User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:03, 6 March 2010

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

James Duckworth

I have had a look in the Times newspaper archive and Who was Who but there is not anything new there which is not covered in your article. I did make a couple of minor grammar changes.

The odd thing is that in your article you have a source which indicates Duckworth had a wife and son in 1862. However according to Who was Who, Duckworth did not marry until 1882. His wife's name is given as Emma Matilda Jully. Who was Who also has an entry for Duckworth's son also called James but his dob is given as 1869. He contested Bury as a Liberal in 1923 and 1924. I suppose the relationship could have been common law and James junior born out of wedlock with the parents legitimising things by marrying in 1882 but it's speculation and I do not want to add information to the article which appears to contradict the existing content. Does your source say anything about the marriage?

Graham

Edward John Hutchins MP

Edward John Hutchins MP for Penryn & Falmouth and for Lymington needs succession boxes. Can you help, please? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Vernon! I parked this as a do-it-later job, and only gone round to it now, but I see that Choess has already done it, and done a fine job as ever.

Thanks again for asking me, and sorry for my tardiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loughinisland massacre

Do you mind explaining why you reverted "Loughinisland massacre" back to "The Troubles in Loughinisland"? The article is (and has always been) solely about the massacre and the aftermath of it. No other incidents are mentioned.
I had proposed (on the talk page) ten days ago that the page be moved, and nobody had replied. You reverted the move without leaving any comment on the talk page or even changing the introduction. ~Asarlaí 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. In a quick scan, I saw the sections headed by subsequent years, and sloppily assumed w/o checking that they referred to later events. I'll move it back. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I've always had you down as a fairly even-handed admin, so it did seem out-of-the-ordinary. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. ~Asarlaí 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for being so calm and polite in the face of my stupid and inadequately-explained move! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox template

Hi BHG,

I was hoping you could comment to my response to HK about a combined UK-Ireland infobox. They're touchy issues (as well as practical ones) involved, I know, but from a WikiProject Ireland do you think it is worthwhile at all? Do you think it has any hope of passing with editors on "our" side of the Irish sea? (If no, I'm not going to send much time on it.)

(As an asside, I've been thinking about requesting adminship again (some time, not any time very soon). You opposed me last time - for well stated reasons - so I wondered if anything had changed.)

-- RA (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RA, I have replied at Template talk:Infobox_Place_Ireland#Proposal_to_create_a_unified_UK_and_Ireland_info_box on that issue.

I hadn't realised that you used to be Sony-youth! Long time ago, that was.

Anyway, I think that in principle I'd be very happy to support you in an RFA, I you choose to look for a mop. You seem in general to be a thoughtful, constructive, level-headed editor with a good eye for trying to solve problems, and those seem to me to be excellent attributes for an admin. The fact that you made one error of judgement over 2 years ago is at worst water-under-the-bridge, but actually I think it has become quite a positive recommendation, because I was impressed by the mature way you accepted the criticism at RFA of that action and have striven to avoid that sort of error since. I say in principle as a slight qualification because I haven't scrutinised your editing carefully enough to say hand-on-heart that you haven't screwed-up since so I can't give a cast-iron guarantee of support, but unless there is something serious and unresolved which I have missed, then I'd say that an RFA for you should be uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments above. I'm quite flattered by them. I've replied to your post on the template page and am going to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. -- RA (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Wetton, Staffordshire

Something strange going on here.--March of the Titans (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Vandalism reverted, page semi-protected for 14 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply requested

Please see here and comment if you have anything to add. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I have replied at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_23#Category:FWBO_Buddhists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Is it worth doing anything about the contributions of User:Arog and User:Arog? I just revert his spam link. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, that's the same username twice. It seems that Arog inserted the same link twice, and although it does look like an inappropriate link, two insertions of it doesn't look to me like spamming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being a stamp dealer and adding his own blog seems like spam to me. His older edits don't seem to be spam at all but all seem to be unsourced. I have a low tolerance level so 3 times from one account and 5 from the other seem rather spamesque to me. I'll just keep reverting unless it gets out of hand. ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see two accounts, so I dunno where you get those figures from.

But I agree that an editor adding their own blog is out-of-order, and adding it from two accounts (if that's what is happening) is sockpuppetry. But I need some evidence of this afore I can do anything: evidence of the two accounts, evidence it's his blog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! User:Arog and User:ARog. ww2censor (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the two accounts. Any evidence it's Arog's blog? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This profile http://www.blogger.com/profile/18048006766510456234 is linked from http://www.stampselector.com, the link he placed in philatelic articles; seem like a DUCK to me. ww2censor (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Feathers and wings, but not yet a duck. One piece of the jigsaw needed before we have a pure-bred Mallard: do we have any evidence that ARog/Arog is the Alex whose profile is at http://www.blogger.com/profile/18048006766510456234 ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more evidence to offer other than the feeling and his username starting with A and being Alex from Rockville which is not conclusive, so maybe we just have a seagull. ww2censor (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I think, though, that there is enough for here for at least a bit of a reproach, albeit not for a full trouting. I'll post something in the morning. Thanks for doing all the spade-work! --02:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This must be the same guy: The Stamp Specialist, Alex Rogolsky, 6301 Poindexter Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 found at http://www.askphil.org/b37.asp even though it does not link back to the link he added. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Please assist Considering your input here and here, do you think that virtually every subcategory of Category:Films_by_studio should be renamed (as they almost all contain the construction "X Films films")? And to what should they be changed? If you and any other users at CfD give support for this, I would nominate them for renaming. Please respond on either my talk or at those CfDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For tireless work on categories by century clean up, here in the 21st. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shawn! That's very kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regarding 2010 general election page

Is a page like 2010 general election required? (worthy to be in wikipedia?) Wikipedia donot seem to have articles on general election prefixed with any preceding years. Arjun ⁰²⁴ 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article. It's a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micheál Martin

Hi, in relation to that it is cited further down the article. --can dle •wicke 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I spotted that afterwards. But the claim in the article is much broader than that in the rather confused source. Micheál Martin was not the "1st western govt official to visit Gaza"; he was "1st western prime minister or foreign minister to visit Gaza since Hamas took power in 2007". That's a rather difft matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, rather confusing indeed, well done on spotting it. I was trying to improve the article as much as possible in case it appears on the Main Page (ITN) and he's a Foreign Minister so he probably deserves an article with more citations anyway. Thanks for helping. :) --can dle •wicke 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'm a politics addict, and remembered David Mellor getting into a bit of a row when he went to Gaza in the 1990s, as a junior UK foreign office minister, so I knew it wasn't as claimed. Plus it was odd describing him as a "govt official", because official" is a term normally used for civil servants rather than ministers.

Anyway, good work beefing up the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps part deux

He's back again, right on March 1st, nothing has changed except for his obsession to play with the wiki. Actually not true, he's apparently getting in trouble moving around articles (can't someone direct him to PopCap Games?). Auntie E. (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at the ANI discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childish reverts

Why do you insist on reverting legitimate recategorising. All are you doing is demonstrating is that you clearly no nothing about Irish football. Your reverting of my edits proves this. Your arrogance astounds me. Stop being so childish. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User talk:Djln#Childish_reverts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ruby Muhammad

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ruby Muhammad. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Muhammad. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Settlement categories

Hi. I don't see any consensus. One person supported. WP:Brazil or WP:Cities were not even consulted it would seem. The reason I object is because very few other countries are categorized as "Settlements". If you broswe by city you'll see what the general standard is and by renaming the Brazilian places settlements they can no longer be accessed from browsing cities by country. I purposefully deleted the Cities in Brazil, Towns in Brazil etc cats too as the ordering was a huge mess before I took the time to organize them by state. Either we keep them as Settlements and change every other category naming system by country on wikipedia to conform with the Brazilian naming or I recommend that the category change is reconsidered and placed back to how it was before. I strive hard for consistency on wikipedia, and just because one editor supports the move that is not consensus. The Brazilian naming system is now contrary to 98% of all other countries on wikipedia. This is not good. I agree the naming is simpler but if we must move all the Brazilian categories I strongly recommend we do it by country and remove any city/town/village cats to avoid confusion. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Umm, it looks you missed the prominent notice above the edit box, asking "Please make it easy for me to locate what you are referring to, by including links in your message". Any chance of some links to the categories or the discussions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2#Settlements in Brazil. The Cities, towns and villages cats were replaced by Settlements in. This against the standard naming convention... And if you click settlements by country you'll see most of them are sub catted as Cities, towns and villages in.. Either we overhaul the entire system and remove any category which has a city, town or village name in it, and replace every country as Settlements in ... or we restore the Brazilian cats to what they were for consistency sake. Do you follow? ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the link. I have been doing some reading and some thinking, and will reply properly later today. Sorry that this is just a holding message, but I think this needs more than a one-line reply, and since I have a few other things to do and don't want you to think I am ignoring you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

OK, here we go, and sorry for the belated reply.

First thing is the CfD discussion. Yes, there was only the nominator and one other !voter, but that in itself is not evidence of inadequate participation. I would much prefer that all XFDs included notification of relevant wikiprojects and/or WP:DELSORT, but there has not been a consensus to require this.

Many CFD nominations are uncontroversial, and are nodded through like this with limited scrutiny: the general principle is that silence equals assent. I would much prefer greater participation in CFD discussions, but we can't conscript editors. When I closed that CFD after 7 days, it appeared to be one of those under-attended, but uncontroversial nominations ...however since now that turns out not to be the case, then I would support an editor who opens a new CFD with a proposal to move them back; there is a general principle that a consensus decision should be revisited for a few months, but in a case like this where the consensus is weak or involves only a few editors, a re-run is acceptable. If you want to do this, please let me know and I will do the work.

I had no opinion on the substance of this when I closed the CFD, but since your message I have done a little reading and have a few thoughts, for what they are worth.

The United States is a federal state like Brazil, so it probably represents a good comparator. If you look in Category:Settlements in the United States, you'll see Category:Settlements in the United States by state, each of which contains a standard set of sub-categories. E.g. Category:Settlements in Maine contains Category:Municipalities in Maine, which includes Category:Cities in Maine and Category:Towns in Maine.

The cities are all grouped in various ways under Category:Cities in the United States, which is in Category:Cities by country. This seems to me to a better solutions than putting "cities towns and villages" in Category:Cities by country, because towns and villages are not cities. In the case of Brazil there is already a Category:Cities in Brazil, which had not been included in Category:Cities by country, so I added it. I think this answers one of your concerns.

However, those are just my thoughts now, after the fact. As I noted above, I think you are entitled to re-open the CFD if you want to, and if you want the discussion but don't want the hassle of setting it up, I am happy to do that for if you wish. Just let me know, and I'll do it as a bare listing: you can add whatever rationale you like.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not disputing that you'd like to have more people in discussions. I know the problem with TFD turnouts. You can quitely delete many redundant templates but somebody will always protest against one of them and it may oftne be unexpected. The reason why I perfer to put cities, towns and village in the same category is because there is often grtey terriroty over what consistutes a city, a towns a village or hamlet. Annoyingly I've seen many tiny villages in places in Africa categorized as cities. This is why I have been reorganizing them as one. I'd be very happy to merge all the remaining ones such as Philippines, United States, UK etc into the most commons naming but people unfortunately object to it. I just don't know why you picked Brazil specifically.. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a crucial point: it was not me who "picked Brazil". I just closed a discussion opened by someone else.

However, I am a little puzzled by what you say that you have been reorganising cities towns and villages into the one category. Where are the CFD discussions where there was consensus to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for interjecting myself here, but comments have been made on my talk page too, and it's probably easier to have a centralised discussion regarding this. I'm a little bit confused: isn't "settlements" just as expansive in meaning as "cities, towns and villages"? If so, nothing has really changed via the CFD, except the name of the categories. The categories can still house cities, towns, and villages, because they are all settlements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Which is why I thought now might be a good time to suggests renaming all of the Cities, towns and villages categories as Settlements in..... I don't strongly object either way, I would just rather category naming was consistent, that's all.. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Explorer, I have done some checking on your comment that you have been reorganising cities towns and villages into the one category, and have left a questions for you at User talk:Himalayan_Explorer#Consensus_for_these_category_moves.3F. I would appreciate a reply there. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Stupidity

You added Category:Diseases with no known cure to our article Stupidity. I don't know if you did this just to make a joke, or to prove a point, but in either case this is not constructive and unbecoming of an administrator. --Lambiam 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joke. The category will be gone in a few days anyway.

And don't forget that you have a "Barnstar of Good Humor" on your user page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with User:Lambiam, editing an encyclopaedia is a serious business, there is no room for fun, japery, frivolity and witticisms here. This is wikipedia, please use the Vogons, as your role model! ;-) Snappy (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Democrats

Hi BHG, the Progressive Democrats article has been moved to Progressive Democrats (Republic of Ireland). It probably needs disambiguating, see Progressive Democratic Party, but as per other Irish parties, Labour Party (Ireland), Socialist Party (Ireland) and the constitutional name of the country, can you move it to Progressive Democrats (Ireland)? Tx, Snappy (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Snappy (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

BrownHairedGirl: First, I apologize for having used the word antisemitism; that was a big mistake on my part. Second, objectively I think it was a mistake to create the category; and defend the permanence of the category another mistake. For my part I conclude the matter and I devote myself to other subjects. For me you can delete the category when you want. Many greetings and again:
I apologize.
(This is a copy of the text placed on the page for the discussion for delete.) Jgarpal (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgarpal, thanks for the apology. We'll forget that episode happened :)

And don't worry too much about creating the category. I'm sure you did so in good faith, without knowing that this sort of category tends to be deleted, and it's all being sorted out at the CFD discussion. Count it all as a learning exercise!

Good luck with your editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Redirect mistake

I was trying to move A.C. St. Louis and its corresponding current season page to AC St. Louis,the general spelling consensus of the club but it seems i have just made a mess, i realized i lost all the history of the the previous pages the aforementioned and of 2010 A.C. St. Louis season on the move to to 2010 AC St. Louis season... plz help it would be greatly appreciated can u reply on my talk page Dylant2011 08:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant2011 (talk • contribs)

Looks like you did a cut-and-paste move, rather than following the instructions at WP:MOVE#How_to_move_a_page. Please leave the articles alone for a few minutes and I'll sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much,I really appreciate it i was also wondering how to sign at the end of my posts becuase when i leave the 4 tildas it never appears the link to my pages as suchDylant2011 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant2011 (talk • contribs)

Hi Dylan

It's all sorted out now. However, after I had done it I noticed that there is a bit of confusion here. The lead section of AC St. Louis says "Athletic Club of St. Louis, commonly referred to as A.C. St. Louis, but the article is now at AC St. Louis ... and the category is Category:AC St. Louis. You may want to correct the text of the article.

Also, I note that the article was moved last month from AC St. Louis to A.C. St. Louis, and I have just helped you move it back. I'm not sure which is the right place, but for future reference it's worth noting that in cases like this where there appears to be some disagreement, it's best to seek consensus by opening a requested move discussion: see WP:RM for details of how to that.

I am not sure what's happening with your sig. Have you changed the settings in your preferences? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt realize that it was originally at the other, but my reason for going with the one without periods is that the teams facebook page and official site never use the periods in their representation of the team's name. i discuss it on the talk page to see if there is any dissent there. I was just trying to make it accurate and i realized i had made a mistake by losing the history of the articles. Ill look into my settings about the signature,But i really appreciate your help, thanks for helping out the less experienced wikipedians bye! Dylant2011 08:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant2011 (talk • contribs)

Stub sorting

Hi, I tried to add a stub sorting renaming request to [1] but only succeeded in deleting yours, and thus have undone the edit. Can you asssit with how I get my request to show up (it can be seen in 'history'). Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/March/6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing that. I just edited the date now. Not exactly a user-friendly process though, in my opinion. Would welcome any feedback you have as to whether what I am suggesting is reasonable, as I am aware the extra comma is a bit messy, but am keen not to imply nationality directly. Eldumpo (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Thanks for fixing the date.

You're right, it's a messy process, and it did my head in when I did it yesterday, so I knew it was much easier to fix this for you than to try explaining how to do it! AFD and CFD are much neater, but I guess that's because they are so much more heavily used that more editors have felt inclined to sort out the process.

I don't think I have any comment on the substance, but I'll take a look and see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to raise an issue at WP:AN, then's it's not a good idea to start off by WP:CANVASSing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:01, 6 March 2010 view source BrownHairedGirl (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 2,942,733 edits →Stub sorting: thanks for the fix ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:03, 6 March 2010 view source BrownHairedGirl (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 2,942,733 edits →Request to WP:AN: If you want to raise an issue at WP:AN, then's it's not a good idea to start off by WP:CANVASSing Next edit →
Line 225:		Line 225:

	Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". [[User:Logic Historian\|Logic Historian]] ([[User talk:Logic Historian\|talk]]) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)		Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". [[User:Logic Historian\|Logic Historian]] ([[User talk:Logic Historian\|talk]]) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
			:If you want to raise an issue at [[WP:AN]], then's it's not a good idea to start off by [[WP:CANVASS]]ing. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl\|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl\|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl\|contribs]])</small> 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)