Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 14 December 2007

16:13 Tuesday 24 December 2024 Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl) Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to: sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG) indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)	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
Misplaced Pages Admin I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance. 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. If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

Stardust Fire

Could you give me a bit of advice on this Aatomic1 seems to have a thing about adding lists of dead and I dont want to get in to an Edit War thanks. BigDunc (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, Dunc, but I dunno that I can help. I have very rarely found myself agreeing with Aatomic1, but on this occasion I think he is right: WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clearly refers to the subject of an article, not to people mentioned in an article. If it wasn't for the fact that people died there, there probably couldn't be an article on the fire. I really don't understand why people want to delete such lists, unless they overwhelm the article.

The best comment I have seen on all of this is here, by Gaimhreadhan (only a few days before he died): have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article".

Maybe it's just something that's part of the world I grew up in, where, death really mattered. If someone you knew died, you went to the funeral, no matter what church it was in, or even whether you like or hate the person, just to pay your respects and because death matters. That business of death being important is what troubles me about the the deletion of this list. The dead here were ordinary working-class Dubliners who met a horrible end, and when I read the list, it prompted me to re-read the whole article twice, trying to imagine what it must have been like inside there, as well to wonder what about the poor girl from Kells who'd come all the way for the disco. Those folks were all within a few years of my age, and seeing the names makes it real for me.

I know I'm letting own emotions get in the way here, but I just keep on coming back to the same question: if we can't name the dead, what's the article for? It's not about a burnt building, that's for sure.

Anyway, sorry Dunc: I know you're a thoughtful person, but I can't understand where you're coming from on this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple really. The article is about the Stardust fire. What made it notable, is the number of people killed, and the ongoing action of the relatives for justice. The key things here are the Article = Stardust and what made it notable = number killed. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clearly refers to the subject of an article, which is the Number killed. Now my rational is this: there is an ongoing discussion here. Rather than see it through to the end, and resolve this once and for all, we have the same thing being spread across another article. Is it not reasonable to address this discussion first. BigDunc understands this issue over lists, but I differ only in the fact that :::I find this new one is only being used to make a point plain and simple. It is that which I find objectionable. --Domer48 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer BHG my objection to the list in NO way takes away the enormity of what happened that night 2 people from my area died that night and I live 10 minutes from the site of this tragedy I have campaigned with my local Cllr for a new tribunal and against the issuing of a pub licence for Butterly but I feel Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article this list does not warrant a seperate article or am I reading that wrong? thanks. BigDunc (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Like BigDunc I attended vigils and supported the campaigned so you could say there is a conflict of intrest. On the other hand the point BigDunc makes is still valid. --Domer48 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your replies. I think that BigDunc hits the nail on the head when he asks whether "this list does not warrant a separate article". That's my reading of it: that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL means no separate article for the list, and no separate articles for individuals notable only for their tragic death ... but that it does not deprecate a short list of the dead in an article on the event itself.

I have been doing some further checks on other fires, (which has led me to start creating Category:Fires by year), and so far I have found New Cross Fire which does have a list and Bradford fire which doesn't. I'll do some further checking and draw up a longer list, but the New Cross Fire seems like an interesting comparison, because it was such a similar event (that similarity actually became part of the debate, because the black communities of South London were disgusted that the London media ran huge coverage of the Stardust fire, but very little of the disaster in their own city; the possibility of arson was also a contentious issue inn New Cross, albeit the other way round). I guess at one level we all have an interest in this one, because I think that most people in Ireland have strong feelings about the fire, but it's still a fair distance from the sorts of involvement defined in WP:COI. Maybe, though it does suggest that we will need someone from another continent to sort it out.

It seems to me that the mediation at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and has degenerated into an argument which only risks building more antagonism. I suggest that an RFC is appropriate. If you like, and if aatomic1 agrees, I'd happy to draft a summary of both sides views to launch the RFC. Obviously I will post it only if all involved agree that it's a fair summary of the situation. Would you like me to try? (No offence at all if you say no!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine with me BHG thanks again. BigDunc (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection, thanks very much for your considered responce. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• No objection Aatomic1 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I too agree with aatomic but didn't want to get sucked in. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then who sucked you in? BigDunc (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be agreement for the idea from the main parties to the dispute, I'll try drafting something later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help BigDunc (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really kind of you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Sorry BHG is this RfC going to deal with this article exclusively or is it going to take in to account Aatomic1's disregard for this process which is still on going and continued edit warring on Birmingham Pub Bombing article. BigDunc (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a difficult question. It seems to me that there are two ways of approaching this: either to try to take one thing at a time and deciding who is right or wrong in a piecemeal way without really resolving the issues ... or to try to reach some agreement on the wider question, to bring some principles to apply to all the specific instances, whether we are talking about fires or bombs. (In saying that, I'm not suggesting that the answer has to be the same for both, just that what I'd like to see out of the RFC is something, or some set of things, which could answer the questions about both fires and bombs. That may be the same answer or it may be different ones).

What I had in mind was very much the latter. It seems to me that the mediation has not produced a clear outcome, let alone one which everyone can live with, and that while the mediation was worth trying, it hasn't worked in this case. Given that, I think that it seems to me to be best to try to get everyone to agree to a new process to find a solution, and that the best way to deal with any edit warring would be to protect the articles if necessary. I would hope that anyone involved in the RFC would understand that edit-warring while the RFC is underway is not a clever thing to do, because everything will be more heavily scrutinised.

So I'm thinking now that what we need is in fact a policy/guideline RFC seeking clarification and expansion of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, because the current wording doesn't mean the same thing to different people. How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the mediation is that it has produced a clear outcome. The editors who want to include the list have not come up with a single decent reason for it's inclusion. And I feel are refusing to actually discuss points simply posting links in Aatomic1's case and I think the mediator Dreamafter feels the same (but I cant speak for Dreamafter on this).BigDunc (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. Whatever else has happened, there is no agreement on the solution, and that's why I said above that "it hasn't worked in this case".

It seems to me that the question now is whether the editors involved now want to proceed towards an RFC to clarify the policy, as suggested earlier? I thought we had agreement earlier on to do that, but maybe that was only because we hadn't clarified what sort of RfC. I don't feel that an RFC/U would be helpful, or that an article RFC would do anything other than to displace the dispute to somewhere else, but that a clarification of the policy could resolve the issue.

Do folks still want me to proceed to draft something? If not, I will step aide and use my time elsewhere, because I don't want to try to force anyone to a table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct is not the issue. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• As per my original comment I have no objection to any RFC. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct is not the issue I beg to differ! "My reading of the mediation is that it has produced a clear outcome. The editors who want to include the list have not come up with a single decent reason for it's inclusion." Could not have put it better, so I put it on the mediation page as well. Conduct is not the issue please! --Domer48 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we have got to now. Is there still consensus to try a draft for a policy RFC? That's the best I can suggest, and I'm happy to do if a draft if folks want to try that route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I personally would be grateful for a draft. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefare a WP:RFCC with good reason I think. The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. When the mediator has to revert an editor involved in the mediation twice you have to consider bad faith. Having had to be warned to revert the mediator is just to undermine their role. Edit warring only makes that task more difficult. All I want is reasoned discussion, and I don't think we have been getting that. --Domer48 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage anyone from opening an RFCC if they think that is appropriate, but I don't want to be a part of it myself. That's partly because I dislike the way the at such procedures, even when justified and needed, seem to me to be likely to be a rather bitter experience for all concerned, and partly because having just had accumulated a lot of bruises from an editor wholly unrelated to this dispute, I don't feel like getting involved in another battle.

The other reason, though, is that at some point the substantive issue here has to be resolved in a way which can allow for much clearer guidelines, which can be applied across all articles rather than just these ones. The messiness of this dispute seems to me to make that clarification of guidelines more pressing than ever. Mediation was a good step to try, but it clearly has not produced agreement on this case, and in case would not have broader implications.

That's why I have advocated a policy/guideline RFC, as a step to develop a broader consensus across wikipedia on how to fill the gap in the guidelines. Whatever happens wrt to a WP:RFCC, something needs to be done to plug the gap in the guidelines, but since there's clearly no agreement between the parties here to try that, I'll drop out now.

My best wishes to all of you. I hope that however this is resolved, we won't still find so many talented others engaged in such protracted disputes over relatively small parts of articles which are crying out for much more substantive improvements. Both the Birmingham pub bombings and the Stardust fire were very significant events, and it should be possible to write featured articles on both of them but while everyone's energies are directed to these small points, they are destined to languish in start-class. That's a terrible waste of everyone's talents :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coming way late to this party - I too would definitely welcome your drafting an RFC - and thanks for offering. As an aside - would it be possible to restore Dreamafter's mediation pages and put them somewhere accessible to all? I was gobsmacked to see he'd deleted everything relating to several months work by all sides. Bastun 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the support for a policy review. The mediation went round in circles. Lots of asserting that points weren't being addressed and then when they were addressed the assertions were repeated again and louder....hardly productive. Hughsheehy (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic article rule, my thoughts on the subject

I do not think that all of the year articles should be categorised that way, because all of the extra categories are already the parents of the eponymous category. The example quoted in the guideline is for George W. Bush and the category Category:George W. Bush. The category is primarily categorised in Category:Categories named after American politicians, whereas the article is in different categories: Category:1946 births, Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:American Methodists to name but a few.

It seems to me that, by adding an article to all of its eponymous category's parents, it eliminates the need for single-member categories such as Category:1789 in Ireland. If one find the article in any of the parents then there is no need to descend the further level into Category:1789 in Ireland to find the article. In the more recent years, e.g. Category:2007 in Ireland, the situation is different because there are many events from that year. The double listing might aid navigation in the reasonbly populated categories, but not at all in one article categories.

Maybe instead a navigational template added to the articles would help — say linking a full decade together? Tim! (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your note. I agree on some points here, but not on others.

1. Your last suggestion of a navigational template for the year-in-Ireland articles, is a great idea. I had considered creating something like this myself, but didn't find time for it. It'd be wonderful if you made one.
2. The Topic article rule offers various pertinent reasons for the double-listing, including "makes it easier to find main topic articles". That's certainly the case here: having all the 199x in Ireland articles together in Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland and in Category:1990s in Ireland makes them much more accessible than having to go into each annual subcat to find them. This applies whether the reader is starting from the category or from the article
3. I think you have a stronger case wrt the by-year categories which contain all the main articles, but I'm not persuaded. Many of the by-year categories should already be much more heavily populated with existing articles, and deleting the underpopulated categories just makes it more difficult for editors to populate them. There is in any case a general principle in WP:OCAT#SMALL that small categories are acceptable if part of a wider categorisation scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find the following templates of use: {{Year nav topic}} and {{Year nav topic2}} (I'm not sure the difference between the two). There is also List of years in Ireland providing a full lisiting of all of the year articles, I note that all of the articles link to it. Tim! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to self to come back to this issue, and to delay the section from being archived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

draft article on women in occupations

Hi BHG - FYI, I drafted Occupations, gender roles, and women's history and will begin drafting relevant articles for individual occupations as appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I can't help myself at the moment, but it might be a good idea to drop a note at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender Studies/Notice Board and/or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. There are some very knowledgeable academics there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Begun a series at Women in the workforce, Women in medicine, and other drafts at User:Lquilter/done#current drafts -- feel free to edit draft articles in my sandbox. My plan is to sketch out outline sections, add some basic info, enough references to survive AFDs, and then move to mainspace as stubs. Each one is different and I am by no means an expert on the various professions, the notable historical figures, and the national/regional histories -- so ideas, input, etc. on subtopics & links & whatnot would be greatly appreciated. --Lquilter 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

While on the subject of original research and golden oldies, what think you of the 1897/1907 debate on Ruby Muhammad? I note that at least two websites, genarians.com and Dead or Alive info have already changed their information based on the Misplaced Pages entry. The German Misplaced Pages entry, meanwhile, has completely discarded the notion that she may have been born in 1897. When I brought up the World's Oldest People forum for debate as a reliable source, no one seemed to mind, so I left it as it was. Now that the debate has been revived, however, I thought I'd get your input. The only sources that claim the 1907 birth, at least one's that don't seem to be getting their info from Misplaced Pages, are Robert Young's site and Robert Young's fan site. Strikes me as very ORish, especially since someone pointed out that the evidence listing her as born in 1907 also lists her as being white (although I may have misinterpreted this, I'm no expert). Cheers, CP 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Paul, that's very curious. I have removed it as unpublished original research (a yahoogroup and a http://www.supercentenariancentral.com/falseandunknowncases fan site] are not reliable sources). One of these days I'm going put a day aside and deal with the rest of the heap of original research. Some articles, like this one, just need to be trimmed of the OR, but some are going to end up completely unreferenced. At this point, I think that the unreferenced articles should simpy be deleted, and the rest trimmed back to what the reliable sources say. It's just too hard to tell how much of this stuff is genuine when so much of it is based on the unpublished OR of a hype-merchant. That's the biggest irony of the whole thing: Young claimed to have made his name as a debunker of myths, but has been busy using wikipedia to publish his original research when the public can't even see his account of the evidence he claims to have accumulated. Very shoddy stuff indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm not totally off-track (yet). I performed similar functions on Hryhoriy Nestor. I might have to explain to User:Plyjacks what WP:NOR entails. Cheers, CP 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Will be looking into the link Plyjacks posted on the discussion. However, I'd probably rather Google this person myself and see if I can find other references. Neal (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

E-mail from Robert Young. Reply to CP's paragraph.

1. How would CP know where NN&C gets their info from? That's an unproved assertion and should be disallowed.

2. The evidence from the 1910 census does NOT list Ruby as 'white'...FALSE. Any citations for that claim? However, I do seem to recall someone finding a 'Ruby' born in the 1890's that turned out to be 'white'. So, CP doesn't have his story straight.

3. The WOP is a 'private' group...well, I guess you could call Misplaced Pages a 'private' group...they don't let everyone in, do they?

4. Actually, the research was done by Filipe Prista Lucas.

Reply to BrownHairedGirl's paragraph.

Actually, if we go by 'verifiable sources'...the disparaging remarks made by BHG are 'unsourceable.' NO ONE outside of Misplaced Pages has challenged the reliability/believability of the data. The REAL irony is that BHG has concocted a fantasy world where she is 'right' based on faith-based original research, and where I am 'wrong' (even though I can source my statements, and she can't).

I'm probably the only 1 who notices this, but, the fact that Robert links to his WOP post as source/reference and blocks non-members (private) sort of makes it a good reason to sign up and join his group, right? Neal (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't matter who does the research, it's WP:OR unless published in a WP:RS. Private or non-private, a mailing list is not a WP:RS. And not everyone is allowed to sign up, so it's not publishing ... furthermore, claiming that it's a good reason to sign up is actually another reason not to allow those links: if the am is to recruit members, it's clearly spamming.

Finally, please don't go posting stuff from Young on my talk page. Anything further will be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I meant people had to sign up in order to see the reference/citation. This is a good way for Robert to bring more members by requiring membership. Anyways, I think I'll go back and remove all the WOP links, particularly by doing the URL search for articles. Neal (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Good idea: all the links to WOP should all be removed.

PS Everyone can read wikipedia. WP also allows everyone to edit, unless and until they abuse the trust which wikipedia places in editors. It seems that Young still hasn't grasped these concepts. And I don't expect him to grasp them either so please don't post here any more of the emissions of this self-promoting harasser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you're on Wikibreak, but I'm just recovering from food poisoning and just got around to seeing this note. I'm a little bit sickened that I replied to him when he raised these questions with me privately, and yet here they are posted without my responses. I won't waste your time repeating my answers, especially since he wanted to "discuss central issues privately." What nonsense all of this is. Cheers, CP 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check something...

I've added a parent to Category:Gaelic games by year found in the orphanage, but we have no cat Category:Gaelic games nor Category:Gaelic Games. Perhaps you may be better positioned to think of a proper other parent to this tree being closer to the action than I. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That would appear to have the result of an inadequate end to a speedy renaming. The parent cats should have been carried over from the old categ, but were missed. Good to see that it's now sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel

Hi, BHG - I hope you will take a look at the analysis & comment I appended on the CFD for Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel in support of renaming to Category:Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regards, Cgingold 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I just saw that you're on Wikibreak. Hope you return refreshed and in good spirits! CG

More Pastorwaynery

We have WestfieldIns, 70.104.102.253 (see e.g. page history of Jan Kowalski); and also 72.69.76.86 and 70.105.118.61 editing in tandem with WestfieldIns here. -- roundhouse0 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the strangely named Archbishop of Chiatura and the invaluable Category:Incomplete lists of Eastern Orthodox Christians, for which Misplaced Pages had been waiting with bated breath until today. This appears to be an attempt to bring order to Category:Incomplete lists, which is, intriguingly, a subcat of itself. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City, Tampa, Florida

Hi BHG.. I wonder if, after your wikibreak, you would like to check out the situation at Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and its talk page? I am inexperienced in article writing and also with regards to situations like this, but the original author is hostile about any changes in his work on the article, calling those who would question the tone and the encyclopedishness of the article itself sockpuppets, malicious, malevolent or worse. I wonder if you would lend your considerable experience to this matter and perhaps help cool Zeng8r down? I have no idea how to talk to him, and perhaps you could offer more valuable advice or help reach a compromise, more than I ever could. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse Alert!!!!!!!

Before I get arbitrarily blocked by User talk:Daniel could you please call him/her to order? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

BHG, I'd suggest you have a glance at Talk:Great Irish Famine#Arbitration Committee mentorship before "calling me to order" :) If necessary, defer discussion to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Daniel 00:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary...didn't realise that User:Daniel was a mentor. I'm on a steep learning curve! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, folks, I'm staying out of that one. I took a quick look, and I think that many of those involved would benefit from taking a break and cooling down a bit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Customs and practice for Documentary Credits

Can you help? This page was a viable page about an instrument used in more than a trillion dollars of trade anually. But, someone placed the actual text on the page in breach of copyright. Instead of removing the text, the entire page was deleted. The user who deleted it was User talk:^demon‎. I have left three messages on his page asking what to do and requesting its reinstatement, given that some editing had taken place to the commentary. His reply today was that he has no time. I am frustrated that he has time to delete it but not to correct what I see as an error, or even comment. Is there a procdedure to have the page reinstated without the text? Many thanks for your time. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that admins should be available for reasonable discussion of their actions, but it seems that this ^demon has desysoped herself, so I have reinstated the page and all its history, and then reverted the addition of the copyvio text: see revision history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work - very much appreciated. Alan Davidson (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BHGbot

Any idea when you might do a run with your new BHGbot for the WikiProject Ireland? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Unionists

Hi.

I don't believe an agreed resolution can be reached on the article.

The current edit states: 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members with Ian Paisley being posted on it'

I edited it to state 'The weblog, which is currently (as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members, including the current Chairman of the UYUC, a former Chairman and the current Chairman of the QUB YU Branch and the Secretary of the Belfast Branch, with Northern Ireland's First Minister Ian Paisley at the 2007 Battle of the Somme Service of Remembrance held in France being posted on it offline.'

As I have stated on the discussion and history pages the current edit gives the reader no idea what context the photograph was taken in. One could assume the photograph was taken at a DUP party political rally instead of a Remembrance Service in France with the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Traditional Unionist initially claimed the edit was vandalism, and then it was unreferenced. I cited the original and sole source, the webpage on which the blog piece and photograph appeared (http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/thier-name-liveth-for-evermore.php). He then claimed that the source wasn't reliable as it was from a blog. However as the blog piece is given as the reason for the website being down it is clearly relevant, in the same manner the article on the Daily Kos is a valid source for an article on that blog.

I would request that the article be edited to reflect the context the photograph was taken in. Cephalus (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, but my talk page is not the place for such a request: it should be made at Talk:Young Unionists, accompanied by an {{editprotected}} tag. As the admin who protected the article, I will not take a view on the substantive content disputes. However, use of the {{editprotected}} tag will draw the article to the attention of other admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you forgotten about something?

I see that you have returned from your long walk. I trust that you would not mind giving me your take on the matter of succession boxes? If you have time, that is. I pretty much do. Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My Talk page

Please would you restore it. Thank you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever did restore it. I didn't know how to. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

I now understand better about ] and ]. I would prefer to see them merged back instead of simply deleted though AFD, and as an admin I hold you to a higher standard to work toward doing this versus simply deleting the problem. However, I also see that Kitia may be the instigator who is unmerging the articles repeatedly, which may be the problem in and of itself.

The feeling the AFD is a revenge motive is due to your comment, "It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." It was made within 30 minutes of your first comment to Kitia.

I would recommend merging material back to list of supercentenarians and closing your AFD. Your thoughts? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re all the supercentenarian AfDs and Kitia's involvement: you might find this of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

David, yes I saw that. Hence why I brought it to attention. It appeared to be a canvassing attempt. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: by "you" I meant BHG. Obviously you, Guroadrunner, knew of the canvassing, but I wasn't sure that she was. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!!!! Guroadrunner (talk)

Guroadrunner, the bottom line for me is that wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is undermined by the presence of unreferenced or under-referenced stubs on non-notable subjects. I'm somewhat agnostic about how to remove the stubs, as long as they are removed, and the two ways of doing that are deletion or merger. If you check the history of this, I have put a lot of energy into creating the lists and merging the articles into them, as a courtesy to editors who may want to seek out evidence of notability. It would be entirely reasonable to take the quicker and easier route of simply AfDing these articles, but I have tried to be helpful by merging instead. There is no obligation to merge rather than AfDing, and such lists of paragraphs on non-notable people are themselves controversial, but I was following the merger path to help the editors who may want to improve those articles.

I only took the AfD path because the merger path was blocked. If I am going to be accused of a "revenge" attack for trying merger first, then there is no point in doing it: what's the point in trying a time-consuming compromise path if I then get accused of revenge? So as I work my way through the rest of the long list of stub articles on old people, I'll simply send the non-notable ones directly to AfD. Less work for me, no accusations of revenge, and the result is a solution with consensus support which makes it easier to deal with any recreation attempts by Kitia or others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies again. I saw the discussion from one side of the discussion but not the entire dialogue. I did not see that Kitia is blocking the mergers and forking the articles to being stubs. However, you are right that the community should assess and decide. It seems the information is more or less intact on the main article; it's just Kitia is forking it into duplicate individual articles. That's why I changed my vote from HALT (as in stop this AFD) and instead went to MERGE. Guroadrunner (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

HI BHG. I'm afraid to say Kitia has continued canvassing for support at the recent AfD's on the centenarians. Not sure if you can do anything about it but it should be noted when the canvassed individuals turn up to take part, as I'm sure they will at these discussions. - Galloglass 14:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note on User talk:Kitia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian

Supercentenarian

Good morning here from the States --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • contribs. Regarding the Supercentenarian articles, you have been proposing to delete, can you direct me to the guidelines on how to redirect the individual articles to the proper list and I will take this on is my pet project. Thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PS:: I guess I should have read the article above before posting :-) Shoessss |  Chat  15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians again

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 don't want to seem rude but, but these look like Bad Faith nominations. A basic Google search found many references. It appears that you were angry and retaliated by nominating all the articles for deletion without performing the minimal due diligence to see which ones actually could be referenced. For example see: Flossie Page, Sarah_Knauss and Mary Electa Bidwell, all have ample references. I don't know how you couldn't find them, unless revenge was your motivation. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to appear rude, then learn a little bit of manners and don't rush to alleging bad faith and using boldface type to make unfounded accusations of selective research just because you found some reproductions of articles which, if verified, could support a claim to notability (as yoiu will see from my comments, you reference lists are less impressive than they appear: two of your refs for Flossie Page include no links, which is very odd if you found then on google as you claim, and your refs for Sarah Knauss are mostly either duplicates of the same wire stories or copyvio reproductions).

I nominated dozens of articles for which I had not found references, and most of them remain unreferenced. Well done finding a few snippets, but you really ought to learn the difference between someone missing a few links and an absence of checking. As I have stated umpteen times, my preference with most of the many articles on non-notable oldies would have been to merge them, and it was only when the mergers were reverted while notability was still not established that I brought them to AfD to allow for a consensus decision on their fate in those cases where I did not find references (I did find refs for example for Virginia Muise, and added them to the article). As you will see if you look at the many other nominations, most of them have not so far been improve to meet notability thresholds.

Now, unless you can learn some manners and stop making personal attacks, stay off my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I read this which gives the appearance that you are acting out of anger and frustration, and were nominating multiple articles:

"I have objection at all to unmerger if notability has been established per WP:BIO, but if you persist in simply reverting the merger without improving the articles to meet WP:BIO, then I will simply save myself the time and nominate them at AfD. ... Your call. ... It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." I also chastised Katia for her haste and retaliatory nominations. errors are made when decisions are made in haste and in anger. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Norton, which bit of "stay off my talk page" is that you are unable to comprehend? Let me spell it out more simply: "do not post on my talk page again".
    As I have explained umpteen times, I nominated for AfD when merger was rejected, and (as you ought to know) at AfD the community can decide whether to merge, keep or delete. My preference in all cases was for the articles to be improved if possible, which is precisely why I was mergeing then rather than going straight to AfD, but if that option is rejected I prefer deletion to keeping under-referenced permastubs. You may disagree on that choice, but it's an unfounded personal attack to repeatedly characterise that as revenge. When the editors with expertise in the field insist that an article with a directory entry is so notable that it should not be merged, then AfD is the only way to settle the issue. If you read my AfD nominations, you will see that on many of them I explicitly advocated merger, thereby risking rebuke from the people who deplore a AfD nominator making a !vote.
    Sadly, you assumed bad faith, and made accusations rather than asking questions; you proceeded to put "bad faith" in bold type on several AfD pages, all because you didn't bother to ask about my intentions and preferred to assume that asking the community to decide the fate of articles for which notability was not established is a form of revenge. You could have asked for an explanation, but you didn't, so please now stay off my talk page until you withdraw all your allegations of bad faith from the AfDs pages across which you have rudely splattered them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• If you don't want me to continue conversing on your talk page, then discontinue the conversation. I think all that needs to be said on the topic, has been said. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what leads this man to assume that he is entitled to have the last word on my talk page.
    Let's try spelling out very simply: Norton, stay off my talk page until you withdraw all your allegations of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

BHGbot

Let the botting commence! Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem IP

Sorry to bring you this BHG but am having a problem with an anon user on IP 81.129.235.13 making unfounded acusations and attacks on me on the Southport discussion page. Never really had anthing like this before so not really sure what to. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Galloglass 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been slow in replying. I don't think that the IP is being at all constructive, but I'm not sure what to do. My brain doesn't seem to be in gear on this stuff at the moment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for really old people

Hi. You might, in the future, consider bunching a number of them up together into one mass AfD, especially those that seem uncontroversial to you. That way, arguments need only be made once, except for exceptions. This is especially true since citing arguments in other ongoing AfDs (such as "per XXXX above") is not quite good practice. I agree with you on most of them, but it is getting a little tedious to do the same thing over and over again. Just my 2c, Have a great day! --Storkk (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm sure you had your reasons to give them all separate AfDs, and I wasn't implying they all should have been under a single one. If you reply, please do so on my talk :-) (no need to copy my comments over, as I periodically annotate discussions on my talk page). Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I dislike disjointed conversations, so I'll reply here and leave a pointer for you.

Anyway, thanks for your msg. It's often a hard call on whether or not to combine, but the reason I didn't combine in these cases was because although the issues were the same in all cases (is there enough substantial coverage in WP:RS for these articles to meet WP:BIO), the answers and possible remedies varied case-by-case. A group AfD is a nuisance if some articles have a different case for to be kept, and in these AfDs some articles have been rescued by decent sourcing, whereas others haven't. It get very confusing to discuss which cited sources refer to which article, particularly when further discussion is often needed about the significance of the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion, Rather Than Discussion At WP:BLP

Since you're more involved with this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask you before making a bigger deal about this at WP:BLP. Today we have Carmelo Bertolami, Italian WWI veteran. Still alive, October 2007. Not still alive, November 2007. Problem? The only place reporting this is our good friends at the World's Oldest People Forum reprinted for convenience sake (feel free to remove from your talk page of course once it's been read):

Greetings,

I am sad to inform that we have lost another veteran, the youngest of the remaining Italians. Carmelo Bertolami, who was born in Novara di Sicilia on 8 december 1900, died in his home on 4 november, after a rapid illness.

Sincerely, Giovanni Alunni

The date of the message is December 10, 2007. I'm tempted to ignore all rules and count this as a reliable source if only because I don't think his death will ever be reported in a reliable source if it hasn't been already. I've reverted the additions several times for WP:BLP concerns, but I'd rather not semi-protect the page in this case. Thoughts? Suggestions? Cheers, CP 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like this. It seems to me that a reliable source is particularly important when asserting that someone is dead, and we agree that the World's Oldest People Forum is not a reliable source. If he was as notable as Young and others claim these old folks to be, then his death should eventually be reported somewhere in a reliable source ... and if not, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that he is non-notable and that the article should eventually be deleted. If there is no report of the death of someone whose claim to notability rests solely on their longevity, then I can't see the claim having any credibility.

So I have reverted the date of death, per WP:BLP and WP:RS. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. I do believe he's dead, for what it's worth, but I don't believe on sacrificing WP:BLP for my subjective opinion. The forum has asked for a proper obituary though, so we'll see how that goes. Cheers, CP 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach. I too have no reason to doubt Giovanni, but I think we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. And if WOP can help find a published death notice or obituary, that'd also help resolve the notability problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think if this has to be WOP as much as Giovanni Alunni. Giovannu Alunni is listed on the extreme longevity tracking, but then, well, I easily added the person for Germany. However, Giovanni is also listed on the GRG site. But I guess I'm arguing any individual is a better source than where an individual reports (such as reporting to WOP). Footnotes, anyone? Neal (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't care too much whether a source is located by Giovanni, by others in WOP, by Stephen Coles or Silvio Berlusconi or by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or even by Young (if he can take a break from the self-referencing). What matters is that unless there is a reliable, published source for the death, then per WP:V, wikipedia shouldn't be reporting Bertolami as dead. Being alive or dead is one of the fundamental elements of any biography, and it can't simply be footnoted as "some bloke told me". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

Could you have a look at this this editor keeps removing content from my talk page after i told them twice not to and now is getting abusive, thanks. BigDunc (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing content again here after another warning. BigDunc (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have asked him to stop again here thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, but it looks like Alison sorted it out for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Journalism scholars/academics

Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus (). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. --Lquilter (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

we'll see...

Well thank you for your support of my bold move! We shall see if lasts (I can only assume you have the same things watchlisted as I in regards to this latest shooting) :-). It wasn't meant as any offense to the creation editor, I hope it isn't taken that way....Happy editing, Keeper | 76 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT again

Just thought you might want to know the debate has flared up again. It was changed again without consensus, so there is a massive debate going. People are trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch now. Personally my stance is that it just needs to go. It's a poorly conceived, unnecessary guideline that will never have consensus. Figured if you still cared now might be a good time to have some input. Wish I could actually work on things instead of arguing about a stupid guideline every two weeks. Every time I start a damn project they mess with the guideline and I have to stop and figure out what's going on. Ridernyc (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll take a peep and see where it's all got to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adelia Domingues

Just to let you know I found about five sources for the article so I think you should close the AfD. '']'' (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of those look decidedly trivial (passing mentions in book, etc), and it's unclear which parts of the article they refer to. Have you actually seen these sources, or is this just a list that someone else sent you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:1710 operas

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1710 operas, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1710 operas has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1710 operas, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

As promised, I rewrote the article, hopefully sufficiently enough to put you at ease for now. I will try and find more sources and information over the break. Right now I only used the sources I could find in five minutes and avoided using the GRG, but I think there's still potential for expansion... maybe even make him the second "old WWI veteran" to be a Good Article. Cheers, CP 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. If I had seen that before the AfD closed, I'd have withdrawn the nom. Go on, see if you can get it to GA status!

I think that this exemplifies the problem with the supercentenarian articles. Some of them could be really good articles that tell the story of a very long life, but far too many of them are nothing but trivia, full of original research and/or padded out with trite comments on the times the person lived in which just patronise readers. I have seen far too many which simply say "lived in three centuries", "lived through two world wars", "lived under 20 presidents" etc, all of which a moderately educated reader could figure out for themselves, and are added simply because the writer knows next to nothing about the subject of the article.

If only Robert Young, Kitia, Bart V and others had put some of their energy into writing a few decent well-referenced articles rather than creating countless unreferenced stubs, there would be a lot more material now on their subject. Well done you for showing that it is possible to write some decent articles on very old people! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that great of an article, but it's certainly much better than what was there before and it does have the potential for expansion (it took me less than an hour to write that; surely with the structure in place, either myself or someone else can off of that with more, or probably even the same, sources). I wrote John Babcock from a total of eight sources and got it up to GA status, so certainly there's hope for Hardy and some of the others. But I completely agree with the padding stuff. "Oh, I just realized that there's nothing else to say about this person so here's the presidents of the United States that she lived through." Ditch it. Oh, and thanks for reverting Bertolomi again, I see I'm not the only person watching him. Haha. Cheers, CP 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Something unspecified

Hello.

I saw the merge. The Category does not belong as a subcategory of the Cat:Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain. The Category should be somewhere else, but not in this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what you are referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

2004 Australian Divisional Election Results

BHG an editor Australia2world Has been going through all the Electoral Divisions and deleting in their entirety, the 2004 election results. I have asked the person to desist and have even offered to create separate pages for these results to be retained upon as has been done with Benelong if the editor will only give me a few weeks to create them. Despite repeated requests to stop, Australia2world has continued to delete. I don't really want to get into an edit war with this individual but they are making an unholy mess of these pages. Set against this, the editor is doing good work of adding all the new finalised 2007 results. Australia2world does appear to have a history of edit warring and was recently blocked for it. Being somewhat of a very part time editor here I'm not sure of the correct way to go forward so I hope you can suggest what approach to take. Thanks, - Galloglass 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. See my comments at User talk:Australia2world#Deletion_of_2004_Australian_Election_results. I may not follow the rest of this, but if the sitution isn't resolved, please can you keep me posted? THanks.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. Btw could you put the semi-protection back on the Constantinople article as when it came out of protection the attacks from anon IP's have resumed. Thanks - Galloglass 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think I have now restored all the 2004 results which were deleted by Australia2world. I hope that they are not removed again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of current practice at AfD

I didn't think it was worth posting this at WT:BIO, but I think I can explain the difference in our assessments of current practice at AfD. I get the impression that you were trying to judge the average opinion of everyone who posts at AfD. I prefer to look at the AfD closures and the closing admins rationale. The reason for this is that so many people post invalid arguments that aren't in line with policy, and its the job of the closing admin to assess the validity of those arguments when assessing consensus. So if, for example, several people post "Keep, because wikipedia should be about everything" on a particular AfD, the closing admin should ignore these posts, and so do I when assess the general feeling and practice at AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dingle CBS

I saw you just listed this article for AfD and I have commented there, however I just wanted to bring to your attention the vast number of vandal edits that came from the 87.33.182.X range on this article. I reverted the page back to a version from 2 months ago to clear all of the vandal edits out, and I agree with you the page is just a haven for vandal edits. If the school does prove to be notable enough however, I'd suggest page protection to keep it from being a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Probably best not to protect it while the AfD is underway, but I suggest you add a note there about protecting it afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:History of Warsaw

Could you please recreate History of Warsaw? I noticed that you complained about it being copyvio, but I got got rid of the copyvio (at least could you state the section I missed?). Besides, it was just pretty much a copy of the history section of Warsaw, so if you are going to attack History of Warsaw you should also attack Warsaw. As a side note, before automaticly deleting a promising article like this, try to improve upon it so that it does not have the issues it states. I will try to if you undelete this. '']'' (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are actually starting to get on my nerves BHG. I thought that your disruption was limited to the super-cs articles, but now you are apparently targeting me (and Richard Norton: Do not come onto my talk page). Sorry if I'm being rude, but I will tell you exactly what happened. I created the article. Someone put a copyvio tag on it. I fixed the article and took off the template. I took a short wikibreak. Someone disagreed with me and put the tag back on. They deleted it soon afterward. I came back to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that the article was gone. I created a content fork from the Warsaw page and placed it here. Someone put a tag on it and, sooner than earlier, the cycle happened again. Except that you accused me of disruption when you have been very disruptive recently. I created the content fork because I was planning to work on it. I am really starting to think you have abused your admin priveleges and am about to report it. I know you will probably not undelete the article because of my statements, but this is my honist opinion and I would be very happy if you defy my beliefs and recreate the article anyway before I start asking other admins to recreate the article (or I could do it myself) '']'' (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

KItia, I am not "targetting you". While watching your talk page, I saw a copyvio notice, checked it out, and because there was still a copyvio, I speedy deleted it. If you have a problem with that, go to WP:ANI -- but I will probably get there first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/thier-name-liveth-for-evermore.php