Regarding your opinion here; would "Pretty Boys" be an acceptable signature? -- GRuban ( talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Would you care to comment at this RfC for the article Artpop? It originally started as a proposal to remove an unverifiable statement decided upon by editors in a previous consensus but has moved to a similar proposal titled "Agyle's proposal". If not, feel free to ignore message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 22:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
who are you :)
-
Sachein91 -
Talk Page -
15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hiya. I saw you disambiguate a link on Mick Fleetwood with AWB. Firstly thank you. Secondly, may I ask how you have your AWB set up to repair these links? I know and understand the ways to do it on the manual, but what way to you find works best? I have used several different ways, like using what-links-here to load a list from a disambiguation page and then going through using the link fixing tab on AWB, and I find the disambig page from the long list that Wikiproject: Disambiguation maintain - do you think this is the best way? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the Systems development life cycle. -- Mdd ( talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment at Talk:Tricolor#Bad move. jnestorius( talk) 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please move this category in line with Hungarian People's Republic, per the recent requested move? Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>
I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers Doc talk 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. Doc talk 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers Doc talk 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this. I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current discussion. My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See Kwamikagami and JorisvS for a couple of examples. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls as "merge selectively". Would you explain why you chose merge over delete? Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now appealed your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the Chipewyan people RM in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at Tintin as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains {{subst:rm bottom)}}, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with
Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
GreyShark (
dibra)
15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Skookum1 again. Thank you. —
The Bushranger
One ping only
03:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The 2 editors involved should use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the substance of this dispute. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section ( [1]). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning I'm being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? VictorD7 ( talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible? When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? EllenCT ( talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
v/r - T P 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! Thanks to you both (
Adjwilley &
TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, are you interested in leaving your opinion regarding the above category CFD, particularly given the category's similarity to other categories which were deleted way back when (i.e. [5], [6]). Yours, Quis separabit? 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
v/r - T P 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain Is there some CSS display problem that lead you to do this? Please use {{ Ping}} if you respond. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
&action=purge
? Does this null edit revision do something that cache purging wouldn't do? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for pre-empting the formal closure of the move discussion on this page. I was impatient with the creator of the page, with whom I (and other editors on subjects relating to the War of 1812) have become exasperated for POV issues, failure to provide citations of edit summaries and general disruptive behaviour. This editor began edit-warring on this and other pages, using sockpuppets, which I have reported to the admins. As I believe I would have been justified in a unilateral move without need for discussion (as "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate") I did so, prematurely, out of impatience. Incidentally, the present title follows the naming conventions with regard to most naval conflicts of the War of 1812. I believe that, while including the USS Peacock in the title might be strictly correct, but unwieldy. HLGallon ( talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to thank you for participating in the close of this move request. I don't need or want to know what went on behind the scenes, but just wanted to say that as someone else pointed out, this is volunteer work and sometimes other responsibilities here or in real life take precedence, so no apology for any delay was needed. We appreciate that the three of you were able to get through this one, and of course I am pleased with the outcome. But I would thank you for taking it on even if the outcome had been different. Cheers Tvoz/ talk 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I was just wondering if you will be saying anything about the requested move. Some people seem interested in "Move review", but I advised waiting to find out if you had any comments. Cheers.
P.S. Should we call you Brown Haired Girl, or drop the "Haired"? :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and for participating in the MR closure, though I probably would have come out with a different result. (I fixed the wlink above to your endorsement.) Take it easy and relax ("NoHairedGirl" just doesn't sound right, though I'm not doing so great in that department so probably should not talk about it). Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, for info, I tinkered with your close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_7#Category:11th-century_in_the_United_States, removing the hyphen, and tidied up afterwards. Kind regards – Fayenatic L ondon 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Since I believe we share similar opinions regarding subjective terminology in categories, I was just curious if you think the term "persecution" is appropriate or not for this CFD, although to be honest I can't think of another word that might fit, so my opinion/suggestion on the thread didn't actually change that word. Still curious though. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice that you fully protected Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I updated and notability tagged this article. Just wonder what you think re notability and the cruft I rv. I don't want to be accused of being antigay or whatever. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I am happy to accept your recommendations, would you be kind enough to merge these three (abortion, loneliness and buses? (Rain should remain separate as the comment by one editor is what started this). Depending on your response I am happy to add the other "songs about" categories, or continue and do the group nomination properly when the present noms are closed. Thanks for your help. I shouldn't edit until I am awake. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the ping regarding this. Yes, I can still do the split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Mid Armagh by-election, 1918 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What happened to you? You made a commitment to be a part of a three admin closing panel and then just stopped communicating with the other two admin. I for one would really like to know why this occurred.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, BHG,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I noticed that you had done some editing of this policy in 2013 and I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as
WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks!
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Green (MP) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Green (MP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. James ( T • C) • 10:42pm • 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal ( talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category_talk%3ALiverpool_docks&diff=606553455&oldid=409881035
Or Eric's? 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
About a month later, your move of Crowned Crane and friends has been vindicated. Thanks for making this tough close, and thus taking the first step in putting a contentious issue to rest at last. BDD ( talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks and congrats on your well-deserved admin barnstar. Quis separabit? 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to rename this one! Category:Persian Magazines also should be Category:Persian-language newspapers...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Bon Secours Hospital, Tralee may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope I never have to read another Skookum1 tirade. I suspect I am not the only one who feels this way. Most of the time, I can't even figure out what it is he's screaming about. I'm sure it's ten times worse when you are the target. Uniform cunieform ( talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@BHG and @ Doc9871: Uniform cunieform has been blocked as the umpteenth sock of site-banned editor Kauffner. Favonian ( talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
An editnotice is displayed whenever anyone edits this page. It says "if you post abuse, I will probably close the discussion without making a substantive reply.
I am quite ready to accept and discuss criticism, but Maleko Mela has chosen to be abusive ... so this discussion is closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. You cannot impose a moratorium on moves. Period. You are not the Wikipedia dictator.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You volunteered to handle the mop :-) -- NeilN talk to me 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Real Life Barnstar |
Hi
Thanks for your edit at my user page: User:LZNQBD/Alphabets. I will thank you if you sometimes guide me friendly at wikipedia. Please don't leave me alone. with best regards. LZNQBD ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
200.104.47.188 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not an account. Did you mean to give them a temporary block? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for semi-protecting Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. I was getting very concerned that the 2 IP's were engaging in a battle over controversial material. The IP that begins 109, was adding context that is a clear copy/paste from its original source. Whilst the IP that begins 37 was removing the copyvio text.
The other issue that is of concern is the fact the warring is taking place on an article that is currently in the public eye as the Eurovision Song Contest event itself is currently in progress and concludes on May 10. Upon reading the advice at WP:ROUGH, it states that if vandalism is related to a current event, the semi-protection should be lifted after the event is out of the public eye. As the article is relating to a current event, and the content that the warring is regarding is also in relation to the voting pattern of Azerbaijan, I am wondering if 2 day protection is going to be enough? Are there any other prevention steps that you may be able to advise me of that may help to keep the warring down to a minimum, without having to extend the semi-protection? Thanks in advance. Wes Mᴥuse 23:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, when you pinged me about Steve Kerr, for some reason it did not notify me. I thought I would let you know since you are an admin. Perhaps there is a problem with that feature right now? Hoops gza ( talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I'm glad we worked that out. Thanks. Hoops gza ( talk) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Somehow I wound up on the above-referenced article (list). It was interesting but the first thing I noticed is that the text size is way too large (enormous), and the length is, IMO, ridiculous and makes the article hard to navigate. I left this note on the article talk page. Anyway, just curious what you think. I think the provinces (not by county or ROI/NI) is the best way to go. Dividing the current article into 4 (Leinster, Connaught, Munster and Ulster, of course) would be fine, I would say. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added a comment to the discussion on the Irish list. Did you want me to comment on the English one too? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I just came across this comment of yours where you refer to me in a way I'm not sure I appreciate. I've been nothing but civil and polite towards you and I've actually enjoyed our discussion so far, which is why I don't think I deserve comments like "it attracts editors like the one above". What do you mean by that? Because as far as I can tell all I've done is disagree with you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
it attracts editors like the one above who pronounces that any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction.
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For closing the endless move discussions at Genesis creation narrative and explaining the closure effectively. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For one of the bravest and wisest admin actions I have encountered during my time here. Bravo. Irondome ( talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
Dear User:BrownHairedGirl, I want to delete my subpage: User:LZNQBD/Code/1.js. Please guide me.
Thank you. LZNQBD ( talk) 08:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG. Just in response to your comments that there has been no discussion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in that debate, although I suppose it wasn't mentioned by name, two contributors to the debate clearly stated that they didn't believe there were any other parties by this name (and none of the other participants contested this). Does this need to be pointed out again on the talk page with reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or will you reconsider your relisting? Number 5 7 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
All-Around Amazing Barnstar | |
For surviving the most grueling and relentless AFD (Pseudoscience) I've ever seen without even losing your composure. Quis separabit? 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
I just wanted to let you know that your arguments are dead on! This is a category nobody understands and rightfully so, since it is logically impossible to define. When one looks at who is classified as a pseudoscientist, it is just a meaningless jumble of quacks, philosophers, frauds, etc. The category pseudorscience is no better. Some of the things listed in it are actually hot main-stream topics of research. Anyway, I deeply admire your thoughtfulness! I am One of Many ( talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
please pass it along
JLDW
talk
03:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. My background is in marketing and I do a lot of work helping companies, non-profits, BLPs, etc. contribute to their own articles following COI best practices, usually bringing them up to GA eventually. I am in a position of needing a lot of collaboration from other editors, since WP:COI requires that I propose edits on Talk and another non-conflicted editor review them. I was wondering if you had the bandwidth to collaborate on a few articles where I have a COI now and then.
For example, on a pro bono basis I'm helping Bev Perdue's biographer correct some errors on her Wikipedia page, but the corrections I pointed out were un-answered in the Request Edit queue for two months. I posted a couple more corrections a week ago and could use some help making corrections in a manner compliant with WP:COI. CorporateM ( Talk) 05:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
BHG,
A while ago, I found myself in a dispute with another editor about whether
Category:People of Jewish descent (via associated categories like
Category:People of Semitic descent) should be put under the parent category for
Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia. I believe that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of who was classified as "indigenous" but the debate was left as a stalemate. Looking at the
Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia, it looks like it contains every ethnic group living in this geographic area which is not what indigenous means. So, it seems like the categories are being used if all of these groups are "native" and, therefore, have a right to territory.
That's where things stood until I came across List of indigenous peoples which states:
Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of".
And the article includes a lengthy list of indigenous peoples and tribes across the world. The article is actively edited but it isn't well-sourced. I'm looking for some UN and NGO reports to use as reference but what I've found so far are country-specific reports. I'd really like to have the categories concerning indigenous peoples reflect the list of indigenous peoples. But this involves removing a fair number of ethnic groups and I expect there will be some pushback. I'll continue looking for a generally accepted directory but I just wanted to run this move by you and see if you had any thoughts about it. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Liz, and sorry for a slow reply.
To be honest, most of the time my thoughts are that life is too short and sanity too precious to engage with much to do with questions of Jewish or Palestinian identity. It's not just that it's a minefield of competing narratives and competing ideologies; those topics are also plagued with groups of highly-partisan editors, many of whom are unable or unwillingly to set aside the deep passions which these topics arouse in them. There have also been off-wiki canvassing groups which add to the heat; something gave one of them the impression that I was on "their side", and I got lottsa emails for a while. There many other contentious areas on Wikipedia, but that one seems to be one of the most consistently fractious.
My initial reaction to this is that UN definitions are probably going to be the best starting point ... but then again the UN is not well-regarded in Israel (to put it mildly). Keep those flame-proof overalls on :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Just came across this discussion on this list at User talk:Crock81#List of indigenous people - Israelites where it is also mentioned that there was an attempt at mediation regarding List of indigenous peoples, particularly regarding indigenous peoples in the Middle East, that was abandoned. So, unknowingly, I am walking into an article that has already been the subject of dispute about 18 months ago. I still will look for sources but this is more of a minefield than I expected! Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you help by adding a photo of Conchita Wurst at her ITN mention that has just been added. I have now placed a photo in the ITN nomination. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your comments on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada. You have recommended maintaining the page to the earlier stable version. It is to be noted that this page was created as Siddapur on March 04, 2007. User Imc [the same user who is requesting the move now] moved Siddapur to Siddapura, Uttara Kannada on January 29, 2011 without initiating a discussion. Kindly have a look at the log here. The fact that this article is about a small place in Karnataka state in India, many Wikipedia users do not come across this page. Since the page was moved without a discussion earlier, it should not be treated as a stable version. Moreover, many editors who have done fewer edits cannot move the page even if they know that the move was incorrect. Also, please note here how many pages have been unilaterally moved by the user Imc without discussion. I request you to come back to the discussion on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada after you study this background. |*| Anand.Hegde|*| Talk to me 04:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Thanks for highlighting "their own POV" of few editors in 2002 Gujarat riots article. I struggle for a year to explain that to them, our fellow Wikipedians. :) Vatsan34 ( talk) 17:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
BrownHairedGirl - wanted to thank / commend you suggesting / promoting a discussion on a possible quick delete for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai page category.
In two minds about this - Hong Kong Anglicans are loud and proud to call themselves Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (and Wikipedia seems to accept this as the approved name). Japanese Anglicans seem to be only ever referred to as the Nippon Sei Ko Kai in Anglican Church literature, [11] but the Wikipedia main page for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai still operates under the banner of Anglican Church in Japan.
My gut instinct is that Nippon Sei Ko Kai is the name that really counts (and what the church would prefer to be known as internationally), but I haven't been able to find a way to successfully rename the main page. A marginal subject of debate at best, but your wise counsel would be much appreciated. Aw1805 ( talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl - thank you for your considered and good humoured reply - will proceed as suggested. Talk:Anglican Church in Japan indicates that a Wikipedia Senpai had similar idea circa 2008, so a rename might be overdue. On WP:BIAS, recent BBC News article on the Natalie Smith Henry article creation really highlighted this issue. In editing articles on church history very aware how often source materials fall short in documenting the contributions of the many who do not fall into the white male Bishop with impressive Victorian sideburns category .... The future will be different! Aw1805 ( talk) 08:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You recently moved the above named article to a new page titled R.L.Outhwaite giving the reason that he was "known as...". When I created the article I made the point of including this "known as" is the first line. To me, this seemed the most correct procedure to follow having seen what had been done elsewhere. I have not been able to identify any guideline and assumed since you had made the change, you were following one. If so, I would be grateful if you could direct me to it as I think this would help me in future biographies that I create. Thanks. Graemp ( talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello my name is justin st. Pierre. Jackie Washington is my great uncle. You can trace my family history back if un believed. My father is Charles thode my grandmother was Brenda thode. Her mother my great grandmother was Marion washington. Im sitting here with my uncle Michael washington. Jackie was his father. We read the article you wrote, and were quite upset with what we read. You wrote that he was abused by his wife and son, we would like to know what son you are talking about seeing how micheal is his only son we take strong offence to that. Micheal was there as much as he could be suffering heart conditions and now recovering from heart surgery and now reading this is over upset from the information given to you. We would like the opportunity to meet with or chat with you to straighten this up. If not the next step will be getting lawyers involved. Whatever information you have regarding personal family life is clearly inappropriate and offensive. To not only my uncle micheal but me as well, as well as the rest of the family. If you wish to further discuss this matter you can contact me through email.
Justinst.pierre199343@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.19 ( talk) 06:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MR - "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." - This is notification on your talk page that resolution is being sought over the closing of the Hillary Clinton RM7 discussion in which you were involved. The "issues" with the closing are obviously extensively discussed on the Hillary Clinton talk page. Do you feel you can offer resolution to the issues discussed? Thank you. NickCT ( talk) 13:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously. Imagine that the panel had not made these errors and had moved to HC accordingly. People favoring HRC would definitely not like it, but they would have no policy grounds on which to dissent. The issue would be finally resolved, instead of continuing to fester. -- В²C ☎ 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't find your AFD comment now, but within the last few weeks I came across an AFD that was tending toward "delete", where your late suggestion of redirect carried the day. You had a nice suggestion that was respectful to the article contributor(s), perhaps relatively new contributors, and you cited WP:PRESERVE, and the close that implemented that was far nicer than delete. I thought that was relevant just now and cited PRESERVE at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital. Thank you for making a good example! :) cheers, -- do ncr am 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
Sorry for the delay! NickCT ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the additions to the Andrew Scoble page, and the re-directs from variations on his name - very helpful! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've done another article on another British judge, Sir Ford North. Would appreciate any comments or clean up you may have on it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cory Bell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commission ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Another day, another judge. :) Comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Tablid-bait.
You recently deleted Category:Television series by DHX Media, creating a very large number of redlinks. Please restore it. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
![]() BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
Regarding your opinion here; would "Pretty Boys" be an acceptable signature? -- GRuban ( talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Would you care to comment at this RfC for the article Artpop? It originally started as a proposal to remove an unverifiable statement decided upon by editors in a previous consensus but has moved to a similar proposal titled "Agyle's proposal". If not, feel free to ignore message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 22:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
who are you :)
-
Sachein91 -
Talk Page -
15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hiya. I saw you disambiguate a link on Mick Fleetwood with AWB. Firstly thank you. Secondly, may I ask how you have your AWB set up to repair these links? I know and understand the ways to do it on the manual, but what way to you find works best? I have used several different ways, like using what-links-here to load a list from a disambiguation page and then going through using the link fixing tab on AWB, and I find the disambig page from the long list that Wikiproject: Disambiguation maintain - do you think this is the best way? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the Systems development life cycle. -- Mdd ( talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment at Talk:Tricolor#Bad move. jnestorius( talk) 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please move this category in line with Hungarian People's Republic, per the recent requested move? Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>
I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers Doc talk 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. Doc talk 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers Doc talk 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this. I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current discussion. My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See Kwamikagami and JorisvS for a couple of examples. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls as "merge selectively". Would you explain why you chose merge over delete? Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now appealed your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the Chipewyan people RM in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at Tintin as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains {{subst:rm bottom)}}, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with
Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
GreyShark (
dibra)
15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Skookum1 again. Thank you. —
The Bushranger
One ping only
03:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The 2 editors involved should use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the substance of this dispute. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section ( [1]). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning I'm being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? VictorD7 ( talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible? When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? EllenCT ( talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
v/r - T P 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! Thanks to you both (
Adjwilley &
TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, are you interested in leaving your opinion regarding the above category CFD, particularly given the category's similarity to other categories which were deleted way back when (i.e. [5], [6]). Yours, Quis separabit? 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
v/r - T P 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain Is there some CSS display problem that lead you to do this? Please use {{ Ping}} if you respond. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
&action=purge
? Does this null edit revision do something that cache purging wouldn't do? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for pre-empting the formal closure of the move discussion on this page. I was impatient with the creator of the page, with whom I (and other editors on subjects relating to the War of 1812) have become exasperated for POV issues, failure to provide citations of edit summaries and general disruptive behaviour. This editor began edit-warring on this and other pages, using sockpuppets, which I have reported to the admins. As I believe I would have been justified in a unilateral move without need for discussion (as "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate") I did so, prematurely, out of impatience. Incidentally, the present title follows the naming conventions with regard to most naval conflicts of the War of 1812. I believe that, while including the USS Peacock in the title might be strictly correct, but unwieldy. HLGallon ( talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to thank you for participating in the close of this move request. I don't need or want to know what went on behind the scenes, but just wanted to say that as someone else pointed out, this is volunteer work and sometimes other responsibilities here or in real life take precedence, so no apology for any delay was needed. We appreciate that the three of you were able to get through this one, and of course I am pleased with the outcome. But I would thank you for taking it on even if the outcome had been different. Cheers Tvoz/ talk 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, I was just wondering if you will be saying anything about the requested move. Some people seem interested in "Move review", but I advised waiting to find out if you had any comments. Cheers.
P.S. Should we call you Brown Haired Girl, or drop the "Haired"? :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and for participating in the MR closure, though I probably would have come out with a different result. (I fixed the wlink above to your endorsement.) Take it easy and relax ("NoHairedGirl" just doesn't sound right, though I'm not doing so great in that department so probably should not talk about it). Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG, for info, I tinkered with your close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_7#Category:11th-century_in_the_United_States, removing the hyphen, and tidied up afterwards. Kind regards – Fayenatic L ondon 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Since I believe we share similar opinions regarding subjective terminology in categories, I was just curious if you think the term "persecution" is appropriate or not for this CFD, although to be honest I can't think of another word that might fit, so my opinion/suggestion on the thread didn't actually change that word. Still curious though. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice that you fully protected Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I updated and notability tagged this article. Just wonder what you think re notability and the cruft I rv. I don't want to be accused of being antigay or whatever. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I am happy to accept your recommendations, would you be kind enough to merge these three (abortion, loneliness and buses? (Rain should remain separate as the comment by one editor is what started this). Depending on your response I am happy to add the other "songs about" categories, or continue and do the group nomination properly when the present noms are closed. Thanks for your help. I shouldn't edit until I am awake. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the ping regarding this. Yes, I can still do the split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Mid Armagh by-election, 1918 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What happened to you? You made a commitment to be a part of a three admin closing panel and then just stopped communicating with the other two admin. I for one would really like to know why this occurred.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, BHG,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I noticed that you had done some editing of this policy in 2013 and I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as
WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks!
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Green (MP) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Green (MP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. James ( T • C) • 10:42pm • 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal ( talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category_talk%3ALiverpool_docks&diff=606553455&oldid=409881035
Or Eric's? 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
About a month later, your move of Crowned Crane and friends has been vindicated. Thanks for making this tough close, and thus taking the first step in putting a contentious issue to rest at last. BDD ( talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks and congrats on your well-deserved admin barnstar. Quis separabit? 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to rename this one! Category:Persian Magazines also should be Category:Persian-language newspapers...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Bon Secours Hospital, Tralee may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope I never have to read another Skookum1 tirade. I suspect I am not the only one who feels this way. Most of the time, I can't even figure out what it is he's screaming about. I'm sure it's ten times worse when you are the target. Uniform cunieform ( talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@BHG and @ Doc9871: Uniform cunieform has been blocked as the umpteenth sock of site-banned editor Kauffner. Favonian ( talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
An editnotice is displayed whenever anyone edits this page. It says "if you post abuse, I will probably close the discussion without making a substantive reply.
I am quite ready to accept and discuss criticism, but Maleko Mela has chosen to be abusive ... so this discussion is closed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. You cannot impose a moratorium on moves. Period. You are not the Wikipedia dictator.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You volunteered to handle the mop :-) -- NeilN talk to me 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Real Life Barnstar |
Hi
Thanks for your edit at my user page: User:LZNQBD/Alphabets. I will thank you if you sometimes guide me friendly at wikipedia. Please don't leave me alone. with best regards. LZNQBD ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
200.104.47.188 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not an account. Did you mean to give them a temporary block? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for semi-protecting Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. I was getting very concerned that the 2 IP's were engaging in a battle over controversial material. The IP that begins 109, was adding context that is a clear copy/paste from its original source. Whilst the IP that begins 37 was removing the copyvio text.
The other issue that is of concern is the fact the warring is taking place on an article that is currently in the public eye as the Eurovision Song Contest event itself is currently in progress and concludes on May 10. Upon reading the advice at WP:ROUGH, it states that if vandalism is related to a current event, the semi-protection should be lifted after the event is out of the public eye. As the article is relating to a current event, and the content that the warring is regarding is also in relation to the voting pattern of Azerbaijan, I am wondering if 2 day protection is going to be enough? Are there any other prevention steps that you may be able to advise me of that may help to keep the warring down to a minimum, without having to extend the semi-protection? Thanks in advance. Wes Mᴥuse 23:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, when you pinged me about Steve Kerr, for some reason it did not notify me. I thought I would let you know since you are an admin. Perhaps there is a problem with that feature right now? Hoops gza ( talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I'm glad we worked that out. Thanks. Hoops gza ( talk) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Somehow I wound up on the above-referenced article (list). It was interesting but the first thing I noticed is that the text size is way too large (enormous), and the length is, IMO, ridiculous and makes the article hard to navigate. I left this note on the article talk page. Anyway, just curious what you think. I think the provinces (not by county or ROI/NI) is the best way to go. Dividing the current article into 4 (Leinster, Connaught, Munster and Ulster, of course) would be fine, I would say. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added a comment to the discussion on the Irish list. Did you want me to comment on the English one too? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I just came across this comment of yours where you refer to me in a way I'm not sure I appreciate. I've been nothing but civil and polite towards you and I've actually enjoyed our discussion so far, which is why I don't think I deserve comments like "it attracts editors like the one above". What do you mean by that? Because as far as I can tell all I've done is disagree with you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
it attracts editors like the one above who pronounces that any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction.
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For closing the endless move discussions at Genesis creation narrative and explaining the closure effectively. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For one of the bravest and wisest admin actions I have encountered during my time here. Bravo. Irondome ( talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
Dear User:BrownHairedGirl, I want to delete my subpage: User:LZNQBD/Code/1.js. Please guide me.
Thank you. LZNQBD ( talk) 08:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BHG. Just in response to your comments that there has been no discussion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in that debate, although I suppose it wasn't mentioned by name, two contributors to the debate clearly stated that they didn't believe there were any other parties by this name (and none of the other participants contested this). Does this need to be pointed out again on the talk page with reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or will you reconsider your relisting? Number 5 7 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
All-Around Amazing Barnstar | |
For surviving the most grueling and relentless AFD (Pseudoscience) I've ever seen without even losing your composure. Quis separabit? 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) |
I just wanted to let you know that your arguments are dead on! This is a category nobody understands and rightfully so, since it is logically impossible to define. When one looks at who is classified as a pseudoscientist, it is just a meaningless jumble of quacks, philosophers, frauds, etc. The category pseudorscience is no better. Some of the things listed in it are actually hot main-stream topics of research. Anyway, I deeply admire your thoughtfulness! I am One of Many ( talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
please pass it along
JLDW
talk
03:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. My background is in marketing and I do a lot of work helping companies, non-profits, BLPs, etc. contribute to their own articles following COI best practices, usually bringing them up to GA eventually. I am in a position of needing a lot of collaboration from other editors, since WP:COI requires that I propose edits on Talk and another non-conflicted editor review them. I was wondering if you had the bandwidth to collaborate on a few articles where I have a COI now and then.
For example, on a pro bono basis I'm helping Bev Perdue's biographer correct some errors on her Wikipedia page, but the corrections I pointed out were un-answered in the Request Edit queue for two months. I posted a couple more corrections a week ago and could use some help making corrections in a manner compliant with WP:COI. CorporateM ( Talk) 05:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
BHG,
A while ago, I found myself in a dispute with another editor about whether
Category:People of Jewish descent (via associated categories like
Category:People of Semitic descent) should be put under the parent category for
Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia. I believe that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of who was classified as "indigenous" but the debate was left as a stalemate. Looking at the
Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia, it looks like it contains every ethnic group living in this geographic area which is not what indigenous means. So, it seems like the categories are being used if all of these groups are "native" and, therefore, have a right to territory.
That's where things stood until I came across List of indigenous peoples which states:
Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of".
And the article includes a lengthy list of indigenous peoples and tribes across the world. The article is actively edited but it isn't well-sourced. I'm looking for some UN and NGO reports to use as reference but what I've found so far are country-specific reports. I'd really like to have the categories concerning indigenous peoples reflect the list of indigenous peoples. But this involves removing a fair number of ethnic groups and I expect there will be some pushback. I'll continue looking for a generally accepted directory but I just wanted to run this move by you and see if you had any thoughts about it. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Liz, and sorry for a slow reply.
To be honest, most of the time my thoughts are that life is too short and sanity too precious to engage with much to do with questions of Jewish or Palestinian identity. It's not just that it's a minefield of competing narratives and competing ideologies; those topics are also plagued with groups of highly-partisan editors, many of whom are unable or unwillingly to set aside the deep passions which these topics arouse in them. There have also been off-wiki canvassing groups which add to the heat; something gave one of them the impression that I was on "their side", and I got lottsa emails for a while. There many other contentious areas on Wikipedia, but that one seems to be one of the most consistently fractious.
My initial reaction to this is that UN definitions are probably going to be the best starting point ... but then again the UN is not well-regarded in Israel (to put it mildly). Keep those flame-proof overalls on :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Just came across this discussion on this list at User talk:Crock81#List of indigenous people - Israelites where it is also mentioned that there was an attempt at mediation regarding List of indigenous peoples, particularly regarding indigenous peoples in the Middle East, that was abandoned. So, unknowingly, I am walking into an article that has already been the subject of dispute about 18 months ago. I still will look for sources but this is more of a minefield than I expected! Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you help by adding a photo of Conchita Wurst at her ITN mention that has just been added. I have now placed a photo in the ITN nomination. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your comments on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada. You have recommended maintaining the page to the earlier stable version. It is to be noted that this page was created as Siddapur on March 04, 2007. User Imc [the same user who is requesting the move now] moved Siddapur to Siddapura, Uttara Kannada on January 29, 2011 without initiating a discussion. Kindly have a look at the log here. The fact that this article is about a small place in Karnataka state in India, many Wikipedia users do not come across this page. Since the page was moved without a discussion earlier, it should not be treated as a stable version. Moreover, many editors who have done fewer edits cannot move the page even if they know that the move was incorrect. Also, please note here how many pages have been unilaterally moved by the user Imc without discussion. I request you to come back to the discussion on Talk:Siddapur, Uttara Kannada after you study this background. |*| Anand.Hegde|*| Talk to me 04:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Thanks for highlighting "their own POV" of few editors in 2002 Gujarat riots article. I struggle for a year to explain that to them, our fellow Wikipedians. :) Vatsan34 ( talk) 17:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
BrownHairedGirl - wanted to thank / commend you suggesting / promoting a discussion on a possible quick delete for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai page category.
In two minds about this - Hong Kong Anglicans are loud and proud to call themselves Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (and Wikipedia seems to accept this as the approved name). Japanese Anglicans seem to be only ever referred to as the Nippon Sei Ko Kai in Anglican Church literature, [11] but the Wikipedia main page for the Nippon Sei Ko Kai still operates under the banner of Anglican Church in Japan.
My gut instinct is that Nippon Sei Ko Kai is the name that really counts (and what the church would prefer to be known as internationally), but I haven't been able to find a way to successfully rename the main page. A marginal subject of debate at best, but your wise counsel would be much appreciated. Aw1805 ( talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl - thank you for your considered and good humoured reply - will proceed as suggested. Talk:Anglican Church in Japan indicates that a Wikipedia Senpai had similar idea circa 2008, so a rename might be overdue. On WP:BIAS, recent BBC News article on the Natalie Smith Henry article creation really highlighted this issue. In editing articles on church history very aware how often source materials fall short in documenting the contributions of the many who do not fall into the white male Bishop with impressive Victorian sideburns category .... The future will be different! Aw1805 ( talk) 08:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You recently moved the above named article to a new page titled R.L.Outhwaite giving the reason that he was "known as...". When I created the article I made the point of including this "known as" is the first line. To me, this seemed the most correct procedure to follow having seen what had been done elsewhere. I have not been able to identify any guideline and assumed since you had made the change, you were following one. If so, I would be grateful if you could direct me to it as I think this would help me in future biographies that I create. Thanks. Graemp ( talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello my name is justin st. Pierre. Jackie Washington is my great uncle. You can trace my family history back if un believed. My father is Charles thode my grandmother was Brenda thode. Her mother my great grandmother was Marion washington. Im sitting here with my uncle Michael washington. Jackie was his father. We read the article you wrote, and were quite upset with what we read. You wrote that he was abused by his wife and son, we would like to know what son you are talking about seeing how micheal is his only son we take strong offence to that. Micheal was there as much as he could be suffering heart conditions and now recovering from heart surgery and now reading this is over upset from the information given to you. We would like the opportunity to meet with or chat with you to straighten this up. If not the next step will be getting lawyers involved. Whatever information you have regarding personal family life is clearly inappropriate and offensive. To not only my uncle micheal but me as well, as well as the rest of the family. If you wish to further discuss this matter you can contact me through email.
Justinst.pierre199343@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.19 ( talk) 06:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MR - "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." - This is notification on your talk page that resolution is being sought over the closing of the Hillary Clinton RM7 discussion in which you were involved. The "issues" with the closing are obviously extensively discussed on the Hillary Clinton talk page. Do you feel you can offer resolution to the issues discussed? Thank you. NickCT ( talk) 13:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously. Imagine that the panel had not made these errors and had moved to HC accordingly. People favoring HRC would definitely not like it, but they would have no policy grounds on which to dissent. The issue would be finally resolved, instead of continuing to fester. -- В²C ☎ 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't find your AFD comment now, but within the last few weeks I came across an AFD that was tending toward "delete", where your late suggestion of redirect carried the day. You had a nice suggestion that was respectful to the article contributor(s), perhaps relatively new contributors, and you cited WP:PRESERVE, and the close that implemented that was far nicer than delete. I thought that was relevant just now and cited PRESERVE at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital. Thank you for making a good example! :) cheers, -- do ncr am 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
Sorry for the delay! NickCT ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the additions to the Andrew Scoble page, and the re-directs from variations on his name - very helpful! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've done another article on another British judge, Sir Ford North. Would appreciate any comments or clean up you may have on it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cory Bell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commission ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Another day, another judge. :) Comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Tablid-bait.
You recently deleted Category:Television series by DHX Media, creating a very large number of redlinks. Please restore it. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)