User talk:Obiwankenobi/Archive 1

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions
I highly suggest you stop sending articles for deletion. First off, it is probably the most significant action one can take Wikipedia... the deleting of an article. It should be handled carefully. Secondly, you are relatively new. I suggest you take part in some discussion, read the guidelines and ask questions before you nominate any more articles. Nominating multiple articles that editors are saying snowball keep will only infuriate other editors and give you a bad name.

So, please slow down and if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * for what it's worth, I have sent only 5 articles to AfD:
 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_from_Republic_County,_Kansas result: Delete
 * Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Bushby (open) consensus is for keep
 * Articles_for_deletion/Usage_share_of_browser_color_depth result: Delete
 * Articles_for_deletion/Usage_share_of_browser_display_resolutions result: Delete
 * Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Zuzzio (open) consensus seems to be for keep
 * So while I appreciate your recommendation to hold off, 3 out of 5 ain't bad!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

About "Securité logicielle des smartphones"
Hello,

It will be a pleasure to help you during the translation.

Regards, PST (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I wasn't reverting willy-nilly — I was declining your attempts at speedy deletion because they did not qualify (explanation at talk). That's an administrative action. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

oh dear
couldnt give a dam and not commenting at the cfd - was part of creating the wikiproject asia because it needed it and for a while was working on making southeast asian things - am very tired of cfds etc - do what you like I aint in the conversation - asia as a category is far too big - thats it. cheers SatuSuro 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * changed mind will do so - asia for templates and categories is absurdly too large in range and scope - any separation is useful for readers and users and editors SatuSuro 08:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Re
Yes, I saw that they are collective info from other articles. But collecting all the info and then making it suitable for 1 article is itself a hard thing to do. And also your contributions have been of good ones. You are doing great work. You deserved that award and keep up the good work, I may award you more of different types if you continue your tempo! :)  Yash  t  101   05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to say +1 to Yash's barnstar and statement above. I was just looking at a list of people who've recently made their 1,000th edit to articles, and you're on it Obi. I would give you a barnstar, but I got beat to the punch. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks I appreciate it. It's my first star! :)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

neuroinformatics
Hi, Obi. I think they are connected, but more indirectly than the name would imply. Bioinformatics is often times synonymous with Computational Biology. As a field, it is concerned with developing computational methods for advancing our knowledge in biology. Neuroinformatics is most accurately described as a sub-category of this field. In my view, the hierarchy should look something like this: Biomedical Informatics branches to Clinical Informatics and Bioinformatics; Bioinformatics branches to Neuroinformatics, which is also a child node of Computational Neuroscience. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambertk (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Unfortunately we don't have biomedical informatics - currently that redirects to health informatics, which is what the category is now called. We also don't have a sub-category for clinical informatics, again because of a lot of overlap with health/medical informatics. Would it be wrong to have bioinformatcs contained within health informatics? (in addition to where it is now) or make it a sister (link as 'see also' in the head)

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. Health Informatics, to my knowledge, isn't even really a term used in the literature. Biomedical Informatics is the parent discipline under which are Bioinformatics and Clinical Informatics. As a Bioinformatician, I don't really understand why wikipedia would have it structured the way you're describing.

Ambertk
 * Actually health informatics gets more hits in google scholar than biomedical informatics... in any case, i think i will just list is as a 'see also' in health informatics, and make the same link the other way - that way we aren't implying bioinformatics is a subset of health informatics. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD - Hospitals in Ireland
The discussion was closed as "Keep and repopulate". And as you said you emptied it, please repopulate this category.
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11

And in the future, please don't empty a category before/during nominating for cfd. In the past that's been considered disruptive (among other things, because it affects the ability of commenters to see what a particular category consisted of, and so could be seen as attempting to circumvent consensus), and could cause sanction, such as being blocked, and I presume we'd all like to avoid that. Thanks. - jc37 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. There isn't anything left to repopulate; all hospitals have been diffused to their proper national containers, so I'm not sure what you want me to do here... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. As long as the rest were merely diffused to subcats, then I think everything should be fine. - jc37 23:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also a question - I was berated for doing such diffusing. You for example noted that I had emptied the cat, but what I had mainly done was diffuse articles to their proper country resting place - I suppose the error was de-linking the two cats and, which I mentioned that I had done that in my submission (so I wasn't hiding anything). Then I was later attacked by Mais Oui for diffusing a hospital, which he reverted and issued a 'warning', and then BHG made the same edit. So I'm still not sure what I did and didn't do wrong here - are we not allowed to diffuse a category when it is being discussed? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against it. That said, very small/few changes are sometimes acceptable as long as every change is specifically noted (and linked) to the discussion, to maintain transparency. Though, if in doubt, don't. There are very few changes which cannot wait the length of a CfD discussion. - jc37 23:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess i was just following the lead of BHG, who was busily reorganizing the hospital categories, so I contributed, and none of my changes seemed controversial (as evidence, the change I made and got yelled at for, was made a few hours later by BHG, who disagreed completely with the nomination, but supported the diffusion of the hospital... In addition, I'd note that Mais Oui *placed* the item in the category after the discussion had started, to prove a point. So I'm just not sure what is allowed - you can add things to a cat? You can diffuse them (but not too many?) In any case, as I explained in the deletion discussion, I didn't start by trying to delete the hospital cat, I just was cleaning it up - but by the time I was done, I realized it was empty, and there weren't ever going to be any entries (as a hospital can't really *be* in Ireland), which is why I proposed the CfD. I'm still learning but additional advice would be welcomed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When people add to a category, they also tend to declare it in the CfD. (Though this is most often done when dealing with a nom with a rationale of WP:OC.)
 * I would rather not get into who did what when, at this point. Let's just chalk it up as a learning experience and move on : ) - jc37 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mobile security
Hello,

I will read your translation asap, but after a first look it seems to be a good work.

About embedded computer and security, you could also take a look on the french articles Sécurité matérielle des cartes à puce (smartcard) and Sécurité de l'information au sein des RFIDs (Radio Frequency IDentification). They are also "relevant" on their topics, and the first one is well documented. Another one is also relevant, but it is already in english : Computer security compromised by hardware failure.

Best regards, PST (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Mobile security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Sms, TCP, UDP, Trojan, MMS, Sim, Firewall and Appstore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

by  Yash  t  101   11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Obi, this is because of the Afghanistan problem on Wikipeia, infact Afghaistan is West Asian (rarely), but I think it should be added, also Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle East, if you can add that too, please

Sorry for any hassle, I am new on Wiki, I am finding it hard to tell people why I have been editing this

Hope you understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA193 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Gay memoirists
Just to let you know, I've removed the "Gay memoirists" category from the batch nomination for "Gay people by nationality". It may still be worth renominating separately, but the reasons for or against it aren't the same as the reasons for or against "Gay people from England" or "Gay writers from Ireland" — so it can't really be considered within the same batch as all of the others, but rather would need its own separate discussion. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done on gay memoirists; haven't tackled the others yet (but oh my ugh.) Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193
Hi Obi. Looks like AA193 tried to report you, for being against freedom of speech. :) -- S M S  Talk 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know what we should do. He just keeps on making edits, and is not going to the talk board as suggested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish unionism
Hello. My reasoning is simply that the outcome of the debate focussed my attention on the fact that we were lacking a category for Irish unionism. We plainly need one in any event. Moonraker (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmm. I'm not sure I agree... what is it for? so many articles are about both sides - england and ireland. And as was pointed out, some of the protagonists who are unionist feel ethnically british (while, I would argue, others feel ethnically Irish). In any case, I'm not sure what good the separation does. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If Irish unionism merits an article, Unionism in Ireland, then it merits a category. In particular, pre-1922 Irish Unionism is plainly not British Unionism. Ireland was never part of Britain. Moonraker (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir... i realize that, but the consensus seemed against me. in any case, what about calling it Unionism in Ireland then to match the article, and making a sub-cat of British unionism? the word 'irish' is also problematic here - which is why i argued the whole time for geographic vs ethnic or political categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Names are emotive, and you can't make "British" include "Irish", any more than you can make "Austrian" include "Hungarian". Moonraker (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback
With regard to this edit, it is a serious abuse of the rollback tool to use it for edit-warring. Moonraker (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked you to kindly bring such discussions to the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a note there, to which you will perhaps be kind enough to reply, but in my view it is not the place to complain about your very incorrect use of rollback. Do you agree that this was unacceptable? Moonraker (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hit the wrong button (instead of undo). Please let's just discuss this at the article page. Sorry should not have rolled back meant to undo. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)) 03:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, and as you have agreed it was incorrect I do not need to take the matter up anywhere else. Moonraker (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relax Moonraker, Obi is relatively new to wiki (active since 1 month only) so can make such mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. I rollbacked a CSD tag 2 weeks ago. Obi is a good editor and use rollback quit well, so how can you say that they abused the rights with only one edit which can also be a mistake. Directly accusing someone for abuse is discouraged
 * Calling such mistake an abuse of userright is not at all a good thing to say to anyone. Abuse is a serious allegation.
 * Dear Obi, remember; Rollback is used only to undo vandalism or any unconstructive edit
 * Regards,  Yash  t  101   04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yasht101. Thanks for accepting the apology Moonraker. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement in the Republic of Ireland
I raised the issue here in October last. The template at the bottom for law enforcemnet by country has been wrong for a long time. I was pretty inexperienced back then so I didnt know what to do, or phrase it right in my comment. Basiclly, still, if you click the Northern Ireland link in the brsckets after the UK you get brought to Law enforcement in Ireland. This until you great job of seperation yesterday also included every detail of the ROI policing, and likewise a click on the Ireland link in the template brought you to the same article, until yesterday. So well done on that Obi. I tidied the "new" article up a bit. Any ideas on the Law...in Ireland articles next move? Could we make a Law Enforcement in Northern Ireland article and then just leave a stub article with links to the main articles? Would that mean adjusting the template? Murry1975 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers thanks for the kind words. I do think that moving Law enforcement in Northern Ireland to its own section makes sense; it doesn't really make sense to have a single page for the whole island, which is why I separated it in the first place. I think going forward, the Law enforcement in Ireland page should contain a section on the history of law enforcement in Ireland, short stub links out to the main pages for each country, and then perhaps a section that talks about cooperation between the two.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On Dublin Harbour Police have found this on rté  The Dublin Port Harbour Police force has ceased after having been in existence since 1870. 21 staff left on a retirement scheme. It's understood that three of the force remain in the port, but port access duties will be undertaken by private security companies, will try to find more later and probably find out if it still going in any form. Murry1975 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, its a start, and worth adding the rte source. its strange there wasn't more reporting about it. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Security
Thanks Socrates2008! It's only my second barnstar. I appreciate that you took the time to recognize the work. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

health cats
Your claims that health and healthcare are the same is the issue. I think it is clear that these are not the same and so it is reasonable to have categories for both. So, no, I'm not likely to back off of this position since I don't think that it is wrong, unreasonable and it is supported by ample sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite fair. I've agreed, several times, that health and healthcare are *not* the same. That's not my point. However, I'm afraid the evidence is not there that 'health law' and 'healthcare law' or 'healthcare legislation' and 'health legislation' are not the same. In fact, I've provided overwhelming evidence that they are used interchangeably by people in the field. Can you please please please explain why that does not sway you? Is there something wrong with the sources I've copiously quoted? Do you not agree with them? I'm not making this stuff up.
 * Take a look at this guide - and see how healthcare is used interchangably with health: - or look here ; which is how different states classify their health laws - here are a examples:

Here's another example - St. Louis university is ranked by [US news & world report as having one of the best 'healthcare' law programs in the country. So, what do you see on their website: - health law! etc etc etc.
 * Health and environmental control generally
 * Health, Safety, and Housing
 * California health and safety code
 * TITLE IV PUBLIC HEALTH
 * So let me ask again - given that I am not claiming health=healthcare, but rather that the world does not differentiate between these terms when they are used as adjectives for law, legislature, film, or software - how much evidence of real world use would it take to change your mind? Or alternatively, since you say your position is supported by ample sources, could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation vs health legislation, or health films vs healthcare films? I'm willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. Are you? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because more of these in law may be correctly classified as health does not mean that none of these are correctly labeled as healthcare. Your arguments and the contents of that category do not support the elimination of health care in this case.  Your arguments support that in almost the entire tree we need to add heath categories where needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation does not mean the same thing as health legislation, or health films is not used interchangably to describe healthcare films?" If you cannot provide sources, please just admit it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabic as an offical language for Afghanistan
I have seen that thejustinj90 has added Arabic as an offical language, but Arabic is a minority language, so I think to stop further edits, add a new colu under offical langauges, called minor languages, and add: Arabic, Turkish and Uzbek.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA193 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of C-Tools 2.0
I have removed the prod tag you placed on C-Tools 2.0, as it was discussed at AfD in 2005 and is therefore permanently ineligible for prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of your deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Twinkle barfed your nomination. I've manually created Articles for deletion/C-Tools 2.0 (2nd nomination); feel free to re-enter your nomination rationale there. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done more work on the article. I'm now at "Weak Keep." Note that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY-- if something was ever notable, it'll always be notable until notability policies/guidelines change to weaken the case for notability. The Keep case here is not very strong, so I could still be swayed. But I think there is a Keep case. Would appreciate any followup comments you might have. Yakushima (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans
Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Conflict Resolution (album)


A tag has been placed on Conflict Resolution (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- WikHead (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Conflict Resolution (album)
Hi Obi, thank you for your message. I was typing one on the article's talk page as you were typing one to me. CSD A9 is for recordings by bands that don't have an article. I would suggest in this case that you create the band article first, then the album(s) afterwards. If deleted (and I'm guessing it will be) it can later be restored on request after the band's article has been created. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WikHead (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per wp:notability guidelines, if an album passes WP:GNG, there doesn't need to be an article on the band. There are also enough refs to create an article on the band, would you mind giving it a shot? I have to go to work soon and won't be able to do much on it this week. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the existence of a band's article is often the key notability stepping-stone for other inclusions throughout the project. I don't like to be a bad guy in this case, but I truly believe the decision should be left up to the patrolling admin. I hope you understand. -- WikHead (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * per Wp:nalbums, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline." CSD A9 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist " but I believe the additional links I added provide evidence of why its subject is importance; thus the A9 should be removed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's also the first album by a band with no article, which doesn't appear to make claims in the way of charting, sales, awards, etc. Trust me, I do not believe in wholesale deletion, and I think this one is best left to the decision of the patrolling admin. -- WikHead (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As reviewing administrator, I am prepared to give this a chance; but I am unconvinced that the references you have supplied are enough for the GNG, so I plan to take it to AfD. In view of your "underconstruction" tag, I will give you a couple of days to see if you can improve it (and, of course, the AfD discussion would provide seven more). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted a reply and comments at Talk:Conflict Resolution (album). Regards. :) -- WikHead (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
Hi. Can you tell me why you are removing Category:Healthcare policy in the United States from this article? The organization is directly involved in shaping healthcare policy through lobbying. Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone back to the article and removed a bunch of other appropriate categories.  Can you please explain what you've doing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; however it doesn't make sense to classify every organization into every issue they are involved with; it makes the categories cluttered so you can't find articles about that issue (instead of wading through articles about every organization involved with that issue). For example, there is and  - you don't want to put this firm in both. For the same reason, this firm is not a healthcare policy, they may be interested in healthcare policy, and even work on it, but that doesn't mean they should go in the category. Can you imagine if every organization that worked on healthcare policy was in this section? Category:Healthcare policy in the United States? That is why the organizational categories exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * some of the other cats I removed were b/c you don't need to put something in the parent and child cat. For example, it is already a law firm in new york. It doesn't also need to be an organization in new york, since law firms are underneath organizations. see this for example:

"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below." Category --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * perhaps this would make sense? Category:Healthcare reform advocacy groups in the United States. there is also a list you can add it to there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cite PMC
I noticed you used cite pmc. That template does not work right at this time. I have fixed it. Please use cite journal, cite pmid, or cite doi instead.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the British Isles
Category:Politics of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- RA (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GS/BI
Obi, are you aware of this? WP:GS/BI? --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read about that the other night. Are you still on probation? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, but it'll be reviewed soon hopefully. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit drastic of a measure to take. But I guess there were problems back in the day... I hope the review is favorable... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles
Obi, I'd just like to say that Politics in the British Isles is an excellent article. You've obviously put a great deal of effort into it. Unbiased and open-minded readers of Wikipedia will find it an asset and a good addition to the encyclopedia Van Speijk (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I do hope those opposed will see the value of the article rather than just judging based on the name. It's a topic I find quite interesting in general. I suppose if we called it 'Multilateral and bilateral relations of Ireland, UK, Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey" they might allow it to be kept... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that title makes more sense. As would "Multilateral and bilateral relations between the countries within the British Isles".  If you can grasp why, you'll fully understand the objections.  --HighKing (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi HighKing. Yes, that title for the article might also work also. Unfortunately, the whole article has been nominated for deletion, rather than just having a regular discussion about its title. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, the title might work, but the content is still a fork and questionably WP:OR. Perhaps if you'd search Google for titles involving "Politics in the UK and Ireland" or similar, you'd see that the common name for the politics in questions correctly refers to the political states.  --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would certainly welcome a rename discussion about the article. I'm not sure which parts of it are OR or a fork; most of the content is new, and doesn't overlap with the remit of other pages. For example, RA has claimed it is a fork of Ireland-UK relations, but the crown dependencies are *not* part the UK, so that page wouldn't be a good place to discuss these multilateral issues. I think Ireland-UK relations should remain as focused on bilateral relations between the two sovereign governments, and then the multilateral and devolved relationships could go here (for example, joint irish/scottish/Isle of man projects where Westminster isn't even involved.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. And you are right, if British Isles didn't appear in the name of this article there would be no debate whatsoever. There is an unhealthy dislike of the term in Wikipedia. Van Speijk (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I look forward to the DRV you'll be starting, I assume, for the article. Please inform me of it if you do do so. Oh, and I would advise that you make sure to focus on why the AfD close was incorrect (ie there was no true consensus, the votes were pretty much equal, the closer's statement sounds like a vote itself and is thus inappropriate, ect.) and not on the for or against argument itself, as those don't work at DRV and are irrelevant. Silver  seren C 19:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

B... I...
Hi Obi, thanks for the note on my Talk page. However, you may have noticed that I've been blown out on anything to do with B.... I... and I can't even talk about it. I'm considering my position at the moment. It's pointless appealing against such decisions, given that the bums who now run Wikipedia all stick together. I'm maybe going to retire. I'm unhappy with lots of things about Wikipedia, especially the way that obvious POV pushers continue to prevail. Anyway, good luck with your attempts to restore that article. I hope it all works out. Cheers, Van Speijk (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok... sorry ... I saw it but I didn't read it carefully, I didn't realize it applied to discussions as well (and not just article edits) Wow... that's dramatic. Is it worth at least asking the admin if you can !vote on the DRV? The article could just as easily be named politics in the atlantic archipelago, so this was not a case of going into articles and replacing 'Britain and Ireland' with 'British Isles' for example... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)) 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not worth asking again. I did ask for the sanction to be reduced in severity, but these admins are stubborn beyond belief and generally unyielding. I will risk one comment here though; I would object to the article being called politics in the atlantic archipelago. that is not the name of the islands. Van Speijk (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks; I'm sorry again about the ban, and I hope you don't leave the wiki entirely. Perhaps a short wikibreak, then back to focus on creating good content. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Accusation
You are getting too intense, you are not dispassionately discussing the issues. Accusing me of FUD is uncivil, I suggest you do not do so in the future. see WP:UNCIVIL IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please use a strike through or similar to redact comments like the above. -- RA (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you did was properly termed FUD. You found one sentence that was mis-cited, and used that to say the whole article was suspect - thus casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the whole article. Again, I point you to this - 4 years after creation, and only 2 references, vs the british isles article, over 20 refs, 3 days after creation. Don't try to hold this article to a standard that isn't held for any other article on wikipedia. It was 3 days old, there wasn't time to correct small mistakes - but again its no reason for deletion. I'm sorry if you found the FUD uncivil, and I removed it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No it is not called FUD, I was asked for a specific example so i gave one. The whole article is like this. I will make the comments I made in the Deletion review but systematically go through the entire article if need be in any follow up AfD. I can't do this at the deletion review as it would be overly long and too far off the core issue of the DRV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Postnationalism
Some notes on the below: User talk:Obiwankenobi/postnationalism

I think you are being hard on myself and BHG. In fact, I (at least) would broadly share the post-nationalist perspective.

The first thing that strikes me is that I don't see any sources that treat post-nationalism in your outline page (i.e. while there may be sources there written from that perspective, I don't any that write about that perspective). In that situation, using the sources you have to write an article about postnationalist perspectives would rely on a degree of original research and synthesis.

If I were you, I'd start small and work towards a larger goal. Something you could do is (a) expand the post-nationalist section on British-Irish relations; and (b) create a "British Isles" section in the post-nationalism article. If these got large enough, without encroaching onto original research, you could spin them out into a seperate article. -- RA (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the first (and so far unanswered) question is "what exactly is post-nationalism in the context of these Islands?"
 * The second question is to what extent it is synonymous with an archepelagic perspective?
 * What are the differences and similarities between the historical application of an archepelagic perspective and its current applicability?
 * Addressing those questions would be one way of addressing some of the criticisms so far.
 * If you want to go further, then for the purpose of teasing this out, please bear with me while I go into hyper-critical mode. (Think of this like a crude version of an academic seminar; I am looking for gaps, not in the hope of scoring points or winning a debate, but with the aim of seeking clarity).
 * From what I have seen so far, a few random observations and questions:
 * the article Post-nationalism applies an apparently misleading phrase to the rather banal observation that supranational and international institutions have altered the nature of sovereignty. That's self-evident, and I don't see anything there which would be contested. Similarly, the notion that processes similar to globalisation are also at work on a smaller scale is self-evident: NAFTA, the EU, etc, all pool sovereignty, and the fact that they are regional (unlike the global scope of the WTO or UN) doesn't seem to me to create any conceptual difference. I'll take all that as a deficiency of the article rather than of the school of thought (which I presume is more rigorous), but the first priority I see is to beef up the conceptual content of that article so that it reads as something other than an ornate statement of the very obvious. (I'm not in any way trying to cast blame on anyone for the fact that the article is still underdeveloped, just trying to identify gaps).
 * In the context of Ireland, the 90 years since the partial independence of 1922 have been marked by a growing ability of the nominally independent state to pursue an international agenda independent of the UK. (Garret FitzGerald used to write a lot about this). EU membership not only gave Ireland a formal voice in European decisions, but radically altered the destination of exports from (IIRC) over 50% to the UK in 1973, to less than 20% in the mid-20O0s. In Fitz's analysis that allowed Ireland an increasingly free diplomatic hand, which facilitated leveraging the diaspora's strength in the US to internationalise the diplomacy over Northern Ireland, which was one of several crucial factors in ending that conflict. At face value, that increased diplomatic influence of a former colony looks more nationalist than post-nationalist ... but how does a post-nationalist analysis approach that sort of process?
 * In various recent discussions, evidence cited in favour of a "British Isles" perspective has included the tendency to analyse the 17th-century conflicts through an Britain-and-Ireland frame, and to treat the medieval era in a similar fashion. (I do not say through a "British Isles" framework, because the 3 other islands were essentially irrelevant to most of those conflicts; the use of "British Isles" as a frame for those conflicts seems to me be mostly a matter of sloppy terminology rather than a novel perspective).  That is hardly a new analysis of the 17th century (it was a commonplace when I was a history student in the early 1980s), but it troubles me to see it being cited as evidence of an ongoing common polity. The 18th and 19th-centuries saw both Scotland and Ireland becoming increasingly subservient to London and divorced from each other, a process which was reversed only in the 20th-century. Is post-nationalism simply ignoring this period, or does it have something to say about it?
 * To what extent is the post-nationalist commentary simply noting some small developments rather than weighing them? The linkages between Ireland and the Crown Dependencies remain trivial compared with the enormous weight of diplomatic (as well as economic and cultural) traffic on the Dublin-London corridor.
 * Devolution in Scotland, and the steps towards possible independence, have significantly increased 2-way traffic between Dublin and Edinburgh, although it remains tiny compared with the dominant Dublin-London axis. However, it seems ironic to cite this in support a of post-nationalist analysis, when it is a direct consequence of the growing strength of Scottish nationalism. Presumably post-nationalists have something to say about this?
 * Those are just a few of the sort of issues I would hope to see addressed if coverage of postnationalism was to be significantly expanded. My comments are of course unsourced and POV, but I don't intend to even try to construct an article around them; I am just trying to identify some of the angles from which post-nationalism could be critiqued. It would not be neutral to cover postnationalism in detail without including critiques of it, and those suggestions may give some angles from which to look for critics. :But I fully support RA's suggestion of starting small, and starting with a narrow focus.  As you will know by now, any Wikipedia coverage relating to the history/politics/international relations of Ireland is hotly-contested and highly-scrutinised, so starting small-and-narrow will help you to build experience on how to work in such in a sensitive topic. It will also help you to avoid the OR & SYN which other editors identified in your previous contributions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful and provocative questions and inputs. the linkage between postnationalism, archipelagic history, and contemporary archipelagic studies is one that needs sorting, and perhaps the links are too tenuous, so I should focus on one of them, but it seems like there is some sort of continuity between these approaches. I don't think its that surprising that you saw the AA approach in the 80s because Pocock started his writing in the late 70s. I also think that now, of all the places in the world, the AA (atlantic archipelago) is one of the most dynamic spots for this sort of stuff - you have it all in a package; devolved administrations, ex-colonized/subjugated peoples, now independent; historically linked dependencies with their own yearnings for independence - its a comparative politics dream. I already provided somewhere a link showing how the Scottish were looking at the model of Isle of Man as a sort of middle solution between current devolution and full independence - so the AA is like a catalogue of all possible combinations of governments; you have England, the center, which doesn't even have its own government (kind of like Washington DC with no representation); you have Cornwall and the Shetlands, as the edge of the edge, trying to find their identity; you have Ireland, trying to escape from the shadow of its larger neighbor; and on the same island, you have northern ireland, symbol (to some) of a nation divided; to others of a nation united. there's nowhere else in the world like it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "I also think that now, of all the places in the world, the AA (atlantic archipelago) is one of the most dynamic spots for this sort of stuff ... its a comparative politics dream ..." — I agree. This kind of analysis makes for very exciting research. But don't lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't do research. We (on Wikipedia) collate the results of other people's research.
 * Also, don't neglect criticism of postnationalism as being utopian and easily contradicted by political reality (as BHG has done above). -- RA (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think about an article on archipelagic studies instead; tackling that might be easier than tackling postnationalism. It could be a survey that outlines different strands of archipelagic studies; tracing early roots before Pocock, and looking at what's going on today (e.g. the many paired study groups such as Irish-Welsh or Irish-cornwall-wales etc)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like RA's suggestion. An article on archipelagic studies could also be a good article, provided of course that it sought to convey a neutral account of the scholarship (by including critiques of it), rather than solely presenting that approach on its own terms. As I noted a few times in difft places, it is much better to have a substantive article on a school of scholarship than to try to structure the substantive topic through any particular lens. And please note RA's reminder that Wikipedia is a tertiary source; in a highly-politicised area like this, extraordinary care is needed to ensure NPOV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that any such article should cover critiques, and RA makes a good point. And I certainly don't mean to suggest here or elsewhere that postnationalism is not without it's flaws; I'm also a realist when necessary...I may draft some outlines and bounce them off you guys for further feedback. thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad that was helpful. Feel free to bounce ideas around if it helps, and I don't respond, feel free to poke me by email. (I prefer to keep substantive discussion public, but email can be useful as a reminder, so long as it does not relate to XfD or other consensus-forming processes, when its lack of transparency makes it an unacceptable form of WP:CANVASSING)
 * Just one further thought. Your comment that these islands represent a "comparative politics dream" seems to me to be an inadvertent illustration of one of the big risks in approaching this sort of topic: that the topic can be structured to suit a particular analytical approach.  That is one if the things which has concerned me throughout these discussions, because while framing a topic is a very important tool of scholarly inquiry, great care is needed in transferring that framing to an NPOV encyclopedia which cannot structure itself according to every available theory, or even according to all major ones. Similarly, an article on postnationalism should be weighted towards what the sources say about the scholarship, rather than editors views of it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, showing all sides of discussions on postnationalism is important. FWIW I meant by "comparative politics dream" that in fact the complexities allow for many different approaches that may all bear different fruit; as to which of those approaches merit their own wikipedia article, that all depends on how notable they turn out to be...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting multiple page moves
Just a suggestion if you list multiple page moves at WP:RM predicated on the same reasoning as you did with various international relations articles. Consider using the "Requesting multiple page moves" template to centralise discussion and decrease clutter on the RM page. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  18:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ah good point. thanks. Is it possible to clean this up? if so, how? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming no comments yet, you can delete all of the RM postings and then post a multimove to one of the talk pages. A bot will then post a link on the other pages.  I'm not volunteering to do the work but I think it's worth the effort.  The quality of the discussion is enhanced when it's in one place. —  AjaxSmack   18:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ok that took a while but it's now done. take a look. thanks for the suggestion. i only started out to do one, then noticed others, then it sort of snowballed...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion rarely precedes reversion. But thank you for your reversion and invitation to discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Avondale, Nova Scotia
Hello Obiwankenobi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Avondale, Nova Scotia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Neither of the two conditions applies, in other words it disambiguates two topics neither of which is primary. Feel free to merge.''' Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many thanks for the advice about the discussion of "Politics in the British Isles". I apologise, I had not realised that the discussion had been closed and re-opened, and I hope that I have now put my comment in the correct place. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * sure thing. One more note; if you think the article should be 'kept', you should put 'keep' in bold as the first word of your comment. Otherwise, it appears you are making a comment but haven't yet !voted. If you aren't yet fully decided, that's fine too, you are welcome to comment, and then provide your !vote later.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is actually absolutely not necessary. A closer reads all comments, not just ones which happen to have an emboldened prefacing word. - jc37 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops!
My apologies for neglecting to do this. —David Levy 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. per your idea to do an RFC, I'm not sure if that's needed; we had such a long convo, with so many people participating, and all of them have already been invited by me *back* to the conversation to comment on the final proposal. Everyone seemed ok with it except spinningspark. At this point rather than re-open that whole discussion, esp given the guidelines have been changed w/o any comment, I think we should just close it out, then let someone re-open a new one in the future if they come along and disagree. But the current discussion is just unwieldy and I wouldn't want to invite others in to look at it in its current state - closing the discussion allows us to say "tl;dr; above, this particular concerned group of editors reached a rough consensus as follows: xxx" :( --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For changes this significant, I'd prefer wider participation. Eight editors isn't a tiny number, but users not watching the page (and related pages from which the discussion may have been linked) might differ in their opinions.  As it stands, we've had input primarily from editors exceptionally active in the area of disambiguation.  In this context, that isn't far removed from a WikiProject.
 * Your suggestion to "let someone re-open a new [discussion] in the future if they come along and disagree" makes sense, but that tends to color people's perceptions. (Some are less open to an idea if they believe, rightly or wrongly, that a faction was caught in an attempt to sneak it through without consulting the community.)
 * Your "tl;dr" point is valid, so perhaps we should close the current discussion, with an RfC based upon a summary thereof (essentially "Here's what we've done. Do you agree?  If not, what do you suggest?").  —David Levy 21:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess from my perspective, this change is rather minor; it will not affect that many articles, and the guidelines are now clearly outlined on the disambig guidelines. I always thought RfCs were used for much further-ranging changes that required a lot of external input; to me this is much more of a small edge case; a 2-DAB page that has potential to expand, but isn't currently expanded, and a few templates to help in that process. If we open the RfC, we may get again into many of the same discussions we already hashed through, so I'm just not clear on the utility of doing so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagging and categorizing invalid disambiguation pages seems uncontroversial, but linking to them from articles before they've been expanded is a fundamental alteration of our longstanding approach, and it's fair to say that this encourages their creation. I'm convinced that the long-term benefits are likely to outweigh the short-term costs, but others might disagree.  —David Levy 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sporting Life (magazine)
I took you up on your rescue suggestion. It was a shame that such an important publication had only a one-sentence stub. Thanks for calling it to my attention. Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I figured you would be in a good position to improve it. Well done. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Media of Ireland/Northern Ireland
Hi Obi, I think it was yourself I was dicussing this with before, the addition of both Irish and Northern Irish to articles that should be clearer. Media of Ireland contains information on both, where as there is already a Media of Northern Ireland. I came across this after following a link from Radio in the Republic of Ireland, which I move from Radio in Ireland, this artcile contained only Irish specific information. What is the best way forward to deal with the Media article? Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Murry. Yes, another very confusing article; such articles are guaranteed to cause problems b/c they use the word Ireland to mean many different things. I think the best solution is to move the article to Media of the Republic of Ireland (there are no edits to that redirect, so you should be able to move over it); then take out all of the stuff referring to NI and put in the NI article; then turn Media of Ireland into a new shorter that links to RoI and NI, and has some brief exposition on any *shared* media between the two countries. But esp given linkages of media with law/etc it clearly makes sense to have separate articles for each country. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Obi, will do when I can get more time to have a run at it. Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging
Hi Obi. I see you are working through the Merge backlog. Good work so far. What you are doing is fine, but I thought I would suggest that with the older ones you might be better off making the choice yourself. If no one has responded to a tag on an article after four years you are unlikely to get too much disagreement no matter what way you go. It is up to you though, but when I can be bothered going through this backlog that is what I do. regards AIR corn (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. Some of them I have decided, but several I found had zero discussion, even by the nominator, which is why I created discussion sections and linked from the merge notices; also in several cases the merge templates themselves were only on one page, so the more highly trafficked page would not have the merge template. But thanks, if it's ok to just make an executive decision and be bold that makes sense, and I may do so for some of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work in merging Society of Young Magicians. Now I can take it off my own to do list. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Twas a team effort; Aircorn did most of it; I just finished it :) But that backlog of merges is still daunting... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I clean forgot to do the redirect. Thanks for tidying that up. AIR corn (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are never wrong being bold, especially with old tags, although your strategy for one way merge tags is good. I have merged articles into bigger untagged topics only to have them immediately reverted. AIR corn (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Adverse effects to CT
There was a discussion at the end of the section of Extensive_DNA_damage Adverse_effect to CT - where Yobol has claimed out of due weight, for matters that are mainstream science. Please evaluate it and share your view on that matter. --Nenpog (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You may be interested in this: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

French etc.
Well yes it is ridiculous - I would never have even considered the issue if I hadn't spotted what I viewed as xenophobic comment on a RM a couple of months ago. As far as (i) tennis, (ii) hockey, those are probably played out. The current French-Canadian RM P.T. Aufrette has in is about the last of the hockey BLPs, the 3 Serbian players I have put in are the last of straightforward tennis names. That only leaves a few such as Frederic Vitoux (tennis) which are "stuck," and would need RMs reopening and Ana Ivanovic whom I suspect is simply too pretty to have an ugly East European name. But to answer the question, what actually could be done to reduce nonsense - perhaps the place is the WP/MOS guides, though often there is more community participation and more common sense in RMs than in those pages in this subject. I would (and have) suggested that clearer guidance on WP:UE and particularly WP:EN should either restore past edits which have been deleted, or add new examples. I would particularly like to add a "foreign" (Turkish or East European) BLP example to WP:EN because the current Irish example alone is too anglocentric, on its own. Also I would like "reliable" to be bluelinked to WP:IRS definition of reliable, or simply copy "reliable for the statement being made" -- that would have dividends beyond the almost finished issue of French accents. The problem however is that there may be a WP:OWNER issue with some of the pages like WP:EN, something Noetica has in different words commented on. The Edouard Deldevez and Eric Joisel RMs are clear examples of where typographic low MOS is not the benchmark of an encyclopedia. And broader input in those RMs helps highlight the reality-lag between WP:EN and en.wp BLP reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could work on drafting a revised WP:IRS that includes examples about accents/diacrticis, and what sources are reliable when looking at same. I think the issue of mid-80s typeset books or articles that don't have the potential to use accented letters is important. I've also seen so much blatant misuse of google book search (for example, doing a google book search without accents, counting results, and never bothering to notice that in many cases the accents are there after all - just weren't OCR'd correctly.). I agree, WP:AT should link to WP:IRS, that shouldn't be hard to do. I've asked PT to join this discussion as well. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Prolog already has an extensive essay that advises people about accuracy issues with accents/diacritics. A link to that as an "Essay" would perhaps be controversial.
 * btw - I think the move notification header on articles pages is picked up from talk for watching editros by watchlist anyway. But I agree it is very useful on the front if it is a genuinely regularly visited page. Most of these BLPs aren't. Thanks for the reminder on that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can get it from talk *if* you're watching the page; but if you're not watching it, but happen to stop by, you may not know that it is about to be renamed - that's why I suggested that in almost all cases, RMs should be notified on the main page. Thus far no-one has deleted those movenotice templates I've placed, so I assume it doesn't bother people (some merge tags have lingered there at the top of pages for literally years! - at least moves happen quickly) I will look at Prolog's essay, thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct. No, I agree with you. Certainly for a high traffic page - one that is actually read rather than sitting there those tl movenotice templates are good. It's a habit more of us should adopt and there should be easier-to-find encouragement to do so. In future if I was doing a RM for a much read article (rather than correcting misspelled sports or EB1911 bios) I would add that template, if at the time I could find clear instruction on the template form. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)