Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 22 March 2008

01:32 Friday 27 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.

Complete mess

I see you are following up some of what has been happening with BetacommandBot. It is a complete mess at the moment, partly I think because some people are reacting very defensively. I was surprised though to see the reaction to your comments, as I know you are active in category-related matters (hence you noticed what was going on) and you don't seem to have been involved with BetacommandBot issues before. In other words, you were a newcomer to these latest debate, and you got treated very shabbily in my opinion. I had previously thought that the defensive attitude of Betacommand and others only occurred with non-free image work or those that had annoyed them, but it seems that there is a real disconnect happening here, a failure to engage with others, and to recognise genuine criticism and to respond politely. MickMacNee, who made some very strong criticisms earlier, seems to have been blacklisted and gets warned off regularly despite making valid points in an OK manner. As I said, a complete mess. Do you have ideas for what to do? Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's eerie: I was just thinking of messaging you in a similar vein, because you see,m to be one of the few other voices there who has managed to retrain some perspective on it all.

What to do? Easy — run away, fast, stick our heads in the sand, and avoid all the time commitment, hassle and enemy-making that will inevitably come from getting involved in an issue as messy as this one. (As Percy French said, "best be a a coward for 5 minutes/than a dead man all your life")

OK, I don't actually mean that -- that's my self-protective self speaking to the try-to-fix-the-problem me, and I'm afraid that the easy-life me has already lost my internal argument about this. I do have a few ideas, and I'll try to set some of them out in a few minutes, but first I need to replenish my flask of tea. Back soon! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what we do other than, at this point, go to arbcom (in my mind, specifically about chronic incivility, not so much about bot issues). But, frankly, I hate the idea of touching the tar baby. Nandesuka (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this mess

I should explain that I have spent most of the last two decades involved pretty much full-time in various political or semi-political campaigning activities, where there are a lot of people heavily committed to things they feel very passionately about, and plenty of opportunities for disappointment, misunderstanding and conflict.

One situation which regularly occurs is where the leadership is forced by circumstances to pursue a course of action which will be controversial with the members/supporters, but which has to be done. Sometimes these are internal issues, such as budget cuts, and sometimes they are related to the organisation's goals, such as a choice having to be made between priorities. I have been sucked into countless bitter disputes in such matters, and they are always pretty horrible for all concerned. However, I eventually began to realise that since this sort of thing is pretty much inevitable, there's no point in simply bemoaning it: it's important to learn how to handle it in an effective way.

This situation seems pretty similar. The fair use image problem had to be dealt with, and it was inevitably going to cause a lot of very bitter objections. However, so far as I can see, there was very little effective planning on how to handle all those inevitable protests, and minimise the damage caused by the process.

I have not read little of the history, but from what I can see of how things are being handled now, the fundamental problem was that the fair use issue seems to have been approached primarily as a technical problem — how to identify, tag, and if necessary remove non-free images — when some minimal hazard analysis should have shown that the community-anger problem was in fact going to be much more serious.

That set off a pretty much inevitable cycle of a necessarily-hyperactive bot starting work, massive howls of anguish, too many of them turning into very unpleasant attacks ... leading to defensiveness and counter-attacks by a bot operator who must have felt with full justification that he was being savaged by a million mad dogs.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for Betacommand in this, who seems to have been ill-equipped and under-supported in this. He ended up an appallingly exposed position, and it must have been absolutely horrible for him.

I think it's quite unfair to pin all the blame for this on Betacommand: in many way, he has been hung out to dry. He clearly has great programming skills, but his communication skills seem poor (at least by now; he may simply be burnt out after too much flack); but above all, he simply didn't have enough backup, and enough supportive people to help him distinguish effectively between shooting-the-messenger abuse and valid criticisms of the processes in use.

The whole process should have been differently structured from the outset, with Betacommand concentrating on his main skill (programming), and a team of other editors to take the flack and -- crucially -- do the painful and difficult job of both defusing the attacks rather than escalating the responses, and taking great care to try to see whether the torrent of abuse and complaints included legitimate criticisms of the process. That last bit is vital: in these situations, many people who have valid complaints do not make them politely or constructively, but if the situation is going to avoid descending into a brawl, it is really important to accept that a person who is behaving in a hostile and unreasonable way may still have a genuine grievance.

Trying to find those genuine grievances takes a cool head, which can be hard to maintain under fire, which is why it's important to have a team of people taking the flack, who can take a break when it gets too much and who can remain open enough to keep on looking for ways to improve the course of action.

That doesn't seem to have happened here: so far as I can see, there was plenty of scope for improving the way the bot worked, with more conciliatory and informative notices, and perhaps a dedicated noticeboard for user grievances with a team of people trained to handle them, but that too much energy was spent on firefighting the protests rather than improving the process.

So we got into a deadly cycle where user complaints were not always effectively addressed even when there was scope for improvement, partly because Betacommand (the person who should have been implementing the fixes) was getting too scarred because he had been too exposed, and those who supported the work were too quick to rush to defence of BC's inevitable lapses, rather than trying to both support the bot operator and maintain high standards.

I know that this must read so far as a don't-start-here comment, but bear with me. I am sure that the flaws in process design which led to this situation were as usual the result of cockup rather than conspiracy, and that the very loose management structure of wikipedia makes it very hard to plan for and co-ordinate the handling of a situation such as this; most wikipedia processes are ad hoc and unstructured, and formal processes such as RfC, XfD, arbcom, etc, have evolved slowly over a long time to deal with issues where experience has shown a need for careful handling, and a lot of time has been available to buikd consensus on an appropriate process.

There's no point in crying over the fact that this could have been handled better; what matters is learning from what's happened, and improving the processes.

One of the necessary steps is already underway: taking Betacommand out of the front line as the operator of the non-free image bot. That should have been done a long tine ago, but notwithstanding concerns about he details, the fact that is being done now is a very welcome development.

That process has starkly revealed the other major flaw in the process: that bot approval and bot management is being treated as if it were a solely technical task. Your have rightly pointed to a need for BRFA reform, and I think that's crucial, because it seems clear to me that most of the problems with Betacommand's bots have not been technical, they have social. We need some structure for ensuring that impact of the bot on collaborative efforts can be reviewed before authorisation is given, because that collaboration is at the core of wikipedia. The intentions of Betacommand's bot have been generally good (with a few lapses), but as BAG's instant-approval of the new bot showed, there simply isn't any effective mechanism for examining the effect of bots on collaborative work, and on the techniques and patterns of work which editors have developed. That's a recipe for trouble, because it simply means that problems are not addressed until they become conflicts, and the ANI ends up becoming a forum for (largely unsuccessful) attempts at conflict resolution.

I think it's important to acknowledge that BAG does a fine job of technically assessing bots: assessing their suitability for the task, setting their edit rate, imposing limitations on their scope, etc. The fact that there are so many bots operating with so few technical problems is a credit to their work.

However, just as you or I don't have the technical savvy of programming and server technologies to assess the technical side, it's unreasonable to expect the technical wizards in BAG to be familiar with all the processes and conventions at work amongst editors. That's no criticism of the BAG people, just a reflection that of the fact few editors (if any) understand the whole of this huge and diverse project.

The problem now is that the storms seem to have left BAG feeling very defensive, and I don't know how it will be possible to reopen dialogue. But if that can be done, the best suggestion I have so far is that BRFA should be explicitly cast as a two-part process:

1. technical assesment of a bot's suitability for its task, as at present
2. a fixed period of community consultation on the merits of the bot, where input is specifically sought from interested parties -- whether that's relevant wikiprojects, WT:CFD for CFD-related bots, WT:CAT for other category-related bots, etc. Sure, there will inevitably be some excess noise, but better noise before a bot starts work than after editors find it causing unwanted ill-effects.

In addition to this, I think that there needs to be some lightweight process for discussing issues which arise with a bot, something without the intensity of RfC or the raucousness of WP:ANI. I didn't know whether WP:BOWN might fit the bill, but if a bot could be improved there doesn't currently seem to be in practice any intermediate step between a private note to the bot owner and a complaint at ANI (which is inevitably taken as an accusation). Take as one example the issue I raised wrt to BetacommandBot's edit summaries being so much less informative than Cyedbot's: there should be somewhere that this sort of thing could be raised in a constructive atmosphere, but in a placed where discussion is centralised.

That's pretty much all I can suggest for now. The one issue I haven't really touched on is Betacommand, because it's a difficult one to see solutions. I fear that it is headed to arbcom, which I think is unfortunate, because arbcom tends to polarise, at least until a case is settled. All I can suggest for now is that Betacommand should be moved into a much less exposed position wrt to non-free images, but the problem remains that his bots do many other tasks and however it has happened, he is now in no mood to hear any concerns about their operation as anything other than nonsense or personal attack. I don't know how that can be addressed without confrontation; arbcom is now areal possibility, but will polarise. I wonder if there might be consensus for some sort of diplomatic and neutral task force to review BC's authorised tasks and how they are run, and see if it can come up with a set of proposals for reducing conflict?

However, I'm afraid that I don't have much confidence that Betacommand can avoid arbcom. He seems to focus on the technical abilities of his bots, and is comparative weak in the collaborative aspects of understanding the potentially huge effects that these tools can have on wikipedia's very fragile ecology, and these problems are longstanding, predating the nonfree image cleanup. Would mentorship be appropriate?

Anyway, that's all for now. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good assessment of the situation, and thanks for writing that, especially the bit about how Betacommand was left exposed - I've alternately supported and criticised him, and it was distressing to see others taking positions of unqualified support or unqualified abuse. Also, the bit about BAG reform is good. I do have a few points to raise or add. (1) A help desk was set up: Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk (though this was relatively late in the approximately 2-year-long process); (2) There is a proposed RfC process for users and their bots at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of bot privileges (very new and untested); (3) There was an arbitration case before about Betacommand: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand; (4) There was an MfD about BAG, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group. I'm sure you knew most of this already, but I'm noting them here for the record. Hope it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes to my talkpage with a civil, non-aggressive comment/request I do respond to them and try to be as helpful as I can. As for BAG and this new bot, BAG does not normally do that, I had conducted a lot of private discussion to line things up. had the NFC bot followed normal process within 12 hours it would have been bogged down with trolls and others trying to just stop the handover. in any discussion that I get involved with (for the most part) turn into a flame war and a pissing match. In an attempt to actually improve the encyclopedia Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls. just look at the talk page for an example. If a use comes to me with a comment/question/suggestion, and they dont post directly to AN/ANI or some other flamefest I gladly listen and do my best to address their issue. see the recent posts to BCBot's talkpage. there was an issue with redirects it was brought to my attention, I addressed it and reverted the edits in question. no big deal. β 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not the case. See User talk:Betacommand/20080301#Removal_of_redlinked_categories: two hours after asked not to remove redlinked cats without authorisation, you resumed that work , and continued when challenged again two hours later. You continued for a further 80 minutes until challenged again, and when a further challenge did not produce an immediate stop , the bot was blocked (4 minutes after the request). By the time it was blocked, you has actually stopped, but by then the matter was on its way to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Categories.

At that point, it would have been very simple for you to say something along the lines of "Sorry, I thought that this was part of CfD work. There seems to be concern that it is not, and since it does not seem to be unambiguously viewed as part of CfD work, I will not resume that task unless there is explicit authorisation from BAG to do so. In the meantime I will revert the redlinked-categ-removal edits which the bot has just made - please may I have rollback privileges to do so".

That sort of assurance made promptly, up-front, would have been a wonderful assurance of good faith. Unfortunately, you didn't make any such offer, and that's why things spiralled. You didn't acknowledge that this was an unapproved task, you didn't offer to seek explicit approval for this task in future, and you didn't offer to revert despite numerous requests.

You run one of the most active bots in wikipedia, and there are bound to be objections to some of its work. If you are going to be the person to run this bot, you really do need to make sure that you look carefully at objections, making absolutely sure that the bot's task is authorised, and leaving no-one in any doubt that if there is any question about the effects, that you will back off — in other words, when you are this exposed, set yourself the highest possible standards. That has not been happening, and that's why the objections to your not are not confined to those who simply dislke nonfree content compliance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Louis Chirillo

On the test page User:Kitty53/Test page, I am working on creating an article on Louis Chirillo. He is going to have his Misplaced Pages article ready in the future. Brown Haired Girl, you may help me with the article if you have time, or have another user help me. Thank you. Respond on my talk page if you can't do so.Kitty53 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitty, I'm sorry that I am not really in a position to give this much time, but the main point I would urge you consider is the need for references in reliable sources, and the need to use footnotes. WP:CITE explains how to do this, and WP:BLP explains why it is particularly important to do this for an article on a living person.

You should also consider WP:BIO, which explains the importance of demonstrating taht the person is notable. In general, it will in most cases be more than enough to cite two items of substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of Chirillo. However, note that while a directory listing such as IMDB can be a good way of referencing some points of fact, this sort of listing does not establish notability.

Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

MP Box

Please could you help with an MP box for Edward William Wynne Pendarves. Vernon White 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's done. The syntax is pretty horrible, but do you think that if you used that one as a model you might be able to try making one yourself next time? Obviously, I'd be happy to look over it and suggest changes if you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#BetacommandBot

I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned your talk page comment above in my statement. I would urge you to submit a version of that yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One last question Re: List of events named massacre

I think we are all but settled, and can let the list run for a while to see if the revised version works or not ... but we are having one final disagreement about the inclusion criteria that we could use your input on... should we put the inclusion criteria in hidden text or state it in plain visible text for all to see? Arguments for and against are stated on the talk page. Please drop by and opine. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for seem to consist solely of WP:IAR. Arguments against include Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid. --John (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment at Talk:List of events named massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to Misplaced Pages: space.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 07:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That was very quick. The draft was misnamed any way, so I deleted it. Could any further comments please be made at Talk:List of events named massacres. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria

There's a typo - "lastest" should presumably be "latest"! PamD (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pam. Maybe "lastest" should be a word, but at this stage it isn't :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much like "most unique"! Cheers. PamD (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When we forced to "play" sports at school, most people came near to last on at least some occasions. But I managed it so often that I think "lastest" would have been an appropriate adjective: "Yes, BHG was the lastest of the last". :)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello BHG. Chatting with you today reminded me how much of a good editor you are. I wanted to offer a flower of apology for my rather intemperate response to your comments last week. You caught me at an unfortunate time and I reacted badly to what was clearly an attempt to help. I regret that and hope it will not effect our working relationship in the future. Rockpocket 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's sweet of you. :) (And not just because I love flowers!)

I think I owe you an apology too, for stomping in rather heavily in the argument over how to coax Sarah; I intended to try to calm a difficult situation, but since that wasn't the effect, I evidently got my approach all wrong. Delighted to see that we have moved on, even if our sockpuppeteer friend hasn't! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been bugging me all week, so I'm glad we're cool. Thanks also for the support here and elsewhere today and yesterday. I have gone rounds with Giano in the past myself, but these days I'm not too concerned over his verbal jabs. Like any good boxer, I think, he talks a good game. But away from the ring, when there is not a crowd to play to, Giano is a gentle soul and a perfect gentleman. Instead of getting irked by his comments, its my goal to out Giano as the big teddy bear that he really is!

Besides, the whole point of this little circus was to engineer a situation where someone would invoke his probation, giving Giano the opportunity to set his sights on the real objects of his ire When, and it is absolutely inevitable, he eventually gets his wish and the Arbs do get involved again, I would very much rather I wasn't party to the underlying dispute. Rockpocket 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rock, you are probably right that Giano has a better side; but having encountered him only in troubles-related issues, I have yet to see that side, and take care to avoid him otherwise. The whole everyone-who-doesn't-see-things-my-way-is-stupid-inept-and-self-serving act is exceptionally tedious and sadly predictable. I probably shouldn't have bothered commenting on it all, because doing so only brings more grief, since he has enough friends keen to give him licence to snipe. C'est la vie!

As you say, his final showdown with arbcom is probably going to be an event to avoid, and I'll put him out of mind again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Troll"?

Troll, is it? Giano doesn't get to discuss the Troubles now? Mind your mouth and your tone, girlfriend. Please. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

It's lovely to hear from you again Bishonen, though it's a pity that you only ever pop up on my talk page to defend Giano's trolling.

If Giano's interventions could occasionally acknowledge a few a salient points, they might be better received: e.g. the substantive problem here is a long-term disruptive editor who has been banned for using sockpuppets after umpteen last chances, and Giano does not support enforcement of the ban, preferring to attack the admins dealing with the case.

If you are concerned about "mouth and tone", could you please pay some attention to Giano's description of an arbcom ruling as a device to protect their "errors stupidity", or this instance of himdenouncing admins as "stupid" for enforcing policy against a banned sockpupeteer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't pop up on any pages much lately. But I'm making an exception, because for you to post a provocative sneer at a user on civility parole seems so... so... well, I'll keep my vocabulary to myself. The best I can hope is that you weren't aware of doing that. (Even though a glance at Giano's page is enough for full information). Bishonen | talk 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

P.S. Ah. I now see that you were perfectly aware of it. . You insult a user on civility parole... oh boy, I'm still blinking in amazement here. I'm sorry, but I must change my mind and be more explicit: that, BHG, was a dirty thing to do. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

No, I became aware of Giano's civility patrol after I made my comment about his trolling, and I stand by it. Giano has a long history of sniping at anyone who takes enforcement action against Vk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, a troll is a troll is a troll. Reading through the linked thread, I have to agree with BHG. _(1 == 2) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. It's not acceptable for anyone, be they admin or otherwise, to be using such epithets towards established users in good standing. It needs to be a violation of NPA, for it's handling. All it does is inflame situations to allow petty voices to get in a free jab at others. Lawrence § t/e 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good standing? Are we talking about the same person? I am sorry, but "being established" does not mean that intentionally soliciting a negative reaction is no longer trolling. You can be an established editor and still do such thing. I really don't think BHG was in violation of NPA because the comment was relevant to the projects goals and accurate. Don't think of a troll as a green monster as that is not what it means, it means someone fishing by dangling bait behind them. _(1 == 2) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BHG, I think it's best that we all step back. We're all to the point where continued contact with this interminable conflict makes us ill, either psychosomatically, or physically. If AE wants to deal with them, I think it's best if we step back, say "Good Luck, you'll need it..." turn around, walk away, and DON'T look back. SirFozzie (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice, I will take it. _(1 == 2) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fozzie, you are probably right. (and thanks too to Until(1 == 2) for the timely support). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Cornish MP needs a Box

Please can you help, yet again, with a complex box for John Hearle Tremayne MP for Cornwall for 20 years. Vernon White 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that you could have a go at this one, perhaps by using the box from Edward William Wynne Pendarves as a template? I'd be happy to look over it afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

May I copy one of your Userboxes?

Greetings--I was going to say "fellow editor" but that term does not seem gender-neutral. Is there a better adjective?. I came across your Userpage today and would like to make a copy of your Rotary Dial Userbox for my Userpage, with your permission. Being a relatively new editor, I am not sure if this is acceptable Wiki-behavior, so I thought it better to ask first. Please respond to my talk page. Thank you. Thomprod (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and don't worry too much about the language -- so long as you aren't calling me "he", or (as one editor amusingly did last week), a "dick", it's fine :)

Anyway, the userbox is actually one I "borrowed" from someone else, and the code is {{User:UBX/Rotary Dial}}, I you want to ask permission, the person to ask would be UBX (talk · contribs), but in general it seems to be norm that once someone has made a userbox template, it's fine to use it. In any case, everything here has to be available for re-use, as a condition of it being published here, so I didn't see any grounds for anyone to object.

Anyway, good luck with you editing, and don't let the persistent rumblings of collective insanity distract you from the good work which happens here despite it all :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually enjoy a little "collective insanity" now and then. Happy editing. Thomprod (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am older than you are and I remember cranking a handle to be put through to the operator and it was she who dialled the number. I also remember going to bed with a candle and an oil filled lamp. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite old enough for the candle-to-go-to-bed-with (though I do treasure the enamelled metal candleholder which my father used), but while we didn't have a windy-handle phone at home, my grandmother in a rural area not only had one of those, but also a "party line". This was basically a shared phone line, so you could listen in on your neighbour's calls and vice-versa ... and of course, the operator listened in too. It was a very good to idea to remain on to be as nice as possible to the operator :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Para and ELs

He's done it for some while now - I came across him about 9 months ago on M62 motorway (then a GA) over a dispute over microformats and geolocation - IIRC, that's the reason Pigsonthewing got rebanned. Will 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have no prob with him arguing that a particular link is a bad idea; what I object to is his repeated claims to be acting in accordance with a guideline, rather than simply in accordance with the way he would like a guideline to be rewritten. Very tedious :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up Will, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour does indeed remind me of Pigsonthewing. On Template talk:Coord he managed to stall a proposal on tidying article markup for three whole months with his single gripe, probably because of his vocal outbursts and lack of participation from others. In this case the gripe is more obviously irrelevant, but the outbursts are maybe even louder. Looking at BrownHairedGirl's latest contributions and responses to them, looks like she's heading down the same path. Cheers! --Para (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Para, you have spent over a month telling lie upon lie upon lie, claimning that there were no objection when there were, then saying that there were "no valid objections" because they didn't support your own synthesis of policies; you have have had long detailed responses on a series of issues, then posted another long splurge at a new section and because others didn't wrote another few thousand words reiterating the points you ignored, you tried claiming that there has been no objection, and so on. You repeatedly inverted everything said by anyone who disagrees with you, and it's little wonder that few editors have had the energy or patience to engage with your bullying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shipping companies of Ireland

Thanks for restoring Category:Shipping companies of Ireland I'm not sure if its the perfect solution. There were many such companies, the flags of the seven largest war-time companies are paraded by the sea-scouts every third Sunday of November. There were lots of smaller companies. Then there were companies such as Dublin Gas and Guinness with their own ships. Thanks again ClemMcGann (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Irish categories, there's rarely a perfect solution, what with all the difft states that have existed in overlapping spaces :( (We should probably be thankful that we don't have to deal with the tangles which exist over somewhere like GDanzig).

I fondly remember the Guinness ships, with their black-and-cream colour schemes and their names often borrowed from the women in the Guinness family. Sadly, they are no more, but here's an great article waiting to be written on them if anyone has the energy and the sources — and especially if they have the photos.

However, at the moment we don't appear to have any such articles. If they are written, we can of course create any necessary categories, but underpopulated categories get deleted, so there's no point in creating one now, when there seems to be only article for an 1801-1922 category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth creating stubs? ClemMcGann (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The writer Edward Burke (Shipwrecks of Ireland etc) tells me that he is currently writing a book on Guinness. It will have a chapter on the barges ClemMcGann (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but!

... the "but" being the stub needs to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and there should be some reasonable prospect that it could be expanded beyond a stub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I need a bit of advise

Hi, Mom! I need some more maternal advise! I can foresee a revert war about to take place on this article. Thx2005 has reverted an addition I made to the article twice now. I originally added a campus police subsection which falls within WP:N andWP:WikiProject Law Enforcement. There is also wiki "case law" which backs my stance on including the subsection which is located here. I very civilly explained to him that I reverted his good faith deletion and stated the reasons why. He then reverted it back with a rather uncivil edit summary. You can see the diff here. Any help would be appreciated! Mahalo!--Sallicio 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive index?

Hi, BHG: I'd been wondering about starting to archive my User Talk page, so am looking at what other people do. If I click on your link to "Cumulative index" I get ... ummmm ... an empty page at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Index. Is something going wrong? PamD (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External link revert

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just wanted to check that you actually meant to make this revert. It doesn't look like it's associated with the discussion on the talk page that you reference in the edit summary. -- SiobhanHansa 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I got that wrong. Now fixed, and thanks muchly for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Beta mess

Hi BHG, you've been vocal on the BC/BCB issue, can you think of any new way forward to resolve this? Seems like we've devolved long ago into endless shouting and thread-forking, I can't keep track of where it's all happening anymore. Can you think of any ways to segment these issues, get some groups working on them, and get them at least partly resolved? An ArbCom case is going to take a whole lot of our time and likely end up with a finding of "editors should be civil". Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franamax (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 March 2008

Philately template problem

Do me a big favour and have a look the the philately template that is used for the project's assessments. There seems to be a problems because the unassessed articles are not removed in the new statistics and those articles seem all to be rated as list-class. I posted to Walkerma's talk page earlier as he was involved in the initial setup but you did some work on the Ireland WikiProject template and seem very experienced with that kind of thing, so maybe you can see the problem:
The stats produced here seem quite at odds with the assessments I made within the last few weeks. When I view the unassessed articles there are 518, yet the stats say 411 and I know that I assessed several of the lists of birds on stamps as you can see from the log entry for February 14, yet these same articles still appear on the unassessed listing today. I checked this within minutes of the bot updating the statistics page, so I don't understand what is happening. Any advise would be appreciated. And after I assess some more list-class articles, the number of unassessed stays the same, leaving the just assessed articles still listed as unassessed. This only seems to affect list-class articles as it works fine for others, so there is something amiss with the way the list-class articles are not being recorded as assessed when they are.

TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to just be mischieviously dismissive and say that you had been censored, but that wouldn't help much :)

Anyway, I have checked out the template and it looks OK: I haven't triple-checked all the code, but wshen I test the template, it categorises correctly, and so far as I can see that's all matters.

My next check was in the categories themselves, but they seem to be properly parented ... so I started scanning Category:Unassessed Philately articles.

The problem appaers to be something to do with how the template handles list-clas article: see for example Talk:List of birds on stamps of Belgian Congo, which is in Category:List-Class Philately articles, Category:Low-importance Philately articles and Category:Unassessed Philately articles.

I'm trying to figure why this is happening, and will post again when I have either figured it out or given up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the template and ran the bot, but that hasn't caught everything: the stats are better, but still don't match :( The bot reports 431 unassessed article, but the category includes about 460. I'll check the template again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did another tweak and purged the template, and it looks about right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am really thankful. I think you have fixed all the issues. I found that some redirects were also tagged even though the article was assessed. It is curious that Outriggr's script shows the assessment of the article and not of the redirect page even when that is the page you are looking at, so I have removed the template from any redirect pages I found. Thanks again. ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad that fixed it! It took me more attempts than I had hoped.

The redirects issue is an interesting point, because I have encountered it so many times with {{WikiProject Ireland}} tagging. Bots are a sore point at the moment, but it would be great to have a bot which untagged article that had been redirected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Walkerma made some interesting comments about list-class that you may want to read here. The tagged redirect issue is indeed curious. Again thanks. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Barry Garvey

Please note that Barry Garvey is not a member of the gay pride organisation or its affiliates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickFlaharty (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nóirín Ní Riain

Dear Brownhairedgirl, All information is based on written public material. The references and sources are there. As far as I know there is no other or more objective material to refer to. Please reconsider your remark. Thanks for your time. Hans Sentis (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans

It would have helped a lot if you had included a link to the article, just by putting brackets around Nóirín Ní Riain and even more so if you had included a link to my comments. I had to burrow around a bit before Special:WhatLinksHere/Nóirín_Ní_Riain pointed me towards this brief exchange two months ago, now in my archive, after I had tagged the article as {{unreferenced}}. I looked at the article again, and it's clearly very much improved — well done!

I have removed the unreferenced tag, but although I haven't added any tags, there are still a few other small things that need attention:

• per WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent_uses_of_names, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only". However, the article current refers to her as "Nóirín"
• "Biography" is a poor section title, sine the whole article is a biography; it would be better to call that section "Career". (There is a guideline om this somewhere, but I can't recall which one)
• A few references are just inline links using ; those should be converted to proper footnotes <ref>{{cite web}}<ref>
• The article does seem a little overwhelmed by rather gushing praise for her ... but my searches didn't find any commentators prepared to break out of the hagiographic consenus

If you want to expand the article a bit, I found an interesting piece in the Irish Independent as well as this feature interview in the same publication.

The article could really do with a photo, so I have added Image:Replace this image female.svg to request one.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks for your remarks. Hans Sentis (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What a pity it has come to this, but since everything else has failed, I'm glad that arbcom has taken on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scouting in Northern Ireland

Greetings. I have just noticed your interest in the articles on Scouting in Northern Ireland, and in particular your suggestion that some of the topics of these articles are not notable. It has been a long established view of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scouting that articles on the organisation level one below national should be allowed. This gives the project a powerful weapon to effectively delete by merging any new article on lower levels such a Scout Troops, Scout Districts, Scout Camp Sites, Scout Events etc. This is a weapon that we use frequently and it certainly prevents the growth of Scout cruft. This works fine in places like Australia and the USA where the articles are on States, but the level below national in the UK is the Scout County or Scout Area, and these are fairly small. In Scotland they are in the process of replacing many Scout Areas with a much smaller number of Scout Regions. It will be interesting to see whether Northern Ireland, England and Wales will follow. It would certainly help us on wikipedia. Currently there are few UK Scout editors, so I doubt your tags will be noticed by editors from Northern Ireland right now. I try to keep an eye on things from a distance at the other side of the world. I'm not sure what to do about these articles. I am working on a plan to remove all the crufty lists of Scout Groups. This will involve copying the articles to the ScoutWiki, which also uses the GFDL and then deleting the lists, but it will take time. Any ideas? --Bduke (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to transwiki them, but how about merging all those county list to a wider Scouting in Northern Ireland article? The redirect pages would still contain the history of the articles, so you could always retrieve the text at a later date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did think of that, but in spite of what I suggest above about lack of interest, I suspect I would not find a consensus to do this. Also it really needs someone who knows about the complex situation in Northern Ireland and in particular the role of Scouting Ireland as well as the Scout Association. NI can be trouble. See Northern Scout Province for their contribution in the North. It would have to be titled The Scout Association in Northern Ireland. Indeed there is a suggestion that the County articles should be renamed The Scout Association Area of Belfast or whatever, but the final naming is not yet agreed. I'll try to transwiki them soon, by moving them to the top of the list. I started with England but I'm still at "B"! --Bduke (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scór

Hi I notice you placed a {{primarysources}} on Scór, I'm confused as to where this policy came from and whats it's purpose not only on this articles but others .Can't articles have reference from their governing bodies any more. Surely their is cases like the ref on Scór which can only come from one place ? Gnevin (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a by-product of Misplaced Pages:Notability. Primary sources can be used to verify facts, but notability is established by substantial coverage in non-primary sources. If nobody except an organisation itself regards it as being of significance, it's not something which Misplaced Pages (as a tertiary source) should be covering: WP covers things which others have found notable. I'm sure that Scór does have substantial coverage somewhere, but the article so far gives no indication that Scór is of significance to anyone except GAA members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Awe so its about Misplaced Pages:Notability i though it was about WP:V, cheers confusion lifted Gnevin (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's a bit of WP:V issue as well, because sometimes people or organisations can paint a rather too rosy picture of themselves … but I think the main issue is notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Irish Maritime

• hint* *hint* ;) I just saw your message on Clem's talk page. Care to join up? - Alison 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that I have been volunteered :) So 'tis done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

CSB projects

Hi BrownHairedGirl, do you remember that conversation with User:Blackworm at WikiProject Gender studies?. Well it might be interesting to look over at this. And perhaps this if you get a chance--Cailil 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. More rhetoric, no evidence :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you've read this post--Cailil 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This barrage of rhetoric has gone on long enough, and I have given him a warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Blackworm_disrupting_discussion_pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

This article seems to be a copy of 2008 in video gaming should this new one be deleted and if so under what criteria thanks. BigDunc (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I think you are right. It doesn't meet any of the suggest Criteria for speedy deletion, but it looks to me like a content fork. I suggest first raising the matter at Talk:2008 in video gaming (North America) and asking Randomengine (talk · contribs) to agree to redirect the page, and if you don't get agreement then take it to WP:AFD.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do that thanks. BigDunc (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

His reply suggests that AfD is the only option or does he have any validity in the points raised?BigDunc (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that depends on how trivial one regards the recording of every minor detail of the video games industry. I'm not aware of any other other industry covered in such extraordinary detail, and if you compare it with automobiles (a truly huge global industry), you'll find that there is nowhere near near as much detail there. We don't have splurges of separate articles on every minor variant, and you'll generally find that even a very high-selling car like the Ford Fiesta just has one article on all its variants over 30 years; yet total sales of that model amount to about $100billion over the last 30 years. Compare that with video games, which spawn masses of spin-off articles on individual characters, and one can see a clear case of systemic bias. The question, though, is whether all this detail on the video games is really encyclopedic, and at what point it starts to descend into trivia. Randomengine clearly thinks that the 1998 North America list is encyclopedic, but I think it's trivial: it's one thing to list every instance of a specific class of product, but once you start listing it by year and by specific market, where do you stop? List of washing machines launched in 2008 (Europe)? List of washer-driers launched in 2007 (France)?

More importantly, the video games industry is pretty much globalised. North America is one of the big markets, and it would be perverse for a publisher to delay launch there for long, so the N, American list is always going to be largely similar to the global list; all it really does it to note which day the launch took place. And where does this stop? Do we have 2008 in video gaming articles for every market? Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Iraq, Polynesia, Rwanda, Liechtenstein ... a line has to be drawn somewhere.

So there's a case on both sides, but it looks to me like one worth taking to AFD. However, if you take it there, do remember that a legion of angry video gamers will probably be along soon to denounce you :)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I'll look out for them ;) But since I started RC patrolling regular especially the new pages I am definetly not an inclusionist regarding articles and as you say the games ones are a prime example of spawning multiple variations on the same game. BigDunc (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Would you have look at the edits made by the admitted WP:COI (see my talk page) editor to Republic of Ireland postal addresses? I have not reverted his edit for a 3rd time today but have given him a 3RR warning here with other reasons why his edits are improper to this topic as edited. TIA cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked (see User talk:83.70.211.45#Blocked). Very persistent edit-warring in pursuit of a blatant COI. However, I have read the Irish Times story Cork tech firm introduces numeric postcode system and it may merit some sort of brief mention. The story is weak, because it contains no independent analysis of the gpsireland system and reads very much like a reprint of a press release — the only person quoted is "Gary Delaney, the director of GPS Ireland", which sounds liked our edit-warring friend — but a one-sentence mention might be in order. --01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting that Gary is, most likely, the same person; he left his email address on my talk page as gary@gpsireland.ie. I don't have access to the IT article, besides which the Irish Times has subscription only access, so we can't really use that, can we. According to the only page I can access it is very specifically not an official postcode system but really a gps system. I think they are misusing the term postcode which I know to be a system used by the postal authority of a country, in this case An Post, and their system has not yet been approved or published. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the reference is very useable. Subscription-only sites are fine for reference (otherwise we couldn't use books!), but are banned for external links.

I think that their system is an interesting idea, a sort of simplified grid reference which could serve all sorts of purposes. I think that its status at the moment could be best regarded as a novel approach to the problem which might be used to make a formal proposal to the govt/An Post, who so far as I know have yet to clarify how they would design a postcode system. It could actually be quite good for an article such as this to discuss difft methodologies for postcode-creation, but that would need some more reliable source than a lazy journalist using a single source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TVM ww2censor (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, our 3RR anon-IP editor has registered as Garydubh today and posted on the same pages again, though differently, and been reverted. I have moved his posts from my talk page to his and responded to his latest comments. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Golly gosh, you are a tough admin; I better not get on your wrong side, but then I don't know all the admin rules. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually a puddy tat, but this guy a) evaded a block (which in itself justifies resetting the block); b) resumed edit-warring; and c) continued trying to promote his own products. If he really wants to improve articles, he may well have the knowledge to be a very valuable contributor on these matters, but so far he is just trying to use wikipedia to promote his own products, and that will earn him rapidly-escalating blocks if he persists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WwCensor and BrownHairedGirl..... I did not revert an edit - I retyped it - check and make sure you are applying the rules correctly. I did not evade a block I registered for the first time as recommended. BrownhairedGirl - yesterday you suggested to Wwcensor that the system I designed was worthy of discussion and that the Irish Times article could be referred to but he persists on demanding that any system discussed must be approved by the Government. I should not have to say this again but the reference to the Irish Independent article is a reference to something that is not Government approved and could never be as it is an inaccurate report and not technically useable. Will someone insist on some consistency here..... Brownhairedgirl - you were asked for a ruling and you gave it but have been ignored.

I am not going to go away on this - either get rid of reference to the article in the Independent or use reference to the Irish Times article - my suggestion would be to get someone else to rewrite the article completely - someone who knows something about it and does not believe that we live under martial law where anything referred to must be approved by the Government............. Finally my propsal is not a commercial product - it is not for sale - it is a proposal as are all other proposals referred to in the article.

I feel significantly agrieved here - I am aware I have broken editing rules and believe me I have better things to be doing with my time. I am new to wiki and for a long time believed that I was not entering my occasional content correctly as it kept disapperaing - until yesterday when I noticed for the first time that it had consistently been romoved for reasons which are completely inconsistent and a ruling given is now been ignored. You can imagine why anyone would get angry about this and would be adamant that this has to be redressed!!!

Is there anyone really in charge in Wiki or is it a case of whoever gets there first wins!!!!

I can find nothing about either of you - you are both pratically operating incognito - let me say that at least I am upfront about who I am and where I can be contacted directly - Gary Delaney - 021 4832990 - gary@gpsireland.ie

Can we please agree at least that as a compromise that this and any other article referring to the issue of Irish Post Codes be removed until someone independent rewrites them completely.

Look forward to hearing from you on this by this evening.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

????Garydubh (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First, please stop evading blocks. Your IP was blocked, so you created an account and resumed editing under that; then you are evading the block on your account by not logging in so that you could comment here.

As to anonymity, wikipedia policy is that editors have aright to anonymity if they seek it. If you dislike that policy, wait until you are unblocked and seek consensus for changing it. (Beware: it's a well-established policy)

As to retyping rather than reverting, what matters is that you added content substantially similar to that which had been removed, which is edit-warring.

If you want to propose an article for deletion, you should use the WP:AFD process. However, I doubt you will find many editors agreeing to delete a well-referenced article simply because a number of editors have reverted your attempts to use wikipedia to promote your own business. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong- You state above "then you are evading the block on your account by not logging in so that you could comment here" - check the times my last post was at 00:37 on 21 March after my block ended. I had hoped that you who seem to be reasonable would redress this issue. Again you say that this article is well referenced. It references an Irish Independent article - you agreed that the Irish Times article could be included and now you continue to block me for insisting that it is. The article is no more that incoherent bits stuck together with no meaningfull discussion on definitions, needs, proposals (except 1 which is incorrectly reported) and likely users. You have taken responsibilty for this article through your moderation - the article is now redundant and with no value - one sided, protected and the guy censoring it who calls himself a "censor" now just removes discussion about it on his talk page...... I am not going away - use your repsonsibility in this area wisely - the world is watching. Garydubh (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One for your tagging spree

1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. I'd add it myself, only I'm sure project members will take umbrage at my importance and class ratings, although the latter might not be in dispute. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Up in the air and over the city ..."

Rated as B-class/mid-importance. I remember the incident very well. We were stopped by a Garda checkpoint when crossing the bridge at Carrick-On-Shannon, and when we asked what the problem was we were told "some of the lads are after getting out of the 'Joy". He was grinning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I meant to say, it's another fine article — well done! Just as well for wikipedia that your membership of the escape committee was revoked ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and roadblocks seem about as useful as closing the gates! I'm just miffed that in all the sources there are for it, not a single one actually says it was the first ever successful (or possibly even at all) helicopter escape, despite that being the case. And that's my penultimate article, as I've just got one other I'm finishing off. I can't be bothered with all the never-ending arguments any more.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the roadblocks were good theatre and gave the Gardai something to do :) In those days, that bridge would be blocked several times a year.

You're right about the silliness of the never-ending arguments, but I just filter it out as background noise. Like the never-ending rain where I live, or the weeds in the garden that grow as a result, it's just part of the package, and I try not to concentrate enough on the good stuff not to let it get to me.

BTW, I thought that the idea for the escape had come from a film, though I dunno which one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a film mentioned in one of the sources - "One particular volunteer on the outside had been busy at that drawing board. He was watching television one Sunday afternoon when he saw a movie featuring a daring helicopter prison escape. Why not? he thought". I'm just not convinced it's that important to put in the article, and couldn't find a particularly encylopedic way of phrasing it either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be easily done if we had the name of the film, but without the name I agree that the wording is likely to be clumsy. However, if the stylistic problems can be overcome, it does seem to me to be appropriate to include something on the inspiration for a novel escape method. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't the first helicopter escape I've just discovered. Apparently this was the first one, as I discovered it after seeing the brief mention in the headline of the NYT article on the escape. If I think of a convenient way of adding the film detail in I will, but it's not looking easy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Even without the film ref, the precedent deserves a mention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback question

Can you explain, in simple terms, the difference between getting rollback rights and the rollback ability of the Twinkle script? It seems to me that there is no greater benefit in getting rollback rights than continuing to use Twinkle's rollback features. Am I confused or have I missed something obvious? Cheers. TVM ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Twinkle rollback is javascript-based, and requires user input, which is good if you want to leave a msg in the edit summary, but a nuisance if you just want to rapidly revert without comment. Horses for courses, really: I find the built-in-rollback much better for mass reversion, and the Twinkle rollback better if I want to comment on the reasons, particular if I also want to leave a msg for the person whose edits are being rolled back. So I like having both :)

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I have the impression you are in Ireland, so you must be up early today, or never went to bed. OTOH maybe, like me, you are Irish but in a US time zone. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. I am usually a one-shot pony, so I think Twinkle works fine for me for now, but I am sure I can always get rollback right without a problem. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO

There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Misplaced Pages talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Triggerman (band)

Hey, how's it going? I'm just drawing your attention to the proposed deletion of the page. I have since satisfied the notability guidelines and will continue to do so. Thanks, Ryannus (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still see no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is the main criterion for notability (see WP:N), nor do I see any sign of it meeting the tests set out in Misplaced Pages:Notability (music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. See my reply on the AFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refuted your argument on the Afd. Ryannus (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NO you haven't. Please provide evidence of which of the tests is met. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for seeming a bit arrogant. I just read back a few of my posts and realised they may have sounded bad. Ryannus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I understand you feel miffed that the article may be deleted, so I discounted any growliness of tone. Thanks for the apology anyway, but it wasn't needed :)

The main thing, though, is that you do need evidence of that substantial coverage in reliable sources. It would help too if you formatted the references using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates — that makes it much easier for the reader to understand the nature of the reference than if they just see an external link. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Your ANI post on Blackworm

I've contributed my meager opinion. Not sure it's helpful but I'll try to keep tabs on the discussion. Given the longterm nature of his disruption despite several low-level attempts to alter his behaviour, I suspect it may take more than those kinds of measures. Cheers, Pigman☿ 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg and for your ANI comments. I disagree with Blackworm, but that's not what concerns me: the problem is that his interventions are not focused on improving the articles, but rather on denunciations of other contributors and/or airing his views on the subject. I suspect that an RFC/U will be required to deal with it. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with deletion

I agree with this deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_F._Whelan --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)