Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:18, 1 May 2014

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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.

You've got mail!

v/r - TP 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - TP 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks to you both (Adjwilley & TParis) for your messages.
I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - TP 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - TP 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry :( back on the case now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...again ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, just letting you know I intend to close the discussion this evening barring any last-minute objections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CFD/W

I notice that you fully protected Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of template editors is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: Sorry for not replying. I had read your message, and wanted to think about it, and forgot to get back to you.  :(

I see that you asked at WP:RFPP and got the answer that since CFD/W isn't a template, it shouldn't be protected as if it was. I support that conclusion.

You may have noticed that I have just made a proposal (permalink) which will have the effect of unprotecting part of CFD/W. I hope that may help a little. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: Note that the proposal mentioned above has been implemented. The list of discussions awaiting closure is now at WP:CFD/AC, which is an unprotected page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Your premature noticeboard closure.

The 2 editors involved should use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the substance of this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section (). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning I'm being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: On the evidence presented, you are mistaking a complaint about sources for a criticism of you. I haven't tried to assess the merits of those sources, or the validity of EllenCT's description of them ... but even if she is wrong about the sources, that's a content dispute not an attack on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your mistaken view is understandable since you aren't familiar with the disputes or the fact that I haven't added "statements" from the source in question, but what about my request that you admonish her to at least be clear about her accusations, since I posted proof that her claims, at best, can be taken by others to mean that I'm being paid? She's proved that she'll ignore my admonishments, but she might listen to an admin. who asks her to clarify that she's not leveling such a charge. Isn't that a reasonable request? VictorD7 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think that you would do better to let it go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what you should be telling her? She's the one engaging in the repeated behavior, making a false personal accusation (false in either interpretation). If that continues unchanged I guess my only remedy would be to bring it back to the noticeboard, and hope for a more satisfactory hearing. VictorD7 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened when you posted to her talk page to ask for the clarification? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So it only counts if it's on her talk page? She ignored multiple opportunities to clarify what she meant when I gave her specific warning elsewhere, as my noticeboard links showed (, ). The last time I posted on her talk page (apart from giving her notice about this report) was a few months ago when I asked her to justify a blatantly false claim she made about a source by providing a single quote supporting what she said, and she completely ignored me, never answering (). BTW, that's despite the fact she was already discussing me before I showed up. I was the "he" in the above posts in the diff. She was upset that another editor who shares her politics was acknowledging that I had made legitimate points and was admonishing her for her insulting and excessively partisan posting style. This isn't an editor prone to reasonable, productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no evidence about whether VictorD7 is personally paid to edit, but he obviously knows for a fact that the graph he keeps trying to insert which falsely shows US taxation as progressive at the top was paid for by the Peterson Foundation. And he knows for a fact that corporations pass about half of their taxes on to their customers, contrary to what the graph shows. He even complained about that early on in our discussion of the graph about a year ago, but he still keeps trying to insert it. So, what's the difference in terms of policy between being paid to insert misleading propaganda and willingly inserting paid misleading propaganda without personally being paid to do so? Is the former forbidden but the latter is just fine? How is that possible? When does a content dispute become a behavior issue about willing disregard of the reliable source criteria? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: @VictorD7: I don't want my page to become an ANI substitute, so I will make one more comment and then close. (It's my talk page, so I get to decide who gets the last word here.)

Both of you should take a deep breath and consider that the way this is going is likely to end up in some sort of situation where sanctions may be applied, to one or both of you. You both need to resolve the *substance* of this dispute, rather than arguing about each other's motivations.

Have you considered WP:3O or WP:RSN? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 20 April 2014 (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.

RE: Category:Polish victims of Stalinist repression‎

Hi, are you interested in leaving your opinion regarding the above category CFD, particularly given the category's similarity to other categories which were deleted way back when (i.e. , ). Yours, Quis separabit? 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

v/r - TP 04:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Capture of Eat India Company vessel Nautilus

Please accept my apologies for pre-empting the formal closure of the move discussion on this page. I was impatient with the creator of the page, with whom I (and other editors on subjects relating to the War of 1812) have become exasperated for POV issues, failure to provide citations of edit summaries and general disruptive behaviour. This editor began edit-warring on this and other pages, using sockpuppets, which I have reported to the admins. As I believe I would have been justified in a unilateral move without need for discussion (as "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate") I did so, prematurely, out of impatience. Incidentally, the present title follows the naming conventions with regard to most naval conflicts of the War of 1812. I believe that, while including the USS Peacock in the title might be strictly correct, but unwieldy. HLGallon (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@HLGallon:

A WP:BOLD move is often appropriate, provided that you accept per WP:BRD that it may be reverted, in which case a discussion is needed. Move wars tend to get stamped on.

However, having chosen to open a discussion instead, the bold-move option is gone. It makes no sense to have a discussion if the proposer is going to do what they wanted anyway. Thanks for the apology for pre-empting the closure; I have reverted the move, and the discussion can run its course to whatever outcome. It was a minor thing, now sorted.

I am not going to discuss the substantive merits of any of the titles; that's not an admin's role. Those points belong in the move discussion.

I know that it can be frustrating to deal with some editors, but the two most important things that I have learnt about editing here are:

1. There is no deadline. Getting it right doesn't mean that it has to be right, right now.
2. Don't let the frustration get to you. Misplaced Pages is a complex social environment, and impatience or frustration always damages an editor's standing, no matter what the perceived provocation.

Hope this helps. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and forbearance. As an aside, the sockpuppet and edit-warring situation seems to be resolved. However, I will probably take a break from editing, for a few weeks at least, to avoid rash behaviour on my own part. HLGallon (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Null edit

Please explain Is there some CSS display problem that lead you to do this? Please use {{Ping}} if you respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: No. It was labelled as a null edit, to indicate that it was intended to have no effect.

Its purpose was to purge a transcluded template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Null edit Is there a reason why you didn't use &action=purge? Does this null edit revision do something that cache purging wouldn't do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A purge doesn't seem to update the cached version of the page which is served to IP users, whereas a null edit does.

That means that whatslinkshere reflects changes to the template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

HRC Requested move

Hi BHG, I was just wondering if you will be saying anything about the requested move. Some people seem interested in "Move review", but I advised waiting to find out if you had any comments. Cheers.

P.S. Should we call you Brown Haired Girl, or drop the "Haired"?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant

Sorry for my silence; some explanations below. As you may already have seen, I have posted my endorsement of the closure. So whether or not anyone agrees with the close, I hope there is no doubt that it is very much the conclusion of all 3 of us.

Not sure about the haired anymore. I pulled a lot of it out this week while trying to figure my way through various conundruma online and offline, so I am thinking of changing my name to Sinéad. ;)

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for participating in the MR closure, though I probably would have come out with a different result. (I fixed the wlink above to your endorsement.) Take it easy and relax ("NoHairedGirl" just doesn't sound right, though I'm not doing so great in that department so probably should not talk about it). Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hi - just wanted to thank you for participating in the close of this move request. I don't need or want to know what went on behind the scenes, but just wanted to say that as someone else pointed out, this is volunteer work and sometimes other responsibilities here or in real life take precedence, so no apology for any delay was needed. We appreciate that the three of you were able to get through this one, and of course I am pleased with the outcome. But I would thank you for taking it on even if the outcome had been different. Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, for your kind words.

What went on behind the scenes was more detailed analysis of the discussion than I have ever done before, and a lot of chewing over of some finer points where various aspects of policy intersected. At the start of the analysis, I had no idea which way my assessment would point, and it was hard work weighing all the arguments.

And then Stuff Happened™ in various aspects of my life which left me thinking I'll do more writing tomorrow when I have fewer things on my mind and can give this full concentration ... but it took rather too many tomorrows for me to get to that point. In my absence, TP & AJ did a magnificent job in writing up our conclusions, and taking the decision to post it rather than waiting for me to get my act in gear.

There was never going to be any close her that would satisfy everyone, and it looks like there may be a move review. If so, we'll see what uninvolved editors think of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ciara Durkin

Hi. I updated and notability tagged this article. Just wonder what you think re notability and the cruft I rv. I don't want to be accused of being antigay or whatever. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Thanks for asking me.

First thing is that I'm not sure I can be impartial on it. The whole business of an Irish woman ending up killed in an opaque sideshow to someone else's war feels v sad to me, and that's not an objective judgement.

However, it does seem to me that the refs so far do give a prima facie claim to notability. She's the sole subject of a decent piece on CBSnews, and of several articles on Boston.com. The latter appears to be the work of the Boston Globe (see The Boston Globe#Website), so it looks like a WP:RS.

I have two concerns. First, there is not much notable to her other than her unexplained death. That suggests that the article should be moved to Death of Ciara Durkin, and possibly restructured a bit.

Secondly, the article stops with material from years ago, when various US Senators asked questions about her death. What happened to those questions? Were they ever answered? Did anyone pursue the issue? That makes for a rather unsatisfactory article, and an update would help.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. Those were the same concerns I have. If you think there is a prima facie case, I'll see if I can expand it. Quis separabit? 00:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, let me just ask. Do you think I should move it on my own using the "move" option or if it might be contentious how should I go about moving the article, as per your suggestion, to Death of Ciara Durkin? Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a bold move. If it is reverted, then try a WP:RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Death of Ciara Durkin -- I checked the family-maintained website and her family appears to have accepted the suicide verdict. So not much to add to article and notability unclear. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little unclear where her family stands. The website doesn't say that they accepted the suicide verdict, but nor does it say much else. If they were still contesting the verdict, I would expect more about unanswered questions etc, so I guess it's somewhere in the "not contested" territory. If it all just fizzled out, there may not be enough more material to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

11th-century

Hi BHG, for info, I tinkered with your close at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_7#Category:11th-century_in_the_United_States, removing the hyphen, and tidied up afterwards. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, FL. I hadn't spotted the glitch in the nominator's format, and it was kind of you to sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw that the Commons equivalent also needed sorting out... and some Wikidata... Don't ask me why I like the knotty ones! – Fayenatic London 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Persecution

Hi. Since I believe we share similar opinions regarding subjective terminology in categories, I was just curious if you think the term "persecution" is appropriate or not for this CFD, although to be honest I can't think of another word that might fit, so my opinion/suggestion on the thread didn't actually change that word. Still curious though. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your kindness and attention. I will stop bothering you. I know you're a busy lady. I just wanted to get an idea of how to recognize and, if possible, tackle the issue of subjectiveness (or is it subjectivity?). Thanks, Quis separabit? 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. You're always welcome to ask. If I'm too busy I'll either say so, or be rude and ignore the post :)

And in this case I was glad to get a heads up on that discussion. The parent Category:Persecution is is a bit alarming, in that its selectivity seems to confer "persecuted" status to a few groups but not others. I'm sure that the selectivity arose unintentionally, but it looks bad. We need some more neutral way of grouping this sort of article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, I noticed the same thing. I did neglect to check and see if that category was part of a larger category, which it is. I have to get into that habit since piecemeal is not the way to go, as you pointed out. The term is subjective, IMO, although understandable and I am not sure what word I would use in its place. I don't want to be a hypocrite given all the other categories deleted in those old CFDs for the same reason. But not today.
Also, there may be a special wrinkle with the Persecution of LGBT people category given that this topic is highly provocative to many and any attempt, even in good faith, to alter it can produce what I can only describe as heated and negative environment. There was an AFD on the Brendan Burke article (which you can see and read for yourself here) several years ago regarding the (non)notability of the article as the subject acquired notability mostly through his tragic and untimely death after coming out. Anyway, what I can only describe as a flashmob of single-purpose, newly created editors besieged the thread, which was acknowledged by the closing admin who decided to keep the article despite a decidedly mixed and irregular debate and dubious consensus. (Just like a US presidential election!) It created a very uncomfortable and accusatory tone. So, while I hate to acknowledge that outside interests can intrude on our inner sancta here on Misplaced Pages, it can occur. Ah, well, we'll see what happens. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Songs about

Hi I am happy to accept your recommendations, would you be kind enough to merge these three (abortion, loneliness and buses? (Rain should remain separate as the comment by one editor is what started this). Depending on your response I am happy to add the other "songs about" categories, or continue and do the group nomination properly when the present noms are closed. Thanks for your help. I shouldn't edit until I am awake. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: OK, will merge the Apr 26 discussions as a first step.

But that still leaves us with another discussion on Apr 25, and many similar categories not included in the discussion at all. It would be massively better to to have one centralised discussion about the principle of all such categories. so I plead with you gain to withdraw all the current nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussions merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have seen your note on rain and it is obvious we do not agree on the correct steps to take - I would suggest the reason for this is linear, at the time of nomination for rain I had no intention of listing all, it was the prompting of one editor that made me consider all. Shame I messed that up, but I did. So as far as I am concerned my mess has been cleared up and all is as it should be. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Glad to help. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was somehow accusing you of being intentionally disruptive or anything like that. I just thought that you were pursuing a well-reasoned objective in good faith in a way which had some adverse effects you hadn't foreseen, and I am sorry that I didn't stress my assumption of good faith. As you say, all cleared up now.

At this point, I wonder whether way ahead is through a group nomination or an RFC. I would be inclined to suggest an RFC, because it seems to create a more reflective discussion if editors don't feel an immediate urge to defend against a deletion. If you like, I would be happy to help draft an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed that there was no inference of bad will - on either side. It was my intention to list them all this morning :(. So let's move on, I do accept your offer of help for an RfD. There is some notes I have made for myself at User:Richhoncho/Songs_by_theme and I already have a list of every "song about" category. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Senate CFD

Hi, thanks for the ping regarding this. Yes, I can still do the split. Good Ol’factory 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Good Ol’factory

That's great. You seemed to have a grasp of the topic, and it's better done by the editor who knows it than by the closer. You may have spotted that I also listed the categs at WP:CFD/W/M, so maybe you can also remove that listing when done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Good Ol’factory 10:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mid Armagh by-election, 1918 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bracketbot. Now fixed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton II

What happened to you? You made a commitment to be a part of a three admin closing panel and then just stopped communicating with the other two admin. I for one would really like to know why this occurred.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I see it above. Real life happens.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Hey, BHG,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I noticed that you had done some editing of this policy in 2013 and I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks! Liz 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Liz. I have add a comment to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read your contribution yet, BHG, but, in general, I think it's important for a discussion not just be a difference of opinion between two editors but have input from others (whatever that opinion might be). Then it turns from a situation of "me vs. you" into a proper conversation. Liz 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of John Green (MP) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Green (MP) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Green (MP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. James • 10:42pm • 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of a joke?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category_talk%3ALiverpool_docks&diff=606553455&oldid=409881035

Or Eric's? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, a little AGF goes a long way. A quick glance at my contribs would show you that it was part of a long AWB run of all sub-cats of Category:Greater Manchester. Collecting all subcats usually brings in a few extraneous categories, and I had already spotted Category:Peak District as bring lots of Derbyshire into the set. I had also spotted that the Manchester Ship Canal brought into some other topics outside GM, and hoped that I had spotted and removed all the extraneous material from the list. It seems that I missed that one.

Thank you for spotting and fixing this one. But it was unnecessary to use an edit summary to suggest that I was trolling. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was a genuine mistake then I'm sorry, but if you're looking for where AGF went, ask Wikipediocracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't bother with those review/critique sites. It's up to each editor to decide for themselves whether to assume good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have added a comment to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	About a month later, your move of Crowned Crane and friends has been vindicated. Thanks for making this tough close, and thus taking the first step in putting a contentious issue to rest at last. BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)