User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 3

Tricky categorization
This one Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_11 (and the whole sacred sites tree, which I think is cool and useful) really gets at the heart of some of the points you (and Wittgenstein) have been raising. There is a of fuzzy logic of category membership - at what point does a mountain like Mount Kailash become "sacred" enough to merit categorization (e.g. thousands of pilgrims visiting each year to circumambulate in prayer), vs just "sacred b/c its big" (e.g. Mount Denali, where many people who once considered it sacred have been scatttered to the winds of time). Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, or at least one not solvable with this system. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your post
Perhaps the source does not mention the total population in 1997, but the 1990 data shows a population of 31,xxx and the 2000 data shows a population of more than 33,000, thus the 1997 population could not be much lower than 33,000; plus, I stated that this is an "approximate" estimation. I believe, there was no need to remove my changes.Ethnic and religious statistics belong to the category of demographics. Since the section was filled with 2000 and 2010 statistics, it was reasonable to use the data in the beginning to avoid confusion. Please reply back. User: Ari777m 8:00, 12 May 2013 (UTS)
 * I'm moving this to the article talk page and will reply there. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Are you kidding me? You are using words wrong and you are not engaging on the talk page.  Every one of my edits is in line with WP:BRD.  Not so with yourself, LGR.  You're not engaging on the talk page and you're evidently not clear on the meaning of the words you're putting in the article.  If you think I'm being disruptive take me to a noticeboard or else hush up. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to warn you first before taking you to a notice board. Consider it done.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * seriously? WP:DTTR dude. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointy editing at Feminism
Look at the timeline. 1) I remove NPOV weasel word word "perceived" 2) get it reverted, being told that's a totally valid word. 3) make WP neutral by putting it on both sides 4) After having THAT also reverted, try to get discussion going to we're treating everything fairly. I'm not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", I'm trying to make things even. It's not my fault there's 2 different sets of rules going. If I was trying to disrupt I'd be reverting at least one of the reverts, not trying to reach consensus on talk pages. You should be joining the Talk:Men's rights movement discussion and supporting my view since you also agree it's a weasel word, since "It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating against unicorns, n'est ce pas?" --TheTruthiness (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you but I'd rather chew off my own foot than edit MRM articles. Feel free to use my argument there if you want to, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]
STOP DELETING AND VANDALISING PAGES!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitechristian2013 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It'd be better if you'd calm down and discuss the additions you want to make on the article talk pages.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPN notice
I have recently filed a inquiry at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard which directly involves some actions you have taken recently. I believe I have represented the actions and concerns fairly, but if I have unintentionally misrepresented your position please correct me. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you explained it well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion re: Robert Clark Young
Hi there. I didn't realize there HAD been a deletion discussion. It occurred and was closed all in a few hours? Can you point me to it? I didn't mean to re-add the tag inappropriately. It should be noted, however, that if he IS notable, it's mostly for the Wikipedia scandal, and various earlier revenge stunts. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's here: Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young. You can renominate it, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

makeover of White privilege - use a sandbox?
Given the major work that needs to be done, perhaps it would be best to create a sandbox and work offline from the live article with a few people from various points of view and then when there is agreement on a particular portion, bring it to live space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. There's so much nonsense in there that it's hard to see how to shape it.  Would you care to start one?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Another one that needs help
Just came across this one Robert_Bidinotto - seems like one of the writers bios that was targeted by Qworty. The author himself recently came back and restored some material. It's not that bad, but it still is mostly unsourced. If you have spare cycles, it could use a cleanup and sourcing if you're interested. Also FWIW, I think you did good work on the Young article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

... and administrators
You appear to have read my mind with this edit. Also, thank you for the encouragement. Optimom (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and keep up the good work!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IPv6 address capitalization
I added to the Unsigned template documentation that a username or IP address is case-sensitive, thus fixing for the future the problem you ran into in Talk:Feminism. Thanks for your work. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I went back and checked again: One address form omitted "0:0". Whether there's a case problem with the template or not, assuming both forms of the IPv6 address have the same meaning when transmitting through the Internet and identifying nodes, probably MediaWiki doesn't assume the latter and so it redlinks. Oh, well. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit war
Your are edit-warring at User:Qworty. I suggest that you be careful. I'm sure that you have been around long enough to know that edit-warring is unacceptable, and may lead to being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, JamesBWatson, although I don't find it to be so clear-cut a case. You are ignoring WP:BRD, which I'm sure you've been around long enough to have read.  Why don't you engage on the talk page.  Edit summaries are not sufficient in a contentious case like this.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I was not ignoring BRD, which is not BRRRD. Anyway, i think the current version, due to Ironholds, is better. It is in line with common practice in such cases, and it removes a user page which is no longer relevant, as the user is no longer on Wikipedia, explains the reason for the removal, and does not make contentious statements or do anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you and Ironholds seem to have me confused with whoever put those links on there. I am opposed to the links.  I did not put the links on there.  Ironholds has replied over there, so why don't you join the discussion about whether the page should be blanked.  I'm assuming you're talking about "grave-dancing"?  If so, you're badly misreading the edit history of that page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I said "anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging". Referring to reading the edit-history is irrelevant to that, as how something might be seen by someone looking at the page is not influenced by the history of that page. I did not suggest that I thought it was grave-digging, and I am sure it wasn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's doing things that might be seen as "grave-digging"? What do you mean by "grave-digging" in this context?  I thought you meant "grave-dancing," but I guess just don't understand.  Will you please consider joining the conversation on the user talk page about whether or not to blank the page?  You and Ironholds both claim that it's common practice but (a) it's not policy, and (b) this is a special case in which "standard practice" doesn't seem to carry much weight.19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is in no way a special case. We are a neutral entity - we should not treat users any differently because the rationale for their ban got media attention. We should treat them the same as if the press had remained completely ignorant. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Logo
Hi

I think it's, you know - also available at File:Wikipediocracy logo.svg Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI
I've filed Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy on your behalf. Cheers, and thanks for writing the article! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! I saw your edit summary and thought about doing it, but it was too daunting.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy logo
Thank you, image licensing is not my strong suit. :) Optimom (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesus, mine neither. They have all those bots running against the images and it's really hard to figure out what they want.  I get about six of those notifications for every image I upload.  As you can see from a note further up on this page, Begoon really figured out what was necessary.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Things that at a distance, resemble flies
This made me think of you for some reason: --> User_talk:Lquilter (and LQs response), then check out the category discussion, and the other about Buddha on same page. Borges would very much enjoy. CFD these days is really wonderful, some real gems being cooked up, and then placed before us CFD-junkies to be savored.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, and no problem with enabling. It's always after yesterday's noon, so no worries!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

American Novelists categorization
I think your recent interventions imply that you oppose Option 1 (not Fix 1, the discussion above it), and would prefer a different categorization scheme. However, you didn't really comment in that !vote, and I'm not sure I understand your current reasoning. Could you add your opinion to that section for clarity's sake? Right now there seems to be no one else opposing it on the discussion page. Thanks.--Carwil (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll reread it and see if I can make enough sense out of it to oppose it. My current reasoning is that a lot of people who write articles on novelists are opposed to diffusing them out of the (country)-novelist categories so that, while we discuss the larger issue, they should be all moved back to those parent categories so that the (understandably) very hurt feelings can be soothed a little while a discussion takes place about what to do about subcategories.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And, just like that, swords drawn again
But it will be ok :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All in a day's editing...&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see my point about the anti-jewish writers cat? I'm trying to kill it, but I can't remove him from it since it's on the chopping block - thems the rules.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. How is anyone supposed to use this encyclopedia to study antisemitism?  It's obviously a defining characteristic.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles, even lists (if well sourced). But not categories. There's just too much grey area. Does Mel Gibson go in? etc. Check the previous CFDs I posted, consensus is quite clear, and repeatedly so. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to take Hitler out so that you don't have to worry about whether Gibson goes in? Baby/Bathwater.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I love how you're daring people to go after the holocaust. Are you ornery or just want to watch the fireworks? I do *actually* value my life, livelihood, and so on. I'd rather just imagine there's a nazi-exceptionalism at work, so I'm *not* going to put my money where my mouth is. (but I'll do Mussolini, if you back me up :) ) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm serious. If you won't do that one you don't believe in the defensibility of your own consensus to the point of acting on it.  You keep challenging everyone who disagrees with you to come up with universal rules that cover every imaginable case but in fact you know in your gut that the current rules are wrong on at least that one instance.  If they're wrong on that one then there's obviously something to discuss.  If there's something to discuss then discuss it and stop invoking a consensus in which your actions belie your putative belief.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * so you don't believe in nazi-exceptionalism? For example, here's one way to bend the rules a bit - stick the nazis under Holocaust, and stick that under antisemitism. That fulfills the letter, and the spirit, I think, since topic categories don't carry down the chain in the same way set categories do (it's why you can go from high-level concept categories down to things that would *never* belong in the parent, since topic category relationships are more like "related to" rather than "is a" relationships. I do believe that we should remove the nazi bios from that top-level cat, for consistency's sake, it's just I don't want to be the one doing it. Come on, won't you give me a free pass to stay away from Nazis? As Indiana Jones says, "Nazis. I hate these guys". I mean, I've been a lone wolf in the wilderness on that Mullins fellow, I even removed Ezra Pound, knowing full well that the next NY Times article will be about that! - you have to give me props for bravery in the face of incoming fire, no? Also, FWIW, I've said I would not oppose an RFC, but the questions I laid out would need answering. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you use your free pass to stay away from Nazis, novelists, and antisemites? Your response to everyone who understands the fact of the matter, which is that Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins, and John Kasper belong in the category Antisemitism in the United States is to say that if so they will have to come up with consistent rules which will prevent editors from putting BLPs of porn stars into antivegetarianism categories, as if there were some relationship between the two.  You insist on consistency and consensus and the necessity of a CfD and your answer here is to bend the rules because everybody knows?  Why don't you go to CfD and get a consensus that Hitler shouldn't be in antisemitism.  Anyway, Holocaust can't sensibly be a subcategory of antisemitism, so your bending won't even work. There are antisemites who don't fit into your subcategories.  Words actually mean something and you and you're not the boss of what that is.  Shorter OWK:&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * in spite of our numerous disagreements I really do enjoy debating with you, as you push me and make me think very hard. I'm not opposed to a broader RFC nor am I convinced consensus has not changed - perhaps it has - and perhaps categories could be created to capture these fellows without looping Mel into them. perhaps. If you see the current CFD for, it's trending towards a snowball delete, and you saw the opinions of admins GOF and Tim, both admins and both have been doing cat work for years longer than me, so I can't control where consensus lies or where it goes - but I'm also not alone in the wilderness. If you think this is workable, go for an RFC on labeling of anti-Semites, I will help draft, and see what current consensus is. A month ago I would have gone after hitler with a stick, but things have changed, categorization is a political act and categorization of a famous bio like Hitlers will land you on the front page of the NY times and result in outing and real-life consequences- I don't care about this *that* much to be the sacrificial lamb. During the hubbub I tried to mark Filipacchi as a woman novelist (not taking her out of the parent!), and was viciously attacked, then later as bios were being diffused i tried to move hers and was dragged before ANI. So, no, I will find ways to IAR for our be-jack-booted-Germans. Also fwiw, the holocaust is today a subset of antisemitism and antisemitism in germany I think - and it wasn't me who put it there. Anyway, busy day so won't be on much, but truly accept my best regards and thanks for pushing me with intelligent ideas.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Butting in (I hope you don't mind!): Obiwan, I suggest you read from beginning to end Ezra Pound's article. It's actually quite good and well-wriiten. Then look at the sources. Then come back and try to make the case he shouldn't be in the American anti-semite category. I see a vast disconnect between content contributors who understand the subject matter and categorizers who don't. (I've broken my self- imposed rule of not editing but this seemed important). TruthKeeper 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read it - I agree, it is a good article, there was (obviously) a lot I didn't know about Mr. Pound. And I have no argument with the way his anti-semitism is treated in the article. As I said to Alf, if I wasn't worried about off-wiki implications, I would remove Adolph from the German category, so I hope that explains why I don't care much about the extent of Pound's anti-semitism - that is not the issue at play here. A bright line was drawn, and the line was "no bios" - there weren't exceptions granted. If you do an RFC, I will help draft (if you want), and I wont stand in the way of a new consensus. But the old consensus is clear - I hope Tim's thoughts convinced you at least of that much.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we are now definitely in Godwin's land. Did you just compare me with war criminals who sent people to gas chambers? Or was it in jest? Sorry, I didn't take that as very funny - if it was a joke it didn't come across as well as it might.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, struck. "Nuremberg defense" is a generic technical term in my line of work, not denotative of Nazi associations, but I don't want to offend.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks - I saw your edit summary but readers of the page won't necessarily. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

 * a note One of your latest suggested that "we" (whoever we is) said you should bring this to CFD - actually, both Good OF and I have suggested an RFC on this matter if it's important to you to try to overturn the existing consensus. If you want to do an RFC just on creating an American antisemites category, or on populating the Antisemitism in the US category with American antisemites, please feel free, but I don't see the chances being good - if you want to make a change, it would have to be global, and you'll run into the other "isms" problem... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly true. I really don't think you're trying to defang antisemitism or have any goals other than to make the categorization system work as you think it should, by the way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate you AGF. And I AGF for you too, by the way. we're all trying to make this little wiki a bit better in our own way. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For trying to bring a resolution to the novels category situation and for trying to ask for collaboration between the category people and content people (whoever all these people are). I can't see that either of these will result in a satisfactory solution but I do appreciate that at least one person is trying and wanted to thank you. On another subject - I did begin to tidy Upton Sinclair, so when I can get myself in a better frame of mind about WP (I mean what is the purpose of this place? to build content for readers or to spend time navel gazing?) I might try to work up that page or Steinbeck's page. Both need work. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I ever got involved, because it's very upsetting. I don't think anything will come of it either.  I suppose we'll see.  I appreciate your efforts and sympathize with the worry it can produce trying to explain things like this to people who don't seem to know the meanings of the words involved.  I'll take a look at Sinclair; I've been meaning to work on it seriously for years now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning other users
Thanks for staying on top of the unconstructive edits from. Please remember, per WP:Warn vandalism, not to pile on warnings before the user has seen the first one. The warning for London Heathrow was improper, as there's no way they could have seen the warning for Los Angeles. Ibadibam (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but (a) that guideline also says "Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism," and (b) the edit to Los Angeles was so obviously in bad faith that I saw no reason to escalate the level of the other warning. Regarding your comment at the user's talk page about edits to Norwegian Air Shuttle: this user seems to have it in for Sweden with respect to Norway and I'm inclined to be very suspicious of unexplained edits that remove information about Sweden.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the user definitely has an agenda and we need to intervene. And administrator intervention may be delayed if we don't warn properly (I've had block requests rejected by admins because of breaches in warning protocol). The level 2 warning following an unconstructive edit to Los Angeles was proper. The escalation to level 3 for London Heathrow — an edit that occurred before the edit to Los Angeles — was not. The relevant line in the policy is A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it. So the LHR edits should also be level 2, which you've now done, and we're back on track . Ibadibam (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Userbox
Thanks! I swiped the idea from a user in Belgrade. :) Optimom (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

About Morgan Freeman
Hi! This is Count Awesome. I saw you revised my edit about Morgan Freeman. I did some research about him and my sources say he is either Jewish or irreligious. I'm new to Wikipedia editing so please forgive any mistakes. —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have sources, put it in the article with the sources and then add the category. It would be far better that way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! There's a lot more to do on that one.  I couldn't believe what bad shape it was in.  I hope to work on it more tomorrow.  Good catch on the Sunset Hills AfD and I'm sorry to oppose you on the Victoria Park one.  I think you're right in principle but not in the practice of that particular one.  It really was the streetlights that convinced me.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful with "thus ... it's notable"
On Articles for deletion/Victoria Park, Los Angeles you wrote "Thus it's real, thus it's an inhabited place, thus it's notable." According to the post office and the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, my place of residence is real and inhabited, but I hardly think it meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, silly! You're committing the fallacy of equivocation.  At AfD a reference to inhabited places is usually a reference to WP:NGEO.  I suppose I could have been more explicit, but it's the usual shorthand over there.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the local taxing authority has given "legal recognition" (WP:NGEO) to the property the building I live in sits on. :P
 * Seriously though, I know what you mean - if it doesn't have the status if a legally-recognized city/town/township/village/voting-district/whatever or better (e.g. county, state, etc.) then it doesn't get the same presumption of notability that a recognized entity has. Even when something does have legal recognition, like "Acme County Boll Weevil Protection District 3" (yes, I did make that up), it can still be knocked down at AFD when its notability is challenged and no significant coverage can be found. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Exactly so! :-) Spartaz Humbug! 14:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Maggie Mason
Hi Alf,

I'm very sorry; I don't know what just happened. I did not try to revert your edit. I must have clicked something by mistake. Category:American writers is not supposed to contain any articles; all articles in that category should be in subcategories instead. I would gladly switch the category to a different subcategory if you would like, but Category:American writers shouldn't stay on any article.

Neelix (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Alf,


 * Where was that consensus reached? The only discussion I know of is this one, and it ended two days ago with a decision to keep the subcategories as is. Is there another discussion that took place at which it was decided to delete the gender subcategories?


 * Neelix (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that some people think that, but you really need to read up on the larger context of what's happening with these categories. Even by the actual guidelines, which I have serious problems with, but even by those, you cannot use by-sex, by-race, or by-ethnicity categories to diffuse articles out of their parent categories. You may want to clear the category American writers, but you have to do it some other way than that. Ask any category nerd you like, it's actually true. I wish you'd revert all your own edits like this. Talk to Obi-Wan, whose views are more in line with your own, but understands this principle, if you don't believe me.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The categories exist, there is consensus that they should continue to exist, but we shouldn't place any articles in them? Where is there consensus for that? Neelix (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't delete the gender subcategories, just don't take the articles out of the main category to put them into gender subcategories. See e.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24 and also WP:EGRS, which says "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories." Really, this has been in the NYT and about a zillion other newspapers for about six weeks now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You can put articles into them, you just can't also take them out of the parent category *IF* the category you're putting the article into is ethnicity, gender, race, religion, whatever. If you want to take every article out of American writers you have to do it by ALSO putting them in other categories which are not based on those criteria.  The solution, which I think is wrong but seems to have consensus, in the novelists categories was to create by century categories and use those to empty the parent category.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The CfD you quote just has to do with which word to use, male vs. men, female vs. women. It doesn't have anything to do with diffusion.  Again, the relevant guideline is WP:EGRS.  You really should get some bot to undo all your edits and figure out another way to empty the parent category.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted false and biased info you added Hajji
I've taken the liberty of removing and replacing some of the false info and blatent lies you posted in the article Joseph Breen. I know you're an Anti-Catholic and I suspect you're probably in league with terrorists. Please keep your Marxist agenda out of wikipedia. We have means and methods of dealing with your kind NYFinanceGal (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
And thank you, too. Them wickets can get mighty sticky, can't they?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Category intersects
You had previously expressed interest in the idea of category intersections. I wanted to give you a sneak peek of something User:Magnus Manske has recently developed. To see it, add the following line to your common.js page:

Then restart your browser, and visit Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. If we could take this to production, this would basically obviate the need for big arguments about diffusion. In addition, we would be able to kill all of the gendered/ethnic categories entirely, except at the highest level.

In addition, since we can now easily enumerate the contents of a category, presence in the head will no longer be seen as a "big" deal - click the enumeration link at the top of the demonstration so you see what I'm talking about - you can easily get everyone, including of the subcats, right in the same browser window.

Anyway, your thoughts welcome on this. One concern I have is that this will open up the possibility to do many *more* intersects than we currently have categories for - there would be no issue in creating an intersect of African-American poets from Los Angeles who are bisexual and born in 1979. But, how will we manage the creation of such intersects (I guess, anyone can create them, but what is the criteria for which intersects can go at the top of the category screen? perhaps then we go back to "defining")

best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will give it a try later and let you know what I think.  I agree that something like this could solve an awful lot of problems, although never all of them, I imagine.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there will still be drama, even in category space. But this would, I think, alleviate some of it. And ghettoization by gender/ethnicity would be a thing of the past. One disadvantage I just thought of is you would no longer be able to browse something like - such categories would go away. You'd still be able to get to it by browsing the general occupations tree however, and then filtering by "jewish" for example. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also thanks
Just a note to let you know that your expertise and careful research on all things related to Los Angeles is much appreciated. Like catching that incorrect address at Craftsman Mansion.

For that matter, could you take a look at the article Griffith Park Zoo? I created it back in December but I think it is badly in need of another pair of eyes. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I will certainly take a look at your article.  I'm surprised it hadn't been written before December, but there you go!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your improvements to that article, keep it up! Yes, sometimes it's astonishing what doesn't have an article here! --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Any time, it was an excellent start. Just wait until I get into the paywalled LA times stuff; there's a goldmine in there.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like the article should be put into one or more LA templates, but there are so many of them I'm not sure where it should go. Looking for inspiration I find that many of the features of Griffith Park, such as the Greek Theatre (Los Angeles) and even the Los Angeles Zoo, are not listed in any LA templates. What's your saying - We got 4,243,893 messes to clean up! --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazing that they're not in there. I put them all in Template:Greater Hollywood, since that's where Griffith Park was.  I also fiddled with the Chinese Theatre entry.  Let's see how long that lasts!  I haven't hard the heart to look into the linking/template/redirect issue yet today.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind and put them in Template:Northwest Los Angeles instead, but left the Chinese Theatre edit.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm baffled by the LA templates, they are a maze. (It looks as if the "splitters" won the day when it came to setting up LA templates. IMO every field has "lumpers" and "splitters"; for example in biology the "splitters" want every slight variation of an animal or plant to be a separate species, while the "lumpers" want to combine them into a more broadly-defined species.) Thanks goodness I mostly deal with San Diego which has just a few, obvious templates. About the linking/redirect issue: It looks to me as if all those links from templates to the redirect page instead of the newly named page are still there. I'm inclined to just pretend I didn't notice. I don't think it will ever come up as a problem. There are more important things here that need fixing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too, when it comes right down to actually trying to figure it out. As long as the spaghetti feeds the family it doesn't matter how tangled it is, I suppose. Maybe I'll make a Griffith Park template soon! &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, just what LA needs - another template! J/K - a Griffith Park template would actually make sense. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Touché
Ok. You got me. Sh*t. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But it must be admitted, my crime was not as grave as the website link to some random kid! :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just fooling around a bit because irony... I don't know who added the link to the random kid, but you're right, your sin was venial.  And that obnoxious bot would have caught it soon enough...&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DC did it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

American novelists categorization - what to do now?
So, I'm not feeling consensus for an RFC as per the question you posed, but there does seem to be a growing consensus around the solution Neonorange asked me for in the comments thread (i.e. Option 1), and in practical terms, that consensus has already been enacted by several categorization machines - leaving only 75 or so novelists left in the head category - most quite famous - which is a rather odd result that needs dealing with. The question you posed has been widely advertised, but since there isn't support to do an RFC (or at least, not one on American novelists), what do you think should be done? Should we ask a non-involved admin to come and close the conversation in a few days, and provide a judgement of what should be done as a result? Do you want to let it sit there as is for another week? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I feel as if your complicated proposal was essentially an RfC, and not one that was so easy to understand.  I don't think that the fragmented process that took place on that page supports a formal closing either.  It seems like an RfC in the guise of a discussion about why not to have an RfC.  I'm at a loss as to what to do.  I feel as if it'd be a big mistake to rely on the opinions of your categorization "machines" to decide what categories people go in, and I think your strategy of explaining the categorization system over and over again is not helpful.  Readers don't understand it because it doesn't actually make sense in the context of real life.  For more on this, see What Should We Do About Wikipedia, especially the section entitled "The Trouble With Wikipedian Categories."  Maybe the solution is to have a higher level RfC, maybe at the level of Category:Writers or Category:novelists or whatever the parent of Category:American writers is.  I'm out of ideas, but I can tell you that from the standpoint of readers who care about literature, diffusing Category:American novelists into ill-considered subcategories, whatever they are, is a big mistake.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend it that way - Neonorange asked a question, I responded, and then people started !voting on it... But we can't do an RFC on that, it would need to be reformulated in a neutral fashion - but if we did do an RFC, that would go against the consensus above, which was to *not* do an RFC just on the novelists. So, I guess I'm at a loss too. What I'd suggest is this - there seems to be rough consensus around the diffusion, at least among those who have showed up so far - even two who were previously somewhat opposed to the idea, like Neonorange, and 99% of the diffusion has not been contested by any editors watching those articles. Why not just ask someone to close it out, ask those protecting the remaining novelist bios to drop the stick and allow full diffusion, then meanwhile you and others work on a broader Writer-level RFC, which does seem to have some support - from me, from Carwil, from a recent entrant, etc. If non-diffusion is the outcome, it's easy for a bot to fix. But those 75 remaining novelists should not just hang out there, if an article gets written about that it will be even harder to explain why they're there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm against having a formal close on that discussion because it was not the kind of discussion that should be formally closed. As you say, it was not neutrally worded, and even though you widely and neutrally advertised it, by that time it was too hard for newcomers to follow. If you didn't intend it to be an end run around having an RfC, maybe you could voice your support there for having an RfC on a higher level category, we could get consensus to do that, and then have a discussion about the wording of it.  You could ask those diffusing the novelists to drop the stick and get a bot to undiffuse them all up to the [Country] novelists categories.  That would be a gesture of good faith, in line with the consensus on the CfD discussion on American women novelists, which I feel represents more of a consensus than that abortive thing on the category talk page, and would look great to outside observers without explanation (since you seem to want to take that into account).  That would put us in a position where things would look good no matter how long it takes to figure out what to do.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but that's not what I'd support. I proposed my way out over at the American novelists category page, please share your proposal (soon), and we'll see if others have ideas. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, fine to notify again - to Biography, literature, novels, I forget where else. Can you do it? cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, do you know of a bot that can do this? it's possible in theory, I just don't know which bot we should ask to do this job. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the least of our worries. We'll ask on the bot owners board.  I don't know how to write interfaces with the API but the rest of the algorithm for this even I could write, so someone over there will be able to do it.  I will notify. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I notified a bunch of WikiProjects. Are there other places besides Project talk pages that one usually notifies?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've sometimes individually notified editors who have been deeply involved in discussions - trying to not take account of any positions they might hold so it is neutral - but I think probably most of them are watching by now. It would probably be worth it to notify JPL, Xezbeth, and Nikki Maria, as they have been doing most of the moving back and forth. Also perhaps a note at the Filipacchi article, since that's where it all started? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna write a punchy summary for you, but then I figured, you'd be all over it :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my proposal for format? Maybe it'd be better to have separate sections for supporting different fixes, i.e. ===Support Fix 1=== and so on, with invitation to people who add new fixes to add new sections for support statements?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine as you made it. I doubt tons will join in, people are kinda sick of this I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then in the interest of efficiency I'll just make it permanent. Maybe you could move your comment on my fix into threaded discussion section to keep things clean and I'll reply there?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ok did that. Also can you notify TruthKeeper88, I think she's retired but she may want to have a vote on this. actually, to be neutral, you should just re-notify everyone who actually !voted on the RFC proposal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I propose we ask a non-involved admin to close out the discussion on Tuesday. That gives about 10 days in the hopper - discussion seems to have died down. What say you? In any case, I'm now focused on getting cat intersects to work. That will cause a switcheroo, in some ways, as we'll have massive categories like that will be undifferentiated - so will bring up a whole other host of issues around making sure people get correctly categorized somewhere.
 * On another note, did you know that many princesses are a subset of princes? Just found that... god what a mess. If we thought Filipacchi was bad, what happens if the royal families of the world start noticing how we've been (mis)categorizing them? These are people with serious money, power, and media savvy. Ugh.
 * Finally, on a completely *different* note, now that Leonard has said his piece about the book, how shall we treat it? I think we should just say he published a few articles about open source or something, and leave out the as-yet-unfinished bit. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And another thing
Take a look at Alice Walker. Interesting complications around claims made by her daughter, which she disputes in her blog, and other complexities - plus the thing is constantly being spammed, and some eds are making audacious claims - I just removed one that was based I think on a tongue-in-cheek blog post - she does have strong anti-Israel views it seems, but some editors want to call her a terrorist, which I don't think is the same thing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Test edits
Hey. I got message from you about some test edits reverted. I did not make any edits, actually I have not edited English Wikipedia for months. Bests, K.--Korovioff 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was me. I've never edited your userpage.  Maybe you got it because you were looking as an IP and someone else had your IP previously?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism
Hello! Your submission of Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy contest
Hey SB Johnny, I see from browsing WO that I won the contest. Thanks, gals and guys! You can send the prize money here. If you can and would include a message with the money, tell them "Keep up the good work on Romaine Street and to hell with the Hollywood Neighborhood Council!" Thanks again.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]
I've talked to another mod about my edits ( I went into detail about why I did them) and got the "ok" Unfortunately people keep on deleting my edits. It's very frustrating. ErikTylersYo (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's because you won't talk about them on the talk page. If you'd take some time to learn how things are done instead of edit warring like this you'll have a much easier time of it.  Your edit also removed the reference that I assume supported the paragraph above it.  Can you start a section on the talk page of the actual article to discuss what you want?

fyi
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure closure requested. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
Unfortunately you have been reverted again by the same user (Levounion battle). Although I fully understand the removal and I agree with it, the discussion appears to be fruitless in the relevant talk page. You comments might be helpful. Thanks in advance.Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Redondo Sycamore, Los Angeles
Hi, alf! Your AfD nomination for the above article was successful and it was deleted. In the AfD discussion I mentioned several other, virtually identical articles which I thought should be treated in the same way that this one was. Since it has been deleted, I think the others should be nominated for deletion too, but I am out of town and can't handle it. Do you want to do the honors? If you would rather not, I will take care of it when I get home. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought this morning about nominating them. If I haven't done it before you get back, feel free.  I just want to research them all quite carefully, because it's not such an easy thing to get a place article deleted.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hollywood Anti-Nazi League
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

fyi
I sent a small donation to that food bank in Hollywood in your name... what a great story, so I had to join in :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wikipediocracy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC) treats Thank you for filling a red link on my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]
Hey Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''