User talk:BrownHairedGirl

; Archives
	August 2006 – August 2006; ; ;

00:20 Thursday 17 October 2024

Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl)

Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else

If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:

sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)

Wikipedia Admin

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my request for adminship in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have administrator powers on Wikipedia. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

I regard admin powers as a privelige to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why ... and I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

Republican and Democrat

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

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

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

Thanks, Billy Hathorn

most of your articles are uncategorised

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

Thanks, Billy Hathorn

Republican

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

Thanks, BH

Your recent page move

Hi, I noticed you move something with the abbreviation Sr to Snr. I have never seen senior abbreviated any other way than Sr. Regards,--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I think that there is a difference in usage here depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. The article in question is about an Irish politician (Mark Killilea, Snr), and the normal usage in Ireland is Snr. For an illustration of this, compare these two Google searches of the website of an Irish newspaper group: search unison.ie for snr, 1680 hits or search unison.ie for sr, 2700 hits but all about nuns. --BrownHairedGirl 09:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sr in Englaand, Scotland, USA and Canada. - Kittybrewster 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source for that? (Though do remember that the articles concerned are about Ireland, not the UK) --BrownHairedGirl 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cathcart Wason

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

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

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

And at his sister-in-law's uncle, Monier Monier-Williams.

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

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

I do not want to tempt the reader to stereotype me

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

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

Which party ?

I can see by your edits you are good at politics but which party do you support Dar777 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer live in Ireland, so I no longer have a vote and don't have to chose which party to support. But if it came to an election in Ireland, I'd vote the same way as I vote in England: with a heavy heart. I don't support any particular party. --BrownHairedGirl 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Irish can vote in Irish and English elections when they live in England? - Kittybrewster 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish citizens resifent in the UK can vote in the UK, and vice versa. However, Ireland has no system for Irish citizens overseas to vote in Ireland, unlike the UK, which does allow expats to vote in UK elections. --BrownHairedGirl 11:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a solution on the Bowlby page conflict

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

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

Please desist

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

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

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

You raise a good point: as a compromise, I will restore to the articles in question the category "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish Constituencies", while leaving in place the sub-category which you have created.

However, your point about destroying a valid category is surprising. You have set about a single-handed mission to sub-divide ad-infinitum the Category:British MPs, without making any contribution to the discussion on that category's talk pages. I myself made a proposal back in March for a reorganisation of that category (without reaching any consensus), but you have made no contribution to that or any subsequent discussion on the issue. Instead, you have set unilaterally out to sub-divide the members of the UK Parliament, into up to three layers of sub-categories.

Please desist from these changes, and accept the reinstatement of the catch-all categories unless and until you find a consensus for change.

--BrownHairedGirl 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

By dividing a category and removing an article from the parent category, you may dilute its usefulness. As you would be aware if you had participated in the discussion on Category:British MPs, there is considerable support for retaining a category which includes on one level all those who are members of the UK parliament, and I can see no support for your unilateral process of sub-division, let alone a consensus for it.

I am aware of the discussions elsewhere about whether the UK is a country or nation or both or neither (and my own views on that are irrelevant here), but at no point have I seen any suggestion that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not one parliament.

In my view, this question would not arise if wikipedia had a function to list "all articles in this category and its subcategories": if it did, I would have no hesitation in supporting your sub-categorisation. Sadly, there is no such facility, so the only way of retaining the "list all" feature is by retaining the classification in the parent category.

Note that keeping articles in parent categories is not ruled out in the guidelines: WP:SUBCAT sets out some of the situations where this is appropriate, noting that "The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find article". If you disagree that duplication makes it easier to find an MP, come and argue your case, but don't just unilaterally subdivide.

I would urge you to promptly start discussing these changes on Category talk:British MPs, and to seek a consensus for your actions. If you don't, then I will continue to restore the vandalised parent categories, and will seek admin involvement if you persist in reverting.

I am not going to discuss this issue further here. This discussion belongs in category talkspace, and Category talk:British MPs seems most appropriate since that is the category which is being subdivided.

--BrownHairedGirl 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK MP categorisation bot?

Are you using a bot to categorise UK MPs because I noticed this edit?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, yes I'm using AWB to fix the indexing for those MPs who have been classified under Category:Current British MPs. Unfortunately, User:Drinibot, who inserted the category entries to replace a defunct template added by User:Philip Stevens, indexed the entries incorrectly by just using the article name, in the form [[Category:Current British MPs|John Smith (politician)]] rather than [[Category:Current British MPs|Smith, John]].

I have been using AWB to fix this, but the regex I have been using is too crude to correctly fix names like "Betty Helena Williams". As required when using AWB, I review each edit before saving, and manually fix entries which the regex can't handle properly ... but unfortunately I missed that one. Thanks very much for spotting the glitch and fixing it. --BrownHairedGirl 06:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you have tried replacing "[[Category:Current British MPs|%%title%%]]" with "[[Category:Current British MPs|%%key%%]]"? as these keywords represent the title and the human category key. I assumed you were, but then that wouldn't suffer the error pointed out above I think. Martin 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thank you very much for that tip. I wasn't aware of any specific wiki syntax for use with AWB, and although I had finished the job by the time I read your message, I just tested it on a no-save dummy run, and was delighted to see how much work it would have saved me! Do you know if there is a list anywhere of such tricks for use with AWB? --BrownHairedGirl 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Tips_and_tricks lists a few things, but they are the only 2 keywords I have implemented so far, I can implement more on request though. Martin 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm....

Please desist from mucking about with my comments at CFD. If you persist then I will alert ANI. --Mais oui! 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from disrupting a CFD by adding nominations for extraneous categories. You may of course noninate them separately if you so choose, and I have aleday indicated that I would support some of them, but they do not belong as part of this CFD. If you would like to involve an admin please do so -- I was thinking of doing the same thing myself. Please also desist from ad hominem comments such as "bare-faced cheek": it would be be much better to keep this civil. --BrownHairedGirl 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your presentation of the different levels of categorisation is totally and utterly false: the Dublin, Belfast, Cumbria, Galway and Reading cats are all at exactly the same level as all the Scottish cats. You are behaving in a disgraceful manner, and let me assure you that "bare-faced cheek" is the mildest way I could possibly express my disgust with your behaviour. --Mais oui! 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: you are correct that those cities are at the same level (I had misread your nomination). However, that was one of only three points I made in relation to to the distinction, the others being those of dual classification and parent categories. I would also add a fourth distinction, which is that there may be further issues arising for the Irish categories, because of the changes in 1918-22, which have made discussion of Irish constituencies a very complicated matter. I am not saying that these other categories should not be discussed, simply that they should be discussed separately. Why can't we just agree to discuss them separately, and see if what issues arise?

It's clear that we are bringing very different approaches to this issue, and I remain disappointed that you peesist in using words like "disgraceful". Please, please, please could we discuss one thing at a time and so in a civil manner? --BrownHairedGirl 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw your deceitful statement: "first-level sub-cats of British MPs". You are being very rich in talking about "civil manner". Your whole conduct over the last day or so has fallen far short of civil or honourable. Picking out the Scottish cats only is highly discriminate, and I demand a full and proper explanation for why you seek to destroy only the Scottish categories. --Mais oui! 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Mais oui, please calm down. I have indeed withdrawn the "first-level sub-cats of British MPs": but please could you try to accept that as an honest mistake rather than trying to label it as "deceit"? (see WP:AGF)

The reason I selected the Scottish sub-categories for nomination at this time was simple. I created a lot of articles on Scottish MPs, particularly several on Orkney+Shetland MPs (e.g. Cathcart Wason), and I watch them from time to time. I found that they were no longer categorised in a manner which allowed them to be found through a parliamentary approach to the category system (though your scheme is good for regional discovery). I tried restoring them to a wider category, but you rejected that and the alternative of dual classification, as used e.g. for Ireland and Australia. Therefore the only way to ensure that those MPs could be classified according to a parliamentary logic was to propose upmerging all the sub-cats of the Scottish MPs.

(I am disappointed by this: dual classification still seems to me to be the best way to proceed, as per WP:SUBCAT).

I hope we can agree that it was logical to nominate all the subcats off Scottish MPs together: I think that where we differ is is on the other second-level sub-cats of British MPs. And there I listed three differences, one of which was wrong (as you correctly pointed out), and to which I added one more. I have listed themn all on the CFM page, so I won't repeat them here, but there is no "singling-out" of Scotland: I am happy to apply the same principle to all of them, but there is a different approach to dual classification in Cumbria and Reading MPs, and I am concerned that the Irish subcats may raise extra tangles. That's why I won't accept them being lumped in with this CFM -- not because I beleive in treating Scotland negatively.

May I ask you again to reconsider your approach to dual classification? So far as I'm concerned, if we agreed on dual classification, I would withdaw the CFM immediately. I know this won't be how you see it, but I feel that those of us who want a parliamentary approach to classification have been pushed into supporting this CFM because you have resisted dual classification. I understand your reasons for that, but I am not alone in seeing this case as one of the legitimate exceptions set out in WP:SUBCAT).

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the sound political principle that "if you are in a hole, stop digging":

"... if we agreed on dual classification, I would withdaw the CFM immediately". Right, I hereby agree that every single article that is in, for example, the Edinburgh MPs cat, should be dual listed in the main Scottish MPs cat (same for Cumbria, Reading, Belfast, Aberdeen etc). Cross my heart and hope to die (and I probably will... of shame at giving in to your dastardly scheme.) signed --Mais oui! 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories (British MPs, etc)

If dual classification were impossible, then I would definately say merge into the upper-level category. However, I don't believe it is impossible, in fact, I think it is encouraged in this circumstance. From Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, Reasons for Duplication:

There are several good reasons for duplication. The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles. This should guide the process for making the decision for or against duplication, and the decision might be different for different categories. It is not essential that there be consistency across all of Wikipedia's categories. It IS important that the duplication make sense for the subject matter. Here are some examples of cases when duplication made sense:

SECONDARY CATEGORIZATION METHODS When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American basketball players should also be left in Category:American basketball players.
Another example of this is Category:Bridges in New York City and Category:Toll bridges in New York City. ALL the toll bridges are listed in both categories. These situations come about when one hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States). In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy. It also makes it easier to see a complete list of the bridges in each location.

The duplication allows the smaller subdivisions to exist while maintaining a complete list in the parent category. When the guidelines are so clear I don't believe one user (Mais oui!) can be allowed to thwart consensus. Mais oui!'s edits regarding articles related to Scotland have been very aggressive (not that I disagree with the majority of them) and unilateral. This would only encourage and enbolden him/her further.--WilliamThweatt 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, thanks for your help in reaching agreement! Dual classoification as above is now implemented for the Scottish constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted some edits you made using AWB, adding politicians to the category for MPs representing Northern Ireland constituencies as they are already listed in the subcategory for MPs representing Belfast constituencies. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi warof dreams, thanks for he message, but I'm disappointed that you did that. Dual classification is not forbidden, and in some cases is positively encouraged (see WP:SUBCAT). There has just been a lengthy discussion of this in a CFM on the equiavlent city-bsed subdivisions of Scottish MPs, which I withdrew when it was agreed that we would reatin the higher classification as well: see Wikipedia:Categories_for deletion#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies. So I have restored those categories.

I know that some people don't use the category system in a way which makes the wider categories necessary, but others find it essential, and after a lot of discussion we reached a compromise on allowing the two systems to remain in parallel to facilitate both needs. Please can you leave the Northern Ireland category in place, and join in the discussion on Category talk:British MPs on how we sort out the categoriation of MPs, which I think most people agree needs a lot more work? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I wasn't aware of this debate when I reverted your changes. I'll take part in the discussion and won't make any further changes until there's a consensus. Warofdreams talk 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Warofdreams. I look forward to your widsom in helping us in the difficult job of unravelling this knot! --BrownHairedGirl 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your place as nominator. Please do not let the intimidation you spoke of have effect. Currently there are 11 users who want the categories to be merged and just 6 against. Please come back and make it more decisive. We can still get rid of these useless cluttersome categories if we keep our spirits up. Athenaeum 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athenaum, thanks for your message. I do appeciate the merits of the argument you and others make, and I accept your right to renominate. However, my main interest here is in building a consensus on a durable and comprehensive classification scheme for MPs, and beacuse there are several different ways in which people want to approach the classiication of something as important as parliament, it seems to me to be inevitable that a consenus will involve all parties accepting the inclusion of some categories which are of little use to them. (I do have concerns about the utility of the regionalised classifications, and of the viability of any regionalisation schemne when applied across two centuries of huge demographic change, but despite the limiations I'm not sure how much harm they do).

I think that the really good outcome so far is the acceptance by User:Mais oui! that there is room for more than one approach, and if you read the thread "mmmm...." on Main oui's talk page, I think that there is evidence of a bit of a change of heart, and a clear acknowledgement that too much aggression has been deployed. Maybe I'm too much of a pavlovian, but I think we all work better if we acknowledge and encurage that movement towards a consensual approach. --BrownHairedGirl 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that the really good outcome so far is the acceptance by User:Mais oui! that there is room for more than one approach". No, no, no!!! I fear that you have totally misunderstood me, probably from several months ago: I have not only "accepted", but have actually been a keen supporter, of a variety of ways of subcategorising the horrendously large jumble that is cat:British MPs!

I never partook in the discussions cos it was clear that several people there hated my guts. (The "hate my guts" impression has not been allayed by the frankly bizarre goings-on at CFD.) I support, and have always supported, categorising 1. by geography, 2. by party and 3. by parliamentary session. What I just cannot stand is the exclusionists who say: "my way is right, and yours is wrong". I really like the geog. system, cos I am tremendously intertested in local issues, and local biography (and not just politicians). You like the by session method: great! Another will be a party kind of guy. Great! We can all have our cake, and eat it! --Mais oui! 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I see your point, and I do understand that the categ system you devised is important for those interested in local issues ... but as per my comments on your talk page, I have some doubts that regionalisation can really be made to work. (I won't stand in the way of it, but I have my doubts!)

I hope though, that you'll bear with me while I say in as friendly a way as possible that your categorisation work has come across as exclusionist. It's been great talking to you, and I'm now quite sure that wasn't your intention, but by splitting Category:British MPs into only one (geographical) dimension, and removing them from the parent category, you took a huge step backwards for those who want to look at parliament as a whole. If that had been implemented in parallel to existing categories, there wouldn't have been such a problem, but the removal of the catch-all category took place before other categories were ready. That's why, when you rejected dual classification, I moved promptly to CFM. Luckily, that's largely history now, but I thonk it's a situation which could have been avoided by discussion before removing articles from the catch-all category.

There may indeed be some people who hate your guts; there are always some such people around. :( But may I suggest that the difficulties you encounter could be largely avoided if you keep on working on the aggression problem you noted elsewhere, and worked with others towards consensus? I notice a very positive response to your contribution to the discussion on Category talk:British MPs and I'm sure there would be an equally positive response to further contributions in the same spirit. --BrownHairedGirl 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second CFM process has been started at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:British_female_MPs by User:Mais oui!. I guess I don't want this to distract from the bigger process of categorising all MPs, but I have still made my point. It is worth noting that Mais oui! created the Female MPs by nation subcats but I hope this isn't now revenge on his part (it is strange to create subcats of a category you consider discriminatory though). Again, it may be worth pointing CFM readers back to the bigger debate at Category talk:British MPs. Martín (saying/doing) 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha

This made me laugh out loud, thanks. :D -/- Warren 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too serious to be taken solemnly :) --BrownHairedGirl 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm laughing at that too. Viridae ^Talk 10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female life peers

So it seems the British MPs CFD debate won't go away, ho hum. I thought we were getting somewhere. Anyway, I have just noticed that, during another debate, about Category:Female life peers, an editor removed many of them from the parent category Category:Life peers, despite an agreement on the CFD and category pages.

I don't really want to go through them all and wondered if you have an easy AWB method of adding the Life peers cat to all of them. If not I'll just put it on the to do list. Thanks, Martín (saying/doing) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do them with AWB. Just finished now. --BrownHairedGirl 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you change Category:Knights of the Bath to Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath? - Kittybrewster 21:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

"This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know." As a pedant (like me), you will deplore the word "they" in this context; it should be "she". Maybe there should be a userbox-m and a user box-f. - Kittybrewster 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a glitch I'm used to -- it tends to be unavoidable sometimes in non-sexist writing, because there is no gender neutral 3rd person singular pronoun in English. But if you felt like tweaking the userbox, that'd be a good idea! --BrownHairedGirl 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I just started a new game in the Sandbox today, and I was wondering if you could possibly add it to the 4 or 5 existing games already on there [1]. I know it is a locked template, so I can't edit it myself. Thanks! QuizQuick 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may be a bit thick today, but I don't understand what you mean. (I thought that the sandbox was for experimental edits, and that anyone could edit it)

Can you explain more? --BrownHairedGirl 22:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see, on the wikipedia template Wikipedia:Sandbox, it says Sandbox Projects, Hangman, Word Association, Storytelling, etc. at the right. I'm wondering if I could add my game/project to that list as well, but the template is a locked one, so I have no way of adding it on without moderator approval. QuizQuick 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If not, I don't really mind. QuizQuick 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, quickquick, I took a look at it and I'm not sure what to do -- I dunno what the criteria or pricedures are.
I suggest that the best thing to do would be to post a message on your talk page explaining what you want, and put the following line there to attact help:
{{helpme|Add my game to the Sandbox}}
Hope that helps!
NB just copy-and-paste the line as it appears when you read this page, and don't try copying it from the editbox if you reply here. --BrownHairedGirl 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! QuizQuick 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Member of ...

This designation has been the established formulation. Suddenly, without discussion, you have gone around changing things. Your recent edits have been so-called 'tweaks' - not adding value to the Project. Galloglass, with whom I often do not agree, has put enormous effort into the UK parliamentary articles. Because of his input I am happy to go along with his wishes; and so should you. As a new admin you should be setting high standards not causing dissention. Therefore, please:

Undo the edits you have made;
Start a discussion, with reasons, to see if you win broad support for your changes. BlueValour 23:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueValour, I was writing a much longer reply, but suceeded in somehow closing that broweser tab while checking a few things, so I'll have to leave it until tomorrow to reply properly :( In the meantime, I hope you have seen my reply to you on Talk:Harold Wilson.

However, I don't agree that there has been any "established formulation"; there have been several different approaches in use.

I too have put enormous effort into parliamentary articles, and it will be good to talk tob you about how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja kocham w

Ja miłość ty BrownHairedGirl. JA potrzeba wobec zawierać twój miękki dłoń i całować się twój miękko od wargi. JA potrzeba wobec mieć płeć rezygnować ty. 'mikka

Sorry, I don't understand that language. (Is it Polish?) Maybe you can translate it into English. --BrownHairedGirl 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Use this. :) 'mikka

That gadget doesn't do a great translation, but I think that I understand enough to see that my husbands might not approve ;) --BrownHairedGirl 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have more than one? 'mikka 22:16, 1 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.90.130 (talk • contribs) who has a history of impersonating at least one other user

Never more than ten at a time. --BrownHairedGirl 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

Hi, I've seen that you expand succession boxes with the "s-par", "s-reg" ... templates. If you will do that work in future, could you use "s-reg|" instead of "s-hon|" for baronetage and peerage boxes please? The individual abbreviations are listed on [3]. Greetings and Thanks. Phoe 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Phoe. I couldn't tell the difference, so was kinda spliting the difference and using them interchangeably, because the advice I'd found elsewhere was unclear, and I meant to post a message asking which was which. If s-hon is deprecated, could it not be marked as such? --BrownHairedGirl 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Template:S-start/Instructions? "S-hon" is still used, normally for boxes of lord-lieutnants, custos rutolorum, chancellors of a university, presidents of a hospital or grand masters of lodges and similar cases. If it is unclear which template for which box shoul'd be used, look for other people with the same office and box. Here two examples Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton and William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland. Hope I could help you. Phoe 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had read Template:S-start/Instructions, but it didn't really answer any of my questions. Your brief messages have been much much more helpful. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone really should create a list in the next time, which template belongs to which box. If you will start with something like that, let me know. ... I love Eire :-)

P.s. On "S-hon" uk, en ... is unneccasary. Phoe 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s-reg s-hon s-nob

You recently edited James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn and added an s-reg. He is also a baronet of ireland. Please would you add, in respect of that baronetcy so I have an example to copy. - Kittybrewster 10:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kitty, I'm sorry: I haven't really figured out how to do Baronets! --BrownHairedGirl 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Anthony Meyer for an example of Baronets :) Btw BrownHairedGirl sorry if I sounded a bit bolshy over Henry Pelham. Just the graphic designer in me getting too uptight I'm afraid. Usually if things don't look right, then theres a problem, which there was in this case. Cheers Galloglass 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with block of Mais Oui

orginal section title was "I'm afraid I--BrownHairedGirl 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) wish to disagree with that block of Mais Oui", changed to a shorther one to fix formatting around TOC. --BrownHairedGirl 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extraordinarily harsh, especially since some of this stems from your mistake regarding the removal of her ancillary nomination. Whether or not that was a bad faith nom, blocking Mais Oui is against blocking policy as you are in a dispute with her. If you really thought she needed to be blocked for disrupting the page, you should have come to me or one of the other CFD closers. You hopefully know that I'm not a particular fan of her opinions on categorization sometimes (I just supported you last week when you two conflicted), so hopefully this request has some weight with you. Thanks for the consideration. Syrthiss 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sythiss, thanks for the prompt message. Plase bear with me while I reply at more length in the nxt few minutes. --BrownHairedGirl 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(added about the same time...) I've been watching this one from the sidelines today, and I must say I think your overstepping the mark and being a bit OTT. And don't worry I've had a number of run ins with Mais oui in the past... You've now blocked a user which you're currently in a dispute with - do you not think it a better idea to unblock and list at WP:AN/I for another, impartial, admin to use their independent judgement? Consider too that you've not felt the need to leave any of the normal warning templates which normally preceed a ban. Thanks/wangi 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the deprecation of admins doing blocks related to content disputes, but this is a procedural issue. I probably should have left the warning templates, but I trued to exlain instead --my mistake. But this is a bizarre situation -- straightforward edit conflicts are a much easier issue --BrownHairedGirl 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd avoid any blocks where I felt I was personally involved - the distinction between content and project disputes I can't say i've noticed much! But then again, I'm not an admin :) Time for a nice cold drink I think! /wangi 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wangi, you're probably right. I'm off the fridge now : --BrownHairedGirl 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Mais oui

Two admins who I respect say I have done the wromng thing, so I'll unblock pronto. But please, some help somwhow to stop a valid CFM from being sabotaged :( --BrownHairedGirl 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll take a look deeper now. Thanks BrownHairedGirl. :) Syrthiss 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, would you two mind if I combined the two discussions on the CFD page and made my own comment about it? I'll make sure that the links all point to the correct discussion etc etc. Is that reasonable? Syrthiss 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Syrthiss. It seems like a strange sort of procedure, but if it gets us out of this mess, it's worth a try. I still feel upset that I should have had to waste to so much time on a simple CFM, because of MO's revenge CFM, but if this offers a way out, it's better than today's mess. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British female MPs category for discussion err discussion

Hi there. As someone who had commented earlier today at CFD for British female MPs, I wanted to inform you that there was a later nomination in the day regarding the same related categories and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to view the newly refactored discussion. Both original nominations and their discussions are preserved. We can try to sort out the best decision regarding these categories if you choose not to clarify, but I'd appreciate it if you could. Thanks very much for your understanding. Syrthiss 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui!

Hi BHG! I unblocked and reblocked MO with a shorter block because I felt the original block was too harsh, so, yes, I did disagree with you. I wasn't, however, wheelwarring with you, although I apologise that it very much looked like that (embarassingly, my mum rang immediately after and I didn't get chance to write to you :oO). I'm very sorry for this.

MO needed a cool-off block for edit warring, but I felt that a week was a long time to cool off. Blocks are, of course, not used for punishment, they are only used to allow an editor to cool off, reflect, calm down, understand etc. The arguments that MO put on her/his talk page suggested that the lesson was learnt and therefore a continued block of an otherwise good editor with a productive editing record was counterproductive.

The length of a block, I always feel, should be proportional to the editing record of the editor in question. Thus an otherwise good editor who makes a bad mistake should have a block that is small, whilst a new editor who leaps in and maliciously disrupts Wikipedia and destroys the work of others should be blocked for a long time to make them understand. As I say, blocks are not punitive, they're simply ways of reminding editors of our standards.

So, yes, I thought your block length was excessive; yes, I was wrong not to contact you immediately after shortening it; no, I didn't disagree with your reasoning; and yes you can always undo any admin action of mine. In fact, the latter is most important: I am not infallible by any stretch of the imagination and therefore any editor should and must consider my actions to be undo-able and correctable. I make mistakes and rely on others to unmake them for me. That's the great thing about a Wiki! ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redvers -- I didn't at all think that you were wheelwarring, and I do understand about life getting in the way! I knew the block I had put on was probably OTT, which was why I was glad someone else had stepped in ... but I was just a little confused about what had happened, that's all. Thanks for correcting my mistake. It's been another unpleasant episode for me, and I'm still learning my way through through some points of admin etiquette in dealing with these things, so I'm v pleased you stepped in. Thamks again! --BrownHairedGirl 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resilient Barnstar

A Barnstar!

The Resilient Barnstar

For coping with the edits of others and the occasional mistake of your own with good grace. Martín (saying/doing) 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that you've had a hard time recently, but you've tried to cope with the edits of others and the occasional mistake of your own with good grace. So to let you know that your work is appreciated, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar, to do with as you will... The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. Martín (saying/doing) 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re my talk page re female MPs cfd

If I can ask your indulgence for a little more time, I want to see if anyone else comes in from the people I contacted and refactors their comments to the new discussion. All Cactus.man did was move comments with timestamps after my refactoring comment to the top under my comment (which is what I had requested anyhow). With three calls to close it, I agree that its probably a no consensus close at the moment but I still have some hope that it can live a full life. :) Syrthiss 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (copied from my talk page, please reply there so we can keep the conversation tidy)[reply]

Bleh, my apologies. I hadn't read your proposal properly when refactoring, so I've modified my statement at the top to reflect your original intent. Is that better? Syrthiss 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Balniel

At the time he was an MP, Robert Lindsay was known as Lord Balniel as a courtesy title (in the peerage of Scotland). He wasn't a peer, so was entitled to sit in the Commons. He was then given a life peerage as Baron Balniel, so moved to the Lords. Eventually he inherited the Earldom from his father. He's still in the Lords now by virtue of his life peerage.

The question is, did he go by the name Lord Balniel when he was an MP? Seeing as he's a Tory, he probably did. I've reverted the changes to Baroness Hayman and Welwyn Hatfield, unless you can find a reference to him using a different name. JRawle (Talk) 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. First, thing, I'm sorry: I should have checked before changing the links. Having googled, I find 33 ghits for "Lord Balniel MP" and none for "Robert Lindsay MP", so Lord B it is.

However, I would be surprised if he was known as "Lord Balniel" in the chamber, but wikipedia is not in the chamber, so that doesn't count, whatever a Hansard search might throw up.

(Yes, I know he'd be referred to in the chamber primarily as the "member for X", but that is often suffixed with the name as in "the hon member for X, Mr Smith") --BrownHairedGirl 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, his hereditary titles are in the Peerage of Scotland. This throws the question of what succession box heading should be used for "Order of Precedence". Perhaps we need something new. I've just sorted the current ones out by adding them to Category:Succession templates, and I saw your message about S-hon. I don't think this is normally used for peerages, so I've been bold and removed them from that template. I think it's used for society presidents, chancellors, etc. (at least that's how I've always seen it used). JRawle (Talk) 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done removing the misleading bits from s-hon -- a long overdue job.

I have also proposed on to change the Nova Scotia baronetcies tag on s-reg: see Template_talk:S-start#Nova_Scotia. --BrownHairedGirl 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again :-) You've got an answer on Template_talk:S-start#Nova_Scotia. Perhaps you should read Baronetage of Nova Scotia. Greetings Phoe 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Phoe! You're right: my idea was unnecessary. Thanks for the quick response! --BrownHairedGirl 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Winterton

You're no fun! Fancy a wager that the story will break before Parliament reconvenes? Catchpole 21:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't bet :) The allegation will need a bit more substance before it becomes encylopedic. And while making fun of politicos is good, wikipedia is not the place to do it. --BrownHairedGirl 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of Time AfD

The situation is apparently more complicated than I thought. See my latest remark on the AfD page. JoshuaZ 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Llewelyn

Try Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Incorrect date formats. And also, for consistency with pretty much every other biographical article you will ever see. Jdcooper 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of which the opening words are: "Do not use numbers to express a month, except in ISO 8601 format" (my italics). See ISO 8601: that's what I was using. Turn on date preferences and they will appear however you like to see them.

You may dislike ISO8601 dates, but they are not a breach of the MoS. And the format you used had unlinked years - I can't see anything in the MoS to require that. --BrownHairedGirl 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an oversight, sorry about that. Whether I dislike ISO8601 dates or not, apparently the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not like them, since (as someone previously unaware of date preferences, therefore seeing date au naturel I barely ever see them). But fine, never mind, I will hunt down these date preferences, happy editing. Jdcooper 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no prob! I started using ISO 8601 in the last few days mostly out of laziness; I used to dislike, but have come to see them as a usefulenergy saver, but maybe that' cos I used to do dates in a very pedantic way: 17 Feb 1066 – 45 Jan 1688, which takes a lot of typing. But now that you have prompted me to re-read the MoS, I see I shouldn't have been truncating the months :( --BrownHairedGirl 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I curse my lack of technical ability; i found the date preference section, and changed it, but then it said something about "by-passing my cache" (sounds painful) and i found myself following meaningless (to me) instructions, and now everything is... the same. I can handle seeing dates in offensive (to me) formats, but I cannot handle being harshly exposed to my technical ineptitude :( any tips? Jdcooper 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets

Well done. It looks good. But it needs to be added to [[4]] - Kittybrewster 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kitty, now done. While I was at it, I added a column for extinction too, 'cos Rayment lists a lot of extinct titles. --BrownHairedGirl 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove the column, because Baronetage of the United Kingdom is only for existent, dormant of abeyant baronetcies. The whole list is under List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, including all these baronetcies, which became extinct. Thanks Phoe 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Sorry. There are so many baronetcies missing - as shown here - Kittybrewster 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Kitty, you were not to know Mellor was extinct. It should all be sorted now. --BrownHairedGirl 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish constituencies

Hi, I've been working on the Irish constituencies. I've updated all the Irish House of Commons, Patriot Parliament to the XX (Parliament of Ireland constituency) pattern. I've also done constituencies A-E on the List of Irish constituencies page.

As I made a number of moves, is it possible to have double direct names changed automatically. I think I've noticed you using these "bots" elsewhere. The names I've moved are:

That's what I changed under "E". I expect to move more beginning with West, North, and South.--Damac 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's a good idea:

It creates a huge jumble of redirects
The names used were actually of the form "East Mayo" etc. Categ sort can be done easily enough by indexing, so I'm not sure I see much gain from these moves. Would you mind if I rolled them back?

I know that'll be a bit frustrating for you, but having started to do one change, I found that it created a huge tangle. --BrownHairedGirl 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs rolling them back. Is there an easy way though of categorising them under the correct letter (i.e. "M" for East Mayo) without having to edit each seperate article?--Damac 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see East Wicklow ... categories - Kittybrewster 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kity is right on how to edit the page, but and I'm afraid there is no way out of manually editing each page. But it's not so hard if you use Firefox with the OPen Link In extension, or Opera (which does that same thing out of the box). What I'd do is this, the easiest way I know of:

open a new browser window (not a tab, a window),
open up the category page
then run down the list doing Ctl-click on each article to open it in a new tab. Do about 15 at a time
then run across the tabs pressing the edit button on each one
then edit the one in font of me, preview it, and close ... and then the nxt one coms to the top.

Sounds a bit complex, but doing that batch of fifteen would usually take me about five minutes in all. --BrownHairedGirl 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]