User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 035

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

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

Council category renaming

Hello BHG. Can I ask that you reconsider your opposition to the council election category renaming? I've spent the last couple of years trying to correct the names of the articles and categories (unfortunately whoever created them at the beginning was unaware that council names are more than just "City + Council"). Having done all the articles and about 90% of the categories, it's a little frustrating to be thwarted right at the last moment. As I noted in my response to you on the CfD page, we have multiple categories that refer only to the current entity over a range of topic areas, including elections. Plus, of course, the current category names are just wrong as there are no such bodies as "Wolverhampton Council" etc. Cheers, Number 5 7 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very disappointed with your response. I feel like two years of work in this topic area has all been for nothing. Number 5 7 09:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I held off commenting, trying to think of a diplomatic way of replying, and eventually forgot about the discussion until something else brought me back to the CFD page.

However, I do think that you are taking this a harder than is really justified. Renaming the articles on the individual elections is fine, since they had only one name. In many cases, a category aligned with the current name is fine, since there are as yet no articles on elections from a previous era. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your most recent response on the CfD page, you seem to be under the impression that WMBC and WCC are separate organisations, but they are exactly the same organisation. The council was simply renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Number 5 7 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, you are over-complicating this. Wolverhampton has had council elections to various bodies. Some of them have been new bodies, others have been renamings. A descriptive title includes them all, without creating avoidable anachronisms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overcomplicating it. In every sphere I'm aware of, we use the current name of the organisation to categorise things. Or do you object to the existence of the likes of Category:Manchester United F.C. players as well? Number 5 7 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake is to assume that this is about one organisation. Wrong; it is about several organisations within a geographical area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I had left you a message in the hope that you would understand that I had put a lot of work into this and that you would be understanding and reasonable and help me out with finishing a two-year quest to sort this topic area out. Sadly I see that this is not the case, which is really very disappointing, especially as there were less than 20 categories to go. I assume you will also block any attempt to use the speedy process to rename the remaining incorrectly-titled categories? Number 5 7 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly isn't a consensus to continue your moves, so I am sure that you recognise that using WP:CFD/S would be an abuse of a process designed for uncontroversial moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. Number 5 7 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry?

I'm not sure what I said that prompted your last comment? LavaBaron (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:BLUDGEON? My comment will make more sense if you do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have. I don't really interpret BLUDGEON to mean I must immediately sit quietly in the corner and shut-up, rather is a directive I should stop advocating for my position. I thought thanking Reywas92 and accepting his apology, then suggesting the AfD be closed while keeping all !votes except the two that were provably stacked was a nice attempt by me to both de-escalate the tension and to meet Reywas92 halfway with a compromise solution. I apologize if it was not taken in the way it was intended to be delivered. I again would urge the AfD be closed (as I said, either closed as delete or keep is perfectly fine; my highest priority is promoting an environment of goodwill) to further the process of deescalation and tension reduction. LavaBaron (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: your apology was timely and gracious. Well done.

Sadly, you then spoilt it all by yet again trying to set conditions for the AFD closure. There is a clear consensus at ANI that no action is required, but you seem utterly oblivious to that.

If you really do want to de-escalate, then this is indeed exactly the time to it quietly in the corner and shut-up. You have made your point, repeatedly, and well into the bludgeoning territory. You are now nearing the point at which the outcome will WP:BOOMERANG on you if you don't step back, promptly.

You have posted waaaay too much both the AFD and the ANI thread. The matter you reported has been assessed by lots of admins, many of whom have commented. It's now in their hands, so let it go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. It has become rather vicious at the AfD so I have no problem self-separating from that. And the ANI has been moved to be closed by both myself and another editor so it seems that is taking care of itself. I apologize if my suggestion for a ruling on the AfD was interpreted as a demand for action. It was not my intent. In re-reading it, however, I can see how some might have interpreted "move to close" as "I'm moving on closing" instead of "I'm motioning / suggesting" it be closed. I, again, apologize. LavaBaron (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent

Today, Monochrome Monitor left some instructions on these category pages regarding how they should be used. I brought up the issue at User talk:Monochrome Monitor#Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent and wasn't satisfied with their response. I was thinking of deleting the content but wanted to run it by another editor familiar with categories and WP:EGRS to see what you thought.
I wouldn't have found it troubling if it was just a description of how the categories were used but the requirement that editors who chose one category over another have proof to justify their decision while technically justifiable is atypical for how categories are assigned. Also, I just don't think that editors who are categorizing articles ever go to the category pages to read any content they might contain so I don't think any instructions will have any effect except be used in the future disputes should they arise and they shouldn't be seen as representing a consensus point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz

Long time no talk. Hope you are well :)

I agree that editors rarely look at category pages when categorising, esp when using WP:HOTCAT. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to add guidance there, but it needs to be done with the understanding that it probably won't be widely read. In general, I feel that if a category's specification diverges too far from its title, it is just a recipe for trouble. Basically, our crude categorisaton system modtly relies on fairly simple and self-evident labels.

The principle of justifying any categorisation is correct. Nothing should be in any category unless there is a reliable source to justify it. However, the tone used is a little officious, and I don't like the way it is addressed to editors rather -- that feels like a personalisation of a editing issue.

As to the substance of the guidelines, the question of Who is a Jew? is complex and contentious, so I won't presume to make much of judgement on the criteria set. But I do see that Category:People of Jewish descent focuses on Jewish "peoplehood" rather than religion, and that may be a controversial view. You are quite correct to note that any such criteria need a consensus, and I suspect that such a consensus may be hard to achieve. I wasn't thrilled by by the tone of Monochrome Monitor's reply[1] to you. May start a discussion at the WikiProject? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I admit my tone was a bit how you say "bitchy" but that's just because I get defensive during confrontations. And I'm annoyed because the categories are already consistently misused according to their guidelines. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Peoplehood" makes sense. Also, no need for scare quotes, there's even page on it. When people don't identify as Jewish its not because they aren't practicing Jews. Take Albert Einstein... he was a Spinozist of sorts but he identified as Jewish. The distinction is in the sense of Jewish identity. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire archive page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32) that was devoted to this discussion. Consensus could not be found as there were two very opposing points of view that couldn't be reconciled. I have problems with statements like "When people don't identify as Jewish its not because they aren't practicing Jews" because it is just your point of view, MM, there is nothing to support such a generalization. There might be any number of reasons that a person who is of Jewish descent doesn't identify as Jewish or they could choose to not even acknowledge their Jewish heritage. An editor doesn't need to find proof that an individual "rejected identifying as Jewish"...on the contrary, according to WP:EGRS, evidence must be present that the individual does identify as Jewish, not proof of their rejection of this identity. This is similar to other categories of ethnicity or religion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is good and well and well and good. I'm not arguing with it. I'm simply arguing that since category:Jews is used on thousands of articles of people who never explicitly said "I am Jewish", and that on these same articles "people of Jewish descent" and "Jews" cohabit, it would be much more simple to make our unspoken guidelines conform to the spoken ones. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: Your view is not unreasonable, but there are clearly many different reasonable ways of looking at this issue. Wikipedia resolves these issues by consensus, and since there appears to be no agreement between you and Liz, the pair of you need to involve other editors to help reach a broad consensus. Liz has already suggested that you discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which seems to me like a reasonable option ... but of course there are other possible venues like WP:VPM. Whatever venue you choose, that discussion needs to happen somewhere, and my talk page is not the place for that substantive discussion.

Mono, I was very disappointed by your comment above that I admit my tone was a bit how you say "bitchy" but that's just because I get defensive during confrontations. I have read and re-read Liz's post on your talk, and it does not appear to me to be confrontational. it sets out a disagreement, which you should discuss. It is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that it is a collaborative environment in which editors seek a consensus, so challenging another editor's contributions is a perfectly routine step. It's as fundamental a part of a Wikipedia editor's environment as oral debate is of a politician's life.

Per WP:BRD, Liz (or any other editor) would have been quite entitled to revert your edits to Category:Jews [2] and Category:People of Jewish descent [3], but instead cjose to discuss the matter first. She deserved a more friendly response than she got.

I see that Mono's change to both pages have now been reverted ([4], [5])by Debresser. So now all 3 of you need to have that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates‎

Hello,

Obviously we disagree on the this nomination‎ which is fine. I just wanted to let you know I'm not trying to disrespect you are Scotland here, if I've somehow come across that way. Other than random categories, I usually edit in the legal space, albeit with case law. But maybe I'm missing something obvious with this nomination.

I was both surprised and worried that my comments caused you distress. (You don't have to reply, I just wanted to give you that background.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RevelationDirect.

I am bewildered and frustrated that you persist in advancing such easily-falsifiable propositions, and maintaining a position without any sign of doing any of the research which a good-faith editor would do before advancing a proposition in discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how (if?) you want people to disagree with you in this discussion. Marcocapelle doesn't reply enough because of a lack of courtesy but I'm a "Randy in Boise" for replying too much and you question Rathfelder's motives for not liking the parent category. I usually agree with Marcocapelle and sometimes disagree with Rathfelder, but I think they both edit in good faith. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect, my complaint is not the disagreement or the replying too much; both of those are valuable parts of any XFD. My complaint is that you are continuing that CFD's pattern of a lack of any apparent checking before making false assertions. It feels like I have been discussing it with an editor who will throw out any old notion and see what sticks :(

And I am not questioning Rathfelder's motives for not liking the parent category; I have some sympathy with those objectives. What I am questioning is RF's desire to degrade another category in order to get rid of the one RF dislikes ... and am criticising RF's lack of any prior checking about what that other category should contain ... and I am questioning RF's failure to respond to corrections of their errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie!

Thanks for handling the Unframboise situation. It's regrettable it came to a block. He does good work, but it comes with an unfortunate attitude. A couple editors are over there squabbling about some damned thing that probably has very little to do with this situation and a lot more to do with something else. Hopefully, a neutral editor will drive by and close things soon. --Drmargi (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmargi.

It is regrettable, and I'd have preferred not block. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who insist on adopting a WP:BATTLEFIELD approach drive away other editors.

I hope that the block may persuade Unframboise that a different approach is required, but we'll see. I will leave it to another admin to decide when to close the ANI thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Watson (solicitor general)

On 29 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Watson (solicitor general), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1929 John Watson became Solicitor General for Scotland in the UK's second Labour government, despite not being a member of the party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Watson (solicitor general). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Reliable Sources?

Hi, you seem knowledgeable and less likely to bite my head off than this Guy, so I was wondering if I could ask you question? Where would be the appropriate space to compile a bibliography of reliable sources on a particular topic for use by wiki editors? A user subpage? User sandbox? A Wikiproject subpage? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Annalisa Ventola

Thanks for your message. I suggest that best place to start such a list would be in your own user space, e.g. User:Annalisa Ventola/Sources for foo (whatever "foo" may be).

Depending on how much support there is for your list, it might be appropriate later to copy or move it to a WikiProject or an article talk page.

As a general principle, I'd suggest that it's best to bear in mind that every source on every topic will have some limitations or deficiencies or perspective issues, so a list is most likely to gain some support if it is annotated to acknowledge those issues.

When I glanced at the page you linked to, I was very saddened to see the admin JzG asserting that "The perspective is that of scientific rationalism. Which is Wikipedia's perspective."

That is blatantly untrue, because en.wp's perspective is WP:NPOV. JzG is advocating WP:SPOV, which is not policy and not a guideline.

Sadly, the on-wiki adherents of scientism are as zealous a set of POV-warriors as the most entrenched partisans in heated topics like the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. There are plenty of robust, scholarly critiques of this fundamentalist scientism from academically-esteemed philosophers of science, but the SPOV-fundamentalists ignore all that, and usually win due to their tenacity and to the numerical dominance of their partisan perspective amongst en.wp's highly-unbalanced editor-base. Plus, of course, their naughty stunts like the recent blatant victimisation of an editor who felt bullied by them.

The fact that an admin such as JzG apparently expects to escape sanction for such overt partisanship speaks volumes about the about the scientism-lobby's dominance on wiki. So beware.

I want to stress that I have not sought to examine what perspective you are trying to inject into the discussion, or to consider the merits of any of your arguments .. so please do not take the above as any endorsement by me of your views. I just note that when admins so blatantly scorn a core policy, we have a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I advocate NPOV not SPOV. It just happens that in matters of scientific inquiry the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view, pretty much by definition. In climate change, for example, the scientific consensus view is actually a lot more cautious than many scientists think it should be - the IPCC has been condemned as excessively cautious, and this may well be due to the involvement of politicians with vested interests. The same applies to questions like the age of the Earth, the origin of life and speciation, the efficacy (or lack thereof) of quack remedies such as homeopathy. In other areas, such as ethics, the SPOV is just a POV and is not inherently neutral. And in some areas, including e-cigs, there is, at this time, no scientific consensus view, because there's not enough data.

People who use the term scientism, though, are in my experience always those with strong beliefs contradicted by science. Creationists, homeopaths and the like. I had never considered that you would succumb to anti-science rhetoric and it disturbs me greatly. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, there is no need for such simplistic black-and-white divisions.

I am not "anti-science" at all, just as I am not anti-algebra or anti-statistics or anti literary criticism. Science is as a very useful tool for advancing human knowledge, but like any method of human inquiry it has limitations and flaws and biases, and it is not the only available tool. I urge you to read the article scientism; it is rather good.

FWIW, I am not a climate change denier or a creationist. I just don't like any form of intellectual dogmatism which seeks to deny and suppress other possible paths to knowledge or understanding.

However, homeopathy is an interesting case. The scientific methods used so far cannot account for the demonstrably powerful effects that I have witnessed of homeopathic treatments. Leaving aside the question not whether any homeopathic preparations are successful as cures or remedies, I have seen them produce extraordinary reactions in people which are not explicable by current scientific theories. I don't need to be an advocate of homeopathy to know that there is something happening which science cannot currently explain ... so maybe other knowledge structures have something to say about it all. I despair of people who indulge in cheap name-calling like "quackery"; that's the terminology of insult-trading, not of intellectual debate.

NPOV requires us to present various perspectives, in accordance to their weights across a broad range of sources. We do that wrt to religions, economics, social sciences, and a range of other topics, and it works well. Sadly, it is only the adherents of scientism who insist on turning articles into demolitions of other perspectives. That appals me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, there actually is. As I said, the only people (and I really do mean the only people) I have seen making any significant use of the word "scientism" are homeopaths and creationists. Scientism is either a meaningless pejorative designed to pretend that science and belief are simply viewpoints, or a neitral term describing the belief that the scientific method is the best way humanity has ever devised for separating truth from fiction, in which case it is an unalloyed good and the term itself is largely pointless since the evidence speaks for itself. I don't know of any other usage.

The idea that there is something happening in homeopathy that science cannot explain is simply false. Science has an explanation for homeopathy whicih is complete, coherent, fits all observed facts, and is both internally and externally consistent. Every single observation fits with combination nonspecific effects and confounders including expectation effects, observer bias, regression to the mean, natural course of disease - collectively, the placebo effect. There is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. More than that: there is no reason to suppose it should work (like does not, after all, cure like) and no way it can work, unless we are profoundly wrong about rather a lot of things, including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and all of current knowledge on disease processes, human physiology and pharmacology.

That's why homeopathy is such a perfect litmus test. Any system which claims to be based on objective standards, but nonetheless accepts homeopathy, has a fundamentally defective mechanism for separating truth from fiction. It is the medical equivalent of astrology or creationism.

Science does not "suppress" things. It does, however, ignore them if there is plainly no question to answer. Science pretty much ignores psychic phenomena, because the evidence for it has turned out to be crap and there is no new evidence to indicate anything worth looking at. Creationists claim science suppresses creationism, in fact science simply has no evidence for special creation and that places it in the box of religion, see non-overlapping magisteria. Homeopaths claim that science "suppresses" homeopathy, but it doesn't, it simply shows the beliefs of homeopaths to be unfounded and, where testable, wrong. Parapsychologists claim that science "suppresses" psychokinesis, but it doesn't, it merely looks back on decades of shoddy evidence from shoddy studies and effectively says "come back when you have something that would at least fool a child of ten".

As Brian Cox memorably put it: "The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"Guy (Help!) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I don't have time for a long reply now. But I will just note three things:

the concept of scientism is not some sort of hippy/religious idea, even if they make use of it. It draws heavily on the work of Foucault, Popper and Hayek, who are some of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century, and there is a serious body of academic work on it in the philosophy of science. Feel free to disagree ... but dismissing that body of scholarship in pejorative terms is, frankly, as crass as the creationists who dismiss Darwin 'cos the bible is literally true.
on homeopathy, there are indeed demonstrable physical reactions which science does not explain. Furthermore, a lot of the scientific claims about homeopathy are based on research which is essentially prosecutorial in nature, driven by people who are (like you) ideologically committed to disproving homeopathy. That sort of research bias always produces bad results in any field, and it is shameful that so many advocates of science have become so consumed with partisan zeal that they allow their craft to be corrupted in this way.
I'm afraid that you seem determined to hold to the maximalist position of scientism: that scientific knowledge overrides all other forms of intellectual inquiry. That sort of axiomatic view is found other intellectual traditions, such as some strands of christianity and marxism, and it is unpleasantly self-sustaining wherever it appears. Some practitioners of science, and especially the fundamentalist prophets of the new atheism, have warped and degraded the science by failing to acknowledge a whole range of limitations, such as the provisionality of all scientific knowledge, the huge effects of cultural bias on science, the high-pressure political and economic framework within which science works. This triumphalism and intolerant insistence on the sheer wrongness of any other framework is a faith position, just like religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re scientism, we are talking at cross-purposes. You cite scholarly usage, I refer to informal usage. As I say, the only people who have used the term in my sight have been homeopathy believers and creationists.

Re homeopathy, you are objectively wrong, sorry. There are no repeatable empirically verifiable effects at normal homeopathic dosages. The doctrine that like cures like was founded on Hahnemann's belief that because the symptoms of cinchonism are "like" those of malaria, thus cinchona cures malaria through symptomatic similarity. This is incorrect: it contains quinine which kills the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria. It has nothing to do with symptoms. There is no evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure, or that things which cause a symptom also cure it as a general or even common principle. Like simply does not cure like. It especially does not cure like when it is diluted past the point where none remains. And there's no property of matter by which this could work, and if there was, it would have to be transferrable via evaporation from water/alcohol to sugar, it would then have to survive the enzymes of the mouth, transfer across the cellular barrier to the bloodstream, and do so in a quantity sufficient to be bioavailable at the appropriate site. Every bit of the chain of evidence required to make it plausible, is absent or broken. So it's hardly a surprise that there is no good evidence it works beyond placebo, as three separate government level reviews have found (Switzerland, the UK and Australia). As I say, it's a litmus test for having a faulty mechanism for telling truth from fiction. And this is not even remotely controversial medically - everything in medicine from the time, with only a few relatively minor exceptions, is now known to be wrong. It was a time when people believed in humours.

The fact that all scientific knowledge (inductive knowledge anyway) is provisional, does not, as Dara O'Briain put it, leave you free to fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale takes your fancy. That is the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Sure, we can't prove that homeopathy is bullshit, but we don't have to, because the burden of proof lies wiht the homeopaths, and they have absolutely failed to carry that burden. No part of their doctrines stands up. It has the same status as the unicorn in my back yard. Scientifically, the only question that merits further study is why people believe these things work. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will do a subpage of my user account as you suggested. Another (perhaps trickier) question: some of us editors have been the targets of bullying and uncivil behavior, and I've noticed that it takes more than a couple of diffs on a noticeboard for admins to take action. Is there an appropriate space on Wikipedia for editors to collaborate and collect evidence of this sort of behavior? Again, perhaps a user or wikiproject subpage? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Rare revert

You performed a revert to "restore threaded discussion, so that comments are not removed from their context". I can understand that you are probably getting a bit hot-headed dealing with the two editors in question, but I cannot understand why you actually did a revert (even if only de jure, without pressing the relevant buttons). I left links to the comments where appropriate - i.e. each spot, to each respective section - as advised in WP:TALK. If you were really worried about "context", you might have just copied the "original" comment into the relevant section as opposed to re-burdening the !Vote area. If you want, I will include the "original" comment in the sections, but the continued discussion between yourself, Jaguar, Czar, et. al is becoming a problem for the RM thread as it is quickly approaching a bludgeoning limit. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you perform a self-revert on your move, or must I do it for you? I will expect a response or I take it as you having given silent agreement. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am writing a longish reply. Please gimme time to complete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctor Crazy

I really should have msged you after that revert, and I'm sorry for not doing so. Thanks for taking the time to come here.

Look, I do understand your reasons for trying to refactor things, and I do appreciate that you took great care to try to cross-link. You clearly acted with v good intent, and put a lot of work into it. I would have liked to be just able to just say "v well done, thanks".

However, the format you were aiming for -- of separate areas for survey and discussion -- is the norm for RFCs, but it is not how RMs are usually done. I thought it would be helpful to look back at some previous very busy RMs, so I took a peek at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 19#Requested_move_7 (where I was one of the closing panel). There I see separate survey and discussion sections, but the survey section is not just a list of votes; there is a lot of discussion there too.

When I am acting as a closing admin, I find that helpful. If a rationale is advanced, it's much handier not to have to search for another section to see whether the rationale was critiqued, and how well the difft views are based in policy ... and then try to return to my jumping-off point in the first section.

Same if I am participating in the discussion. Like XFD, RM is not a vote -- it's a discussion in which evidence is weighed against policy, and where propositions are tested and debated. So in my experience it's better to have that debate about the merits of !votes at the point where !votes are cast.

I'm aware that may involve some scrolling, but such scrolling is easily done, and for someone who wants to avoid the extended discussion, it is easy to find the next !vote because it will be outdented and bolded. So the current format is best for the closer, and best for an editor wanting to follow the debate.

I know that such a lengthy debate makes the edit window disruptively bulky for an editor wanting to add a new !vote. The conventional solution to that is to add subheads between some threads, usually with a title like "arbitrary section break 1", "arbitrary section break 2", etc. That makes it easy for new !votes to be added, without disrupting the flow.

So I would be very happy if you added "arbitrary section break" headers, and willing to do it myself if you prefer.

However, if you try to reinstate the major refactoring, I will revert again, because it disrupts the debate.

Just to give you an example of how a major refactoring such as yours has a disruptive effect (which I'm sure is unintended), look at the data tables added in my comment of 06:31, 1 February. That data is significant counter-evidence to core assertions made by Jaguar and Czar, and the pageview data in referred to a few comments later by Grutness. A refactoring such as yours would move that data to after Grutness mentioned an addition to it.

It would arguably have been better if this discussion had started out with separate survey and discussion areas. As above, I'm not persuaded of that, but I can see the case. However, refactoring afterwards has a disruptive effect, despite your good intents. It means that the debate is no presented in the order in which it actually happened.

I am aware that you reckon that I became hot-headed in that thread. I disagree, but I accept your point that I was repetitious. However, I believe that was justified by the actions of Czar and Jaguar in repeatedly advancing claims which had already been clearly falsified, such as their multiple assertions that policy requires the exact opposite of the very clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, or that Czar's wp:involved closure is supported by closing instructions which allow an exception for unanimity -- even tho the debate closed was split 2:2. When editors repeat falsehoods on points of policy, and refuse to discuss or acknowledge those falsehoods, then leaving those repeated falsehoods unchallenged warps the debate. I find it very hard to see how editors can be regarded as acting with competence and in good faith when behaving like that, and I am particularly disappointed that the admin Czar has acted so shoddily and without apparent self-examination. When participants in a discussion do misbehave like that, it inevitably adds to the degree of meta-discussion. That effect is visible not just on en.wp, but in other places of debate, such as boardrooms, parliaments, and local council chambers.

I may not have persuaded you on any of this. But I note that you are yourself involved in the debate, and that you are a relatively inexperienced editor, with only 2210 edits. AFAICS from the edit summaries in your contribs, you have participated in only 2 previous RMs. We all have to start somewhere and you clearly bring a lot of conscientious thoughtfulness to en.wp ... but I don't see evidence of the great experience in RMs which I would hope would underpin any repetition of a contested refactoring.

If you still disagree with me, then rather than taking it upon yourself to re-impose a contested refactoring, please will you ask for an uninvolved admin to consider doing so? A post at WP:AN or WP:ANI which links to our discussion here and to the RM will probably bring the scrutiny of several uninvolved people whose judgement has already been tested by the community at WP:RFA.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the messaging, I knew where to find you to ask. But now to "condense" your response with my response.

I should have looked at prior MfD structures then, as the Hillary Clinton discussion seems to have been ... intensive seems an understatement, but understood about the effect - especially if that had of occurred with that discussion. I'll admit that I was convinced the discussion was shifting from discussing the move to discussing the editors, hence the refactor, but after re-checking some of the comments I did see I moved some of the move discussion as well. Apologies for that.

I still think you may be getting hot-headed while dealing with those two, but it is certainly justifiable hot-headedness - especially by this point. I may ask for some uninvolved admins to come in, but to curb Jaguar and Czar, not to scrutinise you or effect a refactor. In saying that though, would you mind adding in said section breaks? I'd probably go overboard with them as the threads are a mixed bunch of editor and move discussion and while parts are useful to the move discussion, perhaps some comments could be collapsed for reasons of "straying off topic"; as you say though, you do have a wealth of experience on these types of discussions and I'll leave it to your discretion.

At any rate, you do seem to be a good Admin, doing good (and thankless) work, and with a good understanding of policy, but maybe just keep an eye on how your words get interpreted and the impact they may have as some of the comments - while correct without doubt - leave a bit to be desired for resolving the conflict, perhaps a touch-up of WP:FOC might help. That is/was my main reason for suggesting a short break, and then come back on to "crack some heads".

I should probably go see if I can cut the fuses off the two editors for starting to bludgeon the conversation. Wonder if they'll listen?

Apologies if I seemed harsh in my comments, but I'd rather a good editor (yeah, even good Admins too) get admonished and try to be better in future, than to waste time on slapping bad editors/rogues who'll possibly dodge around your back and stab you with a boomerang (yeah, WP:ABF is bad, but needed in small doses). Maybe a brief de-mopping/probation, or at least a wrist-slapping, session is in order for the admins - but what would be your opinion on this? Have a good day and Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum

Copyright - Own work Images

Hello and Good Morning I see that you are an administrator, I am posting a general qyestion in regards about Copyright Permission. So basically I took this image (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Field_goal_(basketball)#/media/File:Grover_field_goal_mens_lague_basketball.jpg) from my phone and uploaded it to Wikimedia to be used in an article on the English Wikipedia and I was wondering if the details I put in to prove that it was my own work are sufficient enough to prove it? --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Sanjev Rajaram

Thanks for your msg, but I'm sorry to say that I am not much of an expert of image licensing. I could read up on it, but I don't want to mislead you, so I think you'd do better to ask someone more familiar with the policies in that area.

I am not sure what's the best place to ask, but I am sure that a post at WP:VPM will catch the eye of someone who can help.

Sorry I can't do more. Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjev Rajaram: We are generally allowed to take peoples word on copyright claims as long as it is reasonable to do so. I see no reason why anyone should doubt the copyright claim on that image. HighInBC 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for helping out, HighInBC. I hope that resolves Sanjev's concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much User:BrownHairedGirl and User:HighInBC for your help I truly appreciate it very much. If you both need help in return with any articles or require images (I am an avid photographer) please don't hesistate to let me know. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of state leaders in 2015#RfC: What would be a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?

You are invited to join the discussion at List of state leaders in 2015#RfC: What would be a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?. Greetings, BrownHairedGirl. Just wondered whether or not you could give your opinion on this long-running dispute. Many thanks indeed. Neve-selbert 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Brand, Lord Brand

On 5 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Brand, Lord Brand, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1994 the retired Scottish judge Lord Brand became an appeals court judge in Botswana? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Brand, Lord Brand. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing redirects

Hello. I noticed your edits at 1896–97 Small Heath F.C. season. I'd always thought that we shouldn't edit just to bypass redirects, as per WP:NOTBROKEN, and that in general it was perfectly acceptable to use a redirect rather than a piped target. Has the guidance changed, and it just hasn't reached the documentation yet? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guidance hasn't changed. It was just that that list was bugging me, so I reckoned it wouldn't do much harm to fox it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this undo. Sorry, I pressed send before finishing the edit summary. You seem to have replaced [[Alloa Athletic]] with [[Alloa Athletic F.C.|Annan Athletic]], a different animal entirely. Not just at Sandy Cochrane, at other pages as well... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2: Thanks for the the revert, and for the pointer. I just found the glitch in my long list of AWB settings, and will find and fix the others. Only Alloa was affected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All 43 fixed[6]. Thanks again for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William James Cullen, Lord Cullen

On 6 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William James Cullen, Lord Cullen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the early 20th-century Scottish judge Lord Cullen disliked public speaking? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William James Cullen, Lord Cullen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservative_Wikipedians

If this category isn't useful, then why does Category:Liberal_Wikipedians exist? I'm at a loss on this one. So I started the CfD. I'm notifying you because you seemed to be involved; you restored Category:Conservative_Wikipedians in 2007. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsharpminor: Thanks for the pointer, and for starting the CFD.

My restoration of Category:Conservative Wikipedians was purely procedural. Mercifully, all such categories were subsequently deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/August 2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories. I recommend at CFD that the solution for this one is: speedy delete per WP:G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Would you be so kind as to suggest the G4 or to do it yourself? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 05:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested it at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of an ANi thread - want your opinion please

DRAFT: I'd like to politely note LavaBaron is developing quite a habit of WP:BLUDEONING LavaBaron bludgeoned an AfD here [7] and User:BrownHairedGirl closed with an ANi thread [8] on 24 January 2016 with "LavaBaron is warned to avoid hyperbole in any further ANI reports, to stop bludgeoning processes, and to count themselves very lucky that this thread didn't WP:BOOMERANG on them." With 23 separate signed edits to an ANi thread with my name and a prejudicial title, LavaBaron's behavior continues without a break. If this behavor is OK, as a minimum we should keep this thread open for 25+ days at the top of ANi by editing it over and over and over again so that their name can be forever associated with bad behavior. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Hi

I am Mark Kerr pro footballer I currently play for Falkirk Fc.Just a couple of questions about my stats hopefully can help thanks. The wikipedia information on appearance made for each club is not quite right and also goals scored I am wondering if the stat is based on starting appearance and not including substitute appearances as they are missing from each club I have played for. The goals scored for Dundee United are wrong it says I have scored 2 goals that is true for league games but I have scored 3 cup goals 1 against Elgin 1 against Queen's Park and the other in the Europa league against MyPa of Finland. The appearances Asteras tripolis says 2 but I made 12 substitute appearance and also Partick thistle I started 5 games. I have updated this as it's accurate information and could name all the these games and teams they were against. I would be greateful if you could help update this information and if possible include substitute appearances to my stats.

I look forward to hearing from you and thanks to taking the time to update previous information.

Thanks Mark Kerr Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.93.202 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dashes

Perma-angry editor who is unable to AGF doesn't seem to understand "get off my talk page, and stay off it". So maybe hatting the thread will convey the message more clearly

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

Can you explain why you are reverting per WP:BRD, it is clear you knew a discussion was taking place and its clear you are ignoring. This was the edit where BRD came into effect. Your supposed to be an admin & a clearly involved one at that.Blethering Scot 23:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued following of my edits is starting to border on Wikipedia:Harassment. That and your attitude towards me from our first encounter has been substandard. Your behaviour was noted to be substandard as much as mine. If this continues then we clearly need to go back to AN. I will not feel harassed by an Admin with a grudge.Blethering Scot 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blethering Scot, my watchlist showed changes to one of those pages which seemed perverse, so I checked for more. That's not stalking and its not harassment.

You really should try to let go of your severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues, and of your apparent inability to WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is harassment. You have followed my edits constantly since we first clashed at the St Mirren article & your watch list showed it because you added it to your watch list. At no point prior would you have had any reason to watch that patch. Your attitude towards me was unacceptable, you made false statements against me which I had to prevent evidence that you were wrong. You had to apologise yet still was adamant you were right. Tonight you edit warred on an article you knew was being discussed about clearly contrary to WP:BRD. You are harassing me and you are an admin. Its clear from this statement that its simply your opinion not based in fact and that simply because you don't like something doesn't make it policy. You keep sighting AGF, hard to even remotely consider this given your attitude from the word go. Its sad but if you continue to stalk my edits then we will be back at AN pretty quickly.Blethering Scot 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry wanting an article to be consistent is not an WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Its a Consistency issue. You know full well you are involved, you know full well the behaviour expected from an admin yet you display the opposite. You clearly felt like edit warring tonight and clearly knew a discussion was taking place. You need to seriously consider whether your involvement with me have shown the behaviour befitting an admin of this site. An admin does not edit war, they don't bring personal opinion into things, they follow policy not opinion and they don't harass or victimise editors because there opinion differs from theres, they dont constantly accuse them of arguing that F.C. should actually be FC & muddying waters when actually it was another editor entirely. Take a hard look at yourself and tell me that throughout this whole saga you have AGF with me.Blethering Scot 23:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BS, I have had more than enough of your insistence that every time our paths cross (which is very rarely) that it is evidence of harassment.

I have had more than enough of your WP:OWNership of articles -- which has been noted by others too, most recently at WT:FOOTY.

I have had more than enough of your insistence on turning every small misunderstanding into an insistence that I am a liar. One example of that is when I confused your desire to remove "F.C." with another editors desire to change it to "FC". As I and other editors pointed out, both were proposals which could and should be considered separately from the dot in "St.", and that your use of that RM to raise that issue was muddying the waters. When you raised the "F.C." convention at WT:FOOTY, you got zero support.

Since you won't AGF, get off my talk page, and stay off it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've been there

Get well soon BHG!! I went through all of the winter cold stuff at the end of January and it was no fun at all. I wish I could edit the "BrownHairedGirl has a cold" article to remove the offending (uncited) germs. Best wishes for a quick recovery. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, MarnetteD. That's a very kind thought.

I just begun to get used to having a nastily broken arm when the fever hit, so I was feeling pretty horrible for a few days ... 'cos every time I coughed or blew my nose, it rattled the unset bones. Luckily some witches potions have taken the edge off the bug, so I'm still feverish but at least I'm not rattling.

So maybe I'm not ready to be fed to the lions just yet <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooouuuccchh BHG. I am glad that the potion is alleviating some of the pain. Cheers to continued healing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unframboise

Both parties agree that the next stop is ANI, so this thread has outlived any usefulness. But I do that both editors will try again to reach a consensus without escalating to the drama-board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

BHG, sorry to bother you, but would you go look at User:Unframboise's latest antics on his talk page, at DRN, and at User Talk:AussieLegend? We're disagreeing on something that's not a huge deal in the article Code Black (TV series), and he's trying to play the bully card. He's long had ownership issues that lead to these little episodes, and is latest post on his talk page is well beyond appropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. How long can these attacks continue? --Unframboise (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little disappointed not to hear from you, but at least Unframboise has removed his latest dramah/attack post from his talk page. I'm getting weary of abuse from editors who take a revert personally, to the degree they engage in thus sort of behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmargi

Sorry for not replying. I'm ill with a fever at the moment, and I can do bits of mechanical editing, but I haven't the strength for tussles like this.

If you still need admin assistance, may I ask you to take it to ANI? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're not well! There is some nasty flu going around. Unframboise is sort of at "Next Stop:ANI", but I don't have the stomach for the drama, so I thought I'd take a less aggressive approach. For now, as long as he knocks off the tortured soul crap, it's fine. Feel better. --Drmargi (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unframboise isn't taking an aggressive approach. Unframboise sought advice from other users, who agreed with him, and the page has now been updated as per consensus and wiki conventions that have since been brought to my attention. Unframboise doesn't see your issue. Next stop is not ANI, next stop is you accepting you were wrong. Thanks but no thanks. --Unframboise (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

DYK for William Grant, Lord Grant

On 15 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Grant, Lord Grant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1955, two girls fainted at an election rally in Glasgow for Unionist candidate William Grant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Grant, Lord Grant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar Albanians -> Kosovo Albanians.....

Hi,

I saw that Cydebot was already run moving pages from Category:Kosovar Albanians to Category:Kosovo Albanians and from Category:Kosovar Serbs to Category:Kosovo Serbs. May be more. The former categories were deleted or redirected.
Was there any agreement on these moves? Maybe a discussion I missed to follow?

Thanks. --Mondiad (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were speedy moves, listed at WP:CFD/S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Bailey page move

Just to let you know, I've started a move discussion at Talk:George Bailey (cricketer, born 1982). As you moved George Bailey (cricketer) to George Bailey (cricketer, born 1982) in December 2015, I thought you might be interested. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I have replied[9] at the RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Perhaps it needs to be made explicit at WP:QUALIFIER that we don't use sub-primary-topics: if dates are needed to distinguish, then they all get dates. It isn't stated there but I think it's the intention, and it would be helpful for discussions like this if it was written down. We are distinguishing this George Bailey from all others of that name, not just from the other cricketers. If we had no other GBs he wouldn't have "(cricketer)", so it's not a logical term for anyone to search on - just as for a placename you don't know whether it's a standalone title or disambiguated by country or by state/province/county/district etc. PamD 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, PamD. It has been std practice for years not to do sub-primary topics, and the docs should explicitly reflect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the disambiguation policies, on further reading it's clear that although he's the primary cricketer, the partial disambiguation seems to be against consensus of how to disambiguate. Withdrawn the requested move. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing while I'm here ...

Just had a quick look at your user page and was reminded that you're a peerage and baronetage afficionado! I created a messy little stub for Charles Paget, 8th Marquess of Anglesey yesterday (to resolve a red link in an article about his 5xgt-grandfather's leg) but found myself getting very confused about titles, having found that according to "Who's Who" his son Benedict Dashiel Thomas Paget is already Earl of Uxbridge ... at which point I gave up. Could you cast an eye over it some time when you're in the mood, and bring it up to scratch perhaps (or at least correct any major howlers)? I suspect that the "European Heraldry" site I cited is not really WP:RS. There's a baronetcy mentioned there, but it doesn't look like any of those listed in Paget baronets. Thanks. PamD 13:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying it up - I was obviously so out of my depth that I forgot to put a verb in the lead sentence (like "is"). Still don't understand about the earldom... PamD 14:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi PamD

The article was in v good shape. I just did a few tweaks to layout and categories, and added a succession box, but nothing substantial.

That thing about his son being Earl of Uxbridge is just one of those confusing quirks of the Ruritanian comedy of the UKanian peerage system.

Basically, Earl of Uxbridge is now one of the subsidiary titles of the Marquess of Anglesey; it's a more junior title, and any peer is usually known only by their most senior title. So for most purposes, the title of "Earl of Uxbridge" is an unused relic, hidden away in a cupboard.

However, those families place a lot of value on the perceived status of these titles, and they don't like the fact that the heir apparent has no title until his father dies. So they invented the concept of a courtesy title, by which their heir apparent may use a secondary title while his father is still alive. Therefore the young Benedict Dashiel Thomas Paget is not actually the Earl of Uxbridge; he is just wearing Daddy's spare hat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes some kind of sense. As for the baronetcy, I looked at the deprecated Leigh Raymond and found a crossreference to Bayly, where there's a note on "Henry Bayly (Paget from 29 Jan 1770), 10th Lord Paget de Beaudesert" at http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsB2.htm saying He was created Earl of Uxbridge in 1784 and his son was created Marquess of Anglesey (qv) in 1815 with which title the baronetcy remains merged, although, as at 30/06/2014,the baronetcy does not appear on the Official Roll of the Baronetage. I'll keep well away.

It was just one of those delightful meandering time-sinks where I spotted something interesting-sounding on Eric's talk page, followed it up, ended up editing that page and then filling this redlink and expanding his mother's entry and creating Broadcasting Complaints Commission (UK) because she chaired it ... and not getting on with the agenda for a meeting I'm chairing this week, nor a load of domestic stuff. Well, it's slightly more constructive than sitting around playing online patience games or watching daytime television! I also yesterday got obsessed with a very minor author I stub-sorted, Dennis Parry, found his Times obit and a couple of reviews, noticed Bonjour, Tristesse included in same multi-book reviews so couldn't resist adding them to that article, and ended up reserving one of Parry's books from the library (but when do I find the time to read it?) Must go out to supermarket now. PamD 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Asian Test Championship

An article that you have been involved in editing—Asian Test Championship —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. LionsRule125 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitesse

Hi Brownhaired girl, I noticed you had moved the page of Vitesse to Vitesse Arnhem. I wanted to suggest moving the name of the page to SBV Vitesse which is the official name of the club. I personally have never heard of Arnhem being added to the team name. Here in the Netherlands city names are added to the club name in instances where the municipality saves the team from solvency, the addage of the city name is done as a stipulation of the bail out. Such as with Sparta Rotterdam, NAC Breda, Roda JC Kerkrade, VVV-Venlo and so on. The team names prior to the bail outs were simply Sparta, NAC, Roda JC, VVV etc. Now there is this trend where English native speakers (which I am as well) are adding the city name to th team names which is really incorrect. Just because let's say SKY Sports add the city name to a team name for clarification, and ESPN and so on copy the mistake, doesn't mean we should. If you look up Vitesse at the Dutch chamber of commerce for their official registration, you will see it is registered as SBV VItesse. The official team name. I don't think we should make up new names for these things, but rather stick to the official name of the club. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, (Subzzee (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Subzzee

I moved the article because there is just no way that the club is the primary topic for the word "vitesse". A Google Books search https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vitesse&tbm=bks&pws=0 shows no mention of the club in the first 30 hits.

I chose the name "Vitesse Arnhem" not because I made anything up. It was because the lede of the article says "Stichting Betaald Voetbal Vitesse, commonly referred to simply as Vitesse (internationally known as Vitesse Arnhem) is a Dutch football club based in Arnhem".

Using the internationally-known name seemed like the best WP:NATURALDAB. You may be right about the way in which Dutch fb club names are constructed, but Wikipedia doesn't use "correct" or "official" names; it uses the WP:COMMONNAME. And according to the article, the unambiguous version of the common name is "Vitesse Arnhem". The article doesn't even mention "SBV Vitesse".

If you disagree, feel free to open a WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambigging

Hi! Just a friendly reminder to fix incoming links first before turning an existing redirect or regular article into a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412

That is what I do on nearly every occasion.

I presume you are referring to Napa Valley, which I converted to a dab page per the consensus at Talk:Napa_Valley_AVA#Requested_move_17_February_2016?

In that case, the disambiguation of some articles is not so straightforward, so I left them to think about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I often find that where disambiguation is not straightforward, it's because the topics are related, and a WP:DABCONCEPT page (in this case, a WP:DABCONGEO) is the solution. bd2412 T 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews United F.C.

Hi BHG

I was looking at your move request at Talk:St. Andrews United F.C. today, and since it's been there ages, and there is no objection to the move, it should be closed as moved. However, the target page St Andrews United F.C. has a nontrivial history of content dating back to before the start of the current article, until it was turned to a redirect in 2008.

If I close the move request, would you be able, as an admin, to do a WP:HISTMERGE to bring the two histories together? Or should I request that somewhere else? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: No prob. If you close the discussion, and the result is "rename", then I'd be happy to do a histmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've closed it now, to be renamed, so if you could please do the hist merge and move it, that would be great. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Illingworth (yacht designer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Displacement and LWL. 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) 11:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn O Cuiv

I edited Eamon O Cuiv to reflect your suggestions in the now closed {{s-par}} discussion of 03 March., comments appreciated if any. I'll do Michael Kitt next as long serviing politicians in a constituency are probably the best way to start. Wikimucker (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikimucker

That was great work for a first attempt -- near perfect.

Being a pedant, there were a few minor tweaks needed, which I did as separate edits to make them easier to explain:

[10] using {{s-inc}} prettifies the r/h column

[11] some stray markup in the next box, removed

[12] -- per MOS:DATERANGE, year ranges should use an endash rather than just a hyphen, and where both years are in the same century, the first 2 digits can be omitted from the second year. So e.g. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was 1992-1997, but should be 1992–97. (Just to confuse you, the convention is that the headline years in a succession box are written in full)

[13] -- removed party label from the succession box, which was one of the aims of exercise.

That's all the pedantry I could manage here. Great work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry gladly accepted at this stage. I did Michael Kitt (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_P._Kitt#References) hopefully incorporating all the pedantry and did not endash across the millenium years. Comments again gladly accepted before I make a slightly pedantic point of my own and I will revisit O Cuiv to incorporate your points. Wikimucker (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 2c of Pedantry. Kitt was a member of the oireachtas from 1975 to 2016, three times as a TD and in between these he was a senator. I would hold that this currently self reverted is more correct than showing his TD record only. > https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_P._Kitt&oldid=711041239 as he was an Oireachtas member who served Both in the Dail and Seanad. This service pattern is very common.

The current version shows his TD record only ( https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_P._Kitt&oldid=711041448 ) and hopefully to your full satisfaction User:BrownHairedGirl /pedantry. Wikimucker (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Halligan (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Deasy. 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) 10:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Jeffreys (1706-1766)

Hi, can you nurture this one with your expert trimmings? Spotted it browsing on old book. Afraid I can't remember what those succession boxes and categories were.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish Labour Party MEPs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Scottish Labour Party MEPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Your user page is funny and I am really impressed by all the work you have done on Wikipedia!

Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soy Protein Article Edit

Hey BrownHairedGirl hope your having a good day. I am currently having some trouble with some content I added to an article that another user think is not worthy however the contant is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and seems to be very pertinant to the article. I was thinking you were the best person to help resolve this, the discussion is going on here Talk:Soy_protein#Punlsihed_Peer-Reviewed_Scientific_Paper_used_to_study_Muscle_Hypetrophy_and_Soy_Protein_correlation --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Fair Use Rationale

Hey BrownHairedGirl I need your adminstrative help here on this image: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Cyber_Ethnography_Graduate_Students.jpg it's an image I uploaded and I want it to be strictly for Wikipedia use only please review it and see if you want to give it a fair use rationale. I think it's helpful for the article in question I wanna use it for and personally I think it's a darn good selfie of us too. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hallo BHG, I noticed this request, had a look at the image and its use, and considered that it didn't improve the article Cyber-ethnography to which it had been added to so removed it. It has now been replaced. I'll be interested to hear your comments. PamD 06:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the permission and license of the image after consulting with the editors of Wikimedia that image now redirects to the correct one. The discussion goes on here: Talk:Cyber-ethnography#Image_on_page_under_section_.22The_range_of_methodologies.22 about why this image is helpful and provides a signifant improvement to the article by use of a visual representation of cyber-ethnography. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Gloucestershire constituency

I am grateful to the editors who sought my involvement, but as a general principle it is better to discuss an article on the talk page of that article. This ensures that the discussiion is archived in the place where other editors would expect to find it.
I am therefore closing this discussion here, and I copied this discussion in full to Talk:South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency)#South_Gloucestershire_constituency, where I have also archived it.
Further discussion should take place at Talk:South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency)#Article_name, where I will add my own comments on the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hallo BHG, and @Some1asks: I see that you created Gloucestershire South (UK Parliament constituency) on 6 October 2006 but then moved it on 15 Jan 2007 to South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency) with edit summary "compass point first for county constituencies". The article is still at that title, although there seems no evidence of this name being used (eg Hansard: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/constituencies/gloucestershire-south). There is a certain amount of discussion about matters "South Gloucestershire" at the moment, and this issue of the constituency name is an added complication!

Is it really our policy to use an inverted form of the name of constituencies like this? Could you direct us to chapter and verse? There's no mention at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#Article_name (though this does confirm my belief that as there is at present an article at South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency) there must be a link, whether a redirect, hatnote link or dab page entry, from South Gloucestershire to that article). I see that we do seem to use the "South Gloucestershire" name consistently throughout en.wiki, eg in MPs' succession boxes. Thanks for your help. PamD 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding procedure by the Boundary Commission (dating back to the 1948 Act, I believe) is to use compass points as a prefix for "county constituencies" which usually means before county names and local authorities and compass points as a suffix with "borough constituencies", which usually means a town or city. That's mentioned here and here on page 5: "compass point names are adopted where there is not a more suitable name. This takes the form of a prefix where the rest of the name refers to the county area or local council (i.e. South Thanet) and a suffix where the rest of the name refers to a population centre (i.e. Barnsley East)."

The official name of the constituency in this case would undoubtedly have been South Gloucestershire. The 1959 London Gazette lists it under this name. Inevitably, press reports and other publications, Hansard included, will vary the placement of the compass point, but Wikipedia should stick to the official name in these cases. Valenciano (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano:, also pinging @Some1asks:, Thanks for the comments. I was bemused because none of the available online references seemed to use the "South Gloucestershire" form of name. That London Gazette one is slightly reassuring, though as it conflicts with Hansard I wouldn't know which to believe. What is the definitive source for constituency names, I wonder? PamD 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definitive source could be The Boundary Commission report, in this case the Second Periodical report, published c.1968, but unfortunately not online. Checking sources won't be that useful, since the press frequently vary the placement of compass points. However, given the longstanding convention on putting compass points first for more rural constituencies, I'd be amazed if South Glos was any kind of exception. Note that Hansard, lists John Cope being sworn in for South Gloucestershire. Valenciano (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During the life of the County of Avon and the 20 years after (anniversary of death this year - 2016), there was NEVER an area described as South Gloucestershire for a Parliamentary Constituency, within the Geographic area that 'was' Avon and became South Gloucestershire.

The area to the north IS the Shire County and Non-metropolitan county of Gloucestershire, and Gloucestershire South, Southern Gloucestershire IS NOT in the geographic area of what was Avon, nor in the northern part of Avon that became South Gloucestershire.
I have repeatedly and consistently tried to highlight these facts, and that the term South Gloucestershire only existed as an area from 1996, and before that Avon.

NO Member of Parliament had the reported 'single seat' claimed. WHOLLY BECAUSE the actual geographic area had and has MULTIPLE constituencies across what was Northern Avon, then South Gloucestershire, which had / has a very large population. NONE of the Constituencies was a whole region!
Only the Lieutenancy area, an 'area' solely designated as such for the purposes of the queens representative.. The legislation highlights the area is ONLY Gloucestershire for the purposes of the Lieutenancy. See.^[1]
Southern Gloucestershire, Gloucestershire South IS NOT the geographic area of South Gloucestershire (Formally the Avon Districts of northavon and Kingswood.
Finally the issue of the Constituency of 'Bristol North West' (later reorganised and renamed to better reflect the real towns, which were not in the City and County of Bristol !!). B NW, was in Avon at the time of its existence not South Gloucestershire (it did not yet exist).

Some1asks (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

> The citation source used by the confused editor ACTUALLY lists Constituencies..

Hansard notes NO such Constituency of South Gloucestershire, it did not exist either during the dates she claims, or during the County of Avon era or in the 20 years after Avon.. (See list ^[2])
I also noted in the 'South Gloucestershire' Constituency page..

([citation needed] re 'South Gloucestershire' claim.. These were geographically Avon: Northavon, Bristol North West) Some1asks (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1asks this is not correct. As I noted above, sources will vary on whether to include compass points before or after the area they are named for. Hansard is no exception to this. It is in the link you give above, it's just listed as Gloucestershire South 1950-1983 here in Hansard. As, I also mentioned in my earlier comment, John Cope is listed in Hansard being sworn in as the member for South Gloucestershire South Gloucestershire in 1974. As to what it covered, here's a speech from its member in Hansard, where he's listed as the member for South Gloucestershire, where he notes that a proposed road "skirts the built-up area north of Bristol, and around Downend and Mangotsfield, before turning north again to Almondsbury. This is entirely in Gloucestershire and most of it is in my constituency." All those areas are in what became Avon. An earlier Hansard source from 1954 notes the "transfer of the rural district of Thornbury from Stroud and Thornbury—to South Gloucestershire." Valenciano (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref, Hansard 1978. John Cope, listed as the member for "Gloucestershire, South" where he says: "My constituency covers bits of two separate counties and takes the name of the smaller section. Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire." I think that settles the question of whether there was a South Gloucestershire constituency within the county of Avon, don't you? Valenciano (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 'Sir John Cope' was Member of Parliament for Northavon. This in the County of Avon. I have used Hansard to link to the list of Parliamentary Constituencies'.. There is no South Gloucestershire Parliamentary Constituency listed, see Hansard here: ^[3]

The term Election in a newspaper will give results (in a General Election) for BOTH Parliamentary MP's and some Councils, including a Non-metropolitan county, a modern Unitary authority and Metropolitan county areas.. BECAUSE not all local government Council elections are done at the same time. EG In 2016 most Councils had local council elections, along with Welsh Assembly elections, Scottish Parliament Elections and Northern Ireland elections
MANY when voting in the UK General Election voted for both a local MP and their Local Councils, plus Parish or Town Councils. (Regional Council Elections are split into two cycles because of the huge volume of votes, and MP's keep the cycles split as it's and indicator of how a national government is doing).

South Gloucestershire is not listed as a Constituency from 1803-2005 in Hansard, and does not exist now. 'IF' there is a reference to South Gloucestershire prior to 1996 it's geographically Southern Gloucestershire, (Avon 1974-1996). The County of Avon was abolished and the northern parts become South Gloucestershire, (Former Avon districts of Northavon and Kingswood becoming the created area of South Gloucestershire, a Unitary authority).

Before 1974 a section of Avon (before its creation, was Southern Gloucestershire, but as the area was and is highly populated, several MP constituencies existed, and Hansard does not mention a Parliamentary Constituency of South Gloucestershire.. The Gazette cited, if it is genuine, notes a county representative being voted for, as opposed to a parliamentary representative, note the different entries!
Since 1996 the Unitary authority of South Gloucestershire has several Parliamentary constituencies due to dense population.

Quoting above, emphasis mine, "My constituency covers bits of two separate counties and takes the name of the smaller section (Hansard, Gloucestershire South Constituency, Southern Gloucestershire),"Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.

Some1asks (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1asks:Just picking up on The Gazette cited, if it is genuine ... above, and a couple of other points:

You appear to be implying that the editor who cited it might have faked it, or been misled by a forgery. Either of those is quite a Personal attack.
The London Gazette is an official publication, and the WP article confirms that its website is https://www.thegazette.co.uk/
The page cited above at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41842/page/6430/data.pdf lists Captain Corfield for "South Gloucestershire County Constituency". All constituencies are either "Borough" or "County" consituencies; see United_Kingdom_constituencies#County_constituencies_and_borough_constituencies
The previous page at the easily-derived web address of https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41842/page/6429/data.pdf shows the heading "List of members elected to serve in Parliament at the General Election, 1959" at the start of the list which includes this information.
Before becoming MP for Northavon in 1983, John Cope, Baron Cope of Berkeley was MP for South Gloucestershire, 1974-1983.
Please stop misusing the {{Distinguish}} template: As its documentation states, it is a WP:Hatnote, and hatnotes are only used at the top of an article or a section as navigational aids. I have not removed it because one should not edit another editor's contributions to a talk page.

PamD 05:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>> The key to peoples confusion is three fold: The separate Gloucestershire County Constituency, which is NOT a Parliamentary Constituency (NB Hansard list below). Also the fact of the pre 1974 area. Plus the name of the 1996 onward Unitary authority, that took on the '"new"' title of South Gloucestershire.

I have repeatedly cited the UK Parliament page of Hansard 1803-2005, were no such Parliamentary Constituency exists of South Gloucestershire.

The geographic area of The County of Avon 1974-1996, is not Gloucestershire. Sir John Cope MP says, about his then constituency name of '"Gloucestershire South"', "My constituency covers bits of two separate counties and takes the name of the smaller section (Hansard, Gloucestershire South Constituency, Southern Gloucestershire), "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.

The editor puts on the 'south gloucestershire' parliamentary constituency page, parliamentary district names that existed in the era of the County of Avon and within it's geographic area. These parliamentary areas were both districts of Avon County Council, and had associated Parliamentary areas, BUT these associated parliamentary areas did not match geographic areas. Additional parlanentary areas existed in Avon and now South Gloucestershire, which have all be reconfigured under various Governments, or latterly by The Boundary Commission.

If anything should exist on the noted wiki page it should be:

Gloucestershire South Constituency. Highlight made to dates so as not to confuse people, (Avon era constituencies and South Gloucestershire current constituencies should not be cited, they are in a different geographic area). Areas said to be covered should be corrected, and clarifications added.

Again, the current South Gloucestershire Unitary authority area, is not in the Shire County and Non-metropolitan county of Gloucestershire.

The only place where the geographic areas of South Gloucestershire and Gloucestershire are linked, relates solely to the Lieutenancy areas. The Parliamentary Act is clear in saying the areas exist only in relation to the Sovereigns Lord Lieutenants (The Queens regional representatives). I have cited and provided a link to the legislation, here and elsewhere where Ceremonial Counties are misunderstood, the Legislation says the Lieutenancy areas ARE the Ceremonial yes only Ceremonial Counties.

Finally.. Just because someone links to a secondary source of information, (Newspapers, The Encyclopedia Britannica, local websites, The Guardian and other UK papers, ALL publish retractions when errors are made. Wiki itself says people should use the encyclopedia as a starting point to further research, it admits many errors due to it's structure, and it admits misinformation has crept out of Wikipedia, and it as an encyclopedia has been widely mocked and items read on comedy news programs. SO as outlined in the above paragraphs investigate and find 'South Gloucestershire' parliamentary constituency does not exist, again see the Hansard list!

Some1asks (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told that compass points in both Hansard and other sources get placed both before and after the geographic area for the same constituency. You have already been given the link from Hansard where John Cope is sworn in for South Gloucestershire and where the previous member is mentioned as the member for South Gloucestershire. You have also been given a London Gazette source which lists the constituency as South Gloucestershire. Since we've clearly established that it did exist, including it on that dab page is fine. Valenciano (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Cope MP, Gloucestershire South Constituency (Hansard list of constituencies), Sir John Cope said, " "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.

Gloucestershire County at at 1974-1996 did not cover Avon.

Gloucestershire County from 1996 to current date of 2016, is not any part of South Gloucestershire, (the geographic local government area Unitary authority area).

Parliamentary Constituencies are hand have been several in the Northern Avon (South Gloucestershire) geographic area.

BEFORE 1974 both Somerset and Gloucestershire covered larger areas, but when describing the Gloucestershire South constituency - it should (a) be called that as Parliament called it that (again Hansard lists this).

(b) when describing the area 'other' constituencies should not be lumped in and claimed to be in a an ancient South Gloucestershire Constituency..

The 1996-present South Gloucestershire area is not Gloucestershire, the 1974-1996 area was not Gloucestershire, the PRE 1974 area was not South Gloucestershire but in part only, Gloucestershire South Constituency, (again Hansard list 1803-2005).

You are again ignoring the advice you've been given above regarding compass points being interchangable as prefixes and suffixes and the links you've been given to Hansard which prove this (where the member is sworn in for South Gloucestershire.) If you persist in ignoring what people say in a discussion, then they'll end up concluding that it's a waste of time trying to have a discussion with you and just revert any edits you make. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some1asks (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

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

Re SG

Hi BHG, I noticed you weren't editing for a few days and was increasingly conscious what a ghastly wall of text you were going to find on your talk page when you got back. I'd asked you in the first place because you'd created the article - perhaps should have raised question on the article talk page and pinged you. Sorry about that. Welcome to the ~~madhouse~~ ~~battlefield~~ discussion! PamD 12:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: no prob at all coming here to ask what you thought would be a quick question! You weren't to know that it would all spiral into such a huge discussion, with so much contention. But since it did develop that way, I think it's best to take it back to the article talk, just to preserve it for posterity and possibly attract more pairs of eyes.

I'll try to make time later today to write my proper reply.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort keys in Category:Radio by country

Hi BHG, following renamings after your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_11#Radio_by_country, the contents of Category:Radio by country are no longer sorted by country name. The preceding day's Media by country worked better, apparently because the sort keys had been more completely entered for the sub-cats, but the radio ones need a bit of work which I guess has to be done manually. Perhaps you might be willing to tidy it up. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 14:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, further to my note on Media, there are sub-cats that could do with follow-up renamings to use "in", e.g. Category:Media by city. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John aBel Smith circa 1859; Book he signed and presented in Philadelphia

Hello,

This is the first time I've used Wiki to contact an author. I hope to find your response on this page; I'll bookmark. I'll not leave my email for fear my ID will bounce everywhere...??..although69.244.104.224 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I have no issue connecting if you are interested/able to assist..?[reply]

I uncovered a book in an antique shop which is connected to John aBel Smith. John "gifted" the book to a prominent Philadelphia Area Physician in 1849. The book is signed by John with personal message to J.H. Pugh.

There is little value in this book (Christian Philosopher; Triumphing over Death), however, I'm wondering if a British House, Family member (of John od John?)or other entity would appreciate the book? If so, I'll send free of charge; after knowing it is good and rightful home!!(the book only cost me $4... I only purchase because I identified page two had been personalized with message and signature.

I'm contacting you because of your numerous entries on Smith... can you, would you like to help place this book in a good and connected new home?

69.244.104.224 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland constituencies

Great job with the navigation templates for constituencies in Northern Ireland! I had been thinking of something similar for ages but never got round to it, and you've done it far better than I could have. Opera hat (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Opera hat.

It is nearly 9 years since I created the series for the 26 counties (Template:County Carlow constituencies etc), and I put off doing the Northern Ireland one ones because I thought they would make my head spin. And I put it off .. and off ... <grin>

When I got down to it, it was a big job, but as my head spun I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was a little less complex than I had feared, since there were really only two sets of Assembly constituencies. Phew! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edwardian era has been nominated for discussion

Category:Edwardian era, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sutherland

Hi, sorry to disturb you but can you check the edit by 78.17.63.52 to the above article? Before the edit the article stated that the Attorney General was nominated by the Taoiseach and actually appointed by the President. I thought this was correct and not the new version but I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Thanks again. Denisarona (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denisarona, and thanks for your msg.

To be honest, I think that the IP is doing the right thing here. The version which you restored[14] displays:

Appointed by   Patrick Hillery
Preceded by    Anthony J. Hederman
Succeeded by   Patrick Connolly

whereas the IP's version[15] displays:

Taoiseach      Garret FitzGerald
Preceded by    Anthony J. Hederman
Succeeded by   Patrick Connolly

Note the version which you restored doesn't show the Taoiseach's name in the box.

The A-G is indeed nominated by the Taoiseach and actually appointed by the President ... but the President's role in only a formality. In practice, the significant point is that the A-G is chosen by the Taoiseach, and as legal advisor to the govt, the A-G works very closely with the Taoiseach. So it seems to me to better to display the name of the Taoiseach who chose him and worked with him every day, rather than the President who handed him his papers on the first day in the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the quick response. I don't have a problem with the info but it could be misread e.g. someone could assume that Anthony J Hederman was the Taoiseach before Garret Fitzgerald. Wouldn't it be better to change Taoiseach to Nominated by? Best regards Denisarona (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. First of all, I don't think that the box can reasonably be misread in that way, because the bolded header makes it clear what office was held. Secondly, the crucial point which that box needs to convey about Garret is not that he was some bloke who nominated AJ; it's that Garret was the Taoiseach under whom AJ served. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thing

So yes, I definitely think that discussion ought to be closed (rather than just drift into archiving). FON has been away for the greater part of a week so no input is likely from that quarter and besides, this is the outcome he wanted anyway. I do hope that you keep an eye on the discussion and Uanna article and related talk page/GAR discussion in case the "Mr. 50" sock reappears. thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coretheapple

I agree that there is no point in keeping this open, so I have closed[16] the discussion with a warning that sanctions will follow fast if CIC7 doesn't keep their assurances of future good conduct. I will drop a note at CIC7's talk page, informing them of the closure and of the importance of keeping their promise of good conduct.

I doubt that I will be able to keep an eye on the article, because my watchlist is way overloaded already and my editing is intermittent. However, if you or any other editor finds further problems with this COI editor, feel free to notify me. CIC7 has had plenty of warnings and the community has been unusually generous in giving CIC7 time to improve, so if I am around, I will take appropriate action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, @Coretheapple:: here's my note[17] to CIC7 about the ANI closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Your note was crystal clear. Note the response posted on that page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coretheapple. I hadn't spotted the two comments[18][19] until you pointed them out.

It seems that CIC7 is having a very hard time understanding the concepts involved. I will post there to try to explain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @Jytdogwrote a fine expanation[20], which covered nearly everything I wanted to say. I added just one point of clarification[21], which I hope will help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well we shall see. Thanks for delving into this. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got Mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the William Donald Patrick, Lord Patrick page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this series of edits[22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art collector categories

Hi, I see you're whiling away a fine afternoon on these. They are rather compromised by ambiguity between the nationality of the collectors and the (rather more encyclopedic imo) nationality of the art - see eg Chinese & Japanese. I don't quite know how to handle this - many of the articles are vague on the collections, & I don't know that we want a rash of "Collectors of foo art" cats. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod

On a quick sample check, most of the usage seemed to be by nationality of collector rather than by nationality of art.

As I was working on them, I was once again the rueing the folly of the use of demonyms for people; they cause ambiguity with ocupations like this, and they have many NPOV problems. But every time I raise that issue, I get nowhere, so there it is :(

We do have some "Collectors of foo art" cats in Category:Art collectors. I'm undecided on whether they are a good idea, because many private collectors are quite eclectic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors for whom it is defining (and I'm sure it isn't for many in the cats) tend to have 1-2 specialisms. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Drollinger

Page has been full-protected nearly two years; any chance that it could be unprotected, as a test if nothing else? Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyttend

I had forgotten about that page, but I see that its talk page has been v quiet since I protected it 22 months ago, and the subsequent RFC. Given the storms which surrounded it at the time, I have been a little cautious, and reduced it to semi-protected.[23]

I hope that is OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've never heard of him before; I ran across it via a link at WP:HD to a list of indefinitely-and-fully-protected mainspace pages. Most of them were redirects or other non-articles, but several were articles like Drollinger; my goal was basically to reduce the number of such articles if possible. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I feel that on a number of occasions in the past, I have treated you poorly. I wish to apologize to you for this and ask for your forgiveness. I am trying harder to be kind to everyone on Wikipedia. Written communications is a difficult process when you don't know the person you are dealing with in "real life". If we had personally met, I think some of my behaviour would make more sense to you. But we have not, and so I can see that some things I have written would have upset you. So, I am sorry for acting that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Hello! You seem to be at your keyboard at the moment; please do what you admin-ly can to make [24] (see also [25]; too bad the deleting IP seems not to have given anyone a heads-up) go away. I have contacted Oversight but sometimes they can take a while and this is a doozy. (I did a quick online search to vet potential support for this proposition and found none.) Thanks--nice to meet you! Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julietdeltalima

AFAICS, each IP has done only one edit. What action do you think is needed, against which IP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the 2600...c580 IP introduced the nuke-able allegation. The 98....60 IP helpfully reverted it and can't be faulted for that. I am just trying to word a talk-page message in the most productive way to notify the user at the 98... IP that, in the future, if xe sees a BLP-related allegation of this magnitude, the situation should be escalated for revdel and potential oversight. Thanks for looking at this; my apologies if I made things unduly confusing. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Julietdeltalima: the BLP issue was serious, but it was promptly reverted, and you did right to warn the IP[26]. I have requested oversight of that edit. Good catch!

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is now suppressed, and the page protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Tod cats

Hi, I understand why you did this change from British to English but I think it is another example where categorisation rules can cause problems. Tod's parents were Scottish, he himself was born in London but spent much of his childhood in Scotland. It was for that reason we opted for British rather than English or Scottish - it just opens up a massive can of worms regarding nationality vs ethnicity etc. Of course, FAs can be changed just as much as a stub but I'm not convinced that it is a great idea in this instance. Then again, I am well aware that the categorisation cabal often has rules that seem distinctly weird to me and inconsistent in application! - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush

Fair enough, nationality is a little blurred in that case. So I have self-reverted.

And there is no Cabal :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is! please see here - Penguins

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ieuan Wyn Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to represent Ynys Môn until the United Kingdom general election, 2001|2001 general election]], when he stood down to concentrate on the Welsh Assembly. While a [[Parliament of the United

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed[27] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynn Boylan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GAA. 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) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi BHG. If you're not busy could you take a look at Talk:TheLiberak.ie. A user has flagged the article at Dispute Resolution, but nobody has bitten yet and I'm not sure that's the right response anyway to obvious COI from SPA accounts. Would you advise AN/I, AN/Edit warring, WP:SPI or some other mechanism? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun

Did you mean Talk:TheLiberal.ie? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did! Me fail English? That's unpossible! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bastun.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... that's a rat's nest of SPAs, with such a strong whiff of COI that I am inclined to apply WP:DUCK.

I note that the article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheLiberal.ie, and that only the SPAs want to keep it. So it's unlikely to stay, and the AFD is ripe for closure.

If it is deleted, then the problems are history. If not, then we'll need to look again at what to do. Some sort of protection might be in order, and/or a trip to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I see that the article has been deleted. Can we mark this as problem solved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG. Yup, all good, thanks for the advice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Role-playing video games by year

Hello! Thank you for offering help here. Would be grateful if you can help create a group merge nomination. Every subcategory should be merged to Category:Role-playing games. Thank you very much. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdrianGamer

Merged only to Category:Role-playing games? Surely they should also be merged to a by-year category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The by-year category isn't useful as well. We don't have this kind of "by-year" category for other genres. Actually it should be merged to Category:Role-playing video games, not just Role-playing games. I am sorry. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: Surely you don't want to lose the by-year categorisation?

For example, shouldn't Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975 be merged to Category:1975 video games, Category:Role-playing games introduced in 1975 and Category:Role-playing video games? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you are saying about merging them together in the "RPG video game by-year" category. The year category is a non-diffusing category, so they should be present in the article regardless of whether they are merged or not. I don't think we need to merge them to Category:Role-playing games introduced in 1975. Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games excludes video games. This is their category, so WP:VG articles aren't usually involved. They shouldn't as well, since they are quite different. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All video game articles should already have Category:1975 video games categories. The way the user who added these games went is they converted Category:Role-playing video games to Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975 without touching the year category ([28], e.g. [29]). In other words, they diffused the genre category by year. And that's what VG consensus seems to be is against - diffusing genre by year. Role-playing genre is the only genre diffused this way. None of the video game articles should have "role-playing" (non-video game) categories, so those ones shouldn't be affected. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists/ethnographers/folklorists categorised as scientists

Hi, I think you'll be able to shed some light on the discussion at User_talk:Hugo999#Scientist.3F. It may well be one that needs to go to CFD but I am due in hospital for a hip replacement & bone grafts in the next few hours, so I'm not best placed to initiate such a thing. If you have the time to review that short thread then I'd be grateful. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush

Sorry for the slow reply, but I have just added my 2cents-worth to that discussion.[30]

V sorry to hear that you are facing such major surgery, but I do hope that it all goes well for you. Several friends have had hip replacemnets, and it was life-changingly good for them. Fingers crossed that yours is as positive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not slow at all. Thanks very much for the input and the good wishes. I'm not bothered about the replacement (routine) but the grafts are an issue because of the amount of dead bone. Should be out in three or four days but am likely to be even more doped-up than usual. That and 12 weeks of boredom might spell trouble - it's a pretty lethal combination for someone who edits here. I shall try to be careful. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: painkillers are fun. I did a prolonged morphine trip earlier in the year, after a broken shoulder, and it was lovely.<grin>
Anyway, doped up and bored? Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a mass of routine categorisation, of the sort that is too repetitive to be tolerable without drugs.</dont-let-editors-escape-work-just-cos-they-are-ill-slavedriver-on-the-loose> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And I've been on a daily 8 - 12 Tramadol for 13 years now, so I'll need a big morphine hit. See you in a few days. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boston Board of Aldermen members

Hi there, I noticed that you closed the discussion on the Category:Boston Board of Aldermen members. However, I feel that was a hasty close. Only two people had specifically !voted and a discussion on the topic had only just begun. I am requesting that you re-open it so that a proper discussion on the merits of the category can occur.--TM 10:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nambia/TM

I am surprised that you missed the instruction in my edit notice to "Please help me to locate what you are referring to, by including links and diffs in your message".

Anyway, I presume that you are referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 16#Category:Boston_Board_of_Aldermen_members. That discussion had been open for the full 7 days, which is when they are usually closed. Three other editors had participated in the discussion, none of whom supported your proposal or were persuaded by your rationale.

Sometimes that's the way it goes. It may still seem to you to be a good idea, and you are quite entitled to that view, but on this occasion you have not persuaded anyone else. C'est la vie.

Best wishes, -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only two other editors commented and only one made a formal vote. That is not consensus. Likewise, I had just posted a information to help inform others on the topic and less than six hours later you closed the discussion. I'm not upset that it is being kept; I am upset that you closed the discussion just as an actual discussion was beginning to start.--TM 11:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nambia/TM, your nomination was based on the assertion that this is a distinction without a difference. Some editors chose to !vote, others just to comment, but they are unanimous that the distinction notes a significant difference. Your central proposition is rejected.

I really don't see how your final comment addresses that issue ... but to avoid any doubt, I will relist the discussion and leave it open for another week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 25#Category:Boston_Board_of_Aldermen_members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category of Members of the Bundestag

Hello, all interwiki-links which I have removed, are at Wikidata. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Färber (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Färber (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks, Färber

I see you have done it for Category:Members of the Bundestag by state and all its sub-categories. That's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland has been nominated for discussion

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. PanchoS (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/23/schedule/1

[2] ttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/constituencies/s

[3] ttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/constituencies/s

[1]

[2]

[3]