Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:33, 17 September 2012

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

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

DYK

Thanks for the nominations of Paul Bedson's articles. I see he's taken them in good spirit, but I think he should know better. He has a huge COI in this area. And, as I see you noticed them through DYK, I should say I've been unhappy with most of his DYK nominations as the ones I've encountered have pushed the same fringe pov. Not hard to do with DYK when editors don't know an area. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found the AFD for the two articles.

Paul's response is, as you say, in good spirit. However, I find the reply unsatisfactory, because either Paul Bedson (talk · contribs) is incapable of making any reasonable assessment of what are reliable sources and what constitutes notability, or he is disingenuously trying to feign surprise in order to limit the damage. Given his history of sockpuppetry, I fear that the latter may be more accurate ... but either way, I am alarmed to see how many articles he has created on related topics.

I see from his talk page that you have been keeping an eye on this stuff for over a year, but what I see alarms me even more. It seems that his editing here is entirely focused on pushing a POV about near eastern archaeology, and that he is systematically using Misplaced Pages to promote original research. Whatever is going on here, it seems to me that his work needs a huge amount of scrutiny, and his conduct needs some restraint.

I don't have time to do either of those tasks myself, but I particularly am concerned how DYK seems to be functioning in this case as such a useful tool for promoting his theories. Is there any lightweight mechanism to ban this editor from using DYK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I can't disagree. You can see I've been concerned about this edits, his use of sources, etc etc. I don't know of any lightweight mechanisms that can be used and dealing with a prolific editor is time consuming. Maybe we need to go to WP:FTN? Unfortunately though archaeology doesn't often interest people there, but it might be worth a shot. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with your sigh. This sort of POV-pushing can take a lot of work to unravel.

I had not heard of FTN before, but it seems worth a shot. I suspect that archaeology is in general an under-scrutinised area, and it looks like this chunk of it needs a lot of scrutiny ... but we gotta start somewhere. Would you be able to draft something? I haven't seen enough of Paul's work to point much much further than the stuff around the two articles at AFD.

I suspect that whatever initial steps we take, it's going to need an RFC/U to apply any serious restraint. In the meantime, I am going to ask Paul to apply some self-restraint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have just done more scrutiny of Paul's editing, and I don't like what I have found. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward F. Malkowski See User talk:Paul Bedson#Fringe_theories.2C_unreliable_sources.2C_irrelevant_citations (permalink). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Thanks. Barton's notable, but he really should have spent time referencing it. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I thought that George Aaron Barton might meet WP:PROF, but I'd want to see some evidence. However, there are real probs with Paul's sourcing. Even where he does add refs, they are often very dodgy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
      • My Grandad used to call me dodgyboots, but that is sadly off-topic. You will find that the one form of constraint you guys have over me is the enormous respect I have for you both and high value I place on your opinions. Doug (my Grandad's name was Doug) practically taught me everything I know about Misplaced Pages and I certainly bother him a lot less lately (although I do miss our discussions!) I can but simply assure you that my interests generally are in Lebanese Archaeology and my intentions on Misplaced Pages are to document all 88 Beqaa valley tells, all the surface sites, and ruins, drawing all the flints and make a conservation map to see what's left of the prehistoric archaeology there. I do have to admit to recently starting a Facebook Group called Save Beqaa Heritage which might be slightly affiliated with Save Beirut Heritage and the Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage, but any COI arising from this really should be covered by a mutual interest for recording and preserving archaeology. I'd really rather discuss this than the tired old, fringey stuff about O'Brien, which I have demonstrated I am quick and gracious to acknowledge if I do make a mistake. Also, if you do need any advice on archaeology or related subjects, I have lots of sources here and am always happy to help out. :) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Paul, you may well prefer to discuss other things than "the tired old, fringey stuff about O'Brien", but the fact remains that a) your userpage makes it explicitly clear that your primary purpose in editing Misplaced Pages is to promote the fringe theories of your friend Edmund Marriage and his late uncle Christian O'Brien; b) your edits reflect that POV-pushing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok, you're right again. My userpage is getting a bit tired and fringey. I've changed it to something I hope you will deem more acceptable in light of our recent discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
            • That's A. It's B that matters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, I dispute that as my primary purpose, perhaps it was a bit biased that way a few years ago when I started editing, but Doug's talked me out of that and as the majority of my recent edits will show, and the discussion on my talk page, that I am reflecting a wide range of views from a variety of scholarly, secondary sources. Hopefully in as neutral a tone as possible. Please feel free to pick me up on any elements of my work that do not reflect this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for Capture of Malolos

Yes, I, the author had access on the full text of the book. Arius1998 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about expanding the refs to include the full publication details, and page numbers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already included the page numbers. Arius1998 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Iphone 5

Hi. Could you delete that page please? It is a bad redirect, written wrong and non-sense, since the new iPhone will come soon.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First, while I can delete it, I shouldn't do so without a prior consensus, because I don't see that any of the WP:CSD apply.

If you want to delete it, then ask propose it at WP:RFD. However, I see no problem with it. When the iPhone 5 arrives, an article can be written at that that page, and until there is such an article the redirect seem entirely appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that local policy, so ask sorry. But the redirect iphone 5 is wrong anyway, seeing that there's already IPhone 5 with the upper-case letter. I think at least the first redirect could be deleted and you don't need a such agreement to solve this problem. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 12:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please look more closely at IPhone 5; it's the same page.

As above:

1. WP:CSD#Redirects does not allow me to delete a redirect without consensus
2. I don't think it is appropriate to delete this one. There is no problem to be solved.
3. If you disagree, please use WP:RFD rather than arguing with me.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten title added

Hello Brown Haired Girl. Thanks for the Consul WL correction. I must have been half asleep when I worked on that article. A personal question? Are you really a blond haired girl? I have got an impression, I don't know why, that there are very few female admins in WP; is that right? I mean it is an anonymous place but judging more or less on user names and behavioural modes I can imagine that most admins I have met here are men. Anyhow... Nice meeting you and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi E4204, no prob about the correction. Every bit of editing has an error rate, and the good thing about Misplaced Pages is that we fix each other's mistakes.

Yes, I am a brown haired girl. Really. Although maybe a bit too fossilised to be called a girl by most people. Nice meeting you too! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I think I am older than anyone here. Now I noticed I had written "blond" instead of "brown". Maybe I should begin Sudoku or something. (Why are my hands shaking?.. :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

UK constituencies banner

Hi Brown Haired Girl. A long time ago now you left a message on my talk page about merging the UK Politics and UK constituencies banners. I have finally gotten around to sorting it out and have started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Sharing the UK Politics banner. I would welcome any comments you wish to add. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have posted my thoughts there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anwar Bannud

Hello BHG. Thank you for your comment and your c/e at the Anwar Bannud article. Please see my response here and (and here, for the more general discussion) Yazan (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup, but gimme a few miniutes. Gotta first finish off a CFD nomination, then I'll come take a look. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your time! Yazan (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I responded at the nom page with respect to this particular article, and took the liberty to copy your response to the general discussion at DYK:Talk. I hope you don't mind. Yazan (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do mind you copying my comment. It clashed with my own expanded comment there, and when I went to save my commet I tought that I had saved a draft by mistake. It is usually better to link rather than to repost, and if you really do wanmt to re-post another editor's comment, please take great care to indicate that it is a repost from elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for that. But I did think that it was relevant to the discussion and my re-post was in good faith, I assure you. And I did note in a disclaimer above the post that it is being reposted from the article's nom page. But, again, apologies for not taking your permission first. Yazan (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello! Hope you are well!!

♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr B! I doin grand :)

Good to see you still in prolific form. Hope you are well too :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly am BHG. Thanks for the DYK reviewing too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Liverpool Exchange by-election, 1897

On 11 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liverpool Exchange by-election, 1897, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the Liverpool Exchange by-election in 1897, the Liberal candidate Russell Rea was denounced by a Conservative Party politician as a "white slave" of Irish Nationalists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liverpool Exchange by-election, 1897. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Millward

Sorry to be a pain but I've now added an image to Template:Did you know nominations/Stephanie Millward, I'd really appreciate it if you could do a quick re-review checking the image rights as I suspect it'll get ignored otherwise. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Erpert 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liverpool Everton (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to United Kingdom general election, 1910

Sir Francis Barry, 1st Baronet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Order of Christ

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that, neutral wording it is! Please let me know if my wording is alright. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

this was a reply to this message at User_talk:Ncboy2010#Canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Verify credibility at Starborough Castle

Discussion moved to Talk:Starborough Castle

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.

I haven't seen the verify credibility tag before and may be misunderstanding it but having spent two hours on library searches to find the information I'm a little frustrated by the tag. I'm not clear what the verify credibility is supposed to prove, but I feel I would be remiss to add it to every article sourced to a book that I do not have in my house. Would that be the right reading. I apologise if my tone comes across as intemperate, I am just becoming frustrated and starting to remember why I left Misplaced Pages, it seems it is even harder to than before. Before I succumb to the darkness in my soul and delete the article as G7, is it worth keeping it? Hiding T 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hiding

I just left a note on your talk.

Yes, the article is very much worth keeping -- most of it is fine, and you did great work in getting it that far. If you tried deleting it as G7, I'd object!

However, the sourcing of the assertion about demolition remains inadequate. I don't suggest deleting that point, because it is reported in enough unreliable sources that it is at the very least a persistent rumour, so one way or another it needs checking out.

You may not have the the time or energy or inclination to hunt down the history books in which it might be referenced. If so, that's fine, and please don't feel frustrated or put down by this. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and by leaving the tags in place the article is identified to other editors as one in need of more sources.

Hopefully someone else will be able to find a reliable historical source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair do and thanks ever so much for the reply. In my defence I removed the ref improve tag because I thought I had improved the reference. I'm currently suffering a broken foot so it leaves me fairly house bound. I will try and find better references, but all I turned up in a library search of newspapers I added to the article. I'm still not clear on what is supposed to happen when someone questions the verification credibility though. It seems like any source which is not online could have that tag applied to it, and then given some people argue that online sources are unreliable, we'd be left with no information at all. Also, I'd like to make a suggestion that we copy all our correspondence to the article talk page, along with that at the Did you know template, for future Wikipedians. I noted at the Did you know request that I was very disappointed not to be notified so that I could try and help, it seems like these things should be left on the article talk page where interested editors can find them. Hope you agree! Hiding T 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the broken foot. That must be very frustrating, and I hope it heals soon, without too much pain along the way.

The {{verify credibility}} tag can be used in a variety of ways, but as I understand it it can ask one or both of two questions: a) has the editor who added this ref accurately represented what the source says?; b) is that source really a reliable way of verifying this fact?

I assume that you set out to report the source accurately, and since I can see that you have been very careful in reporting the sources I can check, I have no reason to stop assuming good faith. (It would be silly as well as rude).

So when I added it I was challenging the suitability of that source as a reference for those facts. The online/offline aspect made little difference. If it was offline, I'd just have asked you to explain more about it :)

In the case of The Times ref, I too have access to the paper's archive, so I set about burrowing, to save bugging you for all the details. It was a little difficult without the page number, but I got there ... and could see that this was, as I had feared, a brief mention on the property pages. Not my idea of a good source for history!

The options then are that either a consensus develops that it is a good source, or we wait for a better source. That may come through one of us finding it, or of someone else spotting the tag and digging something out.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

SLA

Hi BrownHairedGirl! It appears we have a slight issue over at second(-)language acquisition. The requested move at Talk:Second-language acquisition#Requested move was closed as "not moved", so it stays at the hyphenated title, but I see that you closed the CfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12 as "rename", so the category is now hyphenless. This isn't a criticism of your close at all, and I would have closed it the same way; the problem seems to be that it was completely different sets of people commenting in the two discussions about the same thing. The reason I'm messaging you is that I'm not sure what the protocol is in this kind of situation. What do you think would be the best thing to do about it? Maybe take it to Misplaced Pages:Move review? Let me know if you have any good suggestions. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! I missed that, and thanks for pointing it out.

May I suggest that the easiest solution is speedy rename it per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria#C2D? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Now that does sound like a good way of doing things. I've gone ahead and nominated it. Surprising how many processes I've not encountered before on Misplaced Pages, despite managing to pass an RfA. Thanks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 12:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The place is so labyrinthine that even tho I have been editing for 6½ years, I still keep on encountering new processes! My latest discovery in WP:30; very useful! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

PD Music Files

Per your closure of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_2#Category:Public_domain_music_images I was wondering if you would create the necessary new parent category? And if I should update the PD template? (we'd end up with redlinked categories if I updated it before the category was created) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when I came to look more closely at the relevant category tree, I could see no other categ of music files, so what I have created is Category:Public domain audio files, populated by using {{PD-audio}}.

I hope that this is OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems to work (unless some of the other users are particular about them being music). Thanks. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad it seems OK. If others want to create a subcat for music, that will be fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of Miss Queen World

I thought maybe you could look into the articles this editor created. I nominated their 6 creations for speedy deletion under G3 because I couldn't independently verify any of it. Articles are unsourced. The editor responded by undoing a speedy deltion tag and undoing a prod which I subsequently nominated for speedy deletion. You were online, so I thought I'd ask you to look into this....William 12:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't try speedying a contested PROD.

I have done some Googling, and I do get some hits on a web search, though none on Google News. So it might be a hoax, but it may just be non-notable. So I can't say that it is a blatant hoax, and I will decline the speedies.

However, the online sources doesn't seem to come anywhere near WP:GNG, so I suggest WP:AFDing the lot on grounds of non-notability, as a group nomination. There may be offline sources, but so far I see no evidence thereof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I just took them all to AFD. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Miss Queen World. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and I learned something about what to do in the future. The creator of these articles removed one of the templates. Check here. I reverted....William 14:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well-spotted. I posted a level-2 warning for the removal of the AFD, and an informal request to stop creating further similar pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work at Misplaced Pages. ...William 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Physics category

I realize your concerns over miscategorization. I'm reluctant to change the term because the literature prefers the use of the term as a good way to sum up the transition from two very different views of the universe. I like the Classical/Modern distinction, and I hope you understand that it is most definitely not an arbitrary division. Post-Newtonian sounds more awkward than modern. Thank you for your comment, and I hope that I've helped you as well. Please continue your excellent work. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Benkenobi.

I think that the modern physics category discussion is an interesting illustration of one of the many ways in which categories need to be handled differently to articles. My concern in this case is not about any fear that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary; it is that the ambiguous name name will create disruptive misunderstandings of the inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP disruption

Brown Haired Girl, can you please put an end to disruptive edition by an IP on Nicosia article... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The two of you are edit-warring. Please stop.

I have issued warning notices to both of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

:-) When I wrote to you, it was meant to stop warring from my side but if you say so... --E4024 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this felt like I was picking on you for having sought advice, but I'm trying to be even-handed here. Both of you have been reverting when you should have been discussing.

Good luck with discussing the issue. --14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you as a good admin, Brown Haired Beautiful Girl; sorry to have caused you this dilemma. Forget it and thank you very much. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, there's nothing at all to apologise for. And thanks for your kind words :)

It's hard to know what to do when you first encounter that sort of situation, and you did the right thing in seeking advice. If you don't get a rapid consensus through discussion between the pair of you, remember that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and this may take a few days to resolve. Nicosia is a big enough city that there are probably other editors watching the article, but if after a few days nobody else has appeared to help settle the matter, you may want to ask at WP:3O. But so that probably won't be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Anwar Bannud again

Hello BrownHairedGirl. Our disagreement on the proper amount of sourcing require for DYK notwithstanding, the Anwar Bannud article had had several new sources added to it for many days now, and I hope that will satisfy your requirement for a variety of sources and you can continue your review, as the nomination is now stalled. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. Will take another look this evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your keep votes

Your suggestion of a merger makes a great deal of sense, an article on the case itself would in my view be quite acceptable with the three current articles redirected to it. Pakistan supreme court decision on forced marriages or something? What do you think? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Darkness

I presume that this refers to Rinkle Kumari, Asha Kumari, Lata Kumari, and my comments open the AFDs you opened on them?

If so, then I suggest waiting for the outcome of the AFDs. The title of any merged article should reflect the title of the court case, which is probably available in the Pakistani press ... but it may be that the amount of material available on these is enough to justify separte articles on at least some of them.

In any case, you dismissed all three women as examples of "a common occurrence in the region" (, , ) and nominated them for deletion without making even a cursory assessment of their notability. Since that's your view of the topic, I have grave doubts about your commitment to writing an NPOV article.

I would be delighted if you proved me wrong, but what I have seen so far does not look good :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Forced marriages are unfortunately a common occurrence in south east asia. I shall write up an article in userspace over the next few days, you can let me know if it is NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, forced marriage is sadly common. But the legal battle is rare, and that is what has made this one so notable.

I look fwd to seeing what you write, and sorry if I came across as a bit bitey. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just added more Minnesota towns to the CFD I began today. When you voted, I was in the process of setting them up....William 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look. Hope the scrutiny was in a higher gear than the first one :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I try looking at the town pages. In fact of the 20 nominees, 19 of the article pages have 3 or less people listed in their notable people sections if the town has one at all and many didn't. Zumbrota has only one person mentioned in their article. The town I missed was Thief Falls.

You probably don't know it, but I do alot of work on cleaning up notable people sections of town articles. I clean out non notables daily. You know, IP editors who trash their girlfriends or think their barber is notable. I also add people and categorize Judges, Baseball players, politicians articles into town or county category pages. Look at my edit history. Plus I've created People from Categories. In fact last weekend, I created People from Fort Scott Kansas, People from Coffeyville Kansas, People from Pittsburg Kansas, People from Leavenworth Kansas, People from Independence Kansas.

I worked hard nominating those articles and scrutinized ahead of time but come in saying "but it doesn't look good so far". Where's WP:AGF and not assuming I just screwed it up?...William 17:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

William, I'm sorry you feel that I have been unfair.

But when a few cursory checks produce very difft answers to what you had found, I think it was fair to say that whatever scrutiny was done had not been sufficient. What do you think I should have concluded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't fair. I did the most obvious search. Going through county category articles, which can have hundreds of entries, or googling 'Born in Rushford, Minnesota, wikipedia' can't be called a cursory check in any form. Shouldn't the creator of the category, just like the creator of an article, have to bear the burden of proving that a category is deserved. Most of the categories were probably created by the same editor who's created over 100 people from categories for small towns who you've repeatedly said don't deserve them.

Another thing, is 5 really enough for a category? That's your opinion but I disagree but have keeping to 3 or less except one time which BTW you supported merge for towns with four. No consensus has been formed....William 18:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another thing. You added William Roseland to the Category People from Zumbrota, Minnesota category. His article nor its one readable source gives no proof of his being from Zumbrota and the first two pages of google searches "William Roseland zumbrota" turn up noting....William 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And I just noted the addition of William Roseland and the lack of proof for his being from Zumbrota at the CFD. I did so without 'doesn't look good so far' or 'that technique is insufficient' commentary....William 19:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Listify Category:Star Trek crossover episodes

Hi BHG. Thanks for closing Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_21#Category:Star_Trek_crossover_episodes, which was as listify to Star Trek crossovers. I don't see the list. Does it still exist somewhere or is it now lost? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe

I listed it in the queue at WP:CFD/W/M in this edit, which was 1 minute after I closed the discussion.

It was removed from the queue 2 days later by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs).

Here are the edits by Fayenatic to Star Trek crossovers. I have not assessed them, and if you have any concerns please can you discuss them with Fayenatic london (talk · contribs)?

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed. A system working like clockwork. So that's what bought Fayenatic london to the article. He did a good job. I was expecting a clumsy copy-paste of a list to appear. Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Telecommunications terms

Thanks for deleting Category:Telecommunications terms, after closing its deletion discussion. Please also delete the associated template, Template:Telecomm-term-stub. This is the current correct procedure: stub sorting templates are deleted by holding a CfD for the associated stub category. (This is described at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion, and in the RfC linked from that page.)--Srleffler (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for overlooking that one, and thanks for the friendly reminder.

It seems that User:Malik Shabazz beat me to it, here. I hope that's all wrapped up now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert all moved to Australian related categories

There was no discussion at all for the moves such as Category:Australian television navigational boxes to Category:Australian television navigational boxes, please restore these back since the move is disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)