User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

00:42 Thursday 19 December 2024 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)	click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl BrownHairedGirl's archives List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index
Wikipedia Admin I have been an administrator since May 2006. 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 please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

Someone suggested that I may haver mistaken the categories involved there. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you had been right about the categories involved, it was entirely wrong to simply delete the discussions :( The appropriate step would be ask for speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless bureaucracy. Much better to close a mistaken nomination by deletion. On examination moreover I don't believe I now agree that it was a correct nomination at all, but for reasons other than those I acted upon. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bureaucracy, pointless or otherwise. It is a matter of maintaining a record of the community's discussions on the categories and allowing others to review your actions. Please do not delete any further XfDs, or I will treat it as vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I am from Australia and I'm trying to get a wikpedia page written about myself. I am a TV personality who also appears in all other forms of media including my website www.getmega.com . Ive been Ms Megabyte for over 9 years - helping the people of Australia to be less frustrated with their computers. I have a best selling book too.

I am a friend of Max Walker, which is how I came to find your name - I believe you've edited his page.

I want to know if there's anyone that writes wikipedia pages on a contract basis. I know that the pages still must be accepted and must meet certain criteria, but I want to pay someone to do the copywriting for me.. someone who already knows the ins and outs of wikipedia and getting a page accepted.

can you help?

thankyou... Yvonne. yvonne@getmega.com

How do I find out if someone has answered this question!?

Hello. I've seen you do a lot of stuff with categories, so I wondered if you could come and give an opinion here?

For background, we are having a discussion on categorisation of Israeli settlements and Israeli local/regional councils in the West Bank. Currently some of them also appear in categories such as "Villages in Israel" or "Regional Councils in Israel" and I have suggested it be changed.

I'd welcome your input as an outsider. Thanks, Number 57

I started populating it, but noticed that there are already three sub-categories under Category:Lord Lieutenancies of England that need to be recategorized and/or renamed: Category:Lords Lieutenant of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Devon. I leave this to your CfD expertise. Choess 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this now, but I think "Lord Lieutenants" is preferable to "Lords Lieutenant" as a plural. See [1] for part of a discussion. I admit that this is true only from a proscriptive standpoint. Choess 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I should have followed up on your earlier message before getting to work on making all the new categories. Sorry :(

Anyway, do you think they should be renamed? If so, I can do a speedy on them as as creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble to do so (although the first 3 categories already existed, so I don't know if they're speediable), I do think it's preferable to rename them, yes. Thank you. Let me know if you'd like me to handle some of the CfDing. (I'm working through a bunch of DLs right now, actually.) Choess 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll handle the process. I'm reasonably familar with CfD, and in any case I have realised that all of these are speediable under WP:CFD#Speedy_renaming_and_speedy_merging-No.3, so I'll speedy them later tonight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All now tagged and listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the link I gave above (to what should be a full-view book) is coming up snippet view, but I've tried to justify the superiority of this particular plural at CfD. I'll try and keep an eye on it. Choess 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw this one: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Daughters_of_marquesses. I hope you have recovered from post-primate blues, or whatever has been keeping you away from CfD. Johnbod 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a disambiguation tag to the top of Peter B. Bennett. It's been my understanding that these notices are only for pages whose exact titles might be ambiguous, to act as a search aid. It doesn't seem likely that someone looking for another Peter Bennett would accidentally find themselves on the article Peter B. Bennett, middle initial included, thus, the notice is unnecessary clutter, and I have removed it accordingly. If there is a reason for including such a notice which I'm not aware of, then disregard this message. Sorry to be such a nitpicky OCD case. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Yes, there is a reason: see a fuller explanation at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#The_case_for_hatnotes, but briefly in this case, someone looking for a Peter Bennett may not know the middle initial of the person involved, and may easily end up on the wrong page. The hatnote takes very little screenspace, and is short enough to take little mental bandwidth, and is an invaluable help to a reader or editor who ends up on the wrong page. So I have restored it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because you added a hatnote to Betty Williams (politician) which I've removed. Please don't add these to all articles against the existing consensus until you get Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous altered through consensus. You are proposing a major change in the guidelines and a stylistic thing we need to be consistent about in order to not cause confusion (the exact reason the Manual of Style, which includes the relevant guideline, was created). You haven't explained a specific reason for the articles you have done this on (the reason you give above isn't true—Peter Bennett includes a lot more than "middle initials"), so I'm assuming you are planning to do this to all articles with any kind of disambiguator (or initial or whatever) in their titles, without exception, which is what I object too; specific exceptions are all well and good per WP:IAR etc.

I've also read Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#The_case_for_hatnotes and am not really persuaded by your arguments for the change, which feel a little contrived to me. The one that I thought was valid (though I don't know if it is true), if I understood it correctly, centered around optimising the site for Google searches (in cases where an article has a much higher ranking than other similarly named articles). However, IMO, Wikipedians should not be in the business of search engine optimisation. Wikipedia is primarily a long-term project to create an encyclopedia that aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge that will be published on lots of media and hopefully outlive the Web; rather than a website which aims to help people find our articles easily on Google through temporary kludges. I also don't think it would be possible to find whether the premise of this argument is actually true (without developers wasting lots of time doing some very clever stuff with linking up entries in the server logs).

You also don't seem to have addressed the very obvious argument for the status quo that disambiguating things that aren't ambiguous is, by definition, unnecessary, and clearly causes confusion (and takes up the time of readers) who assume that the article title they've asked for is ambiguous (as it is disambiguated) and so follow the link—something I, as an experienced user of this site, have done.

If there really is a reason to do this, I suggest that, after reaching consensus on it, you create a new template that explains that the article name isn't ambiguous (but here is a link to the disambiguation page anyway if you are looking for other people/things named whatever). I would also suggest that if you have to do this, it shouldn't be a hatnote (which, after much discussion in the early years of Wikipedia, it was decided should only be used for disambiguation), that is, the first thing people see on the page; but, instead, it could be something included further down the page, possibly in the see also section.

Also, assuming you are planning on going round doing this to lots of articles, I would suggest that unilaterally making the changes before anyone has had time to discuss your proposal will not encourage other editors to support it. If most editors agree with you, the policy should be changed pretty soon. Otherwise you'll end up just wasting time edit warring with those who support the status quo when you could be giving detailed arguments for the change.

Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a rant :-)

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick reply for now:

1. Adding a link which says "For other people called X, see x (disambiguation)" does not necessarily imply that the article title is confusing or that it is ambiguous. It is just a help to people who may have landed up on the wrong article, because ambiguity is a subjective thing (it depends on what the reader is looking for)
2. You seem to have completely misunderstand my point about Google. I have no interest in search-engine optimisation (except that as a practice, I tend to deplore it): my point is simply that someone who reaches a wikipedia page through a search engine may not have found the precise article they were looking for, and that it helps the reader to provide a short link to other articles on people of similar names.

All I am doing here is making things easier for readers who may have found the wrong page. The point you overlook is that most human names are intrinsically ambiguous: very few combinations of first and second names have been held by only one person, and even when qualified by a career or geographical attribute (e.g. "Sam Smith (politician)"), there are two further problems:

• There may be more than one person who fits the definition provided by the disambiguator (e.g. several politicians of that name, some of whom were only involved in a minor way in politics)
• the reader may be aware of the individual only through another aspect of their career rather than by the one in the article title: e.g. although there is only one Max Muspratt on wikipedia so far he could if needed be legitimately disambiguated as Max Muspratt (chemist) or as Max Muspratt (politician). Either disambiguator is likely to lead some readers in the wrong direction, so why not help them out?

Now to the specific examples:

1. Peter B. Bennett is one four Peter Bennetts listed at Peter Bennett (disambiguation). One of the others is an easily-confused Peter F. B. Bennett, and the two others have no middle initial specified. It is quite likely that some readers will end up at the wrong article, so why not help them out with a small an unobtrusive hatnote?
2. Of three Betty Williams listed at Betty Williams (disambiguation), one is the Labour MP Betty Williams (politician), but another is Betty Williams (nobel laureate), whose role was deeply political (though not in party sense): her work was to try to bring an end to the violent political conflict in Northern Ireland. Can you really guarantee that no reader looking for her could reasonably think that Betty Williams (politician) might not be title of the article she was looking for?

This whole exercise of creating an encyclopedia is about helping the reader, and the hatnotes are a small and unobtrusive device to assist that. WP:HATNOTE is a guideline not a policy, and per WP:GUIDE "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". It is common sense to use hatnotes where they may help some readers, and to avoid them when they will no (such as in the example at Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Personally I'd think that Peter B. Bennett doesn't lend itself to obvious disambiguation (like snipping (actor) from the end) and to be honest I am unsure we can assume people will manipulate URLs anyway. I have replied to your thoughts on this with some more of my own highlighting shaky assumptions and the way hatnotes can improve usability and reduce confusion. (Emperor 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've deleted a reference to a 1912 Leominster by-election, in an infobox. No poll was ever held as it was uncontested. Not a common thing now, of course but then it was different. I had a look to see if there was any precedent to go by and I couldn't find one. Do you think an uncontested by-election is worth a page? My feeling is no, but others might have a different view. Rbreen 16:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Yes, you're right: uncontested by-elections used to be reasonably common, but the last one was the Hemsworth by-election, 1946. That's not the only such article: see Category:Unopposed by-elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for lots more. Some of them might usefully be merged (though I'd be reluctant to do so for now), but my inclination is to start from the presumption that since 1885 a Parliamentary seat changing hands is a notable event (those in the last few centuries certainly meet WP:N). In the case of an unopposed by-election, the question I would like answered is why it was unopposed: because it was a safe seat, or because of an electoral pact? In the context of an infobox or a succession box, that is best done by having something for the article to link to. It's a pity in that case that there is no such article yet, but I think it's better to keep the link until there is, so I have reinstated the link in Sir James Rankin, 1st Baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had no idea there were so many articles on unopposed by-elections! My thinking was that any such article would inevitably be short (on reflection, that doesn't mean it's a bad article) and not additionally informative. However, on balance, especially as some articles will contain informative detail, it probably makes sense to have such an article as a rule. I will see if I can find out what the case was in Leominster: my guess is a safe seat, although six years earlier the majority was just 28 votes. Thanks for your response. Rbreen 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the change to {{s-par}} described here. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I would like to ask you to do a couple of things concerning s-par apart from the above requested change:

• Put the Canadian legislatures in alphabetic order (you can find that in the draft /Guidelines page as well); I don't think the geographical order will work.
• Remove the la parameter, which is overly general, per discussion here.
• Answer my message higher in this page.

Thank you for your time. Nice to see you back. Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your absence from the succession box world has been long, BrownHairedGirl, and there are some issues that are pending resolution; your presence in the SBS talk page would be most desirable and helpful.

In any case, two of the issues I have listed above have been resolved: a) there is a trend to create separate documentation pages for the most imporant templates and their appearance can be changed without help by an administrator, as they are not protected; b) the la parameter has been removed from s-par (see talk page).

However, there is still the outstanding case of the years you have added to the s-par headers for the English and British Parliaments. Given your lack of comment, I have taken the matter to the project to decide and we are close to removing the dates (four supporting the motion, none opposing it). The discussion is taking place here, in case you would like to comment. Waltham, The Duke of 09:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why make this link changes to John Wyndham to John Wyndham (writer) when the latter is only a redirect, the propoer link should be to John Wyndham. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the course of disambiguating the various Wyndhams, I had moved the article to John Wyndham (writer), before I realised that was a bad idea (there are far too many links to the writer), so I moved it back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes from John Wyndham to John Wyndham (writer) are unnecessary , since the latter is a redirect to the former. No need to do any more of these. PatGallacher 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, did you see the discussion above, at Why John Wyndham? They were necessary after I had moved John Wyndham, but I soon realised that this was a bad idea, so I moved the article on the writer back to John Wyndham. Naturally, I did not change any further links after moving the article back again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		On your user page, you state how you like to stay above 99% with your edit summary usage. This star is to commend you for your excellent work in maintaining that percentage. :) Acalamari 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!!!! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome! Acalamari 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia[2]. I have not had any problems with you, but I have with the rest of the conscientious editors. --Domer48 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I signed up in good faith, but maybe I ought to take another look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia are welcome. From a strictly personal viewpoint, I don't think it should be regarded as a team game but rather as an attempt to reduce stress and improve our encyclopaedia. I hope you talk over any misgivings with others whose opinion you trust and value, BrownHairedGirl and, of course, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here Domer48.

Please forgive the impertinence of commenting again on your talk page, BrownHairedGirl ...Gaimhreadhan • 20:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about MP as an insufficient DAB is taken on my part... While I'm not a fan of date ranges as disambiguators in bio titles, I'm not following your edits and I don't have any plans to start, so I'll probably not even notice if you are doing it... I only noticed that one because I was patrolling new pages at the time. Knowing that you (and possibly others) are setting up new pages like this I'll avoid doing moves on anything of that sort that pops up on my newpage ticker. Again, sorry if I caused you stress. Regards,--Isotope23 ^talk 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, was talking on the phone while I was adding them and forgot. Sorted now. Galloglass 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a decendent of Allen Upward (his nephew is my grandfather). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward

I have recently inhereted my grandfathers collection of Allen Upwards books - most of them signed first editions given to my great grandfather at the time of their first publication by Allen Upward.

I would like to add this detail to the Allen Upward page on Wikipedia...but am concerned this may break contribution rules because I am related.

Since you have contributed / edited this page I wondered if I should collaborate with you on this update?

Thanks for the help...sorry this is such a newbe question...

antony@theUpwards.net

Antony Upward 65.94.56.212 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you mind protecting this article? The 'Death' section is under constant vandalism by those angered by it. Thanks. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hadn't realised that the recent protection afforded to Fatimah was in response to a request from User:Klaksonn (after he made a 3RR violating POV revert). Nevertheless, thank you for the initiative in setting up the sandbox. I have started to re-write the article from scholarly sources and had reverted the article to the NPOV version. However, Klaksonn's first task on returning from his block was to revert the article to his POV version citing no consensus. But if you look at the comments on the talk page (where Klaksonn is clearly absent), two other editors agreed with my edits. I would appreciate it if you could prompt Klaksonn to engage in dialogue and revert the article to the version you believe meets WP:NPOV. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I have no expertise on the subject (in fact I know nothing about it at all!), so I don't want to make any judgement on content. However, I welcome the fact that you and other editors are trying to discuss the article, and I will urge Klaksonn to engage with that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your objectivity. → AA ^(talk) — 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you all luck in sorting this out. I know that it can be difficult when an editor with strong views appears to be unfamiliar with consensus-seeking processes, but there is no alternative to persevering. May I suggest that it would also be a good idea for you to post a msg to Klaksonn stressing your willingness to seek a consensus? When there has been a dispute such as this one, it can be very helpful to try to focus on re-establishing goodwill and stressing that NPOV has been achieved in many other articles on controversial subjects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your advice. I have been considering this myself (in exactly those terms) and will show my willingness in this respect. I hope to get this article to GA status. Maybe then, I could prompt you to have a read and gauge your opinion on the subject matter also as you mentioned you weren't familiar with it :) Thanks again for your time. → AA ^(talk) — 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have now completed the overhaul of the article and would like to request it be moved to the mainspace (with a history merge). Would also like to invite you to review the article and leave any comments on the talk page. Many thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Fatimah#Consensus_to_move_sandbox_to_mainspace.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just wanted to get your opinion on this issue. As you can see from the responses to your request, everyone except Klaksonn supports the move and Klaksonn's arguments are to wait until more Shia editors come and add their POV. He himself has not made any attempts to refute or edit any of the material. In fact, looking at his recent contributions, on the various articles that he has been editing, it has mostly been reverting other editors contributions with summaries borderlining on personal attacks (which he has been admonished for previously at WP:AN/I). I have attempted to smooth things over and get a dialogue going to hear out his specific objections on the article which has not been fruitful (see [3], [4], [5] and [6]). I would appreciate your thoughts on this as I am reluctant to work on the article any further in the sandbox since I do not know what objections Klaksonn has and I don't want to waste my time on it and later discover he raises a valid objection for which a rewrite is required. I would seriously like to get this article to GA and other editors are willing to assist in this task and if the sandbox version can be moved to mainspace, it may spark discussion that is not currently forthcoming (as the consensus is that the rewrite is a better starting point to move the article forward). Apologies for the length of this, but as you've been involved as a 3rd-party, your input is greatly appreciated and I don't want to take it to ANI at the moment but give Klaksonn further opportunities to constructively participate in the discussions. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note: see my conclusions at Talk:Fatimah#Conclusions_from_the_discussion.

I hope that you and other editors will continue to try to engage {Klaksonn in discussion about outstanding issues, even if that has been unsuccessful so far. At this point, further reverts by Klaksonn without prior consensus-seeking discussion would probably amount to disruptive editing or tendentious editing … but hopefully, everyone's concerns can all be addressed amicably by discussion. Well done to all involved in this improvement drive! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your participation on this article. I will continue to attempt to discuss Klaksonn's concerns and hope that now it's in mainspace, he will engage in the discussions. Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. JoshuaZ 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament}} a few days ago, but I held off adding it to articles, as it looks very long. I've been considering splitting it in two (36-39; 40-45) or even three (36-38; 39-41; 42-45) - purely to reduce its length. As you created many of the other templates in the series, I'd be interested to hear whether you think this is a good idea. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion moved to Category talk:United Kingdom by-election templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless high quality efforts on UK constituencies! Jza84 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every UK constituency article I check, you've had a huge role in moving it forwards, and I thought it only appropriate to grant you the above award! Please keep up the great work! Jza84 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to check out Sir Frederick Martin Williams, 2nd Baronet. Best wishes Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article I created (albeit as a very stubby stub), so pls forgive me for being unclear about why you pointed it out to me. Is there a problem with it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truro and St Austell (UK Parliament constituency) article could do with the predecessor and successor info in the F.M. Williams article (I have not mastered tables, yet). I'll put "of Tregullow" in the article, as well as the table, as there are a number of confusing Williams Baronetcies(I see from its History that you know this one). There are also a lot of "William Williams" people around, including some confused baronets. I will indicate that F.M.Williams was the son of William, of the Williams family of Caerhays and Burncoose. Hope this is O.K. ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 14:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Historic_constituencies_and_counties --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar for your great work on various biographies! Wikidudeman (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this would indicate otherwise: John_Kent_(disambiguation). If there are other John Kent's, they should be added there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Earl Andrew#John_Kent.2C_Newfoundland_premier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't normally check the edit histories under those circumstances. Please accept my apologies. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have bots to do all that? :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to bypass all the redirects. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't use someone's title as a disambiguation unless absolutely necessary. We normally use their profession instead. It's the common standard on Wikipedia, from what I've seen. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't disambiguate on Wikipedia based on how "snappy" the disambiguation title is. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean "snappy" -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you moved John Cotton to John Cotton (puritan) and added various Sir John Cottons to the former page. May I suggest we move John Cotton back as the primary, and add John Cotton (disambiguation) page for all of them? It seems that the puritan is the most historically important and the most linked to. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see your point, but I may I explain why I think that's a bad idea?

I probably should have proceeded straight away to write at least stub articles on the various John Cotton baronets, but as you'll see from the list, many of them were long-serving Members of Parliament, often representing several constituencies, as well as being powerful local gentry families: they were not major historical figures, but they were significant and notable players in the history of their times.

As you'll see from the list, disambiguation of them is complicated: for example Sir John Cotton, 3rd Baronet refers to two different people, from different baronetcies. The work that is currently underway both on baronets and on Members of Parliament involves at the bare minimum, historical lists of Members of Parliament for the various constituencies (see for example Cambridgeshire constituency) and stub articles on the MPs, with succession boxes ... which are complicated work in cases where there are so many similarly-named people.

Disambiguating all those hundreds of cross-links is important if we are to accurately record the parliamentary history, and it's made more complicated than it might appear by the fact that many of these people held very similar offices before they held their titles, and that there were often cases where younger sons or cousins of the baronets (though none listed so far in that dab page) were also office-holders.

Disambiguating this lot is much much easier if John Cotton is a dab page: that way, every link to the bare title is problematised, and can be checked and corrected so that ideally there are no incoming links to the dab page. If John Cotton is an article in itself, then every link needs to be checked very time it is disambiguated, which is time-consuming and difficult, and it precludes using WP:POPUPS for disambiguation, which is a huge time-saver. At a quick tally, I estimate that the parliamentary history alone will create over 150 links to the various John Cotton baronets, compared with 45 article-space links to the puritan.

I'll create those articles within the next two weeks; may I ask you to hold off and take a look again when that is done? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting that we leave the dab page as is only temporarily to ease the creation of your various articles, and then change it over to the scheme I suggested when complete? If so, I'm fine with that. If, however, you're suggesting that the dab should remain as is permanently, let's re-evaluate when your work is complete (or close to it) -- my current inclination is still that this page should be similar to, say, Jonathan Edwards as far as dabs go. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was actually suggesting that the dab page should probably permanently located at John Cotton.

I'm not doctrinaire about this, but I start from the presumption that the aim is to help the reader get as easily as possible to the article they are looking for, and that the first priority in achieving that is to ensure that all links point where they are intended to point.

So unless one article is more significant than all the others combined (as with, say, Brian Wilson), that is most likely to be achieved by having the dab page at the main title. Edwards shows the limitations of the other approach: in a quick scan of the 300 or so incoming links, I saw at least 20 where I didn't even have to open the articles to see that they were misdirected links ... and because Edwards isn't a dab page I couldn't easily fix them using popups, so I didn't bother.

I think rating the relative importance of people can be a hazardous business, because importance depends so much on perspective. To an apolitical Australian with no interest in hereditary titles, the Cotton baronets may be about as irrelevant as you could get, whereas for a historian of East Anglia, they would be highly notable, and likewise to those interested in the history of museums; to someone like me with no interest in sport, Jonathan Edwards (athlete) may be more significant than the theologian. Of course, in a paper encyclopedia, such judgements do need to be made, but Wikipedia is not paper when it comes to disambiguation I prefer not to prioritise any one article unless it is considerably more notable than all the other combined.

Anyway, let's review it once the other articles are in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Illingworth was unopposed in 1906. Craig gives the reason why Flannery didn't stand, something to do with the nomination I believe. I don't have that volume handy at the moment or I'd check but Craig does give a full explanation. Ask Gary I think he has the appropriate edition.

Btw the Shipley layout is something of an 'experiment' by which I was trying to reconcile the different ideas of what approach we should use generally. Galloglass 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to look at the Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu‎ page and my latest edit comment. Putting this disputed case out all over the web, decades after the event, seems exceptionally wrong to me. Regards, David Lauder 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that uncomfortable as it is, it's a big part of he man's notability. His conviction was an important part of the history of gay rights in Britain. The article seems to me to cover the issue quite fairly, by stressing both the victimisation (it seems that the crown was prepared to throw charges at him until he was convicted) and the wider political context. This case is widely known, and widely covered, and it seems to me that it would be wrong of wikipedia not to cover it as an important part of the article.

The article as it stands does not seem to me to reflect at all badly on Lord Montagu Beaulieu‎, but it does rightly stress the persecutory political climate of the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Brownhaired Girl" just to thank you for the addition of the unpublished biography at the end of Horace king (my Grandfather) I thought the biography lost. Yours sincerely John D Wilson 4 galingale way Portishead Bristol BS20 7LU

Hi John, glad you found the biography, but it wasn't actually me who added it. The note about it was added in this edit by an anonymous editor whose IP address (194.60.38.198) checks as out as being within the Houses of Parliament. I hope you succeed in getting a copy! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I apologise for that, I always thought years alone should not be linked, but I see that with regards to dates of birth/death they should. --UpDown 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought it was common knowledge lone years aren't linked (I've seen bots go round and remove them). I think this is helpful. However, this is better; I quote "On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below)". In other words, lone years should not be linked, only full dates should. There appears to be an exception for birth/death years in opening line brackets, but otherwise its overlinking. Regards.--UpDown 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'm interested to see how this particular list got restored, and on what grounds. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the AfD or PROD discussion for this list. Since you seem to have had a large part in the discussion, would you happen to be able to point me in the proper direction? Thanks! Sidatio 13:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't restored, because it wasn't deleted. The list which was deleted was List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see - I was thrown by the PROD tag on the talk page of the article. Thanks! Sidatio 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

It is very unfortunate that you had to proceed with doing this to the article, taking advantage of the fact that all Shi'a editors including myself, actually have a life and won't be available to comment on the merge or try to fix the article. In case you haven't noticed, the fanatic editor to whose demands you gave in removed more that 12 sources concerning Fatimah's death, and added the phrase "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)" so that it suits his own sick beliefs. It is too bad that the notorious Wikipedia disinformation infected this article as well. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaksonn, please try to be WP:CIVIL and to assume good faith. I have not "taken advantage" of anything, just responded to a content dispute by assessing whether there is a consensus.

You have been repeatedly asked to contribute to the discussions, but have not done so, despite making numerous other contributions to the encyclopedia in that time. That's fine, up to a point. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers, and you can use your time how you choose; but when others have asked for your input and you don't give it, please don't complain if the result doesn't reflect your concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Please would you add a succession box. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have changed the succession templates in the aforementioned article from the s-start ones I had added back to Template:Succession box. I wonder whether there any particular reason for acting thus; the s-start templates are easier to remember and write and much more flexible. Waltham, The Duke of 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a slow reply, been busy with a disruptive editor :(

Anyway, I took a look again at that article, and I can see what happened in those edits. I was adding a succession box for his time as an MP, and I keep a template handy for 1- and 2-seat constituencies, and baronets. I usually just paste the lot and delete what I don't need.

As you'll see, I try to keep the boxes as legible as possible to make them easier to maintain, like program code. I didn't see any sign that more flexibility was being used or was needed, and the s-start, s-bef etc are harder to read than the plain English of the Template:Succession box, which also avoids the clutter of the closing braces }} at the start and end of each line, and makes the box clearer by having the title as the first item. I hadn't realised that it had just been changed, but I'm puzzled why it was done.

I have paste the 2 versions below, to compare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

 {{s-reg|ie-bt}}
 {{succession box
   | title  = [[Gore Baronets|Baronet]]<br />'''(of Artarman)'''<nowiki></nowiki>
   | years  = 1814–1876
   | before = [[Sir Robert Newcomen Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet|Robert Gore-Booth]]
   | after  = [[Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet|Henry William Gore-Booth]]
 }}

 {{s-start}}
 {{s-reg|ie-bt}}
 {{s-bef|before=[[Sir Robert Newcomen Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet|Robert Gore-Booth]]}}
 {{s-ttl|title=[[Gore Baronets|Baronet]]'''<br />(of Artarman)|years='''1814 – 1876}}
 {{s-aft|after=[[Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet|Henry William Gore-Booth]]}}
 {{end}}
 

 Done
I have made a total hash of this. Please resolve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's now fixed, and don't worry, it wasn't that bad :)

I can see where the problems arose with the categories, in that you appear you have assumed that the categories for GB MPs are as diverse as those for the UK Parliament. In fact, they are a much reduced subset: basically, there's only Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies and Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Welsh constituencies. There ae no subdivisions by county or by Parliament.

If you ever want to refresh your memory of the categories available under the Category:British MPs tree, try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CategoryTree?target=British+MPs&mode=categories&dotree=Show+Tree

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG. I'm afraid to tell you these were nominated yet again a few days ago for speedy deletion and were deleted asap. Religion and all the others are also up for deletion by 'the usual suspects' at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion again. I dont really know what to say. It appears out of process again as I certainly never saw any discussion on the cat page. Sorry to bring this to you yet again. Galloglass 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I have just taken a look, and it seems that the political ideology categories were not speedily deleted, but deleted after a discussion at WP:UCFD. The relevant deletion log enries accurately links to the UCfD discussion (dated 10 Aug).

It's a pity that the closing admin didn't set out the reasons for the decision, but it doesn't look completely perverse to me, although if I had been the closing admin, I might have called it differently. I am a little concerned that there appears to have been no effort to consider the arguments made at the previous CfD and DRV discussions: there were substantive arguments made in previous discussions which do not appear to have been considered at this UCfD and DRV, and although I can't find the policy/guideline reference, the absence of any such consideration worries me.

You may want to discus things with the closing admin, and if the pair of you don't reach agreement, you could take it to WP:DRV. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm thinking of giving up editing completely. To see all these categories just removed by what is, in effect a sleight of hand manoeuvre so soon after the previous discussion is very disheartening. Taken along with the 2 editors who for the past month have been trying to add to the LBJ page, the paranoid ravings of Howard Hunt, and for the most part succeeding. I think I'll just stick to writing history. At least I usually get paid for that and no one is going to come along in 5 minutes and change Abe Lincoln into Mickey Mouse. Galloglass 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Galloglass, please don't give up! You do great work on wikipedia, and you would be sorely missed. I've seen too many god editors leave, and it'd be terrible to see you following Phoe and Berks105 out the door.

May I offer some unsolicited advice? The removal of those user categories is obviously annoying to those who use them (and I think it's both unnecessary and badly done), but it's not actually a substantive contribution to the encyclopedia: your real work is not undone by it.

As to the LBJ problem, could you regard it as a bit of housekeeping. You are not the only person to be concerned about the edits concerned, and I suspect that a discussion on the talk page would lead to a reasonable solution.

And if it's all getting too annoying, you could take a wikibreak for a while rather than letting a few silly people drive you away. Your contributions are too important for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it hard to kick the habbit to be honest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Innes had someone commenting on it so had to add my half penny's worth :) Will try the wikibreak though as a good break would do me good. Galloglass 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hello. Could you please look into who represented Chelsea in Parliament between 1885 and 1886 (alongside Sir Charles Dilke). Leigh Rayment seems to have made a mistake here since he states that Dilke was elected in 1885, but he already held the seat since 1868. Regards, Tryde 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Rayment's entry on Chelsa is accurate, but a little unclear: Chelsea was a 2-seat constituency until 1885, so Dilke was one of Chelsea's two MPs until 1885, and then the only MP from 1885-86. Rayment usually make it clear when reprsentation was reduced to one member, and it's odd that wasn't done here, which is probably what puzzled you.

The article on Chelsea (UK Parliament constituency) doesn't help, by using presentation format which doesn't readily accommodate the two-seat era. I prefer the process of using separate tables, such as that I created for Devizes (UK Parliament constituency) (it's also widely used for other constituencies).

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now reformatted, hopefully clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. Thanks. And yes, that format is much better. Tryde 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your accusations. Also if you want to create a disamb you should create it as George Pordge Smith (disambiguation) not just George Pordge Smith - you will be disputing wiki further by not doing this.--Vintagekits 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are bang out of order with your accusations today and the latest being point! I should not have to justify making correct edits - you are actually the one in breach of WP:POINT by creating loads of disamb pages with nothing but redlinks to avoid the correct title of articles being used - not the behaviour that I expect from an admin.--Vintagekits 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK, the dab pages are there to assist in disambiguating between several people with very similar names, who are easily confused. Please do calm down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, I agree that VK has acted wrongly here. As the admin he referred to by name in his unblock request, I am sorry if I muddied the water there by stating that I agreed with him on the naming issue. I have underlined that he was wrong to make that threat and to demand an apology from you. If he calms down and realises the error of his actions, I would support unblocking. Would you agree with this? --John 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've been away for a few hours and just got back to my desk, and I dunno. I'll start by explaining some background. It'll take an hour or so longer, so please hang on! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl, you abused your admin powers in this issue, not only where you involved in an edit dispute with VK, you are also involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Interested_Wikipedians and therefore have a COI in this. VK was following naming convention policy on the issue.--padraig 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, there has been no abuse of powers. Yes, I am involve in the baronetcies, but only secondarily (because so many MPs are baronets) I do not subscribe to the automatic notability lobby. I support the current guidelines on naming, which are that the baronetage should be used in article titles where disambiguation is necessary. However, Vintagekits has been engaged in a long-term effort to disrupt work on baronets, and is taking an excessively narrow view of disambiguation in order to disrupt. I acted promptly to protect wikipedia from further damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not give him 24 hours? 3 weeks seems excessive even if the actual block is justified, SqueakBox 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please hang on a little longer. I have nearly finished my longer reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and no hurry whatsoever (getting a bit late in the old country), SqueakBox 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved about ten of these articles in the past few weeks doing exactly as VK has done here, disambig is only neccessary for the second or more instance of a name, and disambig pages should not be created for redlinks which is what you have done.--padraig 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, the purpose of disambiguation is to help readers find the pages they are looking for, and to help editors to create links to the correct pages. Do you support that aim? If so, then why not hold off renamings of these frequently highly-ambiguous names until checks have been completed? As one example on my to-do-list, I plan to try to unravel a whole load of links to people called Francis Child, some of whom are baronets and some are not; few of the articles exist, but as MPs most are automatically notable per WP:MOSBIO. If only one article has been created so far, placing it at Francis Child simply creates a load of misleading links. The purpose of the naming and disambiguation guidelines is help get the reader to the article they are looking for, not to generate avoidable ambiguity. Please look for example at John Cotton (disambiguation) for an ilustration of what I mean.

I have no prob with renaming the articles if thorough checks have ensured that we are not creating ambiguity, and I do many such renamings myself; my objection is the mass renamings simply because other articles have not been written, and without regard to the ambiguity created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See longer reply at User_talk:Vintagekits#Extended_reasons_for_the_block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to that on the VK talk page.--padraig 02:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your longer reply to my question in the proper place. I fully support the block, given the explanation of the history of this matter, which I was unaware of in asking my question above. --John 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, and sorry my reply was so slow in coming. This sort of thing is terribly time-consuming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Dunnico, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Almeric Paget one of the MPs you're currently expanding or planning to expand? I plan to expand his current (rather sorry) entry at some point, but if he's on your hit-list I'll leave him to you as I suspect you'll have better sources than me.

BTW, nice to look at the dozen or so posts above this and see that apparently every single argument I was involved in before my unexpected wikiabsence appears to be in exactly the same position I left them in — iridescent (talk to me!) 04:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Iridescent, and welcome back :)

No, Paget isn't on my expansion list; I'm afraid don't have any sources which would help me add much to him. He does need some sources though, so he'd definitely benefit from your attention if yiu have the energy.

You're right about the familiar nature of the issues, tho we did seem to have a break from it for a while. This is one of the frustrating things about wikipedia, that it's openness makes it very time-consuming to deal with people who just want to disrupt and prepared to do a bit of wikilawyering to achieve that. It's usually possible eventually to sort things out, but along the way an awful lot of energy is displaced from dealing with content. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest eruption has me thinking about a long-term solution to our present problem. Right now, we have the "anti" group, which is fanatically devoted to eradicating as much information about baronets as can possibly be done under the color of policy, and the "pro" group, fanatically devoted to defending every baronet or minor Scottish figure lest the other group make headway in their campaign. Blocking any one editor is, as I'm sure you recognize, only a temporary solution (although it can certainly prevent acute damage). I'm thinking of a program somewhat along these lines, perhaps assembled under the auspices of WP:CEM:

• Form some sort of ad-hoc committee to examine what articles are alleged to be non-compliant with policy (non-notable, incorrectly named, etc.), and see who's been generating them, and whether they're still being generated. You, John Kenney, perhaps myself would be plausible members — people who have some expertise with creating articles on MPs, baronets, and so forth, but who aren't dogmatic about inclusion or naming.
• The people responsible for creating them are enjoined to follow policy, and, depending on scope and the degree to which they're willing to cooperate, are to create such pages in userspace in the future and refer them to the committee for review before moving them to mainspace.
• Proposed revisions by the "anti" group to correct non-compliant articles are to be directed through the committee, rather than made directly, to avoid mistakes. (See both the most recent incident and one earlier this year, where VK was tagging a number of barons in various peerages as non-notable, on the grounds that they might be Scottish feudal barons and those are non-notable.)

Please keep me informed — if any of this comes under review by other authorities, I'd be happy to make a statement as to the situation. Choess 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply for now: Thanks! I agree with your analysis, and in general I think that sounds like a very good idea.

At the moment it is nigh impossible to have any sensible discussion about this, because the pro- and anti- sides are immovable, and the practical issues such as how to ensure accurate disambiguation get lost in the morass: every discussion ends up in a "no consensus" zone. One of the unfortunate results of the include-everything and delete-everything lobbies is that they feed off each other, so the problems are self-reinforcing. So I think that some more structured model is needed, and I'm glad that you came up with the idea.

My only concern is whether such a process would be robust enough. The dogmatism on both sides is enough to try the patience of a saint. CEM at the moment seems to rely on rather more willingness to compromise than has (so far) been shown between the diehard inclusionists and the rampant deletionists here, and it also currently limits itself to disputes involving two people, whereas there are (I think) over a dozen involved here.

But maybe the CEM model provides a starting point? It's probably the only way to avoid all these issues being tied up in an arbcom case, where the focus will inevitably be more on who did what rather than how we can find a way forward to keep improving things. A CEM-derived model has the potential to be more forward-looking which I think will improve the chances of people feeling that they are getting something useful out of it all.

Would you be wiling to do some of the spadework in trying to set up something like this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please excuse my butting in, but you may be interested in some of the discussions that took place here:[8].

I take your points about more positive and future focussed (as opposed to inquest type arbcomms) and "saints and sinners". It is a great pity that Gaimhreadhan never had the time to do some work on Multilateral Community Enforced Mediation. W. Frank talk ✉  19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that monumental efforts are being made here to be balanced and to tar all editors with the same brush, that of "fanatics" on either side of a coin. That just is not the case, at least with baronets etc. The nobility, whatever their titles, played a massive role in the history of Great Britain and her Empire (I presume you don't disute this). Flagging them up where warranted is therefore justified. However, if you take the time to look at Vintagekit's User Page you will see a blatant anti-establishment agenda, there for all to see. Indeed, a few minutes spent examining his (and others of his ilk) edits shows immediately that their only real interest when it comes to the British establishment is to discredit them, put all sorts of non-notable and source templates up, all for absolute nuisance value, or even flag them up for deletion. Now I cannot speak wholly for the other side of the equasion you speak of here, but I would challenge anyone to show me how I, for instance, have engaged in identical activities. It is a tragedy that administrators cannot properly identify bullies on WP. There is no need to complicate WP procedures even further with ad-hoc committees and more 'guidelines' and red tape. What is needed is a commonsence approach. David Lauder 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> I came back from a short (4 day) trip to Polska, and I find it's just like old times! Vintagekits given two blocks, and a whole load of mad squabbling taking place on his Talk page. I can quite understand why you wrote how you loathed being dragged into this mess and the constant posting on your Talk page once you had displayed a brief interest.

Apart from reintroducing myself, though, my reason for coming here is to explain how this stupid edit-war started. You seem to believe that it is simply about describing the deaths of Louis Mountbatten and Sir Norman Stronge as Killing No Murder. Actually, the dispute started in about January of this year when various IRA articles were nominated for deletion. The argument against these articles was that they were of poor quality and an attempt to list and memorialise IRA members. You can see the arguments that were put forward on both sides (including by me) here. In retaliation, it seems to me, Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney started targeting the Baronets project and, in particular, the pages created by Kittybrewster. That led to the witch-hunt of earlier this year with which you will be familiar.

In the interim, there have also been other sources of friction, largely, I would say, caused by Vintagekits' intransigence: including, as mentioned above, the killing/ murder debate, the v/V-olunteer debate, and the PoW template debate. Frankly, however, the original participants - myself, Kittybrewster, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary have given up caring. We recognise the IRA articles as being of poor quality - excessively referenced to partisan sources such as An Phoblacht (discussion here) and Tírghrá - but given the bruising response have simply given up having anything to do with them. Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. Occasionally a visiting American stumbles across these pages and also recognises them as of dubious worth ([9] and [10]).

My point is this (and it's a minor point): that you have drawn a broad equivalence between the actions of 'the Scottish editors' and 'the Irish editors' (for want of better terms). I am afraid that I simply do not agree (with the implicit premise) that the two sides have behaved equally badly. It has been quite clear that one editor, in particular, has no sense of working collegiately and resorts to vandalism, abuse, and threats against those who he sees as opposing his 'truth'. I'd refer you to the discussion here.

Finally: (1) I am sorry to have posted at length; (2) this post does not require a response (I just wanted to get it off my chest); and, (3) I see that you have got a lot of brickbats yourself, which I regret. Although a 3-week block is pretty - phew! - you did a good job of explaining it and it has anyway been overtaken by your revocation of it and subsequent events. I recognise that it's an unfortunate position to be an Admin in such circumstances and, for what it's worth, I think that you're doing a good job and wish you well.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. I have been studying the relevant pages this last few hours, and this new intervention is unhelpful. Wikipedia is fast going down the Swaney, shame. Thepiper 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (genuinely) don't want to be rude, Thepiper, but the edit immediately above was your 20th., and you have been on Wikipedia for less than a month. The editor in question has been edit-warring and disrupting other people's work, motivated out of little more than malice, since January. In view of Vintagekits' clear threat to continue to disambiguate Baronets pages, which would have caused chaos and was a clear WP:POINT violation, he was blocked, correctly in my opinion (for what it's worth, and although I might have quibbled about the length) on the basis that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. All this was set out at nauseating length by BHG on the Talk page in question and completely ignored by his apologists. It's a moot point whether you find my own posting 'unhelpful' (why?); it wasn't directed to you, which is why it is on her talk page and not on yours. I'd make the point that it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at Admins for bad judgment: it's a job which someone has to do, and, as your post demonstrates, is at best thankless and usually comes with a large amount of abuse. However much you might disagree with BHG's block, which actually lasted less than 24 hours, someone has to make these calls and, it seems to me, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying to do some good.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to correct you on a technical point, Major, but Thepiper is actually a "Clean Skin" who, before he galloped to the rescue of User:Vintagekits this week, had edited Wikipedia on precisely 5 separate individual days since his "first" incarnation on 23 June 2006. I think we must assume the ultimate good faith that Thepiper's sole motivation is to be helpful.

On the more substantive point, I concur that no conscientious and well-meaning admin should have to take the extreme levels of assuming bad faith (without very persuasive evidence) exhibited on Vinny's talk page - and especially not very patient and forgiving admins such as BrownHairedGirl, Alison, John, Rockpocket, SirFozzie, etc. It should be one editor's attitude to our project on trial here and not Wikipedia's policies and procedures. I'm sure that ArbCom will intervene if they feel any admin has been partisan or precipitate or unfair or anything less than very patient with Vinny. W. Frank talk ✉  14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really very sorry if you disagree with my input, W Frank, and I do assume good faith. Maybe opinions are not welcome. I would suggest that you attack the process, or the content and not the other editors. Hope it's not becoming the style around here. Remember WP:NPA. Thank you. Thepiper 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thepiper you said; BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. Now launching a personal attack on a very well respected and impartial admin as you did above puts you on very dodgy ground to complain about personal attacks yourself. I would suggest you would be better reading WP:NPA rather than simply quoting it at others and ignoring its central tenants yourself. Galloglass 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes certainly I critized process and content, not the person. And she did make it difficult at a time when there is so much psychosis flying around these pages. It's cool objectives that are needed. Thepiper 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you made a personal attack, which I quoted above. Personal attacks are in no way acceptable on wikipedia. I have no involvement or interest in any of the content that is being discussed here apart from this. Please go and read WP:NPA then come back and re-read what you have written. Phases like stuck her nose in & and screwed it up are not process and content, they are personal insults that are not acceptable here. So please do not continue in this vein. Galloglass 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's process, sorry. Thepiper 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it isn't process: 'process' is by reference to wikipolicies and guidelines, not commentary on individuals. Your references to BHG are, at best, ambiguous as to whether or not they are personally offensive. While I draw no conclusion from the observation, I note that, as of now, you have made 33 edits to Wikipedia, 4 of them under this heading (ie. 12.5% of your total contribution).--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His contribution record is going to be greatly increased by his upcoming ArbCom participation. I assume that's what he's angling for here. I assume we will begin the ArbCom with a checkuser on all participants? W. Frank talk ✉  22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Dalton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--DarkFalls ^talk 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chris 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the chance on your MP-inspection trawl, can you have a look at the expansion I've done on Almeric Paget? I have a niggling feeling that something's wrong; although I've sourced everything I've added, his life seems to be too odd to be true. (From Montana cowboy to Tory MP for Cambridge? Married the author of 'Common Sense in the Kitchen' and 'Occult Theocrasy'? Elected chairman of the Conservative Party in 1940-41 despite writing a fulsome tribute to Hitler in 1939?) Although it's a very unusual name, I'm wondering whether there were two MPs by the name of Almeric Paget at this time and I've somehow conflated them. (If it is all true, he's a FA waiting to happen since pretty much every line is now expandable) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an astonishing man! I can't find any trace of another Almeric Paget MP (and it's a rather unusual name), so all thse adventures must be the same person, unlikely as it sounds (thoug of course political careers could be a lot more luid in those days). Well done on a very good expansion of the article; I'm sure you are right that it has the makings of a lot more. It certianly should be possible to get it good article status quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory MPs must have been more interesting back then. Annoyingly, I can't find a reputable source for the best factoid I came across about him - that Olivia Newton John was born in the "Almeric Paget Memorial Bed". (Likely true, as it's not the kind of thing you make up, and she was born in his constituency — but I can't find a non-blog source for it.) His relatives mostly seem to have had equally odd lives (particularly his grandfather and daughter); this family seem right up there with the Arbuthnots. (How many other early 20th century MPs have a dedicated attack page on their family hosted by the Freemasons?) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[11] ....... Kittybrewster (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reviewing them (up to Sir Thomas Dunlop, 1st Baronet). Ones where I haven't left comments on the talk page are ones I feel can safely be moved; some of those I commented on may also be moved, but check the talk page. (Now I remember just how tiring this is...) Choess 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, I'd be happy to move whichever of these I *can* move over redirects, but I wanted to check with you first to see if you wanted to examine them independently. Choess 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind these people are generally better known as Sir Thingumy Whatnot rather than Thingumy Whatnot and therefore that is how they would probably be sought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm abivalent as to how they would be best named in general. Many 1st baronets only received their titles very late in life, so in terms of their careers were best known as Thingumy Whatnot rather than as Sir Thingumy Whatnot; but most 2nd and subsequent baronets held the title for quite a big chunk of their lives. I have no aversion to them being called Sir Thingumy Whatnot, but the gudelines permit that only when needed for disambiguation, and in the current climate there's no prospct of those guidelines being changed. I really do think that it's best to work within the current guideline, and resist the wrecking crew's attempts to rename the many ambiguous baronets, rather than to risk that impotabt point being lost in an effort to chnage or stretch the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrownHairedGirl, and incentally my hair is brown too. You claim that you are an Irish Admin. Well, why don't you edit Irish articles, instead of editing British articles. I see that you are very heavy into Lordships, and Sirs, and Baronierieees (whatever the spelling) etc. Surely that was the suffering of Ireland this last 300 years, your lords and your ladies. correct? I really am curious about your editing. Why claim that you are Irish. Thepiper 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]