Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 14:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You're doing a great job with disambig repair! Have you had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation? JFW | T@lk


Kingmaker (band)

Sorry for acting too hastily; the edit looked so much like a type of vandalism that I've come across often that I simply assumed that that was what it was, and reacted accordingly. I should have taken into account the fact that you have a User account (which is a strong contra-indication) and then checked your other edits. Finger-wagging "test" template removed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dab'ing Halifax

Hi, good work on fixing all those ambiguous links. However, I just wanted to mention that in circumnavigation, I changed the Halifax link to Halifax, Nova Scotia, since the voyage was in 1942 and it was the then city — not the present municipal region — that they went to. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 11:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a good point; it's a bit of a weird situation. But I've been linking to the city article from a variety of articles when that was the situation at the time; I don't want to indicate that someone's birthplace was the municipality when it was the city. The problem is that the Halifax name has been used for two things that really seem pretty different, and I can't see a neat way to deal with that. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


U.M. Bishops

Please allow me time to complete these articles before you go removing what might appear "unused materials." Thanks. Thanks, also, for your contributions to these articles (like the info from Texas). I am working on this material constantly. It takes time. Please give that time! Thanks. Pastorwayne 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So far as I am aware, I have not removed any substantive unused material, so I presume that you referring to the unused section headings that I removed from Woodie W. White? Why not just create the headings when you are ready to add content beneath them? As a compromise, I have just commented them out for now -- hope that's OK, but it is unkind to a reader to present them with a contents box offering links to sections which are entirely blank, or to force them to scroll down past a series of widely-spaced empty headings in case there is something substantive at the bottom. BrownHairedGirl 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Categorization

Hi. When categorizing pages, please do not include both a subcategory and its parent category. For example, when using Category:Prisons in California, there is no need to also use Category:Prisons in the United States. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization for more information. Thanks! - EurekaLott 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for the response. I was a bit confused about why I wasn't familiar with the guideline you cited, until I realized that another user had added it to the page a couple weeks ago. I don't think I agree with it, as it seems to imply that users should follow the main guideline, except when they don't feel like it. In any case, if you take a look at the other subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States that are categorized by state, from hotels to observatories to malls, you'll find that they do not keep the articles in the parent category when a state subcategory exists. The reason I only recategorized a few of the articles is because I ran out of time. I'll go back and get the rest later, if I have time and nobody beats me to them. - EurekaLott 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


UMC in USA

The UMC is a worldwide denomination, as was the Methodist Church before it. Therefore, to put USA after UMC in James Samuel Thomas is less accurate. Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John S. Stamm

I love what you did with this page! Thanks!! Especially the footnote!! Pastorwayne 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can we put the photo IN the article (like in many other instances)? That would be even better yet, though even if not I appreciate what you have done. Pastorwayne 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Are you a U.M.?

just curious. you seem almost as interested in these articles on U.M. Bishops as I am. Enjoyed your explanation about your search for John S. Stamm info, too! Pastorwayne 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I'm not, although I was (briefly) a Methodist here in England. These days I'm more of a devout agnostic! {grin}
    My interest is simply that I find them interesting as people, and (if this doesn't sound rude, which I don't intend it to be) working on them have been an interesting exercise in polishing wikipedia articles. I have been using them as a sort of testing ground to see how this sort of wiki editing can work, and what tools are avaialable to keep track of a lot of articles. BrownHairedGirl 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Francis Burns

See, here is the perfect example. This Bishop spent most of his time in Africa, not the U.S.A. So it is silly to say U.S.A. when he was in Liberia! Pastorwayne 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


James Cannon

I'm sorry; it was me to left that trail of forgotten Ps. I'll be more careful. --Duncan 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


James Samuel Thomas

James Samuel Thomas Thanks for the additions to his page! That is so cool!! He is the Bishop who ordained me, so will always be very significant to me. I intend to expand his article soon. But I love your additions!! Pastorwayne 14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! He sounds like quite a remarkable man, and well deserving of an expanded article. BrownHairedGirl 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User pages

Hi. I think you accidentally blanked your talk page with your last edit -- it looks like you edited the whole thing rather than a section by mistake. Anyway, I've put it back; if it was your intention to blank the page, you can of course revert my reversion.

Also, as regards your user page, you appear to list articles that you contributed to in February and March 2007. As far as I'm aware, it's still 2006, and will be for some time. Have you invented time travel? Or did you just get the wrong year :) -- Gurch 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Don't fix redirects that aren't broken

You made this edit to the Penn Jillette page. While your edit was in good faith, in the future please don't fix redirects that aren't broken. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for more information. Happy editing. -- Krash (Talk) 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



John Warren Branscomb

What about this article is not NPOV? Please reply on it's talk page. Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it! See Talk:John Warren Branscomb. -- BrownHairedGirl 16:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings

Thanks for the updates just checked out your stats [1] your at 3069 edits now, 2805 article edits! That's pretty impressive in anyone's books, keep up the good work and best of luck in all your endeavours. -- Shimirel (Talk) 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Steven Lasher afd

Hi, I'd like to ask if you'd perhaps reconsider this AfD on the basis of some new points I've brought up. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 16:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bishops of the United Methodist Church

Please don't keep removing: [Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church]] from U.M. Bishops' pages. Yes, they are properly categorized in their predecessor denominations (M.E., M.E., south, etc.). But each are ALSO properly categorized as U.M. Bishops. That is their original categories. See the suggestions about categories from wikipedia! They say pages CAN be properly categorized in categories AND subcategories when appropriate. This is appropriate! They are NOT superfluous!! Thanks!! Pastorwayne 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read "Reasons for duplication" in Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories.
There was massive duplication of categories of most those bishops. Many of the bishops were classfied as: Bishop of the ME Church, Bishop of the UMChurch, Methodist Bishop, Methodist Clergy, and then Christian ministers as well.
Since these categories all have a hierarchical relationship, that makes for four unnecessary categories in each case. Every Methodist bishop is by definition a Christian minister, so there is no gain in adding them to that category as well. The top category labels them accurately, the rest is overkill.
I disagree. It is not overkill to recognize the fact that historically before they were Bishops each was an ordained minister, Christian minister, etc. Each of these various categories contain different connotations and provide additional information about each of these historical (or present) figures. Moreover, as persons use this encyclopedia, such multi-categorizations will prove helpful in discovering more and more persons illustrative of the categorization. For example, if one seeks information or examples of Christian ministers, this would open up a much broaded spectrum of persons to view (rather than only those who were Christian ministers only, not anything else). Plus isn't the idea of wikipedia to be able to go from one related topic to another easily? Again, this multi-categorization enables that. Pastorwayne 16:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent several hours removing this duplication, which makes the categorisation much more usable (and that's the main point of it), and will watch future edits for any reappearance -- it's really just overkill to dump everything into every possible category.
I am tremendously impressed by your devotion and your promptness at editing the articles I submit! Again, you seem almost as passionate about them as I am!! It seems a matter of mere moments sometimes after I have finished writing that you visit and make additions, subtractions, edits, and sometimes even add content (which I especially appreciate -- thanks!) Pastorwayne 16:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one outstanding question which you seem to be raising is whether ME bishops should also be classified in the parent category of UM, and I disagree with your interpretation there, which is why I have reverted the dual classifications you have reintroduced, and suggest we discuss it further before proceeding.
I replied here once already, I thought (can't find it). Let's see if I can reconstruct my thoughts. The PRIMARY categorization for ALL of the Bishops (ME, MES, EUB, etc.) is Bishops of the United Methodist Church. This is so for several reasons. Number one, because none of the other denominations exist any longer. 2., because all of the ARE UM Bishops (not were, but ARE). Since the denominations that elected them are now absorbed into the U.M. Church, they ARE U.M. bishops. Please try to understand this from the perspective of someone who is a U.M. Ask any church historian well educated in U.M. history and polity. I created the SUBcategories primarily to make it easier for folks to see where each of these Bishops also fit in history. But they ARE all U.M. Bishops, as well as M.E., EUB, or what have you.
The 19th century bishops, for example, were not bishops of the UM church: they were bishops of the ME or ME(S) church. Similarly, those elected as bishop between 1939 and 1968 were not UM bishops, they were bishops of The Methodist Church.
yes they ARE! The ME church no longer exists. But from the perspective of the communion of the Saints, they ARE Bishops of the U.M.C. -- just like Kings/Queens of England are and always will be such, as well as Kings/Queens of the U.K. and/or other expansions of their realm.
It would be historically inaccurate not to classify them in the denomination in which they were elected bishop, so I have been through the entire list, twice, to check that they are all corrctly categorised. With the exception of about two where I was unsure, I have completed that task.
yes, of course. But it would be historically inaccurate not to classify them in the U.M.C., as well! Just look at our Book of Discipline! If the U.M.Church is the authority on all things U.M., they/we classify them as U.M. Bishops, who came to the U.M. Church through said predecessor denomination.
The next question is whether all those bishops from the predecessor denominations should be dual-categorised as UM. As a historian, I find that very suspect: many of them were not UM bishops, they were bishops in predecessor denominations, and it is historically innacurate to assign them the label of a denomination which came into existence only after their death.
Take, for example, Elijah Hedding, who died 87 years before the 1939 merger, and 118 years before the creation of he UM church. I understand that the UM church claims his work as part of its heritage, and that's entirely the UM's business (it's not for anyone outside that church to say whaether that's right or wrong); but for the purpose of classification in an NPOV encyclopedia, it's highly misleading to label people as something they could not have been.
Where I think that dual classification might make sense is for those bishops who were elected in predecessor denominations, but who served as UM bishops after 1968. At a rough estimate, I think that about 100 of the 567 total might fall into that overlap category. Would that be acceptable to you as a compromise?
Otherwise, apart from the theoretical objections, there is a practical problem if all bishops of predecessor denominations are added in directly to the UM category. The list of bishops to date shows a count of 567, which will only rise (there appears, on average, to be five or ten new bishops each year). The category of UM bishops, if anywhere near complete, will start to become over-large and unwieldy as more bishops are added. It will also be leave the reader with no way of distinguishing from the category which bishops are UM bishops (rather than from a precedessor denom).
Hope that makes sense! But let's discuss further rather than risk an edit war. -BrownHairedGirl 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman

I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman; you've recently contributed there and you might have seen that a moderation was attempted on some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. he agreed to the moderation but did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism. At this point Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. Perhaps Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Your contribution has been very valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks for the help you've already given. --Duncan 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for the heads-up on speedy deletion

I don't understand the big hurry for speedy deletions??? Can't we give each other a little time? Thanks for your kind comments about my articles, too!! Pastorwayne 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quentin Thomas

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the AfD for Quentin Thomas closed as delete, so based on my suggestion in response to your comment, I moved Sir Quentin Thomas to there, both because of naming conventions (removing the "Sir" from the title) and to discourage recreation of the article about the decidedly non-notable basketball player. The original page remains, of course, a redirect. --Kinu t/c 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your opinion

I created for all the commonwealth realms articles on the monarch of. See e.g. Monarch of Belize. I did this because every country has a Politics of series. In this series allways a head of state article is included. It helps to find your way quickly. It would be nice if these Monarchs of XX could be enlarged, but at the moment this is what I can offer. Now it is proposed to delete these articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch of Jamaica. Because of the consistency of the Politics of series, I oppose the deletion of these articles. Could you reconsider your opinion? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tom Ellis disambiguity

"Tom Ellis" politician and "Tom Ellis" actor returns 700+[2] and 13 000 [3] hits respectively. I would suggest keeping the actor at Tom Ellis and put a link to the politician since chances are way more likely that the actor is what people are looking for. --Dodo bird 13:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'm not quite persuaded. That's 13,000 for Tom Ellis the actor out of 150,000 hits on a Google search for "Tom Ellis", so there are a lot of other "Tom Ellis"-named ppl out there. Some of whom are likely to start getting Wikipedia entries, two of whom who are already referenced, and the list looks likely to grow. I understand the general principle of linking to the most widely-sought instance, but this is such a common name that a direct link is likely to cause confusion as more links are added which intend to point to another Tom Ellis. So I'd suggest leaving it at the disambig for now. --BrownHairedGirl 13:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That sounds logical to me. Why didn't I think of that? Point taken. --Dodo bird 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

Not trying to intrude on your personal life or change your views or anything but I was reading your comments on this Talk Page and noticed that you were an agnostic. I also read your comments on Articles for deletion/Ned Dougherty and your sarcasm toward Jesus and the Virgin Mother. I'll have you know that I am a former atheist/agnostic, but only months ago I found that there is surmounting evidence of an afterlife or at least consciousness beyond physical death. I would simply like to share this evidence with you because I personally know its much more comforting to be a theist than an agnostic. Please see this site : [4] and tell me what you think, I'd appreciate either an endorsement or rebuttal of the site's claims, since you appear to be a very intelligent person to me. Thanks and happy editing!. — CrazyInSane 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it works for you, but I don't really want to discuss it. I find that any online discussion of the merits of religious beliefs runs too high a risk of someone being offended, usually uninintentionally. Best to just respect each other's view, methinks! --BrownHairedGirl 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Wood (disambiguation)

I have moved this disambig page back to John Wood. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for the reasoning behind this. I am about to change John Wood (English actor) and others, which do not need a disambig template (hatnote), since most readers get there via a direct link from another article, and most readers who want any or all John Woods will just type John Wood in the search box and hit the "Go" button, and will then see the disambig page. Leave me a message if you have any other questions, and happy editing! Chris the speller 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm sorry, but I disagree about all this.
The page you suggest does't really provide any reasoning, it just says that it can be done, which is true, but rather misses the point about why. I think it's a bad move.
When there are so many variants of a given name popping up, many readers will get there via Google or other search engines: most internet users do not (as you assume) start by looking only on Wikipedia (if they did, Wiki would have outpaced Google). So there is a reasonable chance that someone looking for John Wood will end up at one of the "wrong" John Woods. (Think about what would happen if you've seen John Wood in a film and Google for John Wood actor)
In that case, providing a clear link to the other JWs at the top of the article gives the reader a quick way of seeing that there are others, and getting there fast. For the reader who has found what they want, the dablink is no hassle; for those who haven't, the dablink is a lifeline.
By removing the dablink, you leave the found-the-wrong-page reader marooned: to try again, they have to stop clicking on links, and start searching in the search box. What's the gain in making the reader's life difficult in that way?
One of the advantages of having the dab pages explicitly labelled as such is to make it clear exactly what you are goung to -- John Wood suggests a person, but John Wood (disambiguation) is clearly some sort of meta-data, even if you don't know what disambiguation means.
So I have reverted your edits, restoring the hatnotes on the pages where you had removed them. If you think that the hatnotes could be shorter, I'd be happy to see them edited down (some of themn repeat what's in the text), but please don't remove them entirely). Even if you don't need them, they are useful!
--BrownHairedGirl 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of you disagreeing with me, or me disagreeing with you, but of following or not following the guidelines. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic specifies that "In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the title of the actual disambiguation page". Also, "the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page." After reviewing the situation, I concur with putting the hatnotes back in the individual articles, especially in the case of the John Wood actor search, since a reader could find the English actor when they wanted the Australian actor. As far as shorter hatnotes, no, not needed, I am a big fan of the otheruses4 template and its good friend, the redirect5 template. I think I went too far taking out the hatnotes this time, sorry for the trouble, but moving "John Wood (disambiguation)" to "John Wood" was perfectly correct and needed. Chris the speller 01:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Is anybody doing it right?, where I argue for links back to the (disambiguation) page for articles about people. You and I now see the need for these, but some editors are not convinced. Chris the speller 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:British female MPs

Thanks for your note on my talk page, which I replied to there. I came across this category this morning and wanted to let you know that I've put the following note on its discussion page:

Category:Female life peers is currently going through CfD. I acknowledge that this category might be somewhat more interesting than that for peers, and that it may be compatible with the current sub-catting of Category:British MPs currently taking place. However, it seems a bit premature and inconsistent to have this until the other CfD has been completed.

Your comments would be appreciated. Mtiedemann 11:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the heads-up: as you may have guessed, I think the categ should stay. See my replies on the CfD entry Female life peers and on Category talk:British female MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 11:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this (which I just deleted to allow the move back): "BrownHairedGirl (moved Guy Barnett to Guy Barnett (disambiguation): for clarity)". There's no need to use (disambiguation), indeed there is a mini-project attempting to counter it: Malplaced disambiguation pages. It's no big deal, just thought I'd let you know.--Commander Keane 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Republicans

Hi! Thanks for making the link for Republican work on the Northrop Grumman article. I hadn't checked that one. I'll know how to correctly link the word Republican next time. Thanks! Sarah crane 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- it took me a while to track it down, because I was searching the page for "Republican", but I knew it was there somewhere! --BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm gonna second the thanks mentioned above. I noticed you fixed the link also on John Spencer (politician) article. I've been trying to work on that page and really appreciate your help. Chuck 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans redirects to Republican. To me, it looks like Republican has 53 articles linking to it.--Commander Keane 09:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About {{Dabhelp}}. It's probably a bit too long. Half or a third the length would be better. It may be a bit patronising too, sometimes people know how to fix an ambiguous links, they are just lazy. Oh yeah, and put an add for the project in there somewhere. Anyway, bring up the template at WT:DPL to get some more opinions.--Commander Keane 15:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Society Barnstar

The Society Barnstar
For your massive amount of work in expanding coverage of British politics and related figures in such a short time, I award you the society barnstar. ßlηguγΣη
Nah, that's fine. I've already voted for you. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bermuda

Hi ! you have never been slurped up by aliens in Bermuda Triangle. so ? Unixer 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this a Good ThingTM, and I feel that it is worthy of celebration. --BrownHairedGirl 12:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you should also celebrate the fact that you don't suffer from Cluster headaches. you're luckyyy :)


Language

Dear BrownHairedGirl

You recently edited 'Disability Discrimination Act 1995' to put it in the category 'rights of the disabled'. Disability campaigners prefer not to use the term 'the disabled' - compare 'the gays', 'the blacks', the Jews'. Could you please revert to 'Rights of disabled people'? (I have spent some time trying to change the name of the category without success) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.105.50 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I can't reply on your talk page, because you are not logged in and therrefore don't have a talk page, so I have to reply here.
The first thing is that I entirely agree with you about the inappropriateness of the termoinology "the disabled": I have spent a large part of the last decade campaiging against the use of that sort of language, so you don't need to persuade me of how bad it is!
However, the problem is that the other category names used simply are not categories in Wikipedia, at least not at present. Just editing the article Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to put in an entry for Category:Rights of disabled people will only have the effect of uncategorising the article, because that category does not exist, and no other articles are categorised in that way. That's why I changed it back to the category which does exist.
What needs to be done is to have the Category:Rights of the disabled renamed, which cannot be done unilaterally by an ordinary user. Instead, there is a discussion procedure to go through, which is set out at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How_to_use_this_page: if the proposal is successful, an admin will rename the category.
I'm afraid I'm busy on other things, so I'm not going to propose the renaming myself: but if you register, get a user account anmd learn the procedure, you could make the proposal yourself. If you do so, please let me know and I'd be happy to lend my support! --BrownHairedGirl 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding - I'll have a bash. Sjoh0050 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Who are you?

BRC? What year

Pablo

What's BRC? --BrownHairedGirl 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't know, then I must be mistaken. Hahbie 09:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Carrick-on-Shannon

Would you describe that road as a relief road? Signor Eclectic 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


theft

Hi, i noticed your page on wikipedia after seeing youve edited the FRU article. I liked the style of and have copied the code to mine. Hope thats ok. Fluffy999 03:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cathcart Wason

Hi. You were saying in your RFA that the above article is nowhere near Featured Status. I wondered if you knew about the Good Articles scheme? A shorter article like this can aim for that badge instead. I think it would need only a few improvements, some more references, and it would have to stay stable for a while. Look into it if you don't know about it already. --kingboyk 09:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments on my my talk page about the Cathcart Wason article. I was aware of the Good Articles scheme, but thought that this article was well below the required standard (no illustrations apart from the map, not many references). Do you really think it's worth nominating?
BTW, thanks for taking the time to vote in my RFA. I have learnt a lot from everyone's comments, particularly those who voted to oppose. That may sound perverse, but it has been a very informative process so far, and even though my nomination now looks unlikely to suceeed, the feedback has been useful enough to make me reckon I did the right thing in taking the plunge (after a lot of hesitation) and nominating myself. --BrownHairedGirl 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you shouldn't nominate it yet, but you should aim for it . With regards to your RFA, I apologise for the neutral/leaning to oppose but I'm sure you can appreciate the reasons :) If you really want to move from writing articles to the thankless task of being an admin (I am one, and it's not all roses although no way would I voluntarily surrender my 'mop' and 'badge'!), then it's best to demonstrate a need for the tools first and to show your "face" around project space. Take part in lots of AFD discussions, do some "recent changes" patrolling, maybe even show up at the admins noticeboard occasionally. Of course, you shouldn't do these things tto get adminship, you should be doing these things because you want to, and eventually you'll find yourself needing the extra tools.
In the meantime, if you need any assistance from an admin, such as moving a page over a redirect, just give me a shout. You might want to consider withdrawing your application and trying again later, or you might want to let it run and learn from the feedback - up to you! :) --kingboyk 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Phaedrial nominated me for my RFA, and she's a popular figure here. If I was you I'd take her up on her offer next time (or any other respected user who offers), if this RFA fails or gets withdrawn.[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! As to the vote on RFA, no need to apologise at all — I do indeed appreciate the reasons,. I am inclined to thnk that I should indeed withdraw my application, but I'm learning so much from the applicatoin that I'm also tempted to let in run and keep on learning, but I'm not sure whether it's rude to do that if I intend to withdraw. What do you think?
I'll return to the Cathcart Wason article and stick an expand tag on it in the hope that'll encourage someone else to add a bit more to it. I think it could benefit from a fresh perspective, particularly from a New Zealander who is interested in the colonial era. --BrownHairedGirl 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise against putting an expand tag on it. It's way past that level. My suggestion would be to post a request at the New Zealand Wikipedians noticeboard (I presume there is one). With regards to your RFA, it's entirely up to you. You may even get a surprise result, who knows? :) --kingboyk 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RfA

Hey, BHG, whatever happens, please keep me posted if you ever need support ! Your work is most impressive! Sandy 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Popups

For reversions, you might want to look at popups. It automates some of the process. Ted 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RFA Withdrawal

Yes, that would be ideal for you I think. Grandmasterka 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on... It's close, but it might still succeed. And if you were to do a lot more in Wikipedia namespace, no-one would hold this against you if it failed and you were nominated by someone else (me) in, say, August. It's your call. Grandmasterka 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is close now, so you may well squeeze through. The question, though, is are you ready? From what I've seen, you're a great editor and a nice person, but the answer would have to be "not yet". The issues you said you want to work on don't need admin tools - rolling back vandalism can be done manually or with Popups, and taking part in AFD etc is open to all. It's only closing an AFD as 'delete' that requires you to be an admin, and frankly you don't yet have enough experience taking part in AFD debates to be thinking about closing them. I'm not meaning to tell you what to do - and if you do get promoted please feel free to call on me if you need any assistance - but I hope that's provided some food for thought. --kingboyk 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments. I think I'll let the RFA run (and I've added a box on my user page asking people to vote as they see fit.
I take your point about popups, which I installed a week ago, though they seem to make my browser a little unstable (I've gone back to using Opera this week as an experiment). One of the reasons I wanted to other ask for admin powers was for the job of deleting redirects to allow a nameswap between an article and a redirect, and I can't see any way of doing that without admin powers (I should have mentioned this). In the meantime, may I ask you to help me with a batch of them? (I'll post details on your your talk). --BrownHairedGirl 11:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can ask me, but please make sure you tell me which page is to be moved as I prefer to do the move myself than to just delete the redirect and leave a red link. Also, no more than 5 please - if you have more you'll have to ask another admin to do the rest :) --kingboyk 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done those 5. How many more are there? --kingboyk 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Move Constituency Names

Hi BHG, I have just written a long oppose to your proposed constituency names on Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland. I didn't realise how strongly I felt until I started writing. However, I think you have been doing sterling work elsewqhere, and keep it up. I particularly like the increase of quicklinks from 3 to 5 on the Members of X Dáil Éireann was a great idea. -- Rye1967 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have done some more constituency renaming work today. There seems to be a growing opposition to this - see the category talk page. Can you hold off until a consensus is reached, it may need to be undone. --Rye1967 09:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being slow to stop my AWB run, and for being slow to reply to you. I won't do any further changes until the discussions reach a conclusion, and I have posted a lengthy reply to the discussion so far at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#The_case_for_a_consistent_naming_format. --BrownHairedGirl 13:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strange edit

Hi, I'm wondering why you made this edit [5], I don't mean the vote, but changing Fagstein's link to TedE. Just being curious. --Eivindt@c 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was 1) clumsy and pressed ^V when I meant ^C, and 2) careless and didn't check before saving. :(
Very sloppy of me, and thanks v. much for pointing that out, and for being so nice about it. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was that all! I was imagining some eloborate injoke, or maybe you were hinting that fagstein was a sock/meatpuppet of some sort, or maybe that I was witnessing the cabal in action. I made up some pretty fantastic stories, now I'm so disappointed :( oh well. Hope your RfA turns out well :) --Eivindt@c 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


List of Irish constituencies

I see you have alrered the List of Irish constituencies to refer to some (Dáil Éireann constituency) articles rather than (constituency) ones. I had originally begun to do different articles for constituencies in different institutions. Some people objected strongly to this, as they felt that there should be a single constituency article for each constituency name. The Dublin University (constituency) article is probably the best example of the comprehensive approach.

I am conscious that the project for standardised UK constituency articles already cuts across a comprehensive approach to Irish constituencies - see Talk:Armagh (UK Parliament constituency) for my attempted compromise.

As far as I am aware the only (Dáil Éireann constituency) articles are the ones I set up before I received objections. Current Irish Republic constituency articles, which were created before I became involved with this area, use (constituency).

I propose to set up (constituency) articles and merge the corresponding UK Parliament and Dáil Éireann articles in to them. I was working my way through the list broadly in alphabetical order, but if this is causing confusion it may be desirable that I merge all the existing UK Parliament constituency articles (at least for pre-1922 constituencies) and Dáil Éireann constituency articles into single constituency articles as quickly as possible and delay inserting additional material as I have been doing with the County Antrim areas.

If you have views on this topic, I would be delighted to hear them, as I really do not want to undertake such a large project and have to redesign it frequently when it proves I have gone in a different direction than most people want. --Gary J 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary, thanks for your message: see quick reply on your talk page and a lengthy response to the discussion so far at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#The_case_for_a_consistent_naming_format --BrownHairedGirl 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Irish parliamentary constituencies

Hi Švitrigaila, I saw you had voted on the discussion at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland about my proposal to move some of the articles. I have posted a reply to the disccssion so far, at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#The_case_for_a_consistent_naming_format, and wondered if you might like to take a look and see if I can persuade you to change your mind?

All right, I withdraw my vote. Švitrigaila 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nostalgia

Hello,

I came across your name on the Categories for Deletion discussion page. And, as I do with most Users I’m not familiar with (which is about 99% so far) I went to your User Page. I was most caught by your Userbox mentioning rotary telephones, and wanted to share some more nostalgia with you:

I remember when…

  • It took five minutes for the TV to warm up.
  • When a quarter was a decent allowance.
  • Nobody owned a purebred dog.
  • You’d reach into a muddy gutter for a penny.
  • No one ever asked where the car keys were because they were always in the car, in the ignition, and the doors were never locked.
  • Lying on you back in the grass with your friends and saying things like, “That cloud looks like a…”
  • And playing baseball with no adults to help with the rules of the game.
  • Stuff from the store came without safety caps and hermetic seals because no one had yet tried to poison a perfect stranger.
  • Decisions were made by going “eeny-meeny-miney-moe”.
  • Catching the fireflies could happily occupy an entire evening.
  • The worst thing you could catch from the opposite sex was “cooties”.
  • It wasn’t odd to have two or three “best friends”.
  • Having a weapon in school meant being caught with a slingshot.
  • A foot of snow was a dream come true.
  • Saturday morning cartoons weren’t 30-minute commercials for action figures.
  • “Olly-olly-oxen-free” made perfect sense.
  • The worst embarrassment was being picked last for a team.
  • War was a card game.
  • Baseball cards in the spokes transformed any bike into a motorcycle.
  • Taking drugs meant orange-flavored chewable aspirin.
  • Water balloons were the ultimate weapon.

Be healthy,

Michael David 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your considered and thoughtful edits, have this thingy. Keep up the good work!Colonel Tom 15:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Congratulations

You are now an admin. I recommend being conservative in your use of the admin tools, particularly at first. Re-read the relevant policy before acting, and ask about anything particularly difficult or potentially controversial on the Administrators noticeboard. Have fun using your shiny new tools to help the place out. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you made it after all! :) I hope you understand that my opposition was meant to be temporary and certainly wasn't personal. Good luck with the new tools. --kingboyk 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That went pretty well - our congratulations, --hydnjo talk 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Although I didn't vote in your RfA, I was going to until I found out that it was already over. You might want to clean your user page to take the RfA box. Once again, well done. Gadig 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations from me as well. Although I voted neutral, I am pleased to see you have been promoted. I was leaning towards a change in support but I missed the deadline. Anyway, you made it, well done and good luck wielding the mop. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Thanks for commenting on my RfA. I'm sorry not to have had your support, but my application was successful and I hope any concerns you had will not be a problem in my mop-wielding career. Nice one, Deizio talk 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wow

Can I say how incredible your output of articles involving Irish politics is? Yanksox 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Sydstone

Hi. If you could spare a few minutes, I could use a little help. A new user (Sydstone (talk • contribs)) has contacted me asking for help in a dispute involving Irish culture. I don't have much knowledge about the subject at all, so I promised him that I'd find someone who might be more help. Since you're the only other Irish Wikipedian I know (not already involved in the dispute), I'm asking you to help. Just take a look at his request to be unblocked on his talk page. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 05:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message: having reviewed the case, it does look to me like vandalism followed by personal abuse. See my replies at User talk:Sydstone#Personal_attacks and at User talk:Demiurge#User:Sydstone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since all of you agree that the block is warranted, I trust your judgment. --TantalumTelluride 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


about John Hill

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I'm not sure this is appropriate, but since I'm wondering about how to get more info on a work by John Hill, and you happen to be the last person to edit the corresponding Wiki-article, maybe you might help. The work I'm interested in is "The sleep of plants". It is mentioned in the German version of Hill's article, but not in the English and french ones. So my first question is why you haven't mentioned it. The second question is, if John Hill is indeed the author of that memoir, how could I get at least a glimpse into its contents ? Thanks for your help ! Andrioutsoucou 14:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know nuffink! reply on your talk page --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Hill (author)

Hi, Thank you for your answer, and your checking out the initial author. I'm new to Wikipedia. Is there no way to contact an anonymous editor ? Andrioutsoucou 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try leaving a message on the talk page for the IP address, but it's not likely to get the right person. --BrownHairedGirl 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


dab pointers

While the downside isn't much, dab pointers on pages like Robert Thomas (linebacker) are not likely to be necessary. Its difficult to get to that page without it being the page you want (you either clinked a link on a related page or went through the dab page already!). Especially when, as in this case, the dab page doesn't have the (disambiguation) part in the title. Not a big deal, but. . . John (Jwy) 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I don't think I can agree with the "unlikely to be necessary" bit. This a discussion which seems to pop up periodically, and I always find myself thinking that maybe some people take too wiki-centric a view of how Wikipedia is used.
It seems to me that many users will not start on wikipedia, they'll start with a search engine such as Google; and chances are these days that a wikipedia entry will appear at the top of the list. They may find in the article title a clue about which particular person the page in question describes, or they may not. If the page is entitled "John Q. Smith", that probably won't tell them whether it's the right John Smith, and a term such as "linebacker" may be more helpful to some, but not to others such as me who couldn't tell a linebacker from a backpacker, and only know from reading the very clear introductory sentence that it's about some sort of football.
The problem is that the introductory sentence may not be one that Google displays in the excerpt, so it may not be available when deciding whether to view the page — and the dab page will rarely get to the top of google.
So the way I see it is that far from it being difficult, it's actually quite easy for a user can to end up on the wrong page when the article name is even a bit ambiguous. And once they get there, they may not even know that there ought to be a dab page.
The {{otherpeople}} hatlink takes little enough screenspace and mental bandwidth for the reader that it's no impediment to a user who doesn't need it — but it will be very useful to anyone who does.
The page in question is one of those that least needs the hatlink, but it may be useful to some and interesting to others, which is why I added it to that Robert Thomas as well as to the others. --BrownHairedGirl 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You've obviously thought about it, so I'm content. I see your point. I'll have to think about it and see if I become more liberal with the tags myself. Thanks. John (Jwy) 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dammit!!!!

Not fair!!! So many articles, and so well written!!! Okay God, I'm gonna stop worshiping Satan (or maybe just Lucifer) soon if you don't bring me up to speed! Seriously, good work and great to have you onboard. Cheers! Fergananim 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Categories of Oz on DRV

My apologies for the bulk-nature of this message, but as someone who had participated in the CFD for the "X Gang of Oz" categories recently I felt that you should be notified that they were up for review here. This is not a solicitation of a specific response there (all users who participated were notified), but if you feel you have some insight I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Information on CND general secretaries.

Hello,

A while ago, you added some very helpful information to the Meg Beresford article; perhaps most important was the information about Gary Lefley, Beresford's successor as the general secretary for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Do you know if the position still exists within the organization? If so, who else has been in that position since the end of Lefley's tenure? --Folajimi 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Morley and Rothwell (UK Parliament constituency)

I moved this to just Morley and Rothwell because it's not necessary to disambiguate every constituency article in this way, just those which clash with the names of towns, districts or other entities. Most of the articles were originally created with "(UK Parliament constituency)" in their titles for the sake of simplicity, but general consensus is now that the shortest unambiguous form should be used. See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies for previous discussion on this issue. — sjorford++ 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:British female MPs

You may want to take a look at Category talk:British female MPs where I have started a discussion on a major change going on in the category you started. Mtiedemann 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republican and Democrat

I am sorry that I did not understand the hidden codes for Republican and Democrat. I understand now.

Can you go to the Charlton Lyons article and capitalize "Lyons" in the headline. Because the headline is not capitalized, Lyons' reference name in other articles is in red instead of blue.

Also the spelling in the headline is wrong for Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. It is two g's and two n's. the article has been on hold for a week because of a copyright problem. I don't know what the copyright problem is.

Thanks, Billy Hathorn

most of your articles are uncategorised

Brown-haired girl, please explain what is meant by articles being "uncatergorised."

Thanks, Billy Hathorn

Republican

Brown-haired girl, What key has the vertical slash before "Republican" here? I don't see it on the keyboard.

Thanks, BH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I do not want to tempt the reader to stereotype me

Yes, but are you a brown-haired girl? Or woman?Fergananim 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be :) --BrownHairedGirl 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cathcart Wason

I enjoyed this article very much - and was interested to read that it was one of your own favourites. But disappointed you didn't use this line from the Dictionary of New Zealiand Biography: "On one occasion he was said to have dealt with a troublemaker at a Christchurch ball by picking him up and standing him on his head in an enormous dish of trifle."

You might also like to have known that Herbert Asquith wrote of him: "he is well known not to be quite sane". (see Churchill Papers online).

You might be interested in looking at the life of his father, Peter Rigby Wason.

And at his sister-in-law's uncle, Monier Monier-Williams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hockman (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 May 2006.

Need a solution on the Bowlby page conflict

Would you be willing to intervene in the current raging conflict on the Bowlby page? One cotnributor, sarner, who is a member of an advocacy fringe group, ACT, has focused all his attention on this page and is unwilling to compromise or collaborate or build consensus. In fact there is a consensus that the item he is against should remain. If you can act as an effective advocate or mediator or suggest some way to end this fruitless conflict, I, and I suspect many others, would be most appreciative. You can comment here on on my talk page. Thank you.

DPeterson 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist

You cannot just go around removing cats willy-nilly just cos you don't like them: that is widely considered to be vandalism.

That constituency-specific cat was created for a very good reason: Orkney and Shetland is a special (perhaps unique) constituency in the UK, and that cat is a vital component of its parent cats.

You have absolutely no right to unilaterally destroy a perfectly valid cat. Please desist or I will alert an Admin. --Mais oui! 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point: as a compromise, I will restore to the articles in question the category "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish Constituencies", while leaving in place the sub-category which you have created.
However, your point about destroying a valid category is surprising. You have set about a single-handed mission to sub-divide ad-infinitum the Category:British MPs, without making any contribution to the discussion on that category's talk pages. I myself made a proposal back in March for a reorganisation of that category (without reaching any consensus), but you have made no contribution to that or any subsequent discussion on the issue. Instead, you have set unilaterally out to sub-divide the members of the UK Parliament, into up to three layers of sub-categories.
Please desist from these changes, and accept the reinstatement of the catch-all categories unless and until you find a consensus for change.
--BrownHairedGirl 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between emptying a lowest-level cat of all its members, and subdividing a super-category. By dividing a cat you are not "destroying" it, you are enhancing it, because the various subcats now belong to other useful category hierarchies, and are still in the main cat. Empting a lowest-level cat is most certainly "destroying" it.

Your addition of supercategories to articles that are already in a subcat is plain daft, and is contrary to all good practice here at Wikipedia (imagine if that was followed to its logical conclusion: Category:Fundamental would contain every single category, subcategory and article in existence - over 1.2 million). I am not going to systematically traipse round tidying up the mess you are making, cos life is too short, but if I had enough time I would. However, any supercats that I do notice in my travels will be immediately removed. --Mais oui! 08:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By dividing a category and removing an article from the parent category, you may dilute its usefulness. As you would be aware if you had participated in the discussion on Category:British MPs, there is considerable support for retaining a category which includes on one level all those who are members of the UK parliament, and I can see no support for your unilateral process of sub-division, let alone a consensus for it.
I am aware of the discussions elsewhere about whether the UK is a country or nation or both or neither (and my own views on that are irrelevant here), but at no point have I seen any suggestion that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not one parliament.
In my view, this question would not arise if wikipedia had a function to list "all articles in this category and its subcategories": if it did, I would have no hesitation in supporting your sub-categorisation. Sadly, there is no such facility, so the only way of retaining the "list all" feature is by retaining the classification in the parent category.
Note that keeping articles in parent categories is not ruled out in the guidelines: WP:SUBCAT sets out some of the situations where this is appropriate, noting that "The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find article". If you disagree that duplication makes it easier to find an MP, come and argue your case, but don't just unilaterally subdivide.
I would urge you to promptly start discussing these changes on Category talk:British MPs, and to seek a consensus for your actions. If you don't, then I will continue to restore the vandalised parent categories, and will seek admin involvement if you persist in reverting.
I am not going to discuss this issue further here. This discussion belongs in category talkspace, and Category talk:British MPs seems most appropriate since that is the category which is being subdivided.
--BrownHairedGirl 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_001&oldid=1175588214"