User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 004

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

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

Halifax constituency

Is it a good idea to reverse the order we've used elsewhere and give the oldest ones 1st and the newest last, when on every other page we do it the other way around?

Not saying its a bad idea, just it means a lot of work revising the other pages. Galloglass 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brownhairedgirl. I see that you've done Rhondda West with the Older results uppermost on the page as well. Would it not be better to discuss such a major change first before carrying on? Thanks. Galloglass 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it would be! Had meant to get back to you. Hopefully tomorrow, but maybe not until monday. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What would help?

You said on one of the delete categories it would help if I were less prolific... What would help? Some of you would stop being so agressive in nominating my categories for deletion?!? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Pastorwayne 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reginald Sorensen, Baron Sorensen

I've removed Rev from the first para inline as it seems implied if not explicit that the MoS is against including that both from the article and the talk page. This matches other broadly similar religious figures vide Rowan_Williams or George_Leonard_Carey Just in case you have created or see any others. Alci12 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:MOSBIO doesn't seem to come close to giving guidance, which is a pity. But I have no doubt that it's in keeping with the spirit of the rest of the guidance to keep names unadorned and exclude the "reverend", so thanks v much for correcting it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After saying not to include honorifics in front of names it does give some exceptions: "Note that in the case of some historic people, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. Thus, in the U.S. in the 1930s, "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin). Likewise, include the honorific for Father Damien, ...." By giving these specific exceptions surely the norm must be not to use such religious forms or why mention them as exceptions. I could raise it at MoS talk to get a specific mention in the MoS but i've not seen rev included enough in articles to worry. :) Alci12 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alec Jones

I'm sorry you thought that the article was nonsense. We were actually referring to a different Alec Jones so we ask that we could re-upload our article though it does need processed for spelling errors etc.

Thank you

James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.204.53 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi James, if you are referring to this edit to the article on Alec Jones MP, then there are a number of things you need to know.

• Do not take an article on one person, and add the biography of another. Separate people deserve separate articles.
• Do not take an article on one person, and simply delete the text so that you can add details of another. That's vandalism.
• If you want to create an article on someone else called Alec Jones, you need to create a separate article, and disambigaute the two, for example by adding some defining characteristic in parentheses after the name: e.g. "Alec Jones (footballer)" or "Alec Jones (barrister)".

The person whose biography you tried insert into the article on Alec Jones does not look to me like someone who is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Even if you dio create such an article properly, it will be deleted unless it passes the tests in WP:BIO.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skipper1989 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 December 2006.

Thank You!

Thank you for your contributions! And a further thank you to your deletion of pointless db-bios, I appreciate all the things you do for Wikipedia and the community and have seen your name pop up more than once when I hit the Recent Changes page to do some regular patroling. I would like you to know that I thank you and appreciate you very much and your efforts to keep Wikipedia a Clean and Reliable place for Information and that your actions are not going unnoticed, Keep Up The Good Work!

Sincerely Carlo V. Sexron 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Carlo V. Sexron

P.S.

Carlo V. Sexron has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Samuel Martin

The article on Richard Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Houghton says Samuel Martin was MP for Pontefract 1847–1851. Do you by chance know whether that might have been Samuel Martin (PC)? If not, would you mind to add him to Samuel Martin for disambiguation? Thanks in advance. Wikipeditor 06:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, the text says he was MP from 1841 to 1847, whereas the succession box says 1847–1851. Wikipeditor 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting to you more quickly to confim that they do appear to be the same person: Rayment lists them as sharing the same date of death, which I take as very high odds that they were, but I can't be sure. I'll add a note about this to the Talk:Samuel Martin (PC). Have also corrected the typo; thanks for pointing it out!--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read your note. I agree it's highly unlikely that two British peers of the same name died on the same day. BTW, 81 seems like a fairly high age to die at for a person born in 1801.
Have a nice weekend! Wikipeditor 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking through Rayment's lists, 81 isn't as unusual as you would think. If you survived childhood diseases and had a priveliged life thereater, lifespans seem to have been quite long for men (women risked dying in childbirth). Those of less priveliged backgrounds had much shorter lives. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess things haven't changed quite as much as I assumed, then. Wikipeditor

Category:Episcopacy in Protestantism

Could you look at Category:Episcopacy in Protestantism and tell me what you think? As far as I can tell, it is simply redundant with the "Bishops" categories; "episcopacy" simply refers to the governing body of a church (i.e. the bishops). Dr. Submillimeter 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. :( :( :( This category is utter nonsense. fx:bangs head off wall

"Episcopacy" refers to the concept of episcopal governance, but this category is being used to categorise the individual holders of episcopal offices. I can see that there would be a case for a category by that name if it were used to categorise articles in, for example, the debates witin methodsim about episcopacy, or the Scottish rejection of episcopacy, but that is not what it is being used for here: its sole function here is to add an extra layer to the categorrisation of bishops. If you want to nominate it, I will give my strong support, but note that Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism, Category:Episcopacy in Lutheranism, Category:Episcopacy in Methodism, Category:Episcopacy in United Methodism, Category:Episcopacy in Christianity, Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism all suffer from exactly the same problem.

As per previous discussions at CFD, Pastorwayne's creation of ill-considered categories is becoming highly disruptive. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for Mairi for additional information on Pastorwayne's categories. If he tells me that Pastorwayne's categories are redundant, I will nominate the tree for deletion and then I will ask for administrative action against Pastorwayne to block him from category creation, citing his many categories from the past month. (To be fair, I will also cite categories that may be kept or that have been kept.) Could you suggest how to proceed with such a discussion at WP:AN if necessary? I will at least make a list of the categories by Pastorwayne that have been deleted so far. Dr. Submillimeter 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mairi has said that the "episcopacy" categories may be useful for more than just subcategorizing bishops. I suggest that we simply watch the categories for a while and ensure that they develop properly. (Apparently, a couple of the episcopacy categories, such as Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism, are used properly. However, these predate Pastorwayne.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He is creating and populating more as I write - PWs contribs. roundhouse 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism appears to be properly used, and also to be the only one which predates PW's creations. The rest are just duplication and category clutter :( -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

I changed my vote because the categories for episcopal areas serve a practical purpose (the bishop is directly associated with the episcopal areas) and because I think the categories could be populated over time. The categories by state, however, are impractical since the bishops' episcopal areas may cover multiple states. Does this explain my viewpoint adequately? Dr. Submillimeter 10:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it does, and I agree most of the way: the states categories are impractical, but the area categories do relect an organisational reality, and I agree that they could be populated over time. My concern is about that word "could", because I think that these categories are premature: PW has been creating articles on these bishops for about a year (he seems to be the only one working on them) and there are still only 55 of them in these area categories. At the curent rate of progress, it'll be three years or more before there is even one the lsiting in a single category spills onto a scond page, so it seems to me to be way premature to sub-categorise them. I would support retaining individual sub-cats where there are at least a dozen entries, as offering some promise of reaching a useful size, but I don't think that any of the area categories is there yet. I note that (AFAICS) none of the area cats even includes a list of those who have been bishops in the area, which does not bode well for future expansion. It seems to me to be a bad idea to create a category because it might become useful in a few years' time; I prefer to create categories which are useful or which show reasonable likelihood or being sufficiently populated in the near future. Surely lists are the way to go for now? --11:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New day transclude for WP:CFD

Hi there ... for the past few months I've been doing the new day transclude at WP:CFD. This isn't a big deal, since midnight UTC happens around 4pm my time. However, as of tomorrow morning I'm leaving on a trip for a couple of weeks, expect to be back on the 30th. I'll probably still be around from time to time, they have the internet, even in Denver ... but I don't think I'll be able to do the new date thing again until I return. And I thought I'd let a few people know in advance, so people aren't waiting around for me to do it, or wondering why I stopped. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Galaxy types

Could you please look at Category:Galaxy types and the rename nomination that I have put forward? This really looks equivalent to the episcopacy nominations that you have put forward: it only adds an additional layer of categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that I can see a way of satisying both your concerns and Zzzzzzz's: see my "weak oppose" at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Category:Galaxy_types. Hope it makes sense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Even though you voted "oppose", you did provide a third viewpoint. Could you explain how I should deal with Category:Active galaxies with respect to Category:Active galaxy types? Also, is the goal to now create four categories:

• Category:Active galaxies
• Category:Active galaxy types
• Category:Galaxy morphological types
• Category:Galaxies by morphological type

Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad the suggestion helped! I hadn't thought about the other categs you mention, but since Category:Active galaxies already exists, how about having:

• Category:Active galaxy types as a sub-cat of Category:Active galaxies and of Category:Galaxies

I hadn't thought about having Category:Galaxies by morphological type, but now that you suggest it I think that it might be useful, so how about:

• Category:Galaxy morphological types as a sub-cat of Category:Galaxies by morphological type and Category:Galaxies.

Does this make sense? I have no axe to grind here, so plesae discard all of the above if it doesn't help! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to make sense. I honestly do not like this way of arranging things; I would prefer to just place everything within twp categories instead of four. Nonetheless, I think the consensus of everyone else is to arrange things this way. I will see what I can do with it. Again, thank you for offering a third opinion.

By the way, someone should look at Category:School types and Category:Schools by type and try to make sense of it. (I hope what happened to the categories on schools does not happen to the categories on galaxies.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone fixed the problems with the schools categories. Now they make sense. Dr. Submillimeter 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

good! I just took a peep, and it dooes seem coherent. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Presbyterianism categorizations

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I just wanted to say thank you for your work removing extraneous categories from Presbyterian denomination articles (I looked at those categorizations just the other day). Some of the duplication was from my early editing, so thank you for cleaning up after me. Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! My main target was actually Category:Christian denominations, whoch had been ridicuolously clogged up, but while working on that I tried to remove some of the other over-classifications too. There's still a lot more work needed :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some counting

You're right, that's insane. I hope they're as organized at home as that. Xiner (talk, email) 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I worry about a similar problem regarding galaxies, but in most cases, the galaxies are united together in a few general categories (such as Category:Spiral galaxies and Category:Elliptical galaxies). The situation with bishops is insane. As you have indicated, the categories are no longer useful for navigation when subdivided this way; the articles end up separated from each other and hidden within small niches of a giant category tree.

I also worry about category clutter. Some of the articles on individual bishops already contains 20 or so categories. Above 10 or 15 categories, the list of categories at the bottom of an article page becomes difficult to navigate.

(By the way, have you seen WP:OCAT? It mentions bishops. Also, you may like my humorous categories page.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State (2)

The area cats reflect how the church is set up and reflects a logical way to orginazize the bishops. You could make the point that it is too early to set up this large number of cats. However they will be populated over time since articles on the individuals who filled those positions will be ceated and remain. Yes, the point about the small number is valid, however fixing the state cats once is just as important. Leaving the area cats provides a place and structure for new ones. Hopefully no more state cats will be created after this. Vegaswikian 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but I didn't think that it was usual practice to create categories because they might be sufficiently populated in future. I would have no objection to those cats if there were enough articles, but there are not; why not delete with no prejudice to them being recreated as needed, say when there are at least a dozen articles in each new sub-cat? Wikipedia's categoisation system would become unwieldy if we sub-divided everything this far. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, by your count we have 569 bishops. That calls for sub categories. I guess the question now is which ones. The by Area ones are logical and fit with the way the church is run. So, either we stay with those and let them become populated over time, or there is a proposal for sub categories that work in that direction. Categories that are part of a reasonable series generally accept the fact that some will be small. Vegaswikian 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We have 569 bishops, but not 569 articles. So far, I can count about UM 55 bishops (plus a a few dozen from the precessor denomninations), and that does not need sub-categorising. Our usual practice is to sub-categorise when there enough articles to resaonably populate even some of the articles in the category, but we are not there yet: I think that the most populous so far has 6 articles in it.

Unfortunately, if the categorisation is by area, then nearly all of the categories will be small, even if and when they are fully populated, and we are a long long way from that.

Part of the problem here is that it is misleading to talk of "the church". The figure of 569 includes the four precdecessor denominations which had bishops, and they had diferent area structures. I have suggested to Pastorwayne that he creates lists of the bishops for each episcopal area; if he did, we could see which if any of the areas have had enoug bishops that they might ever justify categories.

In the meantime, however, we could stick with the existing categorisation of the bishops by denomination. That way the biggest current category has 55 articles, and even if PW susttains his current rate of progress on article creation, it will be a year or more before the categories become too full. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a solution: Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which PW created a week ago, with a very useful explanation of how it works. This divides UM bishops into five groups, which seems to be a very useful level of sub-division: much better the than the hundreds of cats which would have eventually been created in Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction seems to work for now. Vegaswikian 08:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD tags

I only removed ones for discussions that had closed. I believed this was correct procedure, since the discussions were over. I appologize if I did something wrong. What happens once discussions are over? Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When a CFD is closed, then the tags should be removed from discussions once any necessary actions have been taken or where the categories are to remain unchanged (i.e. not deleted or renamed or merged). The categories on which you changed the tags are all to be upmerged per the decision at CFD, so there is no need to remove the tags: once the merger has taken place, the categories will be deleted, along with any CFD tags.

Given your track recird of creating so many problematic categories, and your notable reluctance to contribute to the CFD discussions or to respond to other attemts to discuss the issues, I would strongly recommend that you do not remove any CFD or similar tags from any articles or categories. Your category-creation has already become so deeply disruptive that admin intervention is now likely, and interfering with the tags could propel you rapidly towards a block. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Episcopacy in Christianity and some sub-categories

They need not be one article subcats. They only are at their creation, as need arises (as I am sure many, many cats and subcats begin). Obviously, there are other Bishops to fit these categories. Those articles have just not yet been identified (or in some cases, written). If you care. For my information, where are such discussions taking place? I would gladly engage in such conversation. Pastorwayne 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, the discussions are of course at WP:CFD. I also placed on your talk page a direct link to each individual CFD discussion as soon as I created each CFD: see User talk:Pastorwayne#CFD_for_Category:Episcopacy_in_Christianity_and_some_sub-categories for several links to the CFDs. The comment which you replied to above, about one-article subcats, is in that section of you talk page.

One of the biggest problems with these categories is that, as I set out at the CFD for Methodist bishops of Japan, you have created more categories than articles. At the CFD for Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State, one of the editors explained why this is a problem:

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.

---

• The answer is that subdividing by state is mainly helpful for organization when it subdivides a large number of articles. When only a small number are subdivided, though, it just adds an extra layer of division that makes it harder for readers to find the article they're looking for because rather than having one page worth to scan, they instead have numerous subcategories to browse each of which is on its own page. So I think it's best to hold off on this sort of subdivision until it's actually needed. Dugwiki 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• thank you for a most helpful answer! I will seek to restrain myself from creating subcats only because I find them helpful, until largeness of cats suggests it. God bless! Pastorwayne 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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 think that's the nub of it. What I don't understand is why having said on 12 December that you woudn't create subcats "until largeness of cats suggests it", you then created on December 19 another single-article subcategory (see history). Category:Methodist bishops only contains 22 articles not already sub-categorised, so largeness does not seem to be an issue.

I have no doubt that many more articles could be written on Methodist bishops, and I expect that you will write more, which is great. But the categories should be created when enough articles exist to make the categories helpful, not before. A situation where there are more categories than articles is deeply unhelpful, both to readers and to other editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I missed this discussion/answer. I usually look for messages only on my talk page. I usually leave message for others on their talk pages. Sorry. Pastorwayne 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As per the notice at the top of this pageI usually reply on my talk page, to keep discussions in one place: it is very hard to follow a discussions where the replies are distributed across several pages.

However, you appear not even to have been reading what's on your own talk page. After six days, you still have not responded to my message at User_talk:Pastorwayne#Category_creation, and you have not responed to the several of the CFDs which I informed you of. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pastorwayne action

I see that Pastorwayne has not ceased to create categories despite your messages to him. Let me know if it would be useful for me to compile a list of categories created by Pastorwayne that have been merged or deleted in case disciplinary action against Pastorwayne is needed. It may be worth soliciting other comments from CFD people as well. Dr. Submillimeter 13:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be very useful. I hoped that we might avoid admin action by starting a dialogue, but I have been disappointed that Pastorwayne doesn't seem interested in engaging in dialogue. When I have made CFD nominations, I followed recommended practice and left a note on his talk page linking directly to the CFD, but as you can see above the response was to ask me where the discussions were, and then silence. Similarly, I had no response to my request to him to desist from creating categories.

I was particularly disappointed that when we were discussing Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area, he didn't mention Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which was the obviously solution. But it seems that as fast as we can delete the superfluous categories, he is busy creating new ones, and the result is the categorisation of anything Methodist remains an almighty mess. (I have to say that I find it rather bad manners of PW to keep on creating new categories when so many of his most creations are up for CFD, usually without so much as a comment from him. I don't know what he is trying to achieve, but he must be aware that this is very bad practice).

He now seems to be extending his efforts beyond Methodists: see today's creations of Category:American Brethren and its sub-cats. Again, these categories are a mess: none of them are even linked to a category for the churches themselves, and there is no reason to believe that the membership of these churches needs to be sub-categorised by nationality. I will nominate them all for CFD when I get the time, unless someone else beats me to it.

Given the lack of dialogue and the continued creation of categories which are at best ill-considered, I can't see much alternative to admin action, much as I would like to avoid that. So a list of merged/deleted categories would be very useful, particularly if it was balanced (as you suggested earlier) with a list of categories he created which were not deleted, so that people can get an idea of the proportions. Once we have that, I suggest asking other people from CFD to offer their comments and suggestions before taking the issue to WP:ANI — it might be that someone else could have had more luck than I have had with dialogue.

But I think that the only way we can unravel the mess of methodist categories is by stopping PW from creating new ones and I think that a ban would need to apply to all categories (not just religious ons), because his actions in the other fields are equally disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here I am! What dialogue do you want to have? I am more than willing. Indeed, when a cat was CFD'ed I almost always offered my 2cents worth. Obviously, I am always outvoted. But when I did leave messages, no one (with very, very few exceptions) offered any dialogue. You speak of dialogue. Let's have some!! If there is a place to discuss the value of creating a new cat, I am very willing to visit such a place and have a discussion before such creation. Indeed, I believe I asked YOU specifically about such a procedure. But no dialogue even about that! I create cats and subcats in keeping with the official guidelines for such (in places where I have some knowledge and expertise, and where it seems logical to have such cats/subcats). I have absolutely NO intention of being disruptive or harmful to wikipedia. Please accept my sincerest apology for any such misunderstandings! Apparantly all editing on wikipedia is subject to majority rule (of those who have an opinion), rather than subject only to the logic of having such cats/subcats. My opinion almost always seems to be in the minority. I can live with that. But let's dialogue, by all means! Thank you! And Merry Christmas. Pastorwayne 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PW, it is now 6 days since I posted on your talk page a message asking you NOT to create any new categories without discussing them first (see User talk:Pastorwayne#Category_creation. The comment above is the first reply from you. So when you say that "no one (with very, very few exceptions) offered any dialogue", I wonder whether you are even reading your messages.

I try to read my messages. I may have missed some. Sorry. Pastorwayne 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the same time period, you have created dozens of new categories, many of which have been nominated for CFD. Any CFDs which I have started have been accompanied by a notice on your talk page, at User talk:Pastorwayne#CFD for Category:Episcopacy_in_Christianity_and_some_sub-categories. On most of the recent CFDs, you have not even offered a comment, let alone provided any explanation of what you are trying to achieve. That is surprising, but I'm afraid that to continue creating new categories while you don't respond to CFDs or to calls to stop is at best rude, and at worst intentionally disruptive.

please try to understand me feeling attacked by all these CFD's. I have offered some explanation/defence. But after a while, after so many are nominated, one can only offer the same ideas so many times. I had hoped with ALL of them that the LOGIC of having these cats and subcats would speak for itself. Evidently such logic is overruled by a belief by others in the unhelpfulness of such cats/subcats. So, if you or others think these bad cats, then who am I to stop what you think is better? Pastorwayne 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You have now responded, which is great. And I for one will be happy to discuss things, although not over christmas. But for now, there is one simple thing you can do to avoid admin action: stop creating new categories. Will you do that?

We can then discuss how you can be helped to be less disruptive, but unless you agree to stop creating new categories in the meantime, then the discussions are only going to add to the mountains of administrative work you are aleady creating for a lot of people.

You say that you "have absolutely NO intention of being disruptive or harmful to wikipedia". I would like to believe you, but if you continue to ignore CFDs, ignore messages, and ignore requests to you to stop, then I can't. So, please Pastorwayne: will you stop creating new categories? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT ignore CFD's just because I do not offer comment on them. You all seem to know better than I what is a good cat/subcat. Who am I to disagree with you. But the guidelines DO mention having cats/subcats NOT JUST for further dilineating large cats. That is NOT the only reason to creat smaller subcats. That is the understanding I have been observing in my more recent cat creation. I seek to do so logically. Pastorwayne 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PW, your understanding of what categories are appropriate is clearly very different from anyone else's. By participating in CFDs, you might learn how categories can be created which are useful and do not get deleted. And by "participating", I mean just that: explain why you created the category, and why you think it should stay. I don't mean simply reading the discussion and moving on to create another round of categories which themselves end up being rapidly nominated for CFD: that, to my mibd, is ignoring the debate.

So, I ask again: please Pastorwayne: will you stop creating new categories? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to CFD's

Again, it is impractical to respond to EVERY CFD. You who nominate them must know what you are doing. I appreciate your telling me that you are nominating them. When I have something to say, I say it. But since so many of these CATS are similar, what I say for one generally applies to all of them.

Nor, for that matter, can I necessarily respond to every single message, either. I am willing to engage in dialogue. But I am not sure I can answer every question, especially perhaps not to your satisfaction. I am constantly learning. I strive to offer only what seems helpful. Evidently much of it is not. That helps me learn, too.

I appreciate, also, allowing us all to get through Christmas before going further with all of this. I know I have much yet to do before Christmas and will be here less. Thank you! May you have the Happiest of Christmases!! Pastorwayne 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PW, if you have time to create the categories, you have time to participate in the CFDs. If you have time to create lots of new categories, you have time to respond to discussions about the problems they cause. That doesn't require any xtra time from you: it could be done simply by responding to CFDs etc before creating new categories.

I am also very disappointed that you say "since so many of these CATS are similar, what I say for one generally applies to all of them". If you agree that hey are so similar, why on earth are you continuing to create categories so similar the ones deleted?

I am disappointed agin to see that you have not agreed to stop creating new categories, so it seems that we will have to go to WP:ANI to request a ban on you. :(

Happy christmas. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas break

It's christmas time, and I expect that I will not be at my computer much in the next two weeks. I will try to catch up in the new year, but in the meantime please expect a delay in esponse to any messages.

Happy Christmas! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD tags

thanks for your helpful explanation of what to do after a discussion is closed. I will remove tags only for CFD's that go my way or that have no consensus (i.e., leave things as they are). thanks. Pastorwayne 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The best advice would be not to remove CFD tags where you have been involved in the CFD. That way there is no chance of your actions being considered inappropriate. Again, it's disappointing that you moved so hastily to remove the tags despite a COI, but have been slow to partcipate in the CFDs themselves. Please please, please: take he time to learn how wikipedia works, and to work with other editors rather than leave us to chase you all the time. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin William Carstairs Turner

Hi BHG,

I've started a stub for Colin William Carstairs Turner as someone shortened the name on the Woolwich West page. If you have any info on CWCT, please add it. Nunquam Dormio 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

greetings

Athbhliain faoi mhaise BrownHairedGirl (a chailín na gruaige doinne... that must be a song surely?). I am still lost in admiration for all your work on Irish political matters. Best wishes for 2007! Palmiro | Talk 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal action to bar Pastorwayne from category creation

Now that you are back from vacation, could you lead a formal action to bar Pastorwayne from category creation? I have created a list of Pastorwayne categories that have been deleted or merged in WP:CFD here, and roundhouse has created a list of Pastorwayne's new categories (with the time and date of creation) here. Pastorwayne obviously has no intention of holding back such activities, and his category creation now appears to be detrimental to Wikipedia. Please help. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. - Kittybrewster 11:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. He seems to take one of his articles and then invent a host of categories into which it will fit, eg Titus Lowe (created December 29, 2006) and then put into Category:Non-combatant people of World War I (created December 30, 2006), Category:American expatriates in Singapore, Category:American expatriates in India both created early Dec, etc. - roundhouse 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not see this as an issue that could wait any longer. 13 of his categories landed in WP:CFD on 1 January 2007 alone (and I nominated none of them). Dr. Submillimeter 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I won't be online much until the end of the week, so I may not be able to add my tuppenceworth at WP:ANI until friday. However, I will try to grab some time before then, to lend my support for Dr. Submillimeter's timely action. I do regret that this has been necessary, but having looked at PW's latest round of category creations, I really can't see that there is any alternative to seeking a ban. Not only is there a whole slew of new categories, many of them of very tenuous utility (such as Category:Non-combatant people of World War I, which potentially includes the overwhelming majority of the several billion people alive at that time), but there is also a batch of categs of bishops by episcopal area, even though there was a previous decision at CFD to delete such categs for now ... and all the new ones include just one article. At this point I have to conclude that there are only two possible explanations: either PW really is not capable of understanding what categories are for, or that he does understand but is determined to ignore the conventions. Either way, it's now time to place a block on this activity, which has been far too disruptive for too long. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne is now creating categories using a different method. Check his 3 January 2007 edits to Beverly Waugh. He has recreated Category:Christian editors using a method described in WP:CAT, which describes adding a category as a red link to an article before creating the category itself. Moreover, since this category was renamed on 2006 December 8, the recreation of this category is disruptive editing. Please ensure that some type of definitive action is taken. Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt removed the red linked category, but it does look like Pastorwayne was attempting to recreate the category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to ProveIt, Pastorwayne has been doing this in multiple articles on 3 January 2007. Dr. Submillimeter 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jc37 has posted a strong warning on Pastorwayne's talk page and has commented at WP:ANI. We will now see whether this works. Dr. Submillimeter 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks!

You continually point out (in CfD's) that something should be deleted because it is "yet another example of [my] ill-conceived cats..." or something like that. I appreciate that you find me illequiped to create cats. But just because I created a cat is no reason for it to be deleted. Vote on deletions based on the merits of the cat itself. It matters not who created it, or why, or if such creation was illconceived, etc. It matters only if it is a good cat or not. Please refrain from including such attacks. I believe you are as bad at not assuming good faith as you believe I am at being "disruptive" in cat creation! Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PW, I do wish that you would read those CFDs. I am not aware of any instance where I have recommended deletion solely on the grounds of it being one of your ill-conceived categs, though I have on many occasions mentioned the fact because I think it is important to draw the attention to other contributors the fact that so much of the traffic at CFD results from your disruptive editing practices. If I have on occasion failed to mention other reasons, it becasuse I have agreed with the reasons cited by others, and rather than recite the list again, it is sometimes quicker to point people to the pattern of your disruptive category-creation.

However, you are also mistaken in calling these "personal attacks". I have criticised your actions, not you as a person, and I hope that you understand the difference.

On your second point (about good faith), let me be direct and blunt. (But before continuing, please read WP:AGF, particularly where it says in bold This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary).

I asumed good faith for months. When others were calling for a ban on you, I was the one who tried to start a dialogue with you, but I got no response from you until I issued you with a formal warning about a related technical matter. When you eventually responded, I pleaded with you, repeatedly, to stop creating new categories, and to start by discussing them first. Despite the fact that scores of categories you had created were being nominated successfully for deletion, and that your disruptiveness as being widely commented-on, you cntinued to create new categories at a truly phenomenal rate, most of which ended up at CFD, where most were deleted.

At that point, any person acting in good faith would have stopped categ-creation and sought dialogue. But instead of responding to my repeated pleas to you to stop, you set to at the end of December 2006 and created dozens of more categories, most of which were subsequently deleted.

PW, your actions have gotten to a point where anyone assuming good faith could do so only by ignoring the evidence. Instead of whining about being the subject of what you mistakenly call personal attacks, why not simply stop being this disruptive creation of scores of inappropriate categories, and take time to learn how the categorisation system works?

Your disruptiveness has consumed a lot of the time of a lot of other editors. Rather than complaining about the editors who are giving up their time to tidy up the mess you have been creating, I suggest that as a Christian minister you might find it helpful to read Matthew 7:3. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS On personal atacks, please read WP:NPA. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Asbury Theological Seminary

discussion moved to Talk:Asbury Theological Seminary#Methodist seminary. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward Gonzalez Carroll

I'll have to check his birth year. I'll get it changed. Thanks for pointing out this need for correction. Pastorwayne 00:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Hi, I use it already for some days but nevertheless thank you for the note. Greetings and a happy and healthy new year too you, too. ~~ Phoe _talk 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

I should have guessed that you would be quick to spot it! Anyway, it'll save us a lot of work. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I was wondering where I'd came across some time ago that user page that more or less stated briefly the importance of edit summaries. Just so you know, you've greatly inspired my edit summaries. That's all. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply (Xmas/New Year backlog), but I'm glad to have helped. I used to be rather bads at edit summaries myself, until I found what a pain-in-the-neck it was to try to keep track of changes without them. I try to avoi being too growly with ppl who don't use them, but it's great to see someone who uses them as well as you! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military brat

A few months ago, you voted to delete a category:Military brat. It has been reintroduced and once again is being nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. I am contacting you so that you can revisit the discussion, but before doing so please read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) as the term is not POV and is a highly researched subject. The previous discussion was done before I got involved, but I think you will find out that this is a credible subject worthy of its own category. In this context, brat is not POV---please read article. Balloonman 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to add my tuppenceworth before the CFD closed, but having just read it, I think I would still have voted to delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Tipu sultan

Dear Brown Haired Girl

I came across your user page while researching something, and noted tht you are 1. an administrator 2. sane 3. you are enthusiastic about accuracy. I would be interested in your opinion on a question of spelling I encountered while trying to contribute to the entry on Tipu Sultan. I noticed that another user Kanchanamala had systematically altered the spelling in the article from 'Tipu' to 'Tippu'. When I queried this, he argued that the spelling was a matter for Mysore residents and 'natives'. The discussion/argument we had may be read at [1]. I think it is wrong that the spelling in this article is now at odds with modern historical writing on Tipu Sultan. But I can see that questions of spelling & transliterations of Indian names have a political & cultural dimension. I would be interested in your opinion. Best wishes Mick gold 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow, reply, Mick. I did take a look at this, but couldn't quite get my head around how to establish authoritative sources either way. I have a lot of sympathy with the notion of using native-acceptable transliterations, but would want sources, and I think thatn the issue here is what sources are avaialble to support "Tippu". So far, I can't se any such sources; have you found any? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

FitzGerald

Thanks for correcting this. I had noticed it last night and was going to fix it at some point. I think the article preceeded me here, though in the list it was correct from the start. You realize, of course, that the List preceeds me? Someone else placed it on wikipedia. But it is what led me to write these articles and do all this research. Interesting how things happen. When people ask me about any hobbies, I have only one: this! Take care. Pastorwayne 11:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1906

You added Messrs Davies and Pearson to this page as elected in the 1906 General Election. In fact they were elected at bye-elections later in the year, Pearson at a contested election on 6 April for Eye, and Davies elected unopposed on 5 Jun for Eifion. I've added the names of their predecessors--George Burgess 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually check more carefully, and should have checked those. Thanks for the correction. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NRC Regions

Thanks for adding your opinion to the discussion of NRC Regions. I feel like I'm talking too much there, and I respect your opinion from watching them at CfD. Is 70 articles (upmerge the 4 regions) too many for the category? When I suggested breaking it back out by state I was thinking of breaking out only the states with a reasonable number (3-5?) and leaving others in the parent category (as I did with Category:Coal-fired power stations). At work we have a phrase for (software) code that needs to be cleaned up, 'it stinks'. I'm starting to feel that the NRC regional divisions stink. I'm torn between changing my proposal and throwing the discussion into 'no consensus' land and leaving it alone and ending up with longer names for the same smelly categories. Any thoughts/suggestions? ~ BigrTex 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, and for misunderstanding your suggestion: I thought you meant place all in states categories, not just those where numbers justify it. But I'm still not sure that you will get any useful categories that way: the most nuclear-generator-populated state is Illinois, with six plants, and the next is Pennsylvania with five (there several with four), and all of hose are too small for my liking.

The more I look at the possible NRC names, the less I like any of them, but that ugly subdivision does have some use and it does divide the list a bit.

However, I still think that the best idea is to start by creating power station categories for every state, and then see if those need subdivision by type. Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The change is made and I like getting rid of titles like 'NRC Region 1' that provided no information. The way it was closed sounded encouraging for more work. I'd thought that I might go look at the breakdown by state sometime this weekend, but based on your research I agree that breaking them down by state wouldn't be helpful.

The biggest problem that I see with the region breakdown is it is difficult for laypeople to put articles in the proper categories. I found an image at nrc.gov that I'm going to upload and put on the main page that will help with the subcategorizing.

It would probably be possible, since the regions break on state boundaries to create the state categories (as needed) within the region categories. At a later point we could decide whether to remove the regions as a middle layer. I'm not going to do that now.

I will also look into whether it makes sense to create power station categories for some/all of the states and start that work.

Thanks for your response/support/suggestions. ~ BigrTex 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Persondata display / Harold Caccia

Generally I must say that I don't like the Persondata. In my opinion it is completely unnecessary, since anonymous and new registered users know nothing about it, while more experienced users don't need it anymore. In addition, the respective data are mostly in the opening of an article, so in these cases the Persondata is only a repetition (if there is an infobox in the article, we still have a copy more). In any case only few people use it, I think, however for these your work will be very sensible and usefull. Perhaps you should mention it on Wikipedia talk:Persondata.

The template for civil service positions is {{s-gov}}. In Germany such offices are political appointments, so unfortunately I have not taken care that this is different in the United Kingdom. Thanks for the note, I will correct it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South

I've been giving some thought to these bishops. It seems hopeless to try to lever all these 'UM' people into a single coherent scheme whereas to start with constituents and move up looks feasible.

We have Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church and Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (the 2nd a split from the first) for instance.

I thought (cf UK MPs) that it would clarify matters if we called them Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 1784-1939 and Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South 1844-1939 (if this is correct, of course).

For what its worth, the M.E.Church, South did not in fact organize until 1845. Some Bishops went with it (from the M.E. Church), but it did not elect its own (new) Bishops until 1846. Pastorwayne 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your view is that someone pre-1968 shouldn't have UM anywhere in the cats at the bottom. So someone who was a Bishop of X just goes into cat Bishops of X xxxx-yyyy, in an obvious fashion.

Except when their episcopacy overlaped (i.e., began in the M.E. Church and continued into the Methodist, and possible U.M., too) Pastorwayne 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

because most Methodist Bishops are/were elected for life. Pastorwayne 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(I was not thinking of subcats, but subcats of Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 1784-1939 could be made using some relevant subdivisions of the era.)

Does this sound OK? If so, the UM church would be Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church 1968-? (post 1968? 1968 onwards?). (No em dashes. That was a surprising suggestion.)

(I haven't used any abbreviations, as this just seems to invite cfds.) roundhouse 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the lineage of The United Methodist Church generally coalesces, it makes most sense for there to be one category, "Bishops of The United Methodist Church and its predecessors". If someone wants to label each person with the contemporary denomination, so be it. The main divergence occurs with the departure of the Wesleyan Church in the early 19th century. Not sure how many bishops, if any, left the main branch at that time.

Maintaining separate categories for episcopacy of the various ancestral denominations over the years is awfully messy and of doubtful usefulness. JoelleSatz 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now elaborated this at Category talk:Bishops of the United Methodist Church. It is quite messy. There have been strong objections to earlier incarnations mentioning UM, and there will be quite a few of these bishops. roundhouse 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clergy

Hi. I have been thinking about "clergy" as a categorization. It often gets placed in occupation cats. But it really isn't an occuption. Pastor, minister, Bishop, etc. are all occupations (which are usually done by a clergy-person). But clergy is more of a status or achievement. Almost like an academic degree, though obviously not that exactly. A clergy is a person who is ordained or licensed or in another way "set-apart" for some work of ministry, etc. But "clergy" says nothing about WHAT work. It is not an occupation. It is like someone achieving a certain level of training or recognition in a profession, but not the profession itself.

I wonder if you have any thoughts about a better way to categorize clergy? I know, you don't want more categories. And maybe this is too esoteric (sp.?) for the average wikipedian. But you are wise in these ways. I'd be interested to know what you think. Thanks so much! Pastorwayne 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi PW, just a quick reply because I'm in the middle of a big recategorisaton of UK Parliamentary constituencies ... but my initial inclination is to think that while you have a point, it's not really one which helps us make workable categories.

I have just looked at the OED's definition of clergy, and it offers a lot of variations, including:

• The clerical estate or order
  • The clerical order; the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service in the Christian church; opposed to laity.
• The priestly order in the Jewish and other non-Christian religions.

It seems to me that the second of those is how it is most widely used: "the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service". Obviously, those so set apart have a variety of functions: liturgical, pastoral, administrative, academic, educational etc. (Amongst my own relatives who were clergy, I can think people whose jobs at various times would have fitted neatly into each of those headings).

There are other similar profesions, and maybe a good comparison would be "medical doctor". People are trained as doctors, and qalify as such; but after further training they may work as surgeons (of many difft sorts), physicians (in the UK, General practitioners), psychiatrists etc. The difference there is that extra formal training is required, whereas a clergywoman or man is usually licensed to perform most of the roles.

It seems to me that since the average clergyperson may without further qulaification perform some or all of the roles (liturgical, pastoral, administrative, academic, educational), that what you suggest would require a whole extra dimension of categorisation for each individual ... so that as well as categorising someone as a Methodist minister, they would also be clasified as on or moe of a pastor, administrator, etc (depending on waht jobs they actually did). I'm not sure that so much detail in categories is really helpful: it seems to me that this is too much detail for the category system, and that in most cases the dedatild info will not be available from reliable sources.

So, answering your question, yes I do think that it is too esoteric in most cases. But there are some aspects of a clergyperson's work which may merit separate classification, such as accademic work (and we already have useful categories for some of that). But labelling a clergyman as (for example) a pastor or preacher will be tautological in the vast majority of cases. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting of Rolf Dudley-Williams

I've reverted your edit to Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams, 1st Baronet. I wold prefer not to use the DEFAULTSORT 'magic' on this article because Dudley-Williams changed his surname in 1964. Before that his surname was Williams, and he was normally known as "Dudley Williams". It's more useful to have the articles listed under the name they used at the time, because when I am checking the membership of the MPs by Parliament categories, I use a contemporary source for the alphabetical list of the House of Commons which will, of course, use the surnames they were using at the time: it makes it difficult to have to move forward and backward to make sure the article is there. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I think that in general these are difficult things to call, and the question I would usually ask is where the reader would expect to find him in a list. I'm not sore about that, but your method has the advantage of historical accuracy, so I think you're right. BTW, I have added Conservative Party to the opening para: I hate having to read down to find what party a politician was in! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I find it's normally reasonable to guess, but having recently written about a miner who became a Conservative MP, I can see that it's an advantage to say clearly. Sam Blacketer 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With the newer MPs, it's not so easy. Now that the Labour benches consist of what Norman Tebbit memorably called the "lumpen polytechnic", and both major parties are incresaingly composed of professional politicians, a lot of them look rather similar. Still not many bankers on the Labour benches though ... --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment

Greetings and thanks for starting work on Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment. I've put a note on Category talk:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment and I would be grateful for your views. Greenshed 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Greenshed, thanks for your kind words. I have replied at Category talk:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Historic districts of Ontario

I'm not understanding your objections. All 9 districts listed in the Historic Districts of Ontario category ceased to exist by 1849, years before Ontario ever existed. They were only districts in Upper Canada, and later Canada West. Can you explain? I thought this was a pretty straight-forward clean-up. Nfitz 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking rubbish (hadn't checked as thoroughly as I should have). Have now changed my vote to merge. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

More MPs

I don't know whether these recently-added chaps have been brought to your attention - Cecil Henry Wilson, Thomas Worrall Casey, Joseph Pointer, Charles Edward Howard Vincent, J. Batty Langley, William Crawford Anderson -- roundhouse 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And John George. - Kittybrewster 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm trying to finish off a huge batch I am working on at the moment, and then I'll get back to these in the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall - Kittybrewster 12:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

John Maitland - Kittybrewster 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: don't forget these! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of revocations of appointments to the Order of the British Empire

Please semi protect. - Kittybrewster 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne is creating categories again

Pastorwayne is creating categories again. He is not working at the same pace as he was previously, nor is he producing categories that look like immediate categories for deletion, renaming, or merging. However, his voluntary withdrawl from category creation has not been very long. Please take action as you see appropriate. (I am also contacting Jc37.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

William Craven-Ellis and Southampton (UK Parliament constituency)

Since you created both articles I wonder if you have any sources on Craven-Ellis's party affiliation during his time here. The Times Guide lists him as a Conservative (as does MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1935) but Craig has him down as a National Independent in his Southampton days (although a Conservative in his Barnsley days). Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party? is probably the best place for this. Timrollpickering 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricklade (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Madame Expert .-) , would you please take a look on Cricklade (UK Parliament constituency), I fear the first table isn't right. Greetings and many thanks ~~ Phoe _talk 08:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

I have finshed a lot of tweaking. What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! How I have expected and I love it if my expectations are met! Greetings and thanks - I hope Kyrll/Cyril has passed you by well. ~~ Phoe _talk 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Samuel Segal

I have created an article on this British MP; you may wish to add appropriate categories.--Brownlee 11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Have also corrected the 1939 ref to Birmingham Aston: he didn't win, he lost to Edward Kellett, by a margin of 5,901 votes. A few other changes too, including moving the article to Samuel Segal, Baron Segal, the usual format of article names for peers. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. Thanks for your help.--Brownlee 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

East & West Fife

Hi Brownhairedgirl. Just a bit of into really. Both these pages have the older 'Fife West' & 'Fife East' Designator within the body of page to a large degree still, mainly in the info boxes titles but also in reference to past by-elections throughout the page. I assume you have the automated tools to deal with this. If not I'll get around to sorting sometime in the next few weeks. Thanks Galloglass 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad some else spotted this! A lot of the Scottish constituencies are still covered by combined articles (e.g. Aberdeenshire), and I have already separated a few (such as the Ayr constituencies), but plan to work through the rest to (hopefully) get to a situation where an constituency article only covers constituencies of the article name.

Lucklily Fife is a more straghtforward matter of just fixing links and link titles, and I'm using a combination of AWB and manic manual editing. (If you don't already use AWB, I can thoroughly recommend it). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

s-gov template

I'd like your opinion on how this template should be filled out for the old constituencies which had multiple MPs at the same time? E.g. how should successors and predecessors work when MPs overlap? Should only the MP in question be listed with his personal succ/pre, or should both be listed? Thx Stephennt 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style#Succession_boxes help answer the question? If not, please lemme known and I'll try to explain more. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An example would be helpful, e.g. do you think Pitt the Elders box for Seaford is correct (succ, pre and with are the same person).

Also, do the seaford boxes for the 2nd vis. gage look correct (2 boxes as he was elected on 2 distinct occasions)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephennt (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you help me out by giving links to the articles you mean? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have now looked at William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Yes, the Seaford box is correct: see the list of MPs at Seaford (UK Parliament constituency). Hay was MP from 1734-55, so was there both before and after Pitt; Pitt was elected in 1747, replacing William Gage, and in 1754 Gage was elected to replace Pitt, so he too as both successor and predecessor. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gage's boxes are also correct: as you guessed, it's because he was elected on two difft occasions. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It might be useful to give an example like this on the guidance page. Whilst we're on the topic, how would you represent a box where an MP serves with several people during his elected period (e.g. the box for Hay would have him serving alongside Pitt, along with the 2nd Vis. Gage (twice) and Sir William Gage, Bt). Would you just list each one with the relevant dates (i.e. it just seems a bit overly complex)? Stephennt 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One more - would just like your advice as to whether you'd rate the office of Gov. General (Viceroy) as a Policital or a Government Office? It seems to me it should be Political, even though it's not an elected post, as it's not really the post of a Civil Servant either.Stephennt 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Missionaries of sub-denominations

Have you ever read The Keys of the Kingdom by A. J. Cronin? I keep on thinking of that book in the current discussion on missionary categories. Dr. Submillimeter 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it, but Cronin has long been on my must-read-someday list, so I have just ordered it. It does look rather suitable! But actually, the thing this makes me think of is all my relatives who were missionaries. I try to stay off too much discussion with them about it, because I have a rather difft take on it all. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Move ?

Should List of the Protestant Bishops of Killaloe be renamed Anglican Bishops of Killaloe ? If you think so, please would you do it. See also Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland - Kittybrewster 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just moved it to List of Anglican Bishops of Killaloe, since it is a list. If it ever morphs into an article more descriptive of the job, I suggest it should then be moved to Anglican Bishops of Killaloe

.... but I wonder now whether the best term to use for all thse articles is "Anglican" or "Church of Ireland"? See for example Bishop of Clogher (Church of Ireland).

I am inclined to think that "Church of Ireland" is more common usage. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No opinion. - Kittybrewster 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming - John Cooper, Baron Cooper of Stockton Heath

Hi, I know nothing which speaks against it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Fair enough! THanks for the reply. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

James Stansfeld

Can we pls move James Stansfield to James Stansfeld and delete James Stansfield? Not sure why Stansfeld is currently redirected to Stansfield... Thx

done! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

missionary categories

Hello & many thanks for cleaning up all of the categories. I did not know how to do it the easy way!Brian0324 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it wasn't really done the easy way: I just spent a few hours edited them all manually. A bit slow, but now it's done ... so now we can make more sense of what is there as we look at restructuring them (see Category talk:Missionaries). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Missionary category questions

I asked a few questions about missionary categories at Category talk:Missionaries, but I received no response. Could you please at least make some comments? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dr S, I missed those. Will go here now. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are my questions. Please respond when you can.

• Should Category:Missionaries by region of activity be deleted?
• Should Category:Christian missionaries in the Middle East be merged into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia?
• Should Category:Methodist missionaries to British North America be merged into Category:Christian missionaries in North America?

Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

John Hart, senior and ndash etc.

Hi, thanks for your recent edit to the above, I try to fix up dates to [dd mm yy] too if I am editing a page; I'm Australian so we use that order too. You did make a little typo, you left off the "d" in "ndash" - Do you (g)nash you teeth?? I read about using the ndash character from the insert menu below the edit box and I use that, saves typos!. I have fixed up John Hart, senior birth/death dates (after using another source to get the exact d.o.b.) to read:

([[25 February]] [[1809]] – [[28 January]] [[1873]])

(Note the ndash is inserted from the "Insert:" line, not typed from the keyboard.

I also used the lifetime and DEFAULTSORT templates as shown below, may be of interest to save having to specify the sort for each category:
{{lifetime|1809|1873|Hart, John}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hart, John}}
[[Category:Premiers of South Australia]]
[[Category:Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George]]

You have to use firstname, lastname in 'lifetime'; the DEFAULTSORT won't work with it. Can save a bit of time though were multiple categories are used. ---- Diverman 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Diverman for fixing that typo. I usually do use DEFAULTSORT, but for some reason I don't like lifetime; maybe it's because it requires separate indexing, and one the advantages of DEFAULTSORT is that it simplifoe sindexing and reduces the chance of error, but my main objection is that it doesn't look like a category entry, which makes it less readily visible to me. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet

Hi, me again. I saw someone moved Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet that you recently edited, to John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet, reason: No honorifics in page titles. I assume this is a valid move. Is there an automated way (or semi-automated) way to change the articles:

• John Franklin, Governors of Tasmania, History of Tasmania, Wilmot, North Warwickshire (UK Parliament constituency), Division of Wilmot, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Australian politicians, Francis Russell Nixon, 1844 in Australia, 1845 in Australia, 1846 in Australia, John Eardley-Wilmot, 2nd Baronet

to point to the new name, John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet ? ---- Diverman 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dierman, I'm afraid that it was a wrong move: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names), baronets are an exception to the general principle of not including homorifics in article names. So I have moved both Eardley-Wilmots back again.

In this case, the links are noiw correct again, but in general, the advice is not to bypass redirects Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken. I dotend to try to bypass redirects on biographical articles, because of the possibility of the links becoming broken as future biogs are creared, but I'm aware that this is deprecated practice.

For repetitive tasks, though, have you tried AWB? It's great! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Need Some Advice

Hi, I need some assistance. I am rather new to this site, but I have run into some trouble and need some advice. On the Royal Descent article, recently I have been in an unfortunate dispute with this editor on the disussion page. They continue to argue and revert edits. The fighting is getting silly. I do not mean to speak down to them, but I am somewhat unsure on what to do. Any advice would be great. I want to do the right thing. What would be the best course of action? If not then I will remove myself from editing the article to avoid an edit war. Thank you! RosePlantagenet 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Dudley Edwards

Her correct name is as above. I have NOT made any recent changes to this article so please withdraw your comments from my talk page. Also the correct procedure here would be to lease the hypenated page as a re-direct to the existing page that I alst edited in December. Weggie 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is going on!! The correct page has been deleted with RDEs correct name?? Why was the merge procedure not used ? Please undelete the page ASAP Weggie 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See reply at User talk:Weggie#Ruth_Dudley_Edwards. I have used the merge procedure, and if you check the edit history of Ruth Dudley Edwards, you'll find that all your edits are there in the edit history, and that the final step was to reverted the page to your last version. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. I must admit to having been reluctant to use moving when I could use cut and paste - but I can see the point of it, of course. Put it down to a mixture of laziness, ignorance and impulsiveness (I am a bear of little brain, and long words bother me ...) . The only other time I have done this was when I shifted the text of Aceldama to Akeldama (which seems to be the version used by most modern sources). The edit summary does clearly explain that this was done, so looking at the history of both pages should show this. I also included some of the text from Haceldama (which is the same subject) in Aceldama before I did this. You're going to tell me I should have done a merge, aren't you?Rbreen 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No need for quite so much self-flagellation (if you'll excuse the long word! <grin>!) But, yes, you should have done a move (it's less work in the end).

Anyway, thanks for telling me about Aceldama/Akeldama: I have merged the two histories. Please could you take a look and tell me if it all seems OK? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, thanks! Rbreen 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

Sorry but according to my understanding of the MOS your edit is incorrect. It does say you can use either December 8 or 8 December, and that editors may choose to use the date format used in a particular country. However I'm not going to get into an argument over which way round should be used. But your addition of an ordinal suffix is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. Thanls. One Night In Hackney 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually argue about which way round they should go, but when someone is editing articles specifically to impose the American format on an article about a British topic, I do object per WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not referring to whether 8 comes before December or after. Your edit re-inserted the ordinal suffix which is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. One Night In Hackney 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you would be kind enough to actually read the message I wrote on your talk page, you will see that I specifically said that "you were right to remove the ordinal suffix", and I have now removed that from the Louth article.

Why do you persist in harking on that issue (where I started the discssion by saying that you were right), but insist that you will not engage about your imposition of the American format? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that as I specifically stated I wasn't going to get into an argument over the other issue that you would realise I had taken your comments on board. One Night In Hackney 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks v. much for that clarification. In my experience, "I'm not going to get into an argument about this" usually means something on a spectrum from "this is unimportant", via "you haven't persuaded me, but whatever" to "I couldn't care less what you say, you *^%%$$%!", but I'm glad to see that I read that wrongly here. Thanks!  :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute

[2] - Kittybrewster 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tidy up Thanks

I admit I follow the pages you create. I find parliamentary history quite interesting, and its facinating to see the many pages etc you create. One question I would like to ask if I may; In the many unopposed by-elections during the War, when there was only one candidate I presume the public didn't vote? Was the candidate then declared winner on the day by-election would have taken place? --Berks105 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the basic answer is yes.

The purpose of a parliamentary election is to allow the electorate to choose between candidates when there are more candidates than seats, so when the number of candidate matches the number of seats, there is no choice to be made, and hence no need for a vote. The only exception that I am aware of to that principle in parliamentary elections is the system which used to exist in the USSR, where voters always had the opportunity to reject all the candidates; an election was held even if there was only one candidate, so that the electorate could vote "none of the above". I rather like that possibility :)

In the unreformed House of Commons, it was common for two-member constituencies to be carved up by agreement: the Whigs and Tories might agree to each nominate only one candidate, so that both could avoid the cost of a contested election. When there were no limits on campaign spending, the costs could be high: the government as so determined to defeat the Whig Charles James Fox in the Westminster constituency that

"The Treasury spent the enormous sums of more than £8,000 in 1780 and £9,000 in 1784, in unsuccessful attempts to defeat the opposition Whig leader Charles James Fox. So expensive were these contests that for the next general election in 1790, the government and opposition leaders reached a formal agreement for each to have one member returned unopposed." (see Westminster (UK Parliament constituency)#History

The only thing I am uncertain about is exactly when a candidate is declared elected if there is no contest. The usual process nowadays is for a voting day to be set when nominations are opened; if nominations close without the need for an election, there are three possibilities for when the candidate is declared elected: the point at which nominations closed, the last day for nominations to be withdrawn (if that possibility exists, which I think it does in some elections), or the designated polling day. I'm afraid that I don't know which applies here.

Hope this helps! And thanks again for scrutinising my contributions. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welsh constituencies

Thanks for your note, I've responded on the CfD page. Perhaps we're approaching this from quite divergent angles. I have a background in UK Constitutional Law so I am perhaps prone to take a somewhat legalistic approach to these questions, however I really can't see any acceptable reason to describe the Assembly as a Parliament.

The prime authority is the Act of Parliament which established the body, the Government of Wales Act 1998. Nowhere does this Act use the term 'Parliament' to describe the Assembly. As such I think that it is thoroughly inappropriate to suggest otherwise within Wikipedia (OR, etc).

I really do think than in terms of Law, we must strive to be exact. It may be that some might refer to the Assembly constituencies as 'Parliamentary', however they are wrong. The Law sets things out in fairly black-and-white terms, and if this encyclopaedia is to fulfil its aims, it has to reflect this.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that despite your background in Constitutional Law, you have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The purpose of the nomination is to clarify the distibction between the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament names of the categories containing the constituencies of the Westminister Parliament, by giving them a more specific name which is still entirely accurate.
As a constitutional lawyer, you will be alert to distinction in names, and a political operator, It's stuff I eat and breathe too. All I am trying to do here is to clariffy the issues for the readers who may not be so familiar with the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales

Heja, since you have created Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, it might be interesting for you that Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales also exists. Perhaps you can redirect the one to the other one. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Thanks! I have redirected Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales to Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, and populated the latter with the AGs from 1800 onwards (where the articles exist, of course). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort! Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Southport (UK Parliament constituency)

Justa quick query on your edit to the table of members in Southport BHG. Is that what you actually intended or is it just a mistake? Thanks Galloglass 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit slow today: which bit of the edit do you mean? The Brunners? see Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet and Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet; the Southport MP was the second Baronet, son of the first. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No the Brunner bit was fine, you've sorted out the loose end I was too idle to finish :) No was meaning the election column with (by-election) added. Just it looks a bit of a bugger the way it is now in black and seperate from the date. Would changing it to 1899 by-election or 1898 by-election be ok with you? Galloglass 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess either would be OK, and it's not a big deal either way. I had started doing this on several tables in the last day or two to annotate by-elections. I saw table some where which had a black "ge" or "be" after the link, which seemed a bit ugly (an abbreviation needs to be explained on first usage), but I thought that the idea of marking the by-elections was a good idea as long as the complete word was used.

You're right that it all looks a bit busy that way, with both the brackets and the italics. Looking at it again, I'm not sure what the best approach is, so I doodled with it and created a test page at User:BrownHairedGirl/Southport MPs. Of the possibilities there, I think that I like best the two unitalicised examples: 1952 ("[[Southport by-election, 1952|1952]] by-election"), followed by 1899 ("[[Southport by-election, 1899|1899 by-election]]"): what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Have been trying everything I can think of to get something that works with the 2 and 3 member constituencies as well as the one member ones but have not been able to find anything that looks reasonable. Probably just me being over-fussy again but it seems to cramp them a bit too much. Have a go and see what you think. Possibly we need to abbreviate by-election but I'm not keen on that idea either tbh :( Btw have a problem with the Blackburn table of members. In 1841 William Fielden jumped ship and joined the Cons. Have tried everying I usually do to show this but all of them break the table. As its your table I assume you can sort ;) Cheers Galloglass 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PW

The creationist has resumed his work - Category:Indian pastors, deleted in Jan acc to this cfd, has been re-created, together with cats of pastors of varying nationalities. roundhouse 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I really thought that he had turned over a new leaf. :(
I have restored the history of Category:Indian pastors to show the recreation, and tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-repost}}.
However, after all the work done in December and January, this really is getting unacceptably disruptive. I think it's time to go back to WP:ANI, with a renewed request for a ban on category creation, so I have left a note on Pw's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of these edits are truly disruptive. Category:Methodism in Iowa and Category:Methodism in Ohio appear to be attempts to game the system; they are recreations of the "minister by state" categories that had been deleted in December. I have nominated the categories for deletion. The creation of additional pastor categories when Category:Christian pastors is being debated is also disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted those others: how silly :(
I'm afraid that I won't have the time to take action for a few days, but will get on the case next week. If anyone wants to start work in the meantime, I'll lend my support when I'm back. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we have Category:Former Sikhs plus a clutch today of essential cats for Dominica stemming from Philip Potter (church leader). -- roundhouse 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And here he's moved a page + talk page in which specific previous objections have been made to precisely this move. A loose canon, perhaps. -- roundhouse 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Donna Shalala

If I read the Donna Shalala article history correctly, you changed her category Miami University alumni to University of Miami alumni. Now she's president of University of Miami and listed in the category for presidents of that university but I never found a source stating that she actually studied there. After all, she studied at Western College for Women, which today is a part of Miami University in Ohio's Miami River Valley. Of course, Western College for Women was not a part of Miami University (which has nothing to do with her current university, University of Miami) then and for that reason it might be inaccurate to put her in the Miami University alumni categori as well (she already is listed in the "Alumnae of women's colleges and universities" category).

There was a lot of other stuff pointing in different directions in the Shalala article as well, somebody has apparently changed her Catholic religion to Jewish without giving a source (is she a very recent convert to Judaism?) and her middle name was stated as Esther rather than the Edna found at the Secretary of Health and Human Services page, to name one contrary source. 128.214.205.4 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest Pastorwayne category

Check Category:Linguists of Biblical languages. This seemed very strange. Let me know if you agree with my assessment. Also, please keep me informed of any action against Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Winwick

Heja, do you know perhaps to which constituency Winwick can refer?[3]?. Unfortunately, it is no spelling error and Warwick is meant. The only other reference I have found in the net has led me to Warrington, but this constituency was created in 1832 and cannot be the right therefore either. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Google maps also shows a Winwick in Northampton, about 10 km east of Rugby. Texicano 18:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Off-line

My laptop is misbehaving weirdly, so I may be off-line for up to a week while I try to fix it ... so please don't expect any replies from me for a while. Damn computers :(

Mine too. It keeps moving the cursor 1 or 2 letters to the left in the browser. - Kittybrewster 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User categories

Is it really necessary to have Category:Methodist Wikipedians and Category:United Methodist Wikipedians? I suggest we afd the second. - Kittybrewster 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Oxford University alumni

If you think salting Category:Oxford University alumni will help (I wonder if it will), please do. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Eeekkk!

Sorry about that; will keep it in mind in future. By the way, was it you who reverted my edit to Notable Irish people? Cheers! Fergananim 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish people

No problem. By the way, what do you make of my selection (cut down the numbers a good bit) and the images? Not very many good ones, and I'm sick of black and white ones of long dead patriots - its 2007, time for a change! Fergananim 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your additions, but I'm afraid that I'm rather shocked by some of your removals! Constance Gore-Booth is (IRHO) an undersung heroine, and Robert Emmet is a key historical figure; Brendan Behan is perhaps best known as a professional drunk, but he was a very fine writer. I personally hate C.S. Lewis's writing, but surely he is a lot more notable than Roy Keane or Eddie Irvine or I'm afraid that the only removal I have seen so far which I approve of is Val Doonican (barf!). I'd be delighted if you put most of the others back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

please review his recent {{ nn }} contributions - Kittybrewster 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Prod tags have been added to a few of the 100's of Baronet's on wiki who are not automatically notable and have no asertion of notability listed within their articles.

I think that Kittybrewster is misunderstanding what these tags are about - they are firstly to improve the article not to delete them and he feels that they are "under attack" as he puts it. --Vintagekits 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no guidance either way on automatic notability of baronets, and I think that Vintagekits may have a point about their notability. However, this should be resolved by discussing the principle of notability of Baronets, rather than by dumping {{NN}} tags on lots of articles and then edit warring to try to sustain them.

However, the sympathy I feel for Vintagekits is undermined by his similar addition of NN tags to Barons who clearly meet WP:BIO through having a seat in the House of Lords. I have to wonder whether there is not some attempt here to make a point of some form about the peerage system, and WP:POINT disruptiveness is not the way to settle any differences in that regard.

Vintagepoints is also simply wrong about {{Prod}}: it is for "proposed deletion", not for triggering improvement of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of external links

Could you please have a look at this article. Someone has been using multiple IP accounts to try to add bogus external links to the English Democrats Party article:

• [4]

From what I can make out that website is a front for a far-right group. It is certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the EDP. Could you monitor it? -- Mais oui! 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You are right, and http://www.englishdemocraticparty.org.uk/partyname.html makes it clear that they are separate parties, so I have reverted the latest addition of the link to the English Democratic Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Vintagekits

Please comment on the unblock request posted by VintageKits. His position that he did not violate 3RR on the article you cited appears to have merit. I understand there may be a deeper background to the situation that I am not aware of, but I have not been able to find an explanation of the block other than with respect to that 3RR. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See reply at User_talk:Vintagekits#My_block_for_3RR.3F.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

John Belcher

Very interested in the page about my father, John Belcher, which I thought was fair. I was going to edit a small detail ie it was a cigarette case not a gold watch but that seems picky! I would also like to add a small section of my father's resignation speech to the House and maybe I will. The truth is that my father did nothing wrong at all but I agree that the tribunal did find some influence used in return for some hospitality and, therefore, I can't change that. He was a man of great courage and dignity which, in fact, Clem Attlee acknowledged in Parliament and this tribunal broke his heart. He never recovered his health, dying at the early age of 59, and my mother who had been put under enormous strain throughout the proceedings, suffered a series of nervous breakdowns for the rest of her life. A sad ending to what had been a dream for both of them ie a Labour government addressing the needs of all the people not the few.

I'm not a computer expert so don't really understand how all this works but I hope you'll see this. Perhaps you can imagine my surprise when my son drew my attention to the page?

 

Har-dee-har

I guess I could be insulted but will just say "point taken", though you should know how not to make a point. —Dgies^t c 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do know WP:POINT, but hoped that since this was done in user space in these circumstances my offence would be counted as a minor one. (As you have probabbly guessed, I don't find your name funny, but if I did, how could we decide who was right?) Anyway, glad to see you reverted my tagging of your user page.

BTW did you see my suggestion about listification? In penance for my point-making, I have created the list for you at User:Dgies/Humorously named people; if you don't want it, I can delete it for you. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. —Dgies^t c 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MP

discussion moved to User_talk:Berks105#.5B.5BMember_of_Parliament.5D.5D_.28MP.29