! The strongest possible argument I never thought of. Well Done! R_Orange 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceasefire (for want of a better word)

I do think some editors involved might need some encouragement to agree to the proposal sadly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear that you may be right, but let's see. I had actually been thinking of going to ANI or somewhere to seek some sort of group probation for all the combatants, and I hope that won't be necessary. But the current cycle of tit-for-tat disputes is becoming increasingly disruptive, so something will have to be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm in favour naturally, given I proposed it in the first place. For any dissidents to the agreement, I'm thinking all that is needed is a quick proposal on WP:CN (or wherever the appropriate place is pending the MfD result) to get the community to agree to the proposal. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped VK would have seen the writing on the wall, but as soon as he carried on arguing and made the comment about barons and baronets I knew it was pointless. I'm going to concentrate on improving the project articles and avoid disputes, they can keep squabbling amongst themselves. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sad, isn't it? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Rite Catholic primates

Can you take a look at the articles for the people left in Category:Archbishops and see if there is a good subcat for them? I looked but I'm not sure about the terminology. Vegaswikian 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I looked, but I don't see anything appropriate in the existing categories. and I'm wary of creating more categories without a more careful consideration of the bishops category tree. I think that when we have tidied up the mess which PW has created with primates, it would be good to have another look at this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I would like to strongly contest the content of the paragraph on notability here WP:COI#Notability_and_saliency which states that Who's Who and other directories in Britain are meaningless and the people therein not notable, which seems to me a monstrous travesty of truth. It begs the question: what do people consult when they wish to acquire knowledge about living notables? Moreover, the most fictitious thing in that paragraph is the statement which states that people pay a fee for inclusion. This is a complete lie and whoever made this up needs to cite a very clear source. Maybe you could direct me to the relevant page where I at least can contest this paagraph along similar lines. Regards, David Lauder 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I think that you have severely misread the section, and would urge you to read it again.

• It does not say that "the people therein not notable"; what it does say is that 'Citations of "Who's Who" directories should not be used alone as evidence of notability.'
• Again, it does not make a blanket claim that "people pay a fee for inclusion"; what it actually says is the more qualified assertion that 'some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee'.

Anyway, if you want to argue for having it changed, I suggest raising the point at WT:COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for that but I find the play on words unconvincing. The imputation in the paragraph seems pretty clear to me. Regads, David Lauder 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph was referring to the American and other non-British versions. --Tracey Lowndes 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but the anti-establishment brigade on this side of the pond will pounce on that paragraph as being applicable to the United Kingdom. David Lauder 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There might be scope or some small clarification in the section on paying or entries, but he point that 'Citations of "Who's Who" directories should not be used alone as evidence of notability' seems to me to hold true wherever and however these volumes are produced. Wikipedia should not simply import someone else's assessment of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyme Regis

Please would you help me with Lyme_Regis_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Members_of_Parliament. The source of the info is Rayment. [3] - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done now! Hope that's OK :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant and so clever. I have started Henry Fane and Francis Fane. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category help

Seeing as you're a regular over at CfD and were involved in a previous discussion about this and related categories.

I was thinking about creating a subcat of Category:Real Irish Republican Army for just the members, as (Continuity IRA excepted due to the lack of members with articles) every other version of the IRA from 1916 onwards has a similar category, so this should be consistent as well.

This would leave the following articles in the main cat:

• Real Irish Republican Army
• 32 County Sovereignty Movement
• David Rupert - FBI/MI6 spy
• Colm Murphy - although convicted of conspiracy (and overturned on appeal and awaiting a retrial) he's not actually a member just an associate, and not been convicted of membership
• Bernadette Sands McKevitt - although married to a member, not been named as a member in any source, and as putting someone in the category is an accusation of criminal behaviour can't be done per BLP

And these articles would go in the subcat:

• Liam Campbell
• Seamus Daly
• Michael McKevitt

The first two need plenty of work anyway, which I should have more time to do now with any luck. Also if his trial ever finishes (not even sure what's going on with that, there's been zilch in the press) Sean Hoey may need an article, plus there's a couple of other possibilities for articles on members as well.

Would that be a reasonable use of categories? I realise both the main cat and subcat (and the Real IRA actions subcat) are all sparsely populated, but at least they would be consistent with the other incarnations of the IRA. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi ONIH,

I have just spent a bit of time looking at this, and I think you are right that the category should be created. Yes, it won't be heavily populated, but I think that confirmed membership of the Real IRA is a sufficiently significant attribute to merit categorisation. The parent categories are Category:Irish rebels and Category:Irish Republican Army, both of which have too many other other articles (the first has plenty unrelated to the 1968/69-onwards conflict, and the latter too few on people), so leaving Real IRA members in there seems to me to be likely to lead to them being overlooked.

It also seems to me that the other parent category Category:Members of organizations, is weirdly underpopulated -- I must look into that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thought as much just wanted to get a second opinion from someone who deals with categories a lot. Speaking of the Irish rebels category, there's a discussion here about it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, this pair of edits tell you all you need to know about that part of the discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. A bit more NPOV focus would help. The categorisation looks OK now, under IRA actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament

I voted to keep these as I find them useful, the only other method of doing this that I can think of is to categorise MPs under the term of the Prime Ministers, but that would involve alot of work in re-organising them.--padraig3uk 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would involve an awful lot of work, because (as per today's news!), Prime Ministerial terms do not always begin or end at elections, so we would have to make an individual assessment of each MP's dates in parliament (in the case of by-elections, checking whether the by-election preceded a change of prime minister). Much better to keep a system which works, and glad you find Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglican arthropods

Thanks for the compliment ... I'm glad I brightened up your day. Daniel Case 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bossiney

[moved from userpage - Alison ☺ 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)]

Hello cailin le an gruaig donn

The Wickipedia entry for Bossiney is incorrect when it says the borough only had one elector in 1784. I don't know if you put this in. I don't want to delete it without who ever placed it knowing why. Possibly it was your entry?

The source for this claim is undoubtedly Oldfield’s “The Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland” (vol iii page 210) published in 1816. However, in a slighty later work of Oldfield's “A Key to the House of Commons” published in 1820 he no longer makes it. In 1819 he had acted as an election agent in Bossiney which had doubtlessly greatly improved his knowledge of the borough.

The actual number of electors in 1784 was almost certainly 10. This figure can be inferred from the contents of letter (quoted in “The History of Parliament 1754 - 1790” - page 46) penned by a local election agent in January 1784 and sent to Lady Bute, then one of the borough’s “patrons”: “The interest hath certainly been injured greatly by Mr Crewe’s bill.... the election, now being in fewer hands, each individual feels greater consequence. I will however venture to assure your Ladyship that your interest is not in the least danger....We have still seven to three, which I think is a pretty decent majority.”

Paul Buttle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.205 (talk • contribs)

Hi Paul, sounds like you have a great set of sources there. I didn't add the info about one elector, but in any case if it's wrong it should go. I suggest that you leave a message about this on the article's talk page: see Talk:Bossiney (UK Parliament constituency). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cailin donn a chara,

I've done what you've said. Added my tuppence worth on the Bossiney page.

I'm totally bewildered by the Wickipedia system - brilliant as it is. Maybe in time I'll get the hang of it.

The 7th June this year is the 175th anniversary of the passing of the Reform Act - I wonder if it will get any attention in the media?

Mise le meas,

Paul Buttle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.193.205 (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Henry Fane, MP

Yes, I know Fane just about scrapes in, I spent ages yesterday sourcing him. My point was to wait until more information was available, rather that not have a page but just momentarily have one stub less. I see you have asked for refs on that page well all that information is fully referenced here [4] where Kittybrewster found it! - Please feel free to go into my user space and use it, if you are so inclined. I have washed my hands of him and his stubs. They are littered with errors and improbabilities and ultimately I am concerned they will dmage the project. Giano 13:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that he problem with that article is not that the stub was created (stubs are quite legit if they are capable of expansion), but that so much other info was added in without being referenced. I'm not going to go and collect the references myself, but if they aren't added I will do a big purge of the unreferenced facts, as Jimbo has repeatedly recommended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If Henry Fane was an MP then a brief biography of him should be found in "The House of Commons 1754 - 1790" published by The History of Parliament Trust - see:-

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/the-commons-1754-1790.html

I've only found complete sets of the History of Parliament volumes in the UK in university libraries and the British Library - but some county libraries may have them - I think Lancashire does. Forgive me if I'm stating here what you already know.

Paul Buttle

AfD

Thanks, I've seen stuff like that on that Peerage website before, there's quite a few Arbuthnots on there that have questionable sourcing in terms of independence. I set up this page a while ago when preparing a COI noticeboard report, a lot of the articles tend to be only sourced by Kittybrewster's site, the book written by a family member and possibly one other source, it's very problematic. For example see William Arbuthnot (artillery officer), he first became an officer in 1804 but became a general in 1873, which would mean he was in his 80s?! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't ware of User:One Night In Hackney/COI, but I am starting to be persuaded that Vintagekits is right to place a big question mark over most of the Arbuthnot articles. Unfortunately, VvK's personal anatagonism to Kittybrewster has obscured that point, because the substantive arguments have been lost in all the heat and fury generated. :( I will investigate further next week, but I am beginning to think that a group AfD for most of them might be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Those are just the ones that were created with an account, I know there were quite a few created using an IP as well. If you're planning AfDs you might want to see User:One Night In Hackney/Temp for details of partisan block voting as well. Naturally I'm not going to be commenting on any future Arbuthnot AfDs, as it will only be problematic. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand why you want to back out, but I am quite alarmed by this, so I'll take it up next week. I'll leave the block voting as a separate issue, but I think that all the Arbuthnot articles now need to be checked for evidence of an WP:RS reliable independent source. What a pity :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely something that needs doing, but every time I nominate an article the bad faith accusations get thrown about, plus there was the small matter of the "Irish republican cabal" template. Independent sourcing is definitely the way to go, if you look at the version of Harriet Arbuthnot Giano created in his userspace, it's an article we should definitely have rather than yet another stub. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While I've tended to sit on the fence in Arbuthnot AfDs - even if Sir William has possibly dubious motives for posting bios of every relative of his, some of them do seem to meet WP:BIO, you've convinced me at least in the case of this one. As I said on the discussion, I find it odd that the founder of a bank has no sources anywhere - I'm sure I'd have no problem finding out who Mr Barclay, Mr Lloyd, Messrs Goldman & Sachs etc were if I took the time to look. I think it possibly warrants a check through some of the other lesser Arbuthnots as this casts doubt on his previous submissions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref: Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot [5]

Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Philip Arbuthnot - but why change the author;s name. Too many questions? Giano 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: And how the hell would she remember someone who died almost a 100 years before she wrote her memories Sir William Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet Giano 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a legitimate reason for the name discrepency, see here. PSM refers to her husbands name, Philip Stewart-Mackenzie, while she was called Ada Jane Evelyn. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, It seems Ada Jane and Mrs P S-M are one and the same person - and the book is online on Kittybrester's own site with Kittybrewster owning the copyright of this 87 year old work. Giano 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message here [6] about the circular referencing. I've no reason to beleive what he says is false - but what is the policy concerning the matter - I don't know. Giano 12:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For helping to calm the discussion on Isms and Belief Systems at CfD with all your good sense. Thanks a lot! Lesnail 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bastin

Aatomic1 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

belief

Let me tell you about my experience. I am a cab driver. I also have a B.A. in philosophy, and a Certificate in teaching critical thinking.

I have been driving cab for a while now, and I have become quite skilled at it. Now I know what you are thinking! How much skill does driving cab take?! Everyone drives. It's something anyone can do! As a result, I get a lot of input from people on how to do my job. More than most anyone at any job really. Everyone is an expert. But it isn't that simple...

For instance, I really do know the shortest way to a place, EVEN if its different from the one usually taken by my passenger. This is not always true, but by and large it is. Also, I know the Rules of the Road, and I have my own copy of the Vehicle Code. Yet I still have people think "Hey! you can't do that!" It usually involves a legal U-turn, or the use of lanes, etc. People very often give me the play-by-play directions the whole way to the destination even though I told them I know exactly where it is, and I have been there a million times. Plus, as an experienced driver, I have cut the margin on possible moves quite small. This sometimes results in people thinking I am going to miss a turn, or not stop at a stop sign, etc. Really, I am just stopping or turning shorter than they would. I don't say anything, and they continue to live their lives believing that I just didn't know what I was doing! It's a cross I bear.

I took every course in logic that CSUC has to offer. I studied further than the curriculum as well. I have 3 large boxes of index card notes on just logic, and still growing. But guess what! Philosophy and logic are ALSO subjects that everyone thinks they know everything about! Take a look at the discussion so far. You seem pretty sure that aesthetic movements are not isms or belief systems. And yet for every one there exists a sentence which is believed to be true by one who is a part of that movement. You certainly aren't the only guilty one.

Set membership is the most precise language that can be used. Beliefs correspond to sentences which are believed to be true sentences. Every action by humans corresponds to some mental state. Every mental state corresponds to some sentence which is true. If you don't see it that way that's fine. You aren't a logician I don't think. For those of us who have an investment in this way of looking, and expressing things, you really should defer.

You can say that it's not clear all day long. At this point that is a function of your understanding, and not my elucidation. The every day person's perception on what is and is not a belief system should be informed by those who are educated specifically on the issue, not the other way around.

I know you are worried that just any old thing becomes a belief system this way: marriage-ism. How silly! Well not really. It's not silly at all. The fact is that even though we could go through the whole dictionary, and put -ism at the end of each word -- no one is doing that, are they?! There is a reason no one is. There are clearly reasonable cases, and clearly unreasonable cases. Rather than just abandon the project altogether, why don't we have faith in people to be able to know the difference?!

Be well, Gregbard 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation v tagging

Hi Jc37, thanks for your reply to comment to PW at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Lutheran_Primates_of_Sweden. I can't actually claim originality for emphasising the distinction between categorisation and tagging, because I first saw it expressed in those terms in some other discussion. Can't recall who the author was, possibly Radiant.

Anyway, I have just been re-reading WP:CAT, and I don't think that it makes that point. What do you think of proposing a change to WP:CAT to make this point fairly prominently, e.g. at WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines?

BTW, PW's responses to the CfDs on primates lead me back to the view that it would be best to seek a ban on him creating categories. He doesn't seem to have improved his understanding of how categories work, seems unable/unwillingly to meaningfully engage in CfD discussions ... and the primates categories are at least the fourth occasion on which he has created a sprawling and ill-conceived category tree which others have had to tidy up. (The others I can think of offhand are Christian pastors, Misionaries, and Methodist bishops).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And unwise forays into immigrant/emigrant/expat ones and many more besides. Earlier I collected some here, here and here. He seems to be incorrigible. -- roundhouse 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, in order:

• 1.) Well whatever the source, I thought it was insightful.
• 2.) Yes, something explaining the difference between tagging and categorising would be a good idea. I've tinkered with some text, perhaps I'll have something postable in the next couple days.
• 3.) As for User:Pastorwayne, I'm hesitant. At times, he really seems like a good faith editor. But sometimes, it's clear that he's pushing a POV. But it's hard to discern how much is as a response of how he was treated for awhile on CfD. So often he was attacked (not the categories, him) without those doing so, presuming good faith, and not figuring out that he just didn't understand (which was coupled by his presumption that he did, which has turned out to not be true, time and again). Though I do find it concerning that he chose to continue to create the primates categories, even after he was asked to explain them. (Which, of course was part of the lead-in to him being blocked), and then it turns out that they are being nominated right and left for deletion. And I must admit, User:Roundhouse's lists definitely give me pause. I think the proper next step, if one or both of you are willing (and you may wish to include User:Dr. Submillimeter), is to start an actual RfC about this. I think it's time to go through the process of the dispute resolution channels. - jc37 10:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've brought the above up to date with PWs 534 category edits from Feb 17 to date. It is worse than I thought - we have prelates and much else as well. The primates categories don't make a great deal of sense to me; even the first one Category:Primates (bishops) is wrongly named (it should be Primates (religion) to match its (very good) article Primate (religion), as primates are not necessarily bishops). I certainly agree that he does not understand categories. He also seems bent upon winning some ludicrous name competition: Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of the East and Malankara Metropolitanate of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is surely a worthy contender. -- roundhouse 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Operas by year

Hi there. I've noticed all the operas by year cats you've been working on... this seems like a pretty massive endeavor... was there a discussion about it someplace? I've looked but can't find any. There are some questions about it here too. I just want to avoid a situation where you put in LOTS of work that people later decide isn't the best way to organize these cats. Fireplace 17:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. I have replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Category:Operas by_year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see the reception that you've gotten over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Category:Operas by_year, particularly the "you misunderstand the nature of opera" comment, which I find both condescending and clearly off the mark. I exited that Project a few days ago as the tone of remarks by some toward anything viewed as "outside" interference was somewhat off-putting. It looks like you've put a great deal of thought and effort into this and I think it's worthwhile! Hang in there! - Nickbigd 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! There are a few vocal people in WikiProject Opera taking some rather unpersuasive positions, but (assuming good faith) I hope that I have just caught them at a bad time :) The arguments they are making are very strange, apparently assuming that because two things with the same date won't necessarily be thematically or stylistly similar that the date is irrelevant. (funny logic, because on the same grounds the opera-by-language categories would be useless). Anyway, I'm sure that it'll all pass over, and that they all do understand that a wikiproject does not 'own' a set of articles ... and I'd encourage you to return and not be deterrred because some people were unwelcoming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was very sorry (but not surprised) to see your message on my talkpage. I reviewed your comments here, which I found extremely articulate and incisive, and could only conclude that it's the Project's loss! You are so right in your comments about Projects not being intended as "exclusive clubs" or "walled gardens." Sad to say, when I joined the Project, I got nary a "welcome" on my talk page. I continued to create and edit opera articles on my own, and when I dared to put my toe in the water on one (apparently controversial) topic, I got an extremely dismissive and condescending response, referencing a Project "consensus" that apparently had been achieved somewhere in the ether. The comments on the Project page over time clearly reflect dominance bordering on "ownership" by 3 or 4 contributors. I've decided to spend some time creating, expanding and illustrating articles for artists on my To Do list from the Italian Renaissance, but of course I will continue working on opera articles as well. It would be fun to work with others on that topic, but I love it too much to give it up entirely. Thanks for the message on my talkpage; I don't get a lot of visitors over there. Cheers! NickInBigD ^(Hey!) 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BHG, rock on! I've worked on a similar project on poetry, though we opted to do it in the form of a list: List of years in poetry. It's probably a lot more work, but ultimately seemed easier to organize and manage. Let me know if you want any thoughts on projects like this. I find these very useful.A Musing 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, A Musing! I find lists rather hard work to build, but with a few templates, AWB makes it quite an easy job to do with categories (I also did this for Category:elections by year and Category:Referendums by year, amongst others). I find that by-year-categories are a bit of nuisance to use unless they have navigation templates, but with that in place they are very handy. Any further thoughts would be welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot thought

Don't know if you've noticed my comments on this AfD, but WP:MILITARY#Notability (which I freely admit never having heard of before today) — which specifically excludes family histories as reliable sources — might be of use in the battle to hold back the ever-rising tide of Arbuthnots — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer: WP:MILITARY#Notability seems very sensible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about here. I asked the chap who co-ordinates the WP:Military project and this is what he said to me: I'm not aware of any such rule, actually. The normal Wikipedia policy with regards to publication applies—unpublished sources (i.e. privately held manuscripts, etc.) cannot be cited—but this doesn't have anything to do with family history, per se. You may be thinking of the convention about notability rather than sourcing here. As a general rule, individuals who are not mentioned outside of family histories tend not to be notable enough for their own articles; but even this is merely a guideline rather than a hard rule.Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) David Lauder 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not just confined to the army they seem to have been religious too, are Bishops automatically notable because this page "Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) seems limited in usefulness too. Regarding the ever rising tide of Arbuthnots, I think that can only be solved by Kittybrewster realising this self-referencing stub creation is unnacceptable and that can only be achieved by some form of Arb-com controll or sanction. I'm unsure how one can go about it. Giano 12:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any comparable guideline at WP:Anglicanism or WP:CCW — the nearest I can see is this. My personal opinion would be all archbishops or bishops of major dioceses (eg London) are automatically N whilst the others need to have done something above-and-beyond such as writing a book to warrant inclusion (a bishop in every city for 2000 years adds up to a lot of bishops), but that's my personal opinion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever rising tide? - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This one. I have no problem with you adding genuinely notable Arbuthnots, but you seem hell-bent on adding (generally unsourced aside from family histories) articles on every member of your family to Wikipedia. A list of mainspace contribs consisting almost entirely of articles on the editors relatives and (bizarrely) repeated edits to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should not have a "see next 1000" option! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As one who is opposed to the current jaundiced campaign being waged, could I just ask if that means that the numerous brilliant 19th and early 20th century family histories researched for years and compiled by the likes of Professor Sir William Fraser, (whose labours currently sell for anything between £300 and £1000), are all useless? Just what sort of academic judgement is that? It seems to me as an observer that there is some sort of fantastic and entirely unjustified bias against family history books, often the best reference point when researching members of those families. What is being said here is that the labours of the various writers, where members of the families or otherwise, were spurious and useless. That is just a lie. David Lauder 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry BrownHairedGirl for hijacking your talk page with this crap - but yes, I do believe that a family history written by a member of the family can never be an independent source and should be discounted. Secondly, even if one does accept "Memories of the Arbuthnots" as a legitimate source, all these articles sourced from it are still lacking in multiple sources since the "Peerage" site Sir William always uses as a second source is sourced from the book so is just duplicating content. As I repeatedly say, I have no problem with genuinely notable Arbuthnots, but while Wikipedia is not paper, Wikipedia is also not toilet paper. Being a member of a large family, some of whose members are notable, does not make you notable yourself. The price of the books is totally irrelevant - John Rocque's maps of London sell for thousands, but it doesn't mean each street they list warrants its own article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• <Conflict with iridescenti - it seems our message is very similar>. This is an encyclopedia - its function to explain all topics from law, science, history, in short, basically all subjects. This will of course include serious and factual biographies of all notable people involved in those subjects from Marie Curie to Adold Hitler to Mother Theresa to William the Conqueror. What Wikipedia is not is a social register, second rate "Whose Who" or "telephone directory" for the benefit of anyone who feels their late second cousin Fred has been overlooked in life. Family history is a fascinating subject for those who wish to know who their relations are or were, but, and this is the big but, other people's relations are of no interest to anyone other than their own kith and kin unless they were notable. Kittybrester' relations where notable are retained, and we thank him for his contributions, where his relations are not notable they will be disposed of in the usual fashion. The blunt and unavoidable truth is Kittybrewster can either accept this and write full referenced biographies of notable people, as most of us here do, or he can leave. In short he can play by the rules or go - the choice is his alone. I think this has got to go now to higher chanels to be resolved. 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giano II (talk • contribs).

David, thanks for your comment, and I think that a lot of what you say is right. However, with respect, I also that you are missing the point in assessing these articles and their sources. I don't see anyone claiming that labours in family history are useless, and I would personally add that I'm sure that Mrs Arbuthnot's contribution was valuable. However, Iridescenti and others are right ton pint out that it is clearly not an independent source.

The point here is that wikipedia faces pressures to incorporate all sorts of material, and has to set some boundaries to maintain quality. The policies and guidelines have been developed over several years, and whilst not perfect they do set some fairly clear baselines which have the benefit of being reasonably clear and capable of objective assessment. I think that it is very valuable and worthy that Kittybrewster and others in his family have made such great efforts to record the history of their relatives, and particularly to make that material available online on their website and genealogical website: it would be wonderful if more families were follow that excellent example. I value social history, and Kittybrewster's efforts have made a useful contribution to it.

But the problem which has arisen here is that Kittybrewster has misunderstood the distinction between the family websites and this encyclopaedia. In a nutshell, Wikipedia has different inclusion criteria, and Wikipdia is not a directory. If a writer unconnected to these people chosen to write about them, that would be an independent source. But for whatever reason, plenty of these articles (such as Arbuthnot family) have no independent secondary sources, so they simply do not fit Wikipedia's insistence on WP:N notability and WP:RS reliable sources. There is no bias involved; the same rule applies to all articles.

I like Kittybrewster, and we have worked together successfully on many articles. I very much regret arguing for the removal of his work, but I'm afraid that in respect of articles on his family, he has made a series of big mistakes. He should have followed WP:COI and stayed off the subject, or at least have followed the guideline's recommendation to make suggestions on talk pages rather than edit the pages directly ... and at this point, when the COI issues are so widely discussed, he really should refrain from voting in XfD debates.

It has not helped that Kittybrewster has chosen to get stuck into some very ill-considered disputes with Vintagekits and others, and (as I have said before) I think that both sides of that dispute have behaved very badly on any occasions. But setting aside all the swirling clouds of personal animosity, I have to conclude that VK has been making a good point in drawing editors' attention to the failure of these articles to meet notability guidelines. If VK had done so in a more reasonable manner, I think that more of these articles would have been deleted already, because VK's repeated rudeness has clearly deterred people from agreeing with him. It was only when I noticed the self-referencing nature of a source cite for John Alves Arbuthnot that I checked further and concluded that there was indeed a valid point to his objections; until the venom had led me to give KB the benefit of any doubt. I know that you, David, insist on high standards in the articles you edit. Please can you apply them here, too? The fact that we are dealing the work of someone who I hope we both count as a friend should not lead to a lowering of standards or a suspension of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know Kittybrewster apart from passing by him here. He has on occasion been quite helpful to me. I am not calling for the lowering of standards, but it does seem to me that several of the stubs which have been flagged up for deletion have been done so as part and parcel of both a dispute and spite. I draw that conclusion from the comments left. When Sir William Fraser published his mammoth work on the Hamilton Earls of Haddington and their families, for instance, he spent 7 years researching it. He was no relation. He was a highly respected academic. Three different Lord Lyons have produced works on families with their surnames, all thoroughly researched and highly respected. Very many notables appear in these books. To dismiss these works, written by someone of the same surname (who doubtless is hardly or not related to most of those in the book) is just not academic. It is saying that the author is worthless or biased just because they carry the same surname, without a scrap of evidence to support such an accusation.

I note all the "nots" above, but all good encyclopaedias carry as many biographical articles as they do anything else, some huge, others the equivalent of stubs. Instead of deleting stubs of someone who appears they might be notable, why not leave it there until someone can find the time to research proper sources. God knows there are thousands of stubs and non-notables on Wikipedia. I do not disagree with the request for notability, which is a natural one, but it seems to me that clearly notable people are being regarded otherwise for reasons I would rather not pronounce upon. For instance, someone sneered and joked about someone being an MP of a Rotten Borough. The fact remains that there were many of these MPs and they were all legitimate Members of the Parliament of Great Britain and as such are clearly notable. I note also the comment here (or somewhere) about thousands of Bishops. Not all Bishops are notable for doing something specific, however it would be ludicrous to suggest that being a Bishop in iself is not notable and any good encyclopaedia would normally have a list of them with an article on more notable ones. I apologise for clogging up your Talk Page with this discussion. Regards, David Lauder 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That comment about the bishops was from me, and I made it very clear it was a personal opinion of what I think policy should be, not what policy is. While obviously the holders of significant bishoprics are notable, a post such as Anglican Bishop of Killaloe - effectively a titular see in an almost entirely Catholic area, and now abolished - does not to my mind impart notability in and of itself. I agree with you absolutely that bishops should be listed, and we do have a perfectly good List of Anglican Bishops of Killaloe, but there is nothing in the Arbuthnot in question to indicate that he's one of the "more notable ones".

I also feel it worth pointing out that - despite what Kittybrewster & his supporters seem to imply - I have never nominated an Arbuthnot article for deletion. However, I will freely admit that, as with (for example) Billy Hathorn or Torb37, there's enough history there that the name jumps out when I see it in an XfD discussion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

David, no need to apologise! I alos know KB only from our discussions here, but we too have worked together on lots of things, usually very amicably, and we have frequently called on each other to help out on each others' projects.

It's useful to have these discussions, especially when they can be conducted as politely and constructively as this has been. A few quick points for now:

1. An MP for a rotten borough still got his seat in parliament, and could pursue a parliamentary career (which is largely why they were so controversial!). Looking at the lists of rotten boroughs, quite a number of very significant politicians were returned from constituencies which look pretty shocking by contemporary standards ... but then by contemporary standards, all elections before the 1928 Act were shockingly unfair. The point (on which I think we seem to agree), is that what matters wrt to notability is that they did sit in parliament, however they got there. However, we still need proper sources to include them, even if those sources are sometimes rather scanty.
2. I think that the difference between our approaches is actually quite narrow and nuanced. I think that stubs can be very useful, but that we do need to distinguish between the clearly useful stubs and the might-be-useful and the no-evidence-of-utility ones.
3. In the "useful" category, I would include a stub on an MP or peer, or someone else where there was actually evidence from reliable sources that they were notable. In the might-be-useful category, I would include Alexander Arbuthnot (see AfD), who did hold a potentially notable post, but we have no evidence so far that he really did enough to merit more than an entry in a list; and in the no-evidence-of-utility category I would place George Bingham Arbuthnot (see AfD (when there isn't a war on, many generals are deeply obscure).
4. So what to do about them? I say keep the clearly useful stubs; keep-for-now the might-be-useful stubs and hope that they will soon be improved; and delete the no-evidence-of-utility stubs, ecause otherwise wikipedia will fill up with a lot of stubby material of dubious merit and dubious reliability.
5. That may sound a bit harsh, but wikipedia has a poor reputation in some quarters, where it is seen as including a lot of inaccurate nonsense. I think that's unfair, but to minimise that sort of charge, we do need to be rigorous about ensuring that biographical stub articles do at least contain reliably and independently sourced evidence that the person existed and did something or notable or held a notable position.

It's such a pity that when it comes to his family, Kittybrewster didn't concentrate his talents on the notable Arbuthnots, helping to source material for other editors (avoiding the COI problems), rather than diluting his energies across so many people of very dubious notability. The present "purge of Arbuthnots" must be very unpleasant for him, and I hope that in time he will be able to see that while there is clear malice on the part of some editors, most of those participating in the AfDs are trying to assess the articles fairly in difficult circumstances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Kittybrewster's faults I believe his overall contribution to Wikipedia has been most constructive and does not merit in any way the sneering disgraceful remarks by User:Giano to him, about him, and to and about anyone who offers the slightest bit of support to Kittybrewster. The comment by Giano on his User page is a disgrace. I am not impressed with his numerous barnstars when he behaves in such an openly uncivil manner towards other users who come on to Wikipedia and give their free time and energies to the project. It seems to me that WP:Uncivil is actually used by the uncivil against others after they have been provoked into it. I do not lightly complain against others but we seen to have a little group of people attacking Kittybrewster, and virtually anything he has done, largely unfairly and in the most sneering manner. Can you not bring other administrators into this scenario and ask them to mediate? David Lauder 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hume of Berwick

Please could you lock this topic on my latest reversion until User:Christina Kaye gets the message. She is very clearly attempting to push an NPOV argument and false claim on this extinct peerage under a claim of 'compromise'. I have consistantly demonstrated that she is wrong and that there cannot be a compromise because there are no legal grounds for it. All the authorities (bar one), including William Dugdale give a specific line on this peerage and yet she continues to poo poo it at to insert into the article a family claim which has never been brought before The House and which no proper authority agrees with. In addition the peerage was reissued a century later! I'd be grateful for some input otherwise I shall have to ask for adjudication. She has now broken the three-reverts rule by reverting my proper formats thrice. David Lauder 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'd be most grateful if you could bring your admirably calm and fair style of adminship to bear on a disagreement I'm having with User:David Lauder at the above page. I've made some recent attempts at compromise, but my edits to the article are just getting reverted, and the mood between us is now pretty sour. Thanks.Christina Kaye 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes, I have now protected the article Lord Hume of Berwick or 14 days. See my explanation and comments at Talk:Lord_Hume_of_Berwick#Page_protected; I think that it would be best to continue the discussion there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Christina Kaye is harrassing me, interfering with my Talk Page after being requested to stay away from it, and sneaking around her previous nasty and other comments and altering them, obviously now trying to sanitise her behaviour. I don't wish this to escalate into a major formal complaint which will involve me spending hours of my valuable time compiling, and I ask you to please caution her. David Lauder 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry David's chosing to ignore my invitation to take part in a compromise on the Lord Hume talk page, preferring the disruption route. For BHG's information the 'interfering' David is referring to consists of reverting changes he made to BHG's post on his talk page here [7]. I was following WP:TALK in this. Christina Kaye 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

David, please could you help me understand your concerns by providing links to the particular edits by Christina Kaye which concern you? The only recent edits by CK to your talk page are those where she quite properly reverted you alteration of a comment of mine, but if I missed something, gimme the links and I'll be happy to take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered the post you left on my page. I am starting to wonder if Wikipedia is worth all this hassle. Its reputation will go down the toilet if personal opionions are permitted to override established fact. David Lauder 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

David, you are quite right to be passionate about accuracy, and it would be a real pity to lose that from wikipedia. The issue now is that when an edit war starts, we need to have a way of deciding what's fact and what isn't; nobody wants to see POV overriding fact, but w do need to go through a few steps to determine which is which. You evidently believe that a particular version is the most accurate, so I suggest that the best thing to do would be to post to Talk:Lord Hume of Berwick with a kink to the version you are talking about, and an {{editprotected}} tag beside it to draw the attention of an admin. If you can explain clearly why the change you suggest is preferable, then it should be easy enough for another admin to understand the issues and make a decision. Having protected the page, I want to remain impartial and not take a stand either way on the substance. But I know that you are an experienced editor and a very thorough researcher, so I'm sure that you will be able to give a very clear case for the changes you seek. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BHG I have responded on my Talk Page to your post. Regards, David Lauder 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of living Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom

Hi, BrownHairedGirl, may I borrow your admin expertise? Would the above article be acceptable? I've been slowly compiling a private alphabetical list of living British MPs in the past few months, and I make just over 1,400 of them (only just over twice the number of currently serving MPs). We already have lists of MPs elected by each general election, so there would certainly be nothing novel about it. Your thoughts would be welcome and appreciated Dovea 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it would have some problems, and may be contested. I did a Google search for "list of living" on wikipedia, and found only two other such lists:

• List of living Victoria Cross recipients, which is quite short, and appears never to have been nominated for deletion
• List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy, which is huge, and also appears never to have been nominated for deletion

However, I see that List of Living Swedish noble families was merged into List of Swedish noble families, and that List of living Nazis was merged to Ex-Nazis.

In think that the rarity of such lists is due to the difficulty of maintaining them: people die, and if a list like this is not accurate and up-to-date, it isn't much use. At rough guesstimate, 50 of the MPs currently on your list will die in the next twelve months, which is a lot to keep track of, so I would question how well the list could be maintained.

In general, I think that the tendency at WP:AFD has been to take a dim view of large lists whose contents are unstable, but I have not been active enough at AfD recently to say that with confidence. (Note that this a different matter to categories, because the content of the category changes as soon as the article is edited and the category changed; a list will only be updated if the editor who updates the biographical article to note the death is also aware of the list and takes the time to update it). There is also the issue of wikipedia mirrors, which may lag by weeks or months behind the master servers, and I know that at previous AfDs some editors have expressed concern about content which dates so quickly.

So I guess that the best I can do is to say that it might be a good idea to ask for advice at Category Talk:Living people, and see what the folks there think.

If you were to ask me personally how I would respond to a List of living Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom if it were listed at AfD, then I have to say that I'd be torn. Being a politics junkie, I'd regard the list as fascinating and I'd really want to keep it; but I think that I could only argue for its retention if I saw it being carefully maintained. I don't know how persuasive an argument that would be for other editors.

Hope this helps! And sorry I can't give you the unreservedly enthusiastic answer I would like to give. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I still have BHG's talk page on my watchlist from a previous conversation I'll jump in here, since I'm probably (along with Dhartung and Mwelch) the main list-deletion nominator at the moment (occupational hazard of WP:WSS since they tend to come to us at some point). While I'd have no problem with this list as a concept — I think it would be useful, and in my opinion WP:USEFUL is a perfectly valid argument — as BHG says it would have to be kept up to date, and it would be a difficult one to keep up to date, since all it would take would be to miss the obituaries page for a day and you'd likely not see them a second time, since newspapers are unlikely to run "XXX still dead" stories. There are a couple of similar lists (List of living former sovereign monarchs, Surviving silent film actors and List of oldest Surviving members of the House of Representatives for example).

As with pretty much everything BHG says, though, I'd be inclined to follow her advice — of all the editors I've run into here, she's probably the one whose opinion I'm most inclined to take seriously on pretty much any subject — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the compliment, Iridescenti, I'm very flattered :) I hope you have noticed, though, that I do change my mind fairly often, so please don't take anything I say as gospel :)

Anyway, thanks or the info on the other lists: I think that the thing I notice about them is that they are quite narrowly defined, so end up quite small, which makes them much easier to maintain than the 1400-strong list which Dovea prposes.

There is a further problem, though, with a list of living MPs; after leaving Parliament, many of them slip a long way out of public gaze, and I would not assume that all of them feature in any national obituaries page. I know that Andrew Roth is very diligent in trying to track them, and he is frequently called on to write obituaries for the newspapers, but I don't think all of them are covered. If there is anything remotely interesting to say about them, then Roth can say it (in a delightfully idiosyncratic style), but with some of them that's a difficult task. Unfortunately, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has no equivalent of the brilliant Oireachtas members database in Ireland, which is a very thorough and carefully-maintained resource (the webmasters there are very thorough and very approachable). I think it's a disgraceful oversight, but that's how it is ... so sourcing is likely to be a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) do want to create & update this list, I'd suggest the party websites or even subscribing to the party newsletters, since they presumably do have full obits for the MPs - with only 5 mainland and 4 NI parties with Westminster MPs it would be doable (although you'd probably get some very odd comments from neighbours when they see Conservative Future and An Phoblacht side-by-side sticking out of your postbox) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Following on from this discussion, I have posted some comments to Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy#Accuracy and maintainability of this list, raising my concerns abot that list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments folks - I think I'll keep it on my Microsoft Excel (unless there's any strong feelings) as I feel it's bound to come under the deletors' axes. I would have suggested the best way to keep such a list updated would have been to check the 2007 deaths article regularly. That's how I keep my personal list up-to-date. About 6 MPs have died since January 1st 2007. There's only 2 on the list who I don't know if they're living or not - they are Charles Beattie and Reginald Moss Dovea 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IP range vandalism

Where do I go to make a report or ask for assistance with vandalism that is coming from an IP range that seems obviously shared? I suspect a group of grade school students, tag-team vandalizing the pages of authors Mrs. Brown is insisting they read---or something of the sort. All the vandalism was limited to a certain time frame earlier this afternoon/evening, and they hit the same group of authors. This simply cannot be coincidental. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Cheers! ---Cathal 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cathal, I think that WP:AIV is the place to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. We will see what happens. Thanks! ---Cathal 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Result: IP range blocked for 31 hours. Not bad. Thanks for the advice, clearly it was the right place to go. ---Cathal 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good! Well done spotting the problem and reporting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

cfd2

I think {{cfd2}} may be hosed, but I'm not sure how to fix it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think I may have fixed it now. Lemme know if that works, but I'm off now for the evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Operettas

Are you going to divide this into English, French, etc? I guess most of the Vicor Herbert shows, Desert Song, etc. would go to the new cat. -- Ssilvers 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)