User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 021

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

DYK for Robert Needham Philips

On August 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Needham Philips, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BrownHairedGirl

FYI. Pedro : Chat 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Pedro.

The ANI thread will be a useful place to discuss the Dr. B's use of references to sources which he appears not to have consulted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article expanded on famous MP/Lord Mayor

@BHG and Boleyn: You will both be glad to know that John Moore (London MP), which was made into a stub article by B. and redirected to the constituency by BHG, turns out to be the John Moore who was earlier Lord Mayor of London, was famous both politically and as founder of a famous school with a Wikipedia article, famous to the extent that political ballads were written about him, and has an article in the DNB. My quick check on G Books found that, and I made a start at what could be a very substantial article. I hope that one or both of you will want to expand it into a GA. Myself, I'm going to rescue some more articles. I wish , B, that you'd do this basic research when you write the article in the first place--it is primarily your responsibility and you can easily find the sources; but, BHG, if she doesn't, I wish you'd do it before you redirect or delete. It's a little much to expect others to make good on what each of you should rightly have done. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, well done creating the article.

However, I don't accept the complaint that it was my job to remedy the lack of research in Boleyn's sub-stub. My sole concern in redirecting it was whether the reader befitted more from the existence of a dead-end sub-stub or from going directly to the constituency article. If there had been a bit more, I would have expanded it further, but the content as it existed was below the more-useful-than-a-redirect threshold.

Of course, like any redirect it can be reverted and expanded, which is just what you did. Good work!

I probably won't be working on getting it to GA status, because I like to concentrate my efforts on getting articles to a decent stub state or a good start-class, but wish you luck if you want to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinion on image categorization?

Hi BrownHairedGirl! I find your user page userboxes very jolly indeed, and I'm especially pleased to learn that you're relatively sane. Perhaps that's not so monumental an achievement, on consideration, given that "relatively", and taking into account the typical standard of mental well-being in evidence here, but it's always encouraging to know that one can sleep through the night in peace! Trusting to that basis, then, I venture to ask your opinion on a question of categorization, since I see that you seem to be pretty familiar with the topic overall.

I came across another editor who, in all good faith, makes it a practice to delete category information from image files when he encounters such on Wikipedia. We've politely exchanged some ideas and opinions about that, as you can see from the first thread for August 2010 at Category_talk:Slavery in the United States, but I'm not really familiar with categorization, and am somewhat out of my depth. On the face of it, I find it hard to understand how removing category information from images benefits the encyclopedia, since it means (?) that images are unlikely to be reused, but I admit the other editor has more experience by far in dealing with categorization than I do.

The particular edits I took exception to can be found here and here, and are discussed as points (7) and (8), respectively, in our discussion at Category_talk:Slavery in the United States. But rather than just commenting on those particular edits, I was hoping you might be able to clarify this issue more generally for me. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be mistaken in my objection, but since the policy statements I've found about the categorization of images on Wikipedia and on the Commons seem to support image categorization, rather than otherwise, I thought it might help me understand this better if I were to ask another editor who has substantial experience with categories for her opinion. I won't quote you, unless you choose to jump in to the discussion on Category_talk:Slavery in the United States ( which you're perfectly welcome to do, of course ), but as I say, I'm a bit out of my depth, and would very much appreciate any clarification you might be able to offer. Many thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832

On 10 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Nicholls (MP)

I have added a couple more biographical snippets from the usual sources. I will try and track down a bit more about him if I can. As ever, --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham. Those additions give more a sense of him than the pile-of-electoral facts which I had created! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Barnstar

		The Politics Barnstar
		Awarded to BrownHairedGirl for amazingly productive and quality editing and improvements to politician stubs for several days consecutive. You have earned your well deserved break! Keep up the good work later! *Dr.* *Blofeld* 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, Dr B! Given our recent (and resolved!) disagreement, that's a particuarly welcome barnstar.

Most of it is due to an unexpected spin-off of the Bolyn saga: PamD's pointer on your talk to a way to access The Times archives. There's a lot of good stuff in there, and it's allowed me to do more with the articles than merely list electoral facts. I particularly like the bowler-hatted bricklayer in the Palace of Westminster — a thoroughly Pythonesque combination of formality and absurdity, masking a rather brutal make-those-blasted-bolshy-workers-sweat-a-bit-more dose of serious politics :)

Holiday been delayed a few days by illness in the family, so I may manage a few more before I go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been able to help - I'm sure there are loads of people out there who would make good use of the online resources of their local library (or Lancashire's) if only they knew about them! Do spread the word to other like-minded people. The full OED is one of the joys as well - when I first retired I could still access it via the University but then they worked out how to comply with their licence requirement by not allowing retired staff to have access, which would have been a great loss if I hadn't already got access via the public library. PamD (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, it's been really useful: thank you! My local library gives me DNB access, but most of the MPs I work on are too obscure to get a DNB entry, so I have been short of sources to add colour to their lives. I just hope that all of these services survive the ~~slashing-of-public-services-to-pay-back-the-bankers~~fiscal tightening, because without the public libraries it'll only be students who can do the research on these topics. I wonder if David Cameron knows that his cuts may cripple the work of us wrinklies on Wikipedia?

Pity, tho, that your uni couldn't make you some sort of nominal employee to get round the licensing glitch. I hate seeing skilled people deprived of their tools just because they no longer work fulltime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My relationship with my manager was such that there weren't any options of part-time re-engagement - and getting out was necessary to save my sanity anyway! Dealing with licenses for e-journals etc was part of my work, so I was all too aware that in most cases we weren't allowed to be letting retired staff access them. PamD (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity, Pam. That must have been a tough time for you :(

But the uni's loss has been wikipedia's gain :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was very lucky to get out when I did, I think - and if I was still in gainful employment my recently-widowed Mother would now be in a care home instead of being looked after, and occasionally shouted at, by her daughter, so things have worked out pretty well. PamD (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I can get an online account at Lancashire based on my living in a former British colony? =] –xeno^talk 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, they'll just get annoyed and invade you. Do you really want to go through all that again? ;)

Seriously, tho, there seems to be no geographical constraint involved, so why not just try it and see what happens? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost did the other day when someone posted the link here, but then I figured they implicitly meant UK residents only. I'll give it a shot. –xeno^talk 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno: The fact that they specify that they post out tickets only to UK residents seemed to me to imply (to my surprise!) that other people could join but could only get a physical ticket when they visited the UK. Let us know whether you're successful. Meanwhile, I've spread the word (again, I think) at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Useful_online_resources_via_UK_public_libraries. PamD (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Archibald Church

On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archibald Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Boleyn

Xeno if you are watching this I propose that that no article of Boleyn's is ever deleted in this way again. I strongly recommend if Boleyn's stubs about historical politicians are going to get deleted and be picked on in this way that all unsourced articles go in a User:Boleyn/Unsourced page. This way I will help go through and ensure they are sourced. I think it is important that we have these articles and also that Boleyn feels happy editing as I believe overall she is a great addition to the site and needed some help. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no sign that Boleyn is both capable of and willing to create stubs which are referenced, factually correct, reasonably categorised, and which say more about the person than the list articles. Since she refuses help, the "crapflood" (as another editor called it) seems likely to keep on coming ... but if you are willing to expand, correct and reference them, there will be no need to delete them. Boleyn lists each sub-stub she creates at User:Boleyn, so if you just follow that page you can track them as created. If you cannot source them, I trust that you will propose their deletion.

You're taking on a big job, and I wish you luck and patience. Cleaning up the crapflood requires spending a whole lot more time on each article than Boleyn does, so

I do not rule out the possibility that Boleyn may in time become an asset to wikipedia, but so far she has devoted a huge amount of effort to ignoring requests to raise her game, and has continued creating junk which requires much much effort by others to clean up. I hope ypou have more success than the rest of us in persuading her to try to learn a little bit about what she is doing. Competence is required, and Boleyn is glacially slow at gaining any competence in article creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the last entry in her list: Robert Jermyn. Not pretty. Another editor had added a link to ODNB (just to ODNB, no specific article!) and called it a reference, and removed the {{unref}} tag, but on checking ODNB it appears that there are probably 2 different RJs conflated here: by his death date he can't have been MP for Penryn as given. So the removal of {{unref}} was unjustified - just because someone called RJ appears in ODNB doesn't make this article referenced. PamD (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, Pam. This is the sort of thing which is happening all the time: Boleyn has created unref sub-stubs on topics of which she demonstrates no understanding ... and then she or another editor who is often equally unfamiliar with the field but wants to help her is "fixing" the article by adding new errors because of inadequate checking and cross-checking of sources.

This process of hastily-patch-on-any-old-ref-to-something-and-say-it's-OK is no way to build encyclopedic content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'm more experienced than anybody in article building and I know that a referenced stub with soime sourced content is better than nothing. In fact it often invites expansion e.g Arthur Ingram, and your excellent work on Robert Needham Philips. The fact is these MP stubs do contain information about the dates they served which is a start. however basic and make it easier to build upon than starting it from scratch. Somebody somwhere is going to have to the hard work in expanding them though, as with every article on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 10:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that there is indeed a problem with Robert Jermyn. I must protest though that adding the ODNB ref was the right thing to do, and there is no ambiguity since there is only one ODNB article of that name. My current practice would be to add the whole ODNB title, i.e. Jermyn, Sir Robert (1538/9–1614), gentleman and patron of puritans by John Craig in this case, so that I accept the reprimand as deserved. On the other hand the article was then referenced and the Penryn problem was accurately identified by you. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about the stubs containing the same info as the constituency but can you at least wait a week or two before they can be expanded? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 10:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B, it seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. You complained that my run of speedy deletions was performed too long after the articles were created, but now you seem to be asking for them not to be deleted pronto. If anyone wants to create a meaningful stub on these people, the sub-stub is not needed as a starting point.

Your example of Robert Needham Philips is misplaced; it actually illustrates a v difft point. I had started doing what I usually do when I'm not tidying up the crapflood: I set to work on Bury, checking that the list of MPs was complete and accurate, and started by creating a stub on the missing article Richard Walker; I hadn't much on him, but created a referenced stub with a succession box. It was pretty minimal (and I was surprised by an editconflict when I started categorising in seconds after the first save), but I left it with two refs to RS, and not a dead-end: links to the elections, and a succession box. That to my mind is little more than the bare minimum needed for a stub which serves a purpose to the reader: not much new info (his vital dates, and the fact that he stood down rather than being defeated), but fully-categorised to make it findable by other readers and editors, and with enough links (party, 2 elections, successor, external link to Hansard) to allow the reader to navigate somewhere other than back to the constituency article. Anything much less than that creates a pointless dead-end.

Having done Walker, I fixed a link on his successor, checked his successor's successor and found it was one of the useless sub-stubs, so I completely rewrote it. The existence of the Boleyn-created sub-stub did nothing whatsoever to either identify the need for the article or to assist in its construction: the only thing I kept was the categories, which had been added by another editor tidying up Boleyn's mess.

That's how I and other editors in this field routinely work: find articles which are needed, and create them. With the use of a few sources, it's not hard to create a minimal but still just-about-useful stub such as Richard Walker, and sometimes more turns up to allow a bit of expansion (lots more, in the case of Robert Needham Philips). Plenty of other editors work in the same way: identify a needed article using constituency MP lists, the Lists of MPs elected in United Kingdom general elections, the by-election lists or red-links in succession boxes ... and then uses sources to create a stub which adds some content to Wikipedia.

Boleyn's sub-stubs add nothing to that process beyond the first few seconds work of typing the sentence "Foo was MP for Bar" (tho even that usually needs a rewrite) ... and in many ways they actually impede finding needed stubs, because there is no longer a redlink. In such cases it takes a trawl through existing articles to find that one of them is just a useless sub-stub which wastes the reader's time by creating a pointless dead-end. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now that Boleyn has departed you think you are going to start picking on me right? Do you think it is normal behaviour to stalk editors and identify every tiny issue and erorr you find? Does that make you feel good about yourself conveying other editors as a piece of shit and implying you know it all? If you truly want these articles you and to improve wikipedia you'd help me and fix any issues you see yourself rather than making every tiny one of them known to me. The way you conduct yourself is belligerent, as if you enjoy the conflict. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B, kindly drop the abuse and focus on content.

You took it upon yourself to re-create the deleted articles, and as you know everything you add needs to be verifiable. I have been checking the articles created, and some of them have been good -- Charles Mathews has done a great job on some of them -- but so far I have found that out of about half-a-dozen articles created by you, several have had serious problems: one citing a ref which I wonder I am very surprised that you could actually consult, another using a ref to a questionable source which actually referred to someone else, and a third which was A10-able. I raised these probs politely, and your reply should have been "thank you". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you now if you plan on drilling me messages all day about every flaw you find I might as well open the long awaited investigation into your editing. There is enough evidence of you badgering other editors to have you stripped of your tools by the arb. You can deny it but the proof is there is your editing history. If this is what you want you'll leave me with no choice. Other than that you can assume good faith, back off and allow some air to breathe by allowing another editor to expand upon what has been recreated and help fix any issues you see yourself.

Oh yeah, and have I seen a word of thanks from you for my edits? My new re stubs may not be perfect but at least I could give a damn that these articles exist, which is more than I can say about you. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B., if you want to start a complaint because I have politely raised concerns about your use of sources, you are of course free to do so.

A little less personal abuse from you might help strengthen your case if you want to go down that path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you lay off of the speedy deletions and work with me to build decent stubs or content using our resources and build upon the shite that exists on wikipedia I'd be happy to work with providing we are on the same level and believe we have a common goal. No short redundant stubs, speedy tags, no insult, no ANI, no block. Its avoidable! As that metric tonne Scottish Fat Bastard once said "Its a vicious cycle". I've responded somewhat on my talk page. I started on more this morning because you weren't here/have expanded those I thought you had already posted. If you would rather help me flesh them out first this at your own pace this is fine by me. It is best for now to let this pass and let DGG or Charles start the others in their own time but if you ever need my help to help you clean up articles I'll glady help. I mean that. I apologise for being abusive, at times though you are incredibly persistent which I am not used to. Now LOL you better stay away from my piranha tank! Please though no more conflict!!! Saludos. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. B .... thanks!!! Sorry if some of what I did came across wrongly, but any angry words are best forgotten, so let's both move on and get back to work. As you say, we're on the same track :)

Creating decent stubs on MPs and constituencies has been my prime focus on wikipedia, and has been for over 4 years. Over the years I have encountered an awful lot of stuff which falls well blow the basic minimum standards, and most of it I just get on with cleaning up. If I wab't persistent I'd have given up on it all yeras ago! :)

My concern with Boleyn was the sheer volume of abysmal sub-stubs, and I was very disappointed that she persistently rejected efforts by me and others to improve the quality of the output. I know that you usually work to much higher standards, and it's a pity that we got our wires crossed and ended up at loggerheads. Glad that's over, without too many dead :) ... and esp that you are back contributing again.

Anyway, there are squillions of stub articles still needed on MPs, and hundreds which are way below the useful-to-the-reader level ... so if you want to direct some of your energy to them, I'd be delighted to help with a few pointers. I was planning to write an essay with some suggestions on how to go about this (basic content, posss sources, some pitfalls), and I think at this point it'll try to do it soon ... and in case it's any help I'll drop you a note with a link to the draft as soon as I have one in place, just in case it's any use.

And don't worry about the Piranha tank ... I'll let my crocodiles deal with that <grin> while we get back to improving content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Is this is Steve Irwin's missus? Well I do have zillions of DNB articles to transfer. The articles are already written but need minor wikifying. The system seems to be to mention it incorporates PD material from DNB. Ideally they'd be created with multiple sources including inline citations first time. I'd be interested to hear your views on that. The task needed in just starting the articles is so tremendous so many MPs and ministers. Are you content with text copied from DNB as a start? We could certainly do with transferring many of them from DNB. I think its OK to start with, not ideal but somehow this work needs to be done. Its a gruelling task. Uuurggh I really have been poisoned by those chilis I had for dinner. Horrific. Hopefully I'll feel better tomorrow and we can discuss the way forward. Buenos Noches! Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well I've just drunk about 5 gallons of water. The dinner was overboard in chilis with rice and potatoes. I usually have small proportion of chilis in with a curry but rarely a dinner of pure chilis at that level. I think there may have been enough of them to mildly poison me! They didn't feel that potent until about an hour after eating the sweats came on with a monstrous headache. I wonder if there is something in them which causes that. You hear about coffee, chocolate, cheese but rarely chilis causing headaches. I've gained access to Oxford Dictionary with my library card now. It is a highly valuable source. Perhaps you could draw up a User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles needing expansion from ODNB and User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles needing creation from ODNB. Obviously you wouldn't list the entire lot as you;d be here for years drawing it but say 50 odd MP articles at a time so it can be done in stages, This way we could work through a filtered list where we can access adequate content upon creation and avoid creating lame stubs. At a later time the MPs with less info available will need starting but in my view it is best to work with where the knowledge is easily accesible first. Agreed? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More MPs

Hola, thanks for tweaking William Murray. The best place though would be start where info is abundant. Are you interested in adding a few to your talk pages to work on? Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, pom! ;)

I tend to try to concentrate on getting weak articles up to decent stub-class, with full electoral history, categs, succession boxes etc ... partly because IMVVRHO <grin> that's kinda the basic minimum that makes a stub useful to the reader, and partly cos I have the rare reference books which allow me to check that stuff against v reliable sources (F. W. S. Craig was notorious as the perfectionist pedant from hell, and Stooks Smith is pretty good too on the pre-1832 MPs). I know there are other sources which allow the articles to be taken further, but I reckon that it's usually more useful for me to concentrate on maximum use of the scarce refs.

Sometimes I do get stuck in and take an article further (e.g. Archibald Church or Robert Needham Philips) just cos I get curious (or bored with the minimal stuff), but in general I focus on the basics ... cos anyone can trawl the London Gazette or the Victoria County Histories or the public domain Debretts etc. Once a stub has the basics (categs, succession boxes, vital dates, electoral history, party affiliations), there's stuff there for others to build upon, even if they don't have the specialist refs. (e.g. next on my list is Edgar Rees Jones: dead end, no party affiliation, no succession boxes, etc.)

At the moment I have a lot of tabs open on weak stubs which don't have all those basics in place, so I'm gonna work through those ... but if you wanna show me a list of others, I'll take a peep and see what I can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, weak they certainly are. Mmm i presume I have the right MP in the book source I've added which says he was a Liberal. There really should be more about him... Oh if you want to transfer any politicians from wikisource of the DNB take your pick. Most of them though appear to be theologians. ministers, sailors etc. Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Rees Jones is now start class an I'm nominated it as a joint DYK.. Hope this is OK. Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK????

No, it's not at all OK. Absolutely definitely not OK in any shape or form. <grin>

On the contrary, it's great! A lame little stub transformed into a really useful start-class article which gives some flavour of the man's life; just what's needed. Be careful, good Dr, or you'll find low-flying barnstars headed your way ;)

I have started expanding his electoral hist a bit (the usual sad 1920s saga of a nomadic Liberal candidate in a fruitless search for anywhere hat will send him back to Westminster), and have two other sources (Times Guide & Debrett's) which should allow a bit more to be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha good one. Well the good thing is that you have some publications which can add to it, that's what wikipedia is all about. Somehow by finding scraps from google books we were able to piece it together. I only wish that books were not subject to copyright and we had proper access to every page of every book. The web sources for such topics are pretty dismal, an important part of the Internet is putting information online which is poorly covered right now. I'd imagine you'd find a lot of newspaper extracts on him from the Rhondda library, a picture might even be available of him in the archives. I know the online library has a great number of old images, I used a few for articles I've written on old mining villages in the valleys. You;d be very lucky to find an image though... Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I meant to say thanks for crediting me in the DYK nom -- v generous of you, 'cos it was 95% your work.

If you do want to go further with Jones, I'd suggest following up by registering with Lancashire libraries (via the link PamD posted on your talk); the Times archive, to which that gives you access, is likely to at least have good reports of his parliamentary activities. My local lib also gives me access to a broader 19th cent newspaper site, and if you can get that you'll probably find a lot about him in the Western Mail. But if it's OK with you, I'll drop a note to Graham Lippiatt (talk · contribs), who is a wizard at constructing great C-class bios of early-20th-cent Liberals. Jones could benefit from some of Graham's magic dust, to take him a little bit further than your excellent start.

BTW, if you're interested in an example of some disentanglement you may want to take a peek at the history of Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Wingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's one of Boleyn's stubs, which I found in the should-be-empty Category:British politicians. She'd conflated two difft people of the same name, which is easily done if reliable sources aren't used. A quick check at Rayment's lists of constituency MPs showed difft birth dates, so I have separated the two baronets ... but this sort of thing happened a lot with Boleyn's work, because she was just looking at whatlinkshere rather than checking. It's an illustration of why I think it's better to just delete that sort of stuff en masse rather than leave it hanging around for readers, because it needs a complete rewrite anyway. I'm not going to delete more of her stuff (at least not on my own), because the drama caused is too wearisome, but I do feel sad that our readers will be served up so many sloppy and misleading sub-stubs until the massive cleanup is complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'll have a look at this shortly. You really were terrifically productive yesterday, especially with Joseph Binns. Excellent. Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm Thomas Palmer is a little too far back in history, I can't seem to find much on him... There is a list of boleyn's stubs on her user page. When I have a moment I'll try to expand what I can. Today I have DNB articles to transfer. Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar names certainly do get confusing. I need your help to verify whether the info in the Notthinghamshire source for Charles Ichabod Wright is actually for Ichabod Charles Wright. Which one was the colonel? I was actually about to post an expansion in the Charles Ichabod article when I suddenly I thought. Hang on, if he was in 1828 how could he had joined his father in 1825!! It would appear that the translator info is about his father and that Ichabod Charles Wright's son Charles was born in 1828. Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yr kind words on Binns. I hit it lucky there: he was just recent enuf to be in the one vol of Stanton&Lees in my collection, and his name was rare enuf to make it easy to find a few bits in The Thunder and the Gazette. John Smiths etc (and Thomas Palmers!) are a harder job.

I'm just tangled in MPs for Don Valley at the mo, after stumbling on a gazette ref for one of them while looking for something else, and noting that they are all very stubby. When I'm done with them take a look at the Wright family. Abut an hour, I think.

As you'll have noticed, one of the more frustrating habits of English and Welsh gentry families (at least from our biographers POV) was their enthusiasm for recycling first names: my wall still has the dents where I banged my head trying to disentangle a crop of William Williamses and John Cottons a few years ago, and even the Gladstones were at it too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've accessed the Oxford Dictionary and I would say that the colonel was our MP not his father. His father was too engrossed in Dante to worry about the army I think. Definately needs verifying though. Yes the names are often a nightmare especially when they are like 10 with the same name of the same family! But equally headachy is the amount of red links that often appear in the articles and the extent which is actually missing from wikipedia or could be written about. In particularly we seem to be missing an awful lot of manor houses. I'm particularly interested in old manors, especially Tudor mansions. Wormleighton Manor was the last I created I think. No I tell a porky it was Maesmawr Hall. Maybe I'll create a few hall articles related to the Wrights shortly, dependent on sources of course. Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very detailed Victoria county histories (online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/) are a good source for manor houses and the like. As with stately homes, many of them were demolished in the early 20th cent as death duties took effect, but unlike the stately homes many were not more widely documented, so google searches throw up a lot of flaky-looking tourist guides and amateur-historian sites. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funny enough as I received your message I was viewing Michael Welsh (Labour politician) and thinking how useful it is to have the succession box and how nice it would be to see consistent quality articles! We could surely do with several thousands clones or minimes of article writers, whatever the size! Yeah I tend to get in the mood for DYKs every few weeks. I always have one or two on the go but most of them end up being created in quick succession and then I have a break for a while and stub or cleanup articles. Yes the British history site is an excellent resource, in fact Ambrosden narrowly scraped GA thanks to that source (with access to the detailed book material). Again it is scary how many missing articles.potential articles you can spot within their entries if not the articles themsevles. And when we have loads of small stubs to be expanded on here the task often makes you feel like screaming. It doesn't help either by my big range of interests. Right now I think i'll resume with DNB, if you want me to start expanded one of Boleyn's stubs andpoint out some potential sources i'll see what I can do later. You could definately use a hand with them. Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots to do! And sorry for teaching garnnies to suck eggs wrt to the Victoria histories. I should have guessed you'd know it well.

You're right about succession boxes: they make navigation between holders of the same post so much easier that even a rather lame stub is not much of a nuisance to readers, because they can at least jump quickly to the prev/next holder of the post. I often sit down and try to complete all the boxes for MPs of a given constituency (e.g. Devonport last night), so that readers trying to follow the politcal history don't have to jump back to the constit article. Problem is, many MPs represented more than one constit, so then I open the refs for the other one and start doing those MPs, some of whom have in tunnels other seats ... and after a few hours my browser has so many open tabs that it hits a 1.5Gb mem usage limit, at which point it goes into a disk-swapping death mode.

I'll be winding down my editing later today, and not doing much more before I go away for a month later this week. My soul needs time camped out on a remote hillside! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is now I visual one of these. Peace maaaan... Sounds fun though providing the weather is good. Hey you can see the hall article on google street view. Large white building but is too hemmed in, has little grounds. Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Manorhouses and other buildings: I had a look at B's stub list y'day and picked a non-personal name to explore: Romeland which appears to have been an open space rather than a palace (though the name is also used for an open space in St Albans), and the only mention as a palace is indeed in an "amateur-historian" site, and .... aaaargh ! Gave up and PRODded. Didn't put a mention on Boleyn's page - should I have done, do you think, after she's announced her retirement? (You've probably both seen my note on her talk page). PamD (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea to leave a notice just in case she comes back, but also for the benefit of other editors watching that talk page (lots of them, I guess).

That illustrates again why I think it's a bad idea to keep those unref sub-stubs. It took Boleyn a few seconds to create them, but if the radical inclusionists are to be believed, we should spend hours trying to verify each little factoid, even tho many of them turn out yo be the product of flaky syntheses of unreliable sources. I think that's a disastrous approach: far from helping build the encyclopedia, those splatter-gunned snippets sap the energies of the most diligent researchers into trying to verify throwaway comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! See my my comment in support of the PROD, and note google maps at http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=romeland&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl -- it's not a palace, it's a residential cul-de-sac.

That's a great illustration of how unreliable Boleyn's contribs are: even when a source is cited, it may have been grossly misinterpreted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it, most miserable looking "palace" I've ever seen. BHG I see similarities in prfoession between Thomas Samuel Beauchamp Williams and Whitelaw Ainslie. Maybe a category "British medical doctors in India or something would be suitable. Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Goodman (MP)

Just stopping by to say thanks, BHG! I was pretty tired when I left off with George Goodman (MP) last night and looking at the article now, I gotta say I was grateful to see you had given it attention. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Rosie. You'd done a great job on it, and all I did was a quick and trivial bit of polishing at the end. The list of sources is impressive, and you must have put a lot of work into it ... so I do hope you'll do the same for more MPs! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFD nomination of Category:Second Life residents

As a contributor to the previous CFD for this category back in 2006, you may be interested to know it has been renominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 13#Category:Second Life residents. Robofish (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I have added my tuppenceworth at CFD ... though it look a lot of typing for a mere tuppence! ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Sir Robert Ainslie, 1st Baronet

I created this from the DNB. It need a lot of work but he was supposed to have been an MP in 1796. I wondered if you had some sources to verify it/improve it? Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr B.

I see that he was an MP, so you'll find details of that in Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs , and of the baronetcy in Leigh Rayment's list of baronets . If you can get the bones of it in place, I can check further in Stooks-Smiths' The Parliaments of England, which is the only printed source I have. It's also well worthwhile having a trawl in the London Gazette, to verify elections and the creation of the baronetcy and so on, and well as his official appointments. I have found that 19th-century DNB entries are not always of quite so high a standard as their current work, so I think that a check is a good idea to avoid the sort of error detected here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its easy to assume DNB is 100% correct but like most encyclopedias has some errors. I think we can assume though that the vast majority of the info is correct but certiin things like this do need verifying. It said he represented that close borough in Somerset but it is nothing but a village, probably part of a larger constituency of a different name. If I knew the constiuency I could find him.. Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Ah Milborne Port (UK Parliament constituency) did exist. Must have been very small!! Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(Ah, I see.

It was indeed a wee village: the rotten borough of Milborne Port (UK Parliament constituency). Now linked, and refd to rayment, whose pages are very good -- on about 2 dozen occasions I have thought I have found an error, but AFAICR every glitch turned out to be a misunderstanding by me. (Just look at Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs under M)

Will add categs etc in a mo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added categs and succession box. More refs would be good, but I'll leave that in your capable hands :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you can find a few sources I'll nominate it for a joint DYK. Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll have another go later today, but have to go out soon, and before I do anything else on WP I want to finish expanding Sir Arthur Black, since The Times has a lot on him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm sorting out Nunavut maps at the moment (hoping I will not be reverted to the stinky former maps). He has an entry on ONDB which I'll check later for additional info and will include in the references. Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC) LOL, was the article really that bad that you didn't want any credit for it!! Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DR. B, I got side-tracked onto other stuff, and then side-tracked off that and so on. Never thought I'd spend a whole day on two St Albans by-elections, but they turned out to be rather absorbing ,and then other stuff came up.

I'm afraid I probably won't have tine to do Ainslie afore I go away, but will try to remember to take a look in september. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sir Christopher Sykes, 2nd Baronet then... Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Sykes a pair of succession boxes, clarified his electoral history (from Stooks Smith), and done a few other tweaks (like puuting the dates in UK fmt rather than merkin-style) ... but that's the limit of my sources. Hope it helps a bit.

BTW, I dabbed the various Christopher Sykeses yesterday. Hope the links are correct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith.

Avoid bad faiths. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not required to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, such as this nonsense edit with a misleading edit summary, when you had already been warned and had subsequently done another bit of vandalism.

Start editing constructively, or before long you will be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats. And more threats. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. A friendly welcome, accompanied by a gentle reminder to be constructive, followed by a slightly sharper request to desist from silliness ... and now a set of complaints from you.

There's no threat involved, just a reminder that you are very welcome to edit Wikipedia constructively ... and a clear warning that if you choose to continue editing unconstructively, you will no longer be welcome. I'd much prefer that you stay and make constructive contributions, but the choice is yours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery ...

... as in "Imitation is the sincerest...": see User_talk:PamD#recycling. PamD (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that it's spreading. :)

BTW, my shiny new Lancs Library card arrived across in the post t'other day across the Pennines, having apparently escaped scrutiny at the border. Hand-written envelope, pretty little holder for the card, so it seems that they really don't mind allowing their library to be used by ppl outside of Lancs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm outta here

... for about a month.

Back in mid-September, if all goes according to plan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, almost thought that was retirement then! Just kidding, have a nice break. Aiken ♫ 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good break! PamD (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, break time. Have fun! Courcelles 02:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edgar Rees Jones

On 17 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edgar Rees Jones, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michael Welsh (Labour politician)

On 19 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Welsh (Labour politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terms in the Senate of Northern Ireland

Hi - I wonder if you could take another look at the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 11 and comment on whether you now support the rename or not? There's been rather a lack of participation in it, so it would be very useful to have your thoughts. Warofdreams talk 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richard Kelley

On 20 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Kelley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wenzhou-Medical-College-Logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wenzhou-Medical-College-Logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edgar Keatinge

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edgar Keatinge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Selley

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Selley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George Nicholls (MP)

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Nicholls (MP), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for J. H. Hall

On 23 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. H. Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Black (Liberal politician)

On 23 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Black (Liberal politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Jackson, 1st Baron Jackson

On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Jackson, 1st Baron Jackson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Gordon Drummond Campbell

On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Gordon Drummond Campbell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Carlile

On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Carlile, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Albans by-election, 1943

On 25 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Albans by-election, 1943, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick William Verney

On 25 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick William Verney, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Fenby

Hello, BrownHairedGirl, I wanted to ask for your help with this article. You created it years ago, but it doesn't have any references yet and needs a little bit of work. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards, Markiewp (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has added a reference now, so it's not such a priority. Regards, Markiewp (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Albans by-election, 1919

On 26 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Albans by-election, 1919, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My Account

hello i was wondering if you could change or remove my user name from my contributions please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaysykes (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne is back

Charlesdolphharding Kittybrewster ☎ 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan John O'Connell and MP for Kerry

With this edit you included Morgan John O'Connell, but according to his DNB entry he was MP for Meath not Kerry. Please could you check your source that the man is the one who fought in the Irish Legion. -- PBS (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I know where you got your initial source:

24 Dec 1832	Charles O'Connell	20 Jan 1877
24 Jan 1835	Morgan John O'Connell	(to 1852)	31 Oct 1804	24 May 1858	53
12 Aug 1837	Arthur Blennerhassett	1 Jan 1799	23 Jan 1843	44

From the DOB and DOD this entry seems to mix up two brothers Morgan O'Connell (DOB) and John O'Connell (DOD), but it is also possible but unlikely there is a third man who shares their dates. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party UK and The Freedom Association

Hi BHG. I wonder if you could cast an experienced eye over Libertarian Party UK and The Freedom Association?

Both have had a lot of effort put in by someone but seem desperately short of wp:sources quality material and would almost disappear without self sourced statements. The former I've marked with a notability warning despite finding its claims to fame mildly amusing. Do you think it is an AFD?

The latter is much more likely to have been notable and may have had sources some 30 years ago ..but I can't find any now. I added its solitary working independent reference (even that isn't very much) + a few citation requests but feel this should also be substatially reduced. The Telegraph link which should name members of Better Off Out is dead, it has an improbable URL and I can't find anything similar. I'd like to add a notability tag and assuming nothing happens reduce it to a few lines merged with Better Off Out.
Advice appreciated. JRPG (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Spencer-Bell

Here's another stray Victorian MP: James Spencer-Bell. Needs succession box. Can you help, please? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 07:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Baird

This interesting edit needs careful sifting I think. Up your street? Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed need some sifting. I'll get to it later tonight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - now nb the talk page comment, which I moved down. Maybe more on the way. All the best, btw! Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd seen the talk page comment. I'm not happy with the lack of refs for what was added, but the tp comments seem reasoned, so the edit needs to be taken in difft parts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your new age trip! Are you going to take the wikibreak notice down?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And about time too! Do you realise you just broke the record for most DYKs while on WikiBreak? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the welcome! I had a great time away, but my return is only temporary, because I'll departing again soon for another few weeks. I should have taken down the wikibreak notice, and will do so now, but it'll be going up again soon.

Alzarian, you're right, it was kinda odd to come back to see a torrent of DYK notes. I had rather stashed them up before going away! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

James Bailey (UK politician)

BHG can you try to find some book info on James Bailey (UK politician)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dr B, I have just taken a peek, and the only book info I have on him is Craig's election results, as referenced when I created the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK not to worry. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting dab pages

I feel like I have asked you this question in the past, and if so, I apologize, for I have forgotten the answer. Is there a process (like AfD) for deleting dab pages, or can they be speedied? It seems to me that, per WP:TWODABS, the Blue Valentine dab page ought to be deleted. Blue Valentine should link to the album, the primary topic, with a dab link at the top for Blue Valentine (film) (I have already put the dablink in place). Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I thought that dabs would go to WP:MFD, but as far as I can see from the listings at WP:DSDAB they appear to be handled at WP:AFD.

Personally, I am very much in favour of keeping the disambiguation page at the unqualified title except; readers are best served by maintaining links accurately, and that process is very significantly impeded by having one article as a primary topic. I'm not familiar with either the album or the film, but unless there is an order-of-magnitude difference between the notability of the two, I would retain the dab page. YMMV, so take the dab to AFD if you think that's warranted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year ranges

Hello BrownHairedGirl, regarding this edit, I thought that the following applies: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)"

Is there a convention for succession boxes that is at variance with this? Given that you are such an experienced editor, I didn't simply want to revert your changes, but thought to enquire with you first. If there's a need to reply here, can you please place a talkback? Or else reply on Talk:Cathcart Wason. Thanks! Schwede 66 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines#Years_and_dates is to use full years, and that is the practice at every one of the tens of thousands of succession box I have encountered.

I have just checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and find that the guidance there was changed in this edit after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Re: WP:YEAR.

I am surprised by this change to the guideline, which has wide-ranging consequences, and will ask for it to be revisited by a wider group. In the meantime, please can we leave the succession boxes in the same format as other succession boxes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I thought there was more to it, and here we go. One other wide-ranging consequence is that we've been following the MOS guidance of double-digit year ranges for succession boxes, parlboxes and life span for New Zealand bios for quite some time now, so there'd be hundreds of articles that will need changing if this goes back to four digit years. But so be it. Have you started that discussion? If so, can you please provide a link? No TB required this time – I've watchlisted your page. Schwede 66 00:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPs

I admit that as a Canadian, I'm by no means an expert in the historical complexities of the British/UK parliament, and the articles themselves aren't always very good at making it clear. However, both of the articles in question were sitting in Category:Articles needing additional categories for months without anybody who is more familiar with the correct categorization scheme for historical British MPs ever adding them to any British/UK MPs categories at all — so if initially miscategorizing them is what it takes to get them added to the correct categories promptly, then, well, all I can say is that my primary interest in the matter has been fulfilled even if it wasn't the ideal way to go about it.

Would it be possible for you (or anyone else who is familiar than I am with what time period properly corresponds to what set of categories) to take a quick spin through Category:Articles needing additional categories and its dated subcategories, to determine whether there are other British/UK politicians still waiting to be correctly categorized? As I mentioned, some of them have been sitting there for months with no action on them. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beracat, and thank for the reply.

I accept your good intentions, but if you had set out to miscategorise articles in order to prompt other editors to recat them, that would be a bit WP:POINTy ... and while I'm not suggesting that your categorisations were in any way pointy, I don't think that your post-facto justification is a good one. I know you acted in good faith, but if you're not familiar with the categorisation scheme in a particular area, it's best to just leave it for others to fix.

You're right about the backlog, but you may not know why it exists. The two articles to which I drew your attention on your talk were part of a massive crapflood of utterly abysmal sub-stubs created at high-speed by the now-retired Boleyn (talk · contribs) (and her doppelgnager accounts): I think there were about 900 of them. I wanted this crap deleted on sight per WP:CSD#A10, because it was wholly unreferenced, abysmally categorised (usually with only a stub tag), and most of the articles were so short that they said less about the MPs than the relevant lists; the very few facts they asserted were often wrong.

My attempts to stop the crapflood led a series of big rows which went to ANI on several occasions, the outcome of which was this pile of crap was not deleted :( The result is that there are hundreds of these rubbishy sub-stubs which need a complete rewrite even to to be viable stubs ... and it would be a full-time job for months to fix them all. :( Boleyn created them often at a rate of one every minute or two, but sorting them out can take 30 minutes or more per article.

I have not yet checked Category:Articles needing additional categories, but I'll hazard a guess that most of the uncategorised British politician articles are Boleyn-droppings. So, I'm afraid that this junk will stay in a very inadequate state for ages, because there is a limited pool of editors willing to familiarise themselves sufficiently with the subject ... and most editors working on these topics don't want to spend their all of their editing time to just tidying up Boleyn's manure heap. It'll be done, eventually, but it will take time, and in the meantime readers are ill-served by this dross. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be dross, but Wikipedia's not well served by leaving the dross out for all to see — having massive backlogs of articles where proper maintenance isn't happening with doesn't reflect any better on Wikipedia than bad articles do. It's not better, in my view, to have an article sitting in an "uncategorized articles" category for months on end with no progress than it is to stick it in a category, even a less than ideal one, where it will at least get noticed by someone who has the capacity to fix it promptly. The sheer size of the backlog at the categorization project right now is far, far too large for any article to be simply left there for months on end just because nobody wants to deal with one bad editor's mess; whether by categorizing them properly or by tagging them for deletion, they need to be dealt with if we're to have any hope of the maintenance backlogs ever getting smaller. Eventualism isn't a useful strategy for the maintenance projects; somebody has to step up to the plate and make it happen one way or another. Whether it's categorizing them properly or tagging them for deletion, something needs to happen to the articles sooner rather than later. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the dross exists as pages, and until someone either deletes them or rewrites them, they are there for all to see. Miscategorising them does not make them anything other than dross -- it just makes them miscategorised dross.

If you are volunteering to check all these articles, look through the sources to see if the facts asserted are correct, and categorise them properly, that's great. For myself, I do a bit of it, and so do other editors ... but it's a painfully slow task, because so much of it is crap.

However, adding categories which are simply untrue misleads the reader. It's much better to leave articles uncategorised, or to put them in a more general category, than to miscategorise just in order to remove the "uncategorised" tag. That's not fixing anything -- it's just removing the warning light.

So long as they are tagged as uncateg, editors will eventually pick them out and fix them. But removing the uncateg tag removes the alert to the problem, and if they are then added to the wrong category, that just makes a mountain of work for other editors to try to find the miscategorised articles. I am currently going through the last two months of changes related to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, trying to find miscategorised articles ... and periodically I do an AWB trawl through the whole category, looking for anachronisms. It's intensely depressing to think that editors might be consciously adding articles incorrectly to that category in the hope that someone will find them. That's just a make-work :(

I can see only two viable options: mass-delete the crap, or accept that it will take some time to sort it properly. Please don't try a "tidyup" which just sweeps the muck in with the clean stuff and removes the warning light. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization project's only useful priority is to get the size of its backlog reduced. We can't keep a systemic backlog of articles that are left permanently uncategorized because other people don't want to deal with issues that have nothing to do with their categorization status; the categorization tags are not "warning lights" for anything except the presence or absence of categories.

If there are other issues besides their categorization status, then you need to find another way to flag that besides leaving them permanently uncategorized (deleting them, sandboxing them, etc.), because the categorization project needs to make every decision solely on the basis of whether or not it moves us toward the goal of eliminating the categorization backlog. Categorization tags are not an all-purpose warning flag for all manner of content issues, and we can't let people use them as if they were. If there are content-based reasons why you need an article to stay uncategorized for an extended length of time, then you need to find a content-based solution for that, such as getting it out of articlespace — the categorization project's core responsibility is to always get the backlog as close as feasibly possible to zero on any given day.

I don't mean to suggest that your concerns are invalid, because they're not — but using the categorization tags as longer-term flags for other problems isn't the solution, because the categorization project's core overriding responsibility is to get articles out of our backlog as quickly as possible, and there are other solutions available to you if your needs aren't compatible with that. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the uncat tags remain as some sort of semi-permanent feature, or as a warning flag for other problems. What I am saying is that a desire to remove an uncat tag does not justify adding an article to a category it should not be in.

There are plenty of ways of appropriate tackling articles in that backlog -- delete them, categorise them accurately, or categorise them in a more general category. But it's much much much much much much much much much much much much better that articles remain uncategorised than that they are thrown haphazardly into any old category, creating a mess for others to sort out.

If the categorisation project doesn't like its maintenance flags hanging around for ages, then I can understand that. But there is no no deadline, and a false cleanup is much worse than no cleanup.

I hope that I am misreading you, but what I am hearing is that you regard the presence of the uncat tag as the most significant problem. If I unread that right, then it's a very unhelpful approach, because it's far too narrow a view of the problem. Removing that flag is supposed to be an indication that the problem has been solved, not that it has simply been dumped into other editors' laps by adding incorrect categories.

I am not advocating that articles remain uncategorised. But please, either place them in categories where they do belong, or don't categorise them. Dumping them in the wrong categories just to remove the uncat tag is highly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase my original post in different words. I never said that I intentionally misfiled things just to be pointy — all I said was that I made a minor, understandable and easily correctable mistake, and that you saw that and fixed it. And then, given that I'm a person who lives in another country and doesn't have the background knowledge necessary to be certain that I'm always getting it right when it comes to complexities of British political history, I asked if it would be possible to have somebody — not necessarily you, just anybody at all who'd be less likely to make the same mistake again than I would — take a quick spin through the category to see if there were any other laggards, as if that would have taken anyone more than ten or fifteen minutes to do.

I have absolutely no idea where you ever got the idea that I even implied that I picked a wrong category on purpose, or that I said that a wrong category is always better than no category at all — given the final result was that it was now in the correct place, and had gotten there much more quickly than it would have otherwise, all I said was "yes, I made a mistake, but whaddaya know, it all worked out for the best in the end." Which, to my mind, is really about all I could have said in the situation. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the category page specifically says not to do so, I wonder if it would be helpful for someone (no, not volunteering!) to categorise a load of Boleyn's stuff into the parent category of Category: British MPs? Then the categorisation project backlog would reduce, these articles would be accessible to anyone wanting to work on them, they'd be correctly categorised though not in as much detail as ideal. PamD (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, I think you're right: putting Boleyn's sub-stubs in Category: British MPs is probably the best solution for now. That would leave the more specific categorisation for editors who can scrutinise them in more detail, and are more familiar with the nuances of the categ system. And no, I'm not volunteering either ... but if the categorisation project wants to clear its backlog, that's the simplest route.

As noted before, Boleyn's spewing of sub-stubs is leaving a lot of work for others to tidy up :( --10:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please list them somewhere so they may be dealt with. Maybe by a bird with a bot. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list at User:Boleyn. She didn't bother adding useful content to the sub-stubs, but did meticulously list all the so-called "articles" she created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Is that list complete? I just checked a random sample of 20 politicians and they'd all been categorised several months ago. This makes me think that either the problem of categoristation has already been dealt with, or there's a whole load more around that aren't listed... Alzarian16 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's either complete, or nearly so. I suspect that most of them have already been placed in some category, tho not necessarily the most appropriate categs, so it's probably only stragglers left. The best thing to do would be to load Boleyn's list into AWB and run through it all. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think you won't find any uncategorised articles that have been created by me. If there is a backlog, then it will be ones created by other editors. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you had graced us with your retirement? Are we to be treated to a resumption of your flood of quick-fire one-line sub-stubs with no fact-checking? Or is this just a social call?

I did notice that before you retired, you were adding a minimal number of categories to some of your articles, just as you were trying to add one micro-factoid so that you could claim that these "articles" included something more than was in the list articles. Maybe you finished adding one random category to all of them? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did make a big effort to add relevant categories and more information to all the articles I'd created before I'd retired. I gave up out of frustration, and also as I'd just given birth I didn't have the time or energy for anything else. I'm now returning to ensure that all the articles I created are referenced and to see if I can expand any. That's my only intention, but I may return to editing occasionally, I don't know, I certainly don't have the time to edit often. Thanks for leaving me a message asking me to reconsider my retirement, it was kind of you. You may also be able to help me tie up another loose end, a problem which you found concerning. Is there any way of properly merging Boleyn, Boleyn2 and Boleyn3, so that past edits will show up simply as User:Boleyn? I thought that might reduce potential confusion and make it easier to track my past edits. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That appeared after I had started writing a long message on your talk page. As noted there, you have also been creating new articles, which are still full of problems.

I'm going to try to be as polite as I can, even though I feel like swearing: please just STOP.

I would be very happy to help you tidy up loose ends if you want, though I will be away from tomorrow for several weeks. But sadly it seems that despite what you wrote above, you are now busy creating lots of new loose ends. Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your longer message on my Talk page. Any assistance you could give with fully merging Boleyn/2/3 I'd be very grateful for. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to look at edit-hist merging before I return in November. Have replied on your talk to your reply there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist

I mean it. Your attitude to User:Boleyn is clearly that of harassment by serial nitpick. Take your problems with her into dispute resolution. Or you'll be at AN again, and even more clearly in the wrong. The language on this page and elsewhere indicates quite clearly a lack of objectivity and distance. You are supposed to act as an admin: think about it. Either you make this an RfC, or you break your pattern of behaviour. No good will come of it if you persist with the over-the-top approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the football commentator said, it's deja vu all over again: Boleyn back creating articles replete with errors, and Charles Matthews taking a snotty condescending tone at someone who puts in a lot of time fixing the problems and tries to persuade Boleyn to desist.

I dunno what your game is, Charles, but it's about time for you to break your pattern of behaviour -- your endless sniping at me when I try to address an ongoing content problem.

I still find it hard to believe that you really think that objecting to the resumed rapid-fire creation of error-filled stubs is merely a nitpick.

There's a problem, which I thought had stopped. That's why I didn't open an RFC.

It has re-started, so I have a) pointed out the long-standing probs to the editor concerned, and b) asked her to stop creating so many new articles, and to slow down and learn how to do it properly. RFC will follow if it continues when I return in November.

If you have a problem with that, off you go to ANI, although it would be much better for Wikipedia if you instead put some of your energy into helping me to clean up the mess or in trying to guide Boleyn to produce less abysmal output. But whatever, you chose to do, kindly cease and desist from filling my talk page with spurious claims of harrassment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Charles, here's another one I found on my trawls through the relevant categories: John Williams (Windsor MP). Miscategorised, malformed succession box ... and even though there is only one sentence, it's gobbledygook.

I have gone back to the sources and cleaned it up ... but since you clearly don't like my approach, please clarify whether you think John Williams (Windsor MP) as Boleyn left it is a problem or not. No more rants: just a simple yes or no. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without having looked at JW (WIndsor) in detail, it occurs to me that perhaps Boleyn created it to sort out a muddle if she'd previously got 2 JW MPs merged into one article? WP:AGF etc. But still incompetent. PamD (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, tho I haven't checked the edit histories. But disambiguation does not require creating a new article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Could you help me with the Hansard link for Sir Edward Grey? It doesn't work at the moment. Tryde (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

A stray "mr-" had sneaked its way in to disrupt you, so I changed {{hansard-contribs | mr-sir-edward-grey | Sir Edward Grey }} to {{hansard-contribs | sir-edward-grey | Sir Edward Grey }}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tryde (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikibreak

I am taking a wikibreak until early November 2010.

Sorry if there are things I should have done before going offline! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir Edgar Horne, 1st Baronet

On 15 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Edgar Horne, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir John Jarvis, 1st Baronet

On 16 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Jarvis, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Pierse Loftus

Hello! Your submission of Pierse Loftus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Harry Thorneycroft

On 19 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Thorneycroft, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alfred Lafone

On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Lafone, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of David Chadwick (politician)

Hello! Your submission of David Chadwick (politician) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gatoclass (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pierse Loftus

On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pierse Loftus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Francis Lucas (English politician)

On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Lucas (English politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cooper Rawson

On 22 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cooper Rawson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Harold Roberts (politician)

On 23 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harold Roberts (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Chadwick (politician)

On 23 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Chadwick (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish categories

User:Laurel Lodged is making bizarre and widespread category edits, eg to Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin. Adding incorrect parents to strangely-named creations, emptying categories out-of-process (eg Category:Burials in Dublin) etc. Occuli (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiki Irish Contribution Challenges

Gday BrownHairedGirl I've just added an internal wikilink to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Youghal_(Parliament_of_Ireland_constituency)#1692.E2.80.931801 for my Irish Parliament MP 5xGreat Grandfather Robert Uniacke-FitzGerald. I want to thank you for what you've achieved so far both as a wikiEditor & Administrator. I want to think then that as an identifying Irish woman you may be in a good position to help mentor me through a range of wikipedia & Irish contributing challenges since Oct 2005 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Mifren I'd love to learn with you over time if that is possible. Kind regards Mifren (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year ranges

Hello BrownHairedGirl, regarding this edit, I thought that the following applies: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)"

Is there a convention for succession boxes that is at variance with this? Given that you are such an experienced editor, I didn't simply want to revert your changes, but thought to enquire with you first. If there's a need to reply here, can you please place a talkback? Or else reply on Talk:Cathcart Wason. Thanks! Schwede 66 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines#Years_and_dates is to use full years, and that is the practice at every one of the tens of thousands of succession box I have encountered.

I have just checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and find that the guidance there was changed in this edit after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Re: WP:YEAR.

I am surprised by this change to the guideline, which has wide-ranging consequences, and will ask for it to be revisited by a wider group. In the meantime, please can we leave the succession boxes in the same format as other succession boxes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I thought there was more to it, and here we go. One other wide-ranging consequence is that we've been following the MOS guidance of double-digit year ranges for succession boxes, parlboxes and life span for New Zealand bios for quite some time now, so there'd be hundreds of articles that will need changing if this goes back to four digit years. But so be it. Have you started that discussion? If so, can you please provide a link? No TB required this time – I've watchlisted your page. Schwede 66 00:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've retrieved the above from your archive. Have you initiated any discussion about this? Schwede 66 04:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clitheroe (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi. Could you have a look at this article. As it is now the article states that Robert Curzon (MP) represented the constituency between 1796 and 1832. However, according to leigh rayment Curzon only sat for the constituency until 1831, when his son Robert Curzon, the future Baron Zouche, was elected. Rayment doesn't say for how long Peregrine Cust, the other MP, represented the constituency, but I believe it was until 1832 (at least hansard thinks so). I think Robert Curzon the younger has been omitted here. Regards, Tryde (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryde. After reading Rayment's list I think you are right about the omission. Rayment is very rarely wrong, but to check it out properly I'll need to consult Stooks Smith. I am on the road and my ref books are at home, but I'll look it up when I get back at the end of the week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now apparently been fixed by Choess. So the Hansard website is not considered a reliable source? No, It definately looks like a work in progress, like you say. I'll just add it as an external link in the future. By the way, I know that you and User:Boleyn don't get along very well but I hope you can help me persuade her about a few things. Firstly to use the name an MP held at the time he or she was an MP in succession boxes. For instance, if an MP didn't become a baronet until after sitting in parliament, the style "Sir X X, Bt" should not be used, but simply "X X". And secondly, to add dates when there were several MP's representing the constituency alongside the MP the article is about (am I making any sense here?), these are excluded in Henry Goring (1646-1685) for instance. Otherwise Boleyn has taken up most of the advice I've given her about MP articles, they are now very basic but according to the format used here. Regards, Tryde (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ryoung122_on_Longevity_myths Kittybrewster ☎ 21:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Samuel Boteler Bristowe

On 10 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Boteler Bristowe, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1889 the English judge Samuel Boteler Bristowe was shot in the back by a German maker of false teeth? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice one - like the false teeth. Motmit (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I thought that while being shot in the back was a marginal hook, an Englishman being shot in the back by a German was better ... but an Englishman being shot in the back by a German maker of false teeth was delightfully hooky. All it was missing was evidence that the shooter promptly ran off to invade Poland, shouting "schweinhund kaput" like Germans do in English WWII comics ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Acts of Parliament

Are historic British Acts of Parliament online? If so, can you please comment here? Schwede 66 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Schwede 66 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wood (MP)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nicholas Wood (MP), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.nicholaswood.net.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has lost the plot.

See Talk:Nicholas Wood (MP)#Alleged_copyvio. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Arts

Yep I know that...just a mis-paste. :) I've disammed that one many many times. But thanks for catching it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parry (b. 1818)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thomas Parry (b. 1818), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.willowvalefire.org/about.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has lost the plot again, badly this time

How exactly can there be a copvio against a non-existent webpage which doesn't appear in the wayback machine? (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.willowvalefire.org/about.html )

Kindly fix the bot, or ask it to stop bugging me with this nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Bulten (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 November 2010

Finally took your advice

...and created Hybrid buses in London to infill the gap in coverage you identified way back in April. Any feedback welcome. Hopefully it's rather better than some of the route articles! Alzarian16 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! A good read, and well-illustrated.

That's a good solid C-class article, and as you say it is much better than some of the route articles.

I made a few minor tweaks, one of which (the addition of a {{when}} tag) indicates attention needed. But otherwise it looks good to me :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't take any credit for the images though - ironically enough, I found them by looking at the routes involved. I had a go at fixing the sentence you tagged just now.

I'm still working on fixing the route articles. I've managed to source a few quite well, and redirected some others (we're down to about 270 now, which is 60 less than in April), but it's going to take some time to sort them all out. Turns out Category:Coach routes in England was even worse. On the other hand, The Witch Way passed a GA review a month ago, so there is hope! Alzarian16 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alfred Jephcott

On 20 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Jephcott, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Conservative MP Alfred Jephcott was a trade unionist and a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers for over 40 years? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current MPs

Do all current MPs have the Template:MPLinksUK in their articles? If not, is there a list, or some way to get a list using a bot or something, of which ones need to have that added? Thanks. Flatterworld (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best tool to use is Catscan

I have just done a quick scan, and the following link shows 384 MPs lacking this template: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wiki.x.io&basecat=UK+MPs+2010%E2%80%93&basedeep=2&mode=ts&templates=UK+MP+links&untagged=on&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en

Hope this helps! --21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) Flatterworld (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Heneage (1802–1880)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Edward Heneage (1802–1880), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.edwardheneage.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say we beat you. WITH A SPOON!!! (I suppose the bot's technically right—the three words on that website do indeed appear in the article.) – iridescent 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. The wooden spoon is a good idea, but if the bot doesn't start behaving itself soon it's at risk of this sort of treatment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee

Have a go, please. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My interactions with Ryoung122 were a long time ago (3 years), and I have tried to avoid him since. While I recognise the probs http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity&oldid=398255682#Statement_by_John_J._Bulten described at RFAr] by John J. Bulten, I'm not sure that rehashing the history from 3 yaers ago will be helpful to the arbitrators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was interpreting that to mean that you should run for ArbCom. With fewer candidates than in previous years, it might be a good time. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I hadn't thought of that, and I'm flattered that anyone would consider me.

I'll have to think about it, but I am currently in the process of taking on some big commitments in the real world, so I dunno whether I could give the job the time it requires. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage has problems with his template and I can't edit the introduction. There's more from others on the talk page. Any chance you could help? JRPG (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. But those stupid moinster templates ({{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}) should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again. JRPG (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British House of Commons

Congratulations! With this edit you have succeeded in introducing about 6,000 incorrect links to Wikipedia. Do you fancy fixing them? I recommend dabsolver, and estimate it'll take you a couple of weeks provided you refrain from other editing or sleep. DuncanHill (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sarcasm aside, what is your opinion about whether the post-1801 institution might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some of those 6,000 might have been incorrectly linked to the post-1801 and intended for the GB parlt 1707-1801! But I tend to agree with R'n'B that the current and past two centuries sense of the phrase "British House of Commons" is probably the primary topic, and the previous century more of a minority interest. A more specific hatnote on House of Commons of the United Kingdom would be helpful: {{redirect|British House of Commons|the House of Commons 1707-1800|House of Commons of Great Britain|other bodies in British history and abroad|House of Commons}} ie or something on those lines, more specific than the one there at present. And abandon the dab page and re-direct the redirect. PamD (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

You're right that 6,000 ambiguous links is not an ideal situation, to put it mildly.

But the distinction between the two bodies is an important one, which has slowly been reflected in the structure of articles and in the categorisation system, and it seems to me that the first step here is to try to get as many of the links as possible pointing to the correct articles. I will do a big WP:AWB run tomorrow, and start fixing them.

You are probably right that more links will refer to the current 210-year-old House of Commons of the United Kingdom than to the 93-year House of Commons of Great Britain, both because of the difference in duration and because of the recentist systemic bias on Wikipedia. However, isn't it best that we start by tackling the ambiguous links, rather than by using a redirect to obscure the ambiguity?

Once the backlog is cleared, will probably take a while, we can consider again how to handle the redirect. However, there are two ways of looking at this:

By counting intended usage, the numerical balance will probably point to the post-1801 Commons
By looking at the meaning of the phrase, the redirect should point to the House of Commons of Great Britain, because the House of Commons of the United Kingdom (i.e since 1801) has not been a purely British body: from 1801 to 1927 it was the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and since 1927 it was been the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Logically, it would be perverse to have "fooish X" redirecting "foo X+Y" rather thna to "foo X". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

imo the redirect is correct as an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate. Perhaps a bot could be used to correct the links for the people articles, based on the infobox or Persondata date of birth, and/or date of service as an MP. I suspect that would take care of the articles which are most often read by our users. For the articles about older people, it's important they aren't misled wo the redirect really is important. Flatterworld (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean, Flatterworld. As above, if we want accuracy, then British House of Commons" is ambiguous and should not be a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant it was correct to redirect to the disambiguation page. As for the bot, I thinking that since the previous Parliament ended in 1801 that it would be safe enough to change British House of Commons to House of Commons of the United Kingdom (or [[British House of Commons|House of Commons of the United Kingdom]]) in the articles about people who were born after that, as it's fairly unlikely the usage of the term in those articles would be intended to mean anything else. For example, in the John Major article. One could probably make the reverse assumption about people who died prior to 1801. That would save some manual work. Flatterworld (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that, in common usage, "British" can mean "of the United Kingdom" as well as "of the island of Great Britain"; as in the British Government, among other things. Anyway, many terms used in Wikipedia titles are ambiguous but also have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the redirect per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and WP:BRD). The purpose of PRIMARYTOPIC is to give a visitor the best possible user experience. So if 90+% of people who type "British House of Commons" into a search box want to find the one that's been in place for the last century, we should redirect to that article. --JaGa^talk 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your evidence is for that 90% claim, nor whether the recentist presumption is the one we should be going with, but if you want to restore the redirect, then please also put a hatnote on the target page as suggested above by PamD.

Sadly, this seems to me like another example of how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed. We have two very similar, easily confused topics, with a significant distinction between them, and this seems to me be an excellent example of a situation where we should give the reader a clear choice rather than making an assumption that what they think they want is what we think they mean. But maybe that's a wider debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hatnote at House of Commons of the United Kingdom (viewed 51,133 times in October) for those people searching for House of Commons of Great Britain (viewed 2029 times in October), so there's no problem here. Disambiguation pages are not the only form of disambiguation. Fences&Windows 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways of looking at disambiguation. One is the form which directly affects readers, as covered by the hatnote you describe.

The other is ensuring that inetrnal links point where they are supposed to, and a majoritarian approach such as this obscures the problem that a lot of links from othe periods are redirected to the wrong article. Naturally, the statistics reflect that those links take the reader to the wrong page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix those incorrect links, don't worsen the navigation for most people. I don't believe that many of those landing at HoCotUK wanted HoCofGB, have you got any evidence that this is the case? Fences&Windows 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are several thousand articles on pre-1801 MPs, and many of the links from there will point to British House of Commons. Fixing them will take some time.

In the meantime, the recentist presumption is to obscure the ambiguity between two similar concepts, which disadvantages all readers. Landing on a dab page is not a huge trauma for a reader, and it's better than being shortcutte to the wrong page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Sheriffs and local government

I'm not convinced that the Sheriffs belong in local government categories, any more than magistrates or detective inspectors do. Historically, they were law officers, now they are not even that. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but have you a better suggestion as to how to categorise them under each county? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course they have the categories running down from Category:High Shrievalties, and the geographical ones. I don't see that they need more than that. At all levels, the adding of local government categories doesn't strike me as founded in any real connection with local government. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the geographical category I was referring to; which geograhical actehory?

It seems a bit uduly prominent to put, for example, the High Sheriff of Greater Manchester in Category:Greater Manchester, up at the same level as transport or politics, and a previous editor had put it in Category:Local government in Greater Manchester, which seems to me like the lesat-worst place to put it. Where do you think it should go? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with using Category:Greater Manchester, just as Category:Lord-Lieutenants of Greater Manchester sits in it (although shouldn't that be Lords-Lieutenant? I always forget.) If something is needed to provide a smoother link, there could be Category:Law in Greater Manchester, but I don't think it's needed. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in providing evidence to this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi. Was it the 2nd or 3rd Viscount Wenman who represented this constituency in 1660-1661? Rayment page on the constituency says it was the 3rd Viscount (but has birth and death dates for the 2nd viscount (c. 1596-1665)), our article says it was the 2nd. On the other hand, Rayment's page on the Wenman peerage states that both the 2nd and 3rd viscounts sat for this constituency in 1660. Tryde (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryde, I'm afraid that I have no paper sources for that period, so like you I would have to rely on Rayment.

Something looks odd to me about Rayment's page on the Wenman peerage: it says that the second Baron was MP in 1640-1648 and in 1660, but it also says that he inherited the peerage in 1640. By modern rules, he would therefore have been ineligible to serve in the Commons after 1640, but were peers not excluded then?

The 1660 issue is accountable for by the fact that the House of Lords was abolished between 1649 and the start of the [[Convention Parliament (1660)|] in 1660, so presumably were then eligible to sit in the Commons, and that may suggest that the 2nd Baron was in the Long Parliament but not the Convention Parliament. However that does not account for the 1640-48 period.

Hope that's of some help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was an Irish peerage so that's explains why he could sit in the English House of Commons. I think Rayment has made a mistake here, it was in all likelihood the 2nd viscount who sat in parliament in 1660. I'll have a word with User:Proteus, he has access to some good sources so perhaps he can help. Could you also have a look at the article on Frederick Villiers Meynell, which I created a few days ago. I'm a bit unsure of what his proper name was, Frederick Meynell Villiers or Frederick Villiers Meynell. It would also be good with some references to his parentage. Regards, Tryde (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I should have spotted that it was an Irish peerage. Not much else I can add on Wenman.

As to Villier/Meynell, Rayment refers to him consistently as Frederick Villiers, and Craig has him down consistently as "F.M. Villiers". I just trawled The Times archive for him, and I get no relevant hits for anything with Meynell, and all the coverage I can find of him there seems to be as "Frederick Villiers" (including the last mentions, re the Subdbury petition). So I suggest that the article be called "Frederick Villiers" per WP:COMMONNAME, since this is what he was known as in his period of notability; obviously a disambiguator is needed, so howabout Frederick Villiers (MP) or Frederick Villiers (politician)? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The original DNB agrees that it was the 2nd Viscount who sat for Oxfordshire in 1660, as does "The House of Commons, 1660-1690". The 3rd Viscount did not sit for Oxfordshire in 1660 (the other member was James Fiennes). Choess (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, Choess. Could you drop an email to Leigh Rayment advising him of the error? He's usually very open to correcting any errors in his work, tho they are rare! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this is sorted out and have now updated the Viscount Wenman article. Frederick Villiers Meynell appears to have added the extra surname of Meynell after the end of his political career. However, I would still prefer for the article to be known as "Frederick Villiers Meynell". Tryde (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Soubry ...edit war prevention advice.

Hi BHG and sorry to request help again. Anna is a new MP in an ultra marginal seat and is having a torrid time at the moment, having been on the wrong end of a number of local newspaper articles. She may get favourable coverage on Sunday on the Politics show for which I get advanced notice.

User talk:Norman6677 and to a much lesser extent User talk:Kateshaw44 have been blanking the article. I've previously offered to help Norman with any newpaper items he can find -which the article really does need. He has now blanked it yet again, the revision history alleging
Information deliberately and maliciously editorialised to produce a negative and derogatory view of the politician. Therefore, I have deleted it and will produce a more balanced account in due course

I'm certain the newpaper articles are accurately described/cited including right of reply but don't want to be oppressive. What's the best way forward, given he isn't a vandal and could be useful? 21:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPG (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the pointer.

This looks to me like an edit war, so I have protected the page for two weeks. The editors involved should discuss their concerns at Talk:Anna Soubry and seek a consensus on any changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again for the speedy response. I wouldn't like anyone to waste time on an edit war. I must point out I'm one of the editors but hope to get Norman in a better frame of mind ..and contributing shortly. JRPG (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the good thing about protecting a page: by making consensus a pre-condition of an edit, it makes it in everyone's interest to talk things through. Good luck to you all in finding a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Warwick Brookes

On 27 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warwick Brookes, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the former British Member of Parliament Warwick Brookes was declared bankrupt in 1931, he had debts of £50,000 but less than £300 in assets? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Sampson Lloyd (MP)

Hello! Your submission of Sampson Lloyd (MP) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 28bytes (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Now done. --14:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sampson Lloyd (MP)

On 28 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sampson Lloyd (MP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 19th-century antidisestablishmentarianist politician Sampson Lloyd married the daughter of a general in the Prussian Army? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, both hooks combined :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing redirects

Bearing WP:NOTBROKEN in mind, why do you bypass redirects? DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually as part of a disambiguation process. First move the article to a disambiguated title, then bypass the redirects where appropriate, and then create the dab page. It's easier than having to select the target from the dab page.

I also bypass sometimes redirects where there appear to be links on one page from difft redirects to the same article, so that links chnage colour conmsistently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could you use an edit summary explaining that? e.g. "preparing for disambiguation". DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I won't. It's much faster to just use the auto-generated edit summary, and when I'm sorting out dozens of links the extra time of writing a custom summary for dozens of minor edits is wasted time which is much better used fixing the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most browsers remember previous edit summaries, so when you start typing them they are available with just one click. DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slows things down, for no useful benefit. Using the automated summary, I don't touch the edit summary box at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Moira

Hi, BHG. It looks as if an article at this title was deleted for copyright reasons (aaargh, I wish they'd leave a stub behind when someone is clearly notable) in January 2010: listed here. Could you retrieve that article for me so I can work on it? She's in ODNB, so plenty source for a reliable sourced stub.

I've muddied the waters somewhat today: found various redlinks for this lady (eg at List of peerages inherited by women), and a rubbishy sub-stub at Elizabeth Rawdon, 16th Baroness Botreaux. I made various redirects so at least she's united on one page, but I did notice the "deleted for copyright reasons" en passant, and I now realise that was perhaps a substantial article and needed to be developed. I know nothing about choosing names of articles for people holding multiple titles, so assume that if the article was there it was probably the right title, and the 16th Baroness Botreaux should be one of many redirects. Can you help?

The succession box will be a nightmare! (Ah, perhaps there was one on the deleted article: fingers crossed. So much gets lost when a trigger-happy editor deletes an article, including all its non-creative stuff and incoming redirects, rather than just stubbifying it).

And this all started because someone tweaked the talk page of the dab page at Elizabeth Hastings, which is on my watchlist because one of them is of local interest. PamD (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found more info at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Craigy144:

Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Moira: (2 edits, 1 major, +5818) Y deleted MER-C 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PamD (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam

It looks like this was one of a huge number of apparent ODNB copyvios from that particular editor, and I hope you'll forgive me for being cautious about undeleting copyvio material: even if restored to userspace. I have just checked Wikipedia:Userfication#What_cannot_be_userfied, which says it's a no-no because "Wikipedia's licensing requirements and the copyright policy apply to all pages posted anywhere on Wikipedia", so I think the answer has to be "no"

The deleted article at Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Moira appears to have had only minor edits after it's creation as a 5,000-character page, so there's no pre-copyvio version to restore. Sorry!

There may be useable PD material in the 1911 Britannica, but I'm afraid that's about the best suggestion I can offer. I'm not great at using that publication, but Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) does a lot of work with it and may be able to help.

As to naming ppl with multiple titles, I'm not great on that either: I think that the usual principle is to use the highest-ranked title, but I'm not sure how that works in cases where some of the titles are disputed. Best to ask at WT:PEER.

Sorry I can't be more helpful :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - could you not even produce a version with all the body text removed, to preserve categories, any ELs, any image, any succession boxes? PamD (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pam, I hadn't thought of that. Will do a stripped version now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: see User:PamD/Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Foo.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help: you can see the results in this set of diffs! I can't work out the status of some of her titles, so will leave a peerage enthusiast to amplify it as they feel fit! It would be so helpful if people dealing with copyvio in articles like this, with non-creative infrastructure and lots of incoming redirects, would just strip out the copyvio and leave a stub, saving a lot of work in reconstruction.

It's been another fun morning on WP, but now I really ought to get Mother organised into writing her Christmas cards (and then traipse out into thick snow to post them)! PamD (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more, but given up hope of understanding her various peerages and left a note for those who know and care about these things at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Elizabeth_Rawdon.2C_Countess_of_Moira. PamD (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done giving it a go. I took one look and reckoned it would make my head spin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Priestley

I've expanded the cricket section and added some references, including for his place of birth. I removed the two tags after doing this. If it goes into too much cricketing detail, feel free to cut anything without offending me! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thanks v much for your good work.

I have now nominated the article at T:TDYK, in both our names (see Template talk:Did you know#Arthur_Priestley. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, although I'm not sure I deserve to be on there! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Course you deserve it. You did great work tidying it up :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Percy Jewson

On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Jewson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Member of Parliament Percy Jewson was chairman of the Lawn Tennis Association? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Whigs

What do you think about this adjusted suggestion? I think we're getting closer to what we need. (You can comment at the discussion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Henry Foster (Lancaster)

On 3 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Henry Foster (Lancaster), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the Queensbury mill-owner William Henry Foster died in 1908, a special train brought the Lord Mayor of Bradford to his funeral near Hornby Castle? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]