I've added a parent to Category:Gaelic games by year found in the orphanage, but we have no cat Category:Gaelic games nor Category:Gaelic Games. Perhaps you may be better positioned to think of a proper other parent to this tree being closer to the action than I. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We have WestfieldIns, 70.104.102.253 (see e.g. page history of Jan Kowalski); and also 72.69.76.86 and 70.105.118.61 editing in tandem with WestfieldIns here. -- roundhouse0 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Before I get arbitrarily blocked by User talk:Daniel could you please call him/her to order? ( Sarah777 ( talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, folks, I'm staying out of that one. I took a quick look, and I think that many of those involved would benefit from taking a break and cooling down a bit. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.-- Sunderland 06 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I don't believe an agreed resolution can be reached on the [Young Unionist] article.
The current edit states: 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members with Ian Paisley being posted on it'
I edited it to state 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members, including the current Chairman of the UYUC, a former Chairman and the current Chairman of the QUB YU Branch and the Secretary of the Belfast Branch, with Northern Ireland's First Minister Ian Paisley at the 2007 Battle of the Somme Service of Remembrance held in France being posted on it [1] offline.'
As I have stated on the discussion and history pages the current edit gives the reader no idea what context the photograph was taken in. One could assume the photograph was taken at a DUP party political rally instead of a Remembrance Service in France with the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Traditional Unionist initially claimed the edit was vandalism, and then it was unreferenced. I cited the original and sole source, the webpage on which the blog piece and photograph appeared ( http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/thier-name-liveth-for-evermore.php). He then claimed that the source wasn't reliable as it was from a blog. However as the blog piece is given as the reason for the website being down it is clearly relevant, in the same manner the article on the Daily Kos is a valid source for an article on that blog.
I would request that the article be edited to reflect the context the photograph was taken in. Cephalus ( talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have returned from your long walk. I trust that you would not mind giving me your take on the matter of succession boxes? If you have time, that is. I pretty much do. Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you help? This page was a viable page about an instrument used in more than a trillion dollars of trade anually. But, someone placed the actual text on the page in breach of copyright. Instead of removing the text, the entire page was deleted. The user who deleted it was User talk:^demon. I have left three messages on his page asking what to do and requesting its reinstatement, given that some editing had taken place to the commentary. His reply today was that he has no time. I am frustrated that he has time to delete it but not to correct what I see as an error, or even comment. Is there a procdedure to have the page reinstated without the text? Many thanks for your time. Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please would you restore it. Thank you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I now understand better about [ [1]] and [ [2]]. I would prefer to see them merged back instead of simply deleted though AFD, and as an admin I hold you to a higher standard to work toward doing this versus simply deleting the problem. However, I also see that Kitia may be the instigator who is unmerging the articles repeatedly, which may be the problem in and of itself.
The feeling the AFD is a revenge motive is due to your comment, "It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." It was made within 30 minutes of your first comment to Kitia.
I would recommend merging material back to list of supercentenarians and closing your AFD. Your thoughts? Guroadrunner ( talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Re all the supercentenarian AfDs and Kitia's involvement: you might find this of interest. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
HI BHG. I'm afraid to say Kitia has continued canvassing for support at the recent AfD's on the centenarians. Not sure if you can do anything about it but it should be noted when the canvassed individuals turn up to take part, as I'm sure they will at these discussions. - Galloglass 14:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Good morning here from the States -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • contribs. Regarding the Supercentenarian articles, you have been proposing to delete, can you direct me to the guidelines on how to redirect the individual articles to the proper list and I will take this on is my pet project. Thanks for your help. Shoessss | Chat 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the botting commence! Sarah777 ( talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that all of the year articles should be categorised that way, because all of the extra categories are already the parents of the eponymous category. The example quoted in the guideline is for George W. Bush and the category Category:George W. Bush. The category is primarily categorised in Category:Categories named after American politicians, whereas the article is in different categories: Category:1946 births, Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:American Methodists to name but a few.
It seems to me that, by adding an article to all of its eponymous category's parents, it eliminates the need for single-member categories such as Category:1789 in Ireland. If one find the article in any of the parents then there is no need to descend the further level into Category:1789 in Ireland to find the article. In the more recent years, e.g. Category:2007 in Ireland, the situation is different because there are many events from that year. The double listing might aid navigation in the reasonbly populated categories, but not at all in one article categories.
Maybe instead a navigational template added to the articles would help — say linking a full decade together? Tim! ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you for your support of my bold move! We shall see if lasts (I can only assume you have the same things watchlisted as I in regards to this latest shooting) :-). It wasn't meant as any offense to the creation editor, I hope it isn't taken that way....Happy editing, Keeper | 76 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bring you this BHG but am having a problem with an anon user on IP 81.129.235.13 making unfounded acusations and attacks on me on the Southport discussion page. Never really had anthing like this before so not really sure what to. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Galloglass 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You might, in the future, consider bunching a number of them up together into one mass AfD, especially those that seem uncontroversial to you. That way, arguments need only be made once, except for exceptions. This is especially true since citing arguments in other ongoing AfDs (such as "per XXXX above") is not quite good practice. I agree with you on most of them, but it is getting a little tedious to do the same thing over and over again. Just my 2c, Have a great day! -- Storkk ( talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this this editor keeps removing content from my talk page after i told them twice not to and now is getting abusive, thanks. BigDunc ( talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ( [3]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you might want to know the debate has flared up again. It was changed again without consensus, so there is a massive debate going. People are trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch now. Personally my stance is that it just needs to go. It's a poorly conceived, unnecessary guideline that will never have consensus. Figured if you still cared now might be a good time to have some input. Wish I could actually work on things instead of arguing about a stupid guideline every two weeks. Every time I start a damn project they mess with the guideline and I have to stop and figure out what's going on. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know I found about five sources for the article so I think you should close the AfD. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:1710 operas, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:1710 operas has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:1710 operas, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
I saw the merge. The Category does not belong as a subcategory of the Cat:Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain. The Category should be somewhere else, but not in this category. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think it was worth posting this at WT:BIO, but I think I can explain the difference in our assessments of current practice at AfD. I get the impression that you were trying to judge the average opinion of everyone who posts at AfD. I prefer to look at the AfD closures and the closing admins rationale. The reason for this is that so many people post invalid arguments that aren't in line with policy, and its the job of the closing admin to assess the validity of those arguments when assessing consensus. So if, for example, several people post "Keep, because wikipedia should be about everything" on a particular AfD, the closing admin should ignore these posts, and so do I when assess the general feeling and practice at AfD. — gorgan_almighty ( talk) 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw you just listed this article for AfD and I have commented there, however I just wanted to bring to your attention the vast number of vandal edits that came from the 87.33.182.X range on this article. I reverted the page back to a version from 2 months ago to clear all of the vandal edits out, and I agree with you the page is just a haven for vandal edits. If the school does prove to be notable enough however, I'd suggest page protection to keep it from being a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please recreate History of Warsaw? I noticed that you complained about it being copyvio, but I got got rid of the copyvio (at least could you state the section I missed?). Besides, it was just pretty much a copy of the history section of Warsaw, so if you are going to attack History of Warsaw you should also attack Warsaw. As a side note, before automaticly deleting a promising article like this, try to improve upon it so that it does not have the issues it states. I will try to if you undelete this. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Any idea when you might do a run with your new BHGbot for the WikiProject Ireland? Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As promised, I rewrote the article, hopefully sufficiently enough to put you at ease for now. I will try and find more sources and information over the break. Right now I only used the sources I could find in five minutes and avoided using the GRG, but I think there's still potential for expansion... maybe even make him the second "old WWI veteran" to be a Good Article. Cheers, CP 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the seconding. I'm actually a lot happier with the article than when I wrote the above message. In other SC news, I reverted Bertolomi again and removed your "nofootnotes" template from Shitsu Nakano, since I in-line cited it back in August. Let me know if I missed something though (I tend to do that!) Cheers, CP 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
BHG an editor Australia2world Has been going through all the Electoral Divisions and deleting in their entirety, the 2004 election results. I have asked the person to desist and have even offered to create separate pages for these results to be retained upon as has been done with Benelong if the editor will only give me a few weeks to create them. Despite repeated requests to stop, Australia2world has continued to delete. I don't really want to get into an edit war with this individual but they are making an unholy mess of these pages. Set against this, the editor is doing good work of adding all the new finalised 2007 results. Australia2world does appear to have a history of edit warring and was recently blocked for it. Being somewhat of a very part time editor here I'm not sure of the correct way to go forward so I hope you can suggest what approach to take. Thanks, - Galloglass 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I think I have now restored all the 2004 results which were deleted by Australia2world. I hope that they are not removed again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you never got around to that WP:ANI posting, I did it for you. See WP:ANI#Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl. Mango juice talk 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pedro, I was very surprised by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer as "keep", particularly by your comment that "notability of super centenarians seems intrinsic". That proposition has is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where it has received almost no support, and there are countless other current AfDs where the proposition that supercentenarians are inherently notable has been rejected. No-one at that AfD disputed the point that there is no substantive coverage, as required by WP:BIO, and there are no sources to support the claim that another supercentenarian is her sister-in-law.
In any case, the article has it stands has references for only her date of birth and date of death: everything else is unsourced, and I have been unable to find any references. Please will you reconsider that decision? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! I hope that the devastation wreaked by the 37 children isn't too severe :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You have protected the article Ayumi Hamasaki
Please look at the talk page under the heading "sales"
There was not an edit war. The other user was being disruptive, and made a racial slur towards me.
There was references provided to show why I removed certain information. The other user ignored it. I'm disappointed in your action. It is this type of thing that gives the Wikipedia a bad name. 220.253.16.5 ( talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I see you were not altogether taken with my removal of parent and, indeed, grandparent categories. The link made little sense to me as I know 1916 in Ireland cat be categorised as Category:1916 in Ireland. But you are saying that 1916 in Ireland can also be categorised under the parent Category:1910s in Ireland and Granpa Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland? I was assuming this was a mistake and was ready to exterminate. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
Hi BHG -- I had responded to your comment on the Worker's NGO's CFD (12/14) while you were on your wikibreak. If you don't mind checking back in on it, it would be appreciated. The sum of my suggestion is that you might try looking at the associated categories -- the overall * NGOs tree was created by a good faith editor in November trying to clean up Category:Non-governmental organizations, but without realizing that there was a whole preexisting category structure for other organizations. That editor is fine with the mergers (at least, agreed on my talk page to that). -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl
I originally created History of Warsaw because I planned to expand it--massively. As to the size of the Polish Wikipedia's article. Since the history section of Warsaw is OK, it does not need to be summarized and I took all the info into the History of Warsaw for a beginning. You have deleted it all the time, and I fear that I will have to recreate the article over and over again until you stop.
Please comment on my talkpage. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
We have never interacted before but, I see that you have experience in the nominations of AfD's. The reason that I am contacting you is that I would like for you to look over the following article: Ángel Nieves Díaz. I don't know and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this person is just a non-notable common criminal who does not deserve an encyclopedic article.
I would nominate it myself but, since I have a tendency to make a mess out of the nomination process I thought that I would ask someone with experience in the process, such as yourself, to look it over and do the nomination if such a case deserved it. What do you think? Could you be kind enough to go to my talk page and let me know? Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:afd}}
at the very top of the article, save the page, and up pops a box which tells you how to do the rest: just two more steps.
Hi BHG--You recently blocked User:220.253.16.5 (who seems to be the same as User:220.253.144.187) over edit warring with User:Aranherunar. After you did that, the anon removed all of the vandalism warnings and blocking notices from their talk page. I thought this was inappropriate and reverted the edit, leaving a note asking them not to delete talk page comments. Finally, they wiped their talk page clean again and left me a message saying that their talk page was none of my business and that they had a perfect right to "clean it up and remove outdated discussions."
user:You've Got Mail! may or may not show up on a checkuser test. The password for the account was openly posted on the userpage and so could have been used by anyone. I tested it - though just long enough to randomize the password so that no one else could abuse the account. I also indef-blocked that account as a "role" account so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Rossami (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl! How are you? I saw your contributions and I think you have done a great job. And, your name is interesting. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, good to see you're back, BHG -- hope you got my email. I've just come back from a "rest-break" of sorts from CFD stuff, and I've been catching up on the CFDs that came up while I was away (including one of my own, wouldn't you know...). Anyway, there's a couple you might want to take another look at, as I've made new proposals since your last comments. One is for Category:Worker's NGOs; the other, where I think your input would be especially helpful, is for Category:Natural sciences.
PS - Here's one you missed while you were away -- I think you'll get a good chuckle! Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG I have a new article I have been working on about Process Management with regard to computing but I see that there is an article Process management which has a tiny section in regard to computing. So what I need to know is what do I call the article Process management(Computing) or something simmilar and also what do I do with the section regarding computing on the Process management article do I remove it or leave it, thanks in advance. BigDunc ( talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
{{main|Process management (computing)}}
Hi BHG - Excellent, saves me a load of work. I had changed a few other years as well. Ardfern ( talk) 18:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know I've completed (well, up to a point) the article on William Grantham, which you started back in June. It stopped mid-sentence, so I assume you were distracted and forgot about it! I ended up there while doing a short article on a 1906 by-election, one of my occasional forays into the history of early 20th Century by-elections. This one turned out to be rather more interesting than I expected. Rbreen ( talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive ... since you participated in this CfD, I wonder if you would care to comment on this posting at WP:COI/N regarding the plethora of unsourced articles created by ArleArt ( talk · contribs) to populate this category that they created ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG. As I'm sure you have noticed Counter-revolutionary has been on a one man campaign for the past several months over the names in Prime Ministers info boxes. I have asked him on his talk page to undo his latest breach of the WP:3RR rule on this issue on the Margaret Thatcher article but he has declined to reverse the edit. So I'm afraid I'm now bringing it to you as the initial reversal was your own edit and the last two were of mine. I really don't understand where he gets the idea that the name should be removed completely from info boxes as the guidelines on this are very clear. Thanks - Galloglass 09:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have tweaked the {{ GaelicGamesByYear}} template so that it will add each of the year in Gaelic games categories to the appropriate year in Northern Ireland category, if it exists.
It will take some time for the cache to be purged, so this won't initially show up in the other categories, but it will be spread across them over the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! First the portal is featured, now a barn star, - poof! the RfA is like peanuts under a Christmas table. Thanks, Brownhair. -- sony-youth pléigh 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying in regards to it, no reason to have a whole one-sentence article in and of itself when it can be thrown with others. Granted, the third/fourth oldest person not having an article does seem kinda odd, despite the length. Obviously, unless a book of supercentinarians comes out or something, it probably won't be expanded beyond this. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, since it seemed like the others in the AfD didn't mind it. The lack of independent sources is troubling, and I can see why that would be cause for concern, so it took me a while to decide how to close. Short version: I closed it more in the keep/no con/delete mentality, if you want to merge then there was enough of a consensus for that that you can go ahead. And a Merry (belated) christmas to you as well! Wizardman 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed Jack Dormand and have passed it due to it's compliance with all criteria, and more. Congratulations. Regards, Rt . 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So does it look 'sourced' now (i.e. 'notability established')? Extremely sexy ( talk) 13:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
BHG I've been over the 2 articles you asked me to review and they look pretty good. I can't see anything wrong at all with the Dromand article. The Baker article could do with the introduction expanding a little to include his political stance within the Liberal Democrats and also maybe his republicanism could also be mentioned at this point as well. One query really, was his daughter actually born in 2000, two years before he was married? Cheers - Galloglass 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you're more involved with this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask you before making a bigger deal about this at WP:BLP. Today we have Carmelo Bertolami, Italian WWI veteran. Still alive, October 2007. Not still alive, November 2007. Problem? The only place reporting this is our good friends at the World's Oldest People Forum reprinted for convenience sake (feel free to remove from your talk page of course once it's been read):
Greetings,
I am sad to inform that we have lost another veteran, the youngest of the remaining Italians. Carmelo Bertolami, who was born in Novara di Sicilia on 8 december 1900, died in his home on 4 november, after a rapid illness.
Sincerely, Giovanni Alunni
The date of the message is December 10, 2007. I'm tempted to ignore all rules and count this as a reliable source if only because I don't think his death will ever be reported in a reliable source if it hasn't been already. I've reverted the additions several times for WP:BLP concerns, but I'd rather not semi-protect the page in this case. Thoughts? Suggestions? Cheers, CP 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think if this has to be WOP as much as Giovanni Alunni. Giovannu Alunni is listed on the extreme longevity tracking, but then, well, I easily added the person for Germany. However, Giovanni is also listed on the GRG site. But I guess I'm arguing any individual is a better source than where an individual reports (such as reporting to WOP). Footnotes, anyone? Neal ( talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
Hate to bother you again, but it looks as if we're going to have the same problem that we did with Bertolami. No reliable sources for life, none for death (this time both are covered by online forums), he's one of the "less than six monthers," so no chance of government recognition. Do you think I should wait a bit or nominate for deletion on the same premise at Bertolami? Cheers, CP 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ColonelBurke63 ( talk · contribs). Need I say more? Choess ( talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your critical remarks. I added sources to this article. The CD's and books (discography/bibliography) are all of my personal collection though difficult to mention as a source. I have lots of photographs but no permission to place. Searching for it. Grateful for new remarks. I am still a beginner on Wiki. Hans Sentis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Sentis ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG. Very many thanks for the barnstar. Helps to make all the work worthwhile - much appreciated. Ardfern ( talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I wonder whether as someone presumably very familiar with UK parliament websites, you could comment on the above which appears tagged for deletion on grounds of notabilty. I assume also I don't have the right to simply remove the tag myself.
Many thanks in advance
JRPG ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about or how it is supposed to involve me, but f you want to discuss something with me, please just write a brief description of the issue, and link to any previous discussions rather than copy-pasting them. Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit of the Camille Loiseau page and merged it back to List of American supercentenarians. I'm still kinda new, but I think it passes WP:BIO because it was the subject of two published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Please note that super-oldsters do not have a policy there and WP:BIO is not official. Would you please revert back to my version if I can find more sources? My user account ( talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
I've added a parent to Category:Gaelic games by year found in the orphanage, but we have no cat Category:Gaelic games nor Category:Gaelic Games. Perhaps you may be better positioned to think of a proper other parent to this tree being closer to the action than I. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We have WestfieldIns, 70.104.102.253 (see e.g. page history of Jan Kowalski); and also 72.69.76.86 and 70.105.118.61 editing in tandem with WestfieldIns here. -- roundhouse0 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Before I get arbitrarily blocked by User talk:Daniel could you please call him/her to order? ( Sarah777 ( talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, folks, I'm staying out of that one. I took a quick look, and I think that many of those involved would benefit from taking a break and cooling down a bit. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.-- Sunderland 06 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I don't believe an agreed resolution can be reached on the [Young Unionist] article.
The current edit states: 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members with Ian Paisley being posted on it'
I edited it to state 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members, including the current Chairman of the UYUC, a former Chairman and the current Chairman of the QUB YU Branch and the Secretary of the Belfast Branch, with Northern Ireland's First Minister Ian Paisley at the 2007 Battle of the Somme Service of Remembrance held in France being posted on it [1] offline.'
As I have stated on the discussion and history pages the current edit gives the reader no idea what context the photograph was taken in. One could assume the photograph was taken at a DUP party political rally instead of a Remembrance Service in France with the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Traditional Unionist initially claimed the edit was vandalism, and then it was unreferenced. I cited the original and sole source, the webpage on which the blog piece and photograph appeared ( http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/thier-name-liveth-for-evermore.php). He then claimed that the source wasn't reliable as it was from a blog. However as the blog piece is given as the reason for the website being down it is clearly relevant, in the same manner the article on the Daily Kos is a valid source for an article on that blog.
I would request that the article be edited to reflect the context the photograph was taken in. Cephalus ( talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have returned from your long walk. I trust that you would not mind giving me your take on the matter of succession boxes? If you have time, that is. I pretty much do. Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you help? This page was a viable page about an instrument used in more than a trillion dollars of trade anually. But, someone placed the actual text on the page in breach of copyright. Instead of removing the text, the entire page was deleted. The user who deleted it was User talk:^demon. I have left three messages on his page asking what to do and requesting its reinstatement, given that some editing had taken place to the commentary. His reply today was that he has no time. I am frustrated that he has time to delete it but not to correct what I see as an error, or even comment. Is there a procdedure to have the page reinstated without the text? Many thanks for your time. Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please would you restore it. Thank you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I now understand better about [ [1]] and [ [2]]. I would prefer to see them merged back instead of simply deleted though AFD, and as an admin I hold you to a higher standard to work toward doing this versus simply deleting the problem. However, I also see that Kitia may be the instigator who is unmerging the articles repeatedly, which may be the problem in and of itself.
The feeling the AFD is a revenge motive is due to your comment, "It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." It was made within 30 minutes of your first comment to Kitia.
I would recommend merging material back to list of supercentenarians and closing your AFD. Your thoughts? Guroadrunner ( talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Re all the supercentenarian AfDs and Kitia's involvement: you might find this of interest. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
HI BHG. I'm afraid to say Kitia has continued canvassing for support at the recent AfD's on the centenarians. Not sure if you can do anything about it but it should be noted when the canvassed individuals turn up to take part, as I'm sure they will at these discussions. - Galloglass 14:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Good morning here from the States -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • contribs. Regarding the Supercentenarian articles, you have been proposing to delete, can you direct me to the guidelines on how to redirect the individual articles to the proper list and I will take this on is my pet project. Thanks for your help. Shoessss | Chat 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the botting commence! Sarah777 ( talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that all of the year articles should be categorised that way, because all of the extra categories are already the parents of the eponymous category. The example quoted in the guideline is for George W. Bush and the category Category:George W. Bush. The category is primarily categorised in Category:Categories named after American politicians, whereas the article is in different categories: Category:1946 births, Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:American Methodists to name but a few.
It seems to me that, by adding an article to all of its eponymous category's parents, it eliminates the need for single-member categories such as Category:1789 in Ireland. If one find the article in any of the parents then there is no need to descend the further level into Category:1789 in Ireland to find the article. In the more recent years, e.g. Category:2007 in Ireland, the situation is different because there are many events from that year. The double listing might aid navigation in the reasonbly populated categories, but not at all in one article categories.
Maybe instead a navigational template added to the articles would help — say linking a full decade together? Tim! ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you for your support of my bold move! We shall see if lasts (I can only assume you have the same things watchlisted as I in regards to this latest shooting) :-). It wasn't meant as any offense to the creation editor, I hope it isn't taken that way....Happy editing, Keeper | 76 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bring you this BHG but am having a problem with an anon user on IP 81.129.235.13 making unfounded acusations and attacks on me on the Southport discussion page. Never really had anthing like this before so not really sure what to. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Galloglass 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You might, in the future, consider bunching a number of them up together into one mass AfD, especially those that seem uncontroversial to you. That way, arguments need only be made once, except for exceptions. This is especially true since citing arguments in other ongoing AfDs (such as "per XXXX above") is not quite good practice. I agree with you on most of them, but it is getting a little tedious to do the same thing over and over again. Just my 2c, Have a great day! -- Storkk ( talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this this editor keeps removing content from my talk page after i told them twice not to and now is getting abusive, thanks. BigDunc ( talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ( [3]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you might want to know the debate has flared up again. It was changed again without consensus, so there is a massive debate going. People are trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch now. Personally my stance is that it just needs to go. It's a poorly conceived, unnecessary guideline that will never have consensus. Figured if you still cared now might be a good time to have some input. Wish I could actually work on things instead of arguing about a stupid guideline every two weeks. Every time I start a damn project they mess with the guideline and I have to stop and figure out what's going on. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know I found about five sources for the article so I think you should close the AfD. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:1710 operas, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:1710 operas has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:1710 operas, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
I saw the merge. The Category does not belong as a subcategory of the Cat:Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain. The Category should be somewhere else, but not in this category. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think it was worth posting this at WT:BIO, but I think I can explain the difference in our assessments of current practice at AfD. I get the impression that you were trying to judge the average opinion of everyone who posts at AfD. I prefer to look at the AfD closures and the closing admins rationale. The reason for this is that so many people post invalid arguments that aren't in line with policy, and its the job of the closing admin to assess the validity of those arguments when assessing consensus. So if, for example, several people post "Keep, because wikipedia should be about everything" on a particular AfD, the closing admin should ignore these posts, and so do I when assess the general feeling and practice at AfD. — gorgan_almighty ( talk) 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw you just listed this article for AfD and I have commented there, however I just wanted to bring to your attention the vast number of vandal edits that came from the 87.33.182.X range on this article. I reverted the page back to a version from 2 months ago to clear all of the vandal edits out, and I agree with you the page is just a haven for vandal edits. If the school does prove to be notable enough however, I'd suggest page protection to keep it from being a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please recreate History of Warsaw? I noticed that you complained about it being copyvio, but I got got rid of the copyvio (at least could you state the section I missed?). Besides, it was just pretty much a copy of the history section of Warsaw, so if you are going to attack History of Warsaw you should also attack Warsaw. As a side note, before automaticly deleting a promising article like this, try to improve upon it so that it does not have the issues it states. I will try to if you undelete this. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Any idea when you might do a run with your new BHGbot for the WikiProject Ireland? Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As promised, I rewrote the article, hopefully sufficiently enough to put you at ease for now. I will try and find more sources and information over the break. Right now I only used the sources I could find in five minutes and avoided using the GRG, but I think there's still potential for expansion... maybe even make him the second "old WWI veteran" to be a Good Article. Cheers, CP 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the seconding. I'm actually a lot happier with the article than when I wrote the above message. In other SC news, I reverted Bertolomi again and removed your "nofootnotes" template from Shitsu Nakano, since I in-line cited it back in August. Let me know if I missed something though (I tend to do that!) Cheers, CP 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
BHG an editor Australia2world Has been going through all the Electoral Divisions and deleting in their entirety, the 2004 election results. I have asked the person to desist and have even offered to create separate pages for these results to be retained upon as has been done with Benelong if the editor will only give me a few weeks to create them. Despite repeated requests to stop, Australia2world has continued to delete. I don't really want to get into an edit war with this individual but they are making an unholy mess of these pages. Set against this, the editor is doing good work of adding all the new finalised 2007 results. Australia2world does appear to have a history of edit warring and was recently blocked for it. Being somewhat of a very part time editor here I'm not sure of the correct way to go forward so I hope you can suggest what approach to take. Thanks, - Galloglass 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I think I have now restored all the 2004 results which were deleted by Australia2world. I hope that they are not removed again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you never got around to that WP:ANI posting, I did it for you. See WP:ANI#Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl. Mango juice talk 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pedro, I was very surprised by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer as "keep", particularly by your comment that "notability of super centenarians seems intrinsic". That proposition has is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where it has received almost no support, and there are countless other current AfDs where the proposition that supercentenarians are inherently notable has been rejected. No-one at that AfD disputed the point that there is no substantive coverage, as required by WP:BIO, and there are no sources to support the claim that another supercentenarian is her sister-in-law.
In any case, the article has it stands has references for only her date of birth and date of death: everything else is unsourced, and I have been unable to find any references. Please will you reconsider that decision? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! I hope that the devastation wreaked by the 37 children isn't too severe :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You have protected the article Ayumi Hamasaki
Please look at the talk page under the heading "sales"
There was not an edit war. The other user was being disruptive, and made a racial slur towards me.
There was references provided to show why I removed certain information. The other user ignored it. I'm disappointed in your action. It is this type of thing that gives the Wikipedia a bad name. 220.253.16.5 ( talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I see you were not altogether taken with my removal of parent and, indeed, grandparent categories. The link made little sense to me as I know 1916 in Ireland cat be categorised as Category:1916 in Ireland. But you are saying that 1916 in Ireland can also be categorised under the parent Category:1910s in Ireland and Granpa Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland? I was assuming this was a mistake and was ready to exterminate. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
Hi BHG -- I had responded to your comment on the Worker's NGO's CFD (12/14) while you were on your wikibreak. If you don't mind checking back in on it, it would be appreciated. The sum of my suggestion is that you might try looking at the associated categories -- the overall * NGOs tree was created by a good faith editor in November trying to clean up Category:Non-governmental organizations, but without realizing that there was a whole preexisting category structure for other organizations. That editor is fine with the mergers (at least, agreed on my talk page to that). -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl
I originally created History of Warsaw because I planned to expand it--massively. As to the size of the Polish Wikipedia's article. Since the history section of Warsaw is OK, it does not need to be summarized and I took all the info into the History of Warsaw for a beginning. You have deleted it all the time, and I fear that I will have to recreate the article over and over again until you stop.
Please comment on my talkpage. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl,
We have never interacted before but, I see that you have experience in the nominations of AfD's. The reason that I am contacting you is that I would like for you to look over the following article: Ángel Nieves Díaz. I don't know and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this person is just a non-notable common criminal who does not deserve an encyclopedic article.
I would nominate it myself but, since I have a tendency to make a mess out of the nomination process I thought that I would ask someone with experience in the process, such as yourself, to look it over and do the nomination if such a case deserved it. What do you think? Could you be kind enough to go to my talk page and let me know? Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:afd}}
at the very top of the article, save the page, and up pops a box which tells you how to do the rest: just two more steps.
Hi BHG--You recently blocked User:220.253.16.5 (who seems to be the same as User:220.253.144.187) over edit warring with User:Aranherunar. After you did that, the anon removed all of the vandalism warnings and blocking notices from their talk page. I thought this was inappropriate and reverted the edit, leaving a note asking them not to delete talk page comments. Finally, they wiped their talk page clean again and left me a message saying that their talk page was none of my business and that they had a perfect right to "clean it up and remove outdated discussions."
user:You've Got Mail! may or may not show up on a checkuser test. The password for the account was openly posted on the userpage and so could have been used by anyone. I tested it - though just long enough to randomize the password so that no one else could abuse the account. I also indef-blocked that account as a "role" account so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Rossami (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl! How are you? I saw your contributions and I think you have done a great job. And, your name is interesting. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, good to see you're back, BHG -- hope you got my email. I've just come back from a "rest-break" of sorts from CFD stuff, and I've been catching up on the CFDs that came up while I was away (including one of my own, wouldn't you know...). Anyway, there's a couple you might want to take another look at, as I've made new proposals since your last comments. One is for Category:Worker's NGOs; the other, where I think your input would be especially helpful, is for Category:Natural sciences.
PS - Here's one you missed while you were away -- I think you'll get a good chuckle! Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG I have a new article I have been working on about Process Management with regard to computing but I see that there is an article Process management which has a tiny section in regard to computing. So what I need to know is what do I call the article Process management(Computing) or something simmilar and also what do I do with the section regarding computing on the Process management article do I remove it or leave it, thanks in advance. BigDunc ( talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
{{main|Process management (computing)}}
Hi BHG - Excellent, saves me a load of work. I had changed a few other years as well. Ardfern ( talk) 18:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know I've completed (well, up to a point) the article on William Grantham, which you started back in June. It stopped mid-sentence, so I assume you were distracted and forgot about it! I ended up there while doing a short article on a 1906 by-election, one of my occasional forays into the history of early 20th Century by-elections. This one turned out to be rather more interesting than I expected. Rbreen ( talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive ... since you participated in this CfD, I wonder if you would care to comment on this posting at WP:COI/N regarding the plethora of unsourced articles created by ArleArt ( talk · contribs) to populate this category that they created ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG. As I'm sure you have noticed Counter-revolutionary has been on a one man campaign for the past several months over the names in Prime Ministers info boxes. I have asked him on his talk page to undo his latest breach of the WP:3RR rule on this issue on the Margaret Thatcher article but he has declined to reverse the edit. So I'm afraid I'm now bringing it to you as the initial reversal was your own edit and the last two were of mine. I really don't understand where he gets the idea that the name should be removed completely from info boxes as the guidelines on this are very clear. Thanks - Galloglass 09:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have tweaked the {{ GaelicGamesByYear}} template so that it will add each of the year in Gaelic games categories to the appropriate year in Northern Ireland category, if it exists.
It will take some time for the cache to be purged, so this won't initially show up in the other categories, but it will be spread across them over the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! First the portal is featured, now a barn star, - poof! the RfA is like peanuts under a Christmas table. Thanks, Brownhair. -- sony-youth pléigh 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying in regards to it, no reason to have a whole one-sentence article in and of itself when it can be thrown with others. Granted, the third/fourth oldest person not having an article does seem kinda odd, despite the length. Obviously, unless a book of supercentinarians comes out or something, it probably won't be expanded beyond this. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, since it seemed like the others in the AfD didn't mind it. The lack of independent sources is troubling, and I can see why that would be cause for concern, so it took me a while to decide how to close. Short version: I closed it more in the keep/no con/delete mentality, if you want to merge then there was enough of a consensus for that that you can go ahead. And a Merry (belated) christmas to you as well! Wizardman 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed Jack Dormand and have passed it due to it's compliance with all criteria, and more. Congratulations. Regards, Rt . 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So does it look 'sourced' now (i.e. 'notability established')? Extremely sexy ( talk) 13:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
BHG I've been over the 2 articles you asked me to review and they look pretty good. I can't see anything wrong at all with the Dromand article. The Baker article could do with the introduction expanding a little to include his political stance within the Liberal Democrats and also maybe his republicanism could also be mentioned at this point as well. One query really, was his daughter actually born in 2000, two years before he was married? Cheers - Galloglass 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you're more involved with this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask you before making a bigger deal about this at WP:BLP. Today we have Carmelo Bertolami, Italian WWI veteran. Still alive, October 2007. Not still alive, November 2007. Problem? The only place reporting this is our good friends at the World's Oldest People Forum reprinted for convenience sake (feel free to remove from your talk page of course once it's been read):
Greetings,
I am sad to inform that we have lost another veteran, the youngest of the remaining Italians. Carmelo Bertolami, who was born in Novara di Sicilia on 8 december 1900, died in his home on 4 november, after a rapid illness.
Sincerely, Giovanni Alunni
The date of the message is December 10, 2007. I'm tempted to ignore all rules and count this as a reliable source if only because I don't think his death will ever be reported in a reliable source if it hasn't been already. I've reverted the additions several times for WP:BLP concerns, but I'd rather not semi-protect the page in this case. Thoughts? Suggestions? Cheers, CP 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think if this has to be WOP as much as Giovanni Alunni. Giovannu Alunni is listed on the extreme longevity tracking, but then, well, I easily added the person for Germany. However, Giovanni is also listed on the GRG site. But I guess I'm arguing any individual is a better source than where an individual reports (such as reporting to WOP). Footnotes, anyone? Neal ( talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
Hate to bother you again, but it looks as if we're going to have the same problem that we did with Bertolami. No reliable sources for life, none for death (this time both are covered by online forums), he's one of the "less than six monthers," so no chance of government recognition. Do you think I should wait a bit or nominate for deletion on the same premise at Bertolami? Cheers, CP 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ColonelBurke63 ( talk · contribs). Need I say more? Choess ( talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your critical remarks. I added sources to this article. The CD's and books (discography/bibliography) are all of my personal collection though difficult to mention as a source. I have lots of photographs but no permission to place. Searching for it. Grateful for new remarks. I am still a beginner on Wiki. Hans Sentis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Sentis ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG. Very many thanks for the barnstar. Helps to make all the work worthwhile - much appreciated. Ardfern ( talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I wonder whether as someone presumably very familiar with UK parliament websites, you could comment on the above which appears tagged for deletion on grounds of notabilty. I assume also I don't have the right to simply remove the tag myself.
Many thanks in advance
JRPG ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about or how it is supposed to involve me, but f you want to discuss something with me, please just write a brief description of the issue, and link to any previous discussions rather than copy-pasting them. Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit of the Camille Loiseau page and merged it back to List of American supercentenarians. I'm still kinda new, but I think it passes WP:BIO because it was the subject of two published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Please note that super-oldsters do not have a policy there and WP:BIO is not official. Would you please revert back to my version if I can find more sources? My user account ( talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)