User talk:Obiwankenobi/Archive 3

Diffusing novelists
With only 4 by century cats, I do not think it will be that hard for people to go through and make sure that the people in those categories are also put in the appropriate other possible sub-cats. No one has even nominated the by century sub-cats for anything. I am 100% sure that the 18th-century and 19th-century cats will survive, and have little doubt the other two will. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True - but if you're in the middle of doings lots of edits, why not wait until we have settled gengre cats and whether male novelists will survive? just seems like dual work, and all those in are also a list of those needing diffusion - if you diffuse now, you will lose that list. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, why not start by ensuring the sub-cats of are all classified correctly in the century cats and the male/female cats accordingly? That should be non-controversial for sure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category-based search
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection&curid=6384074&diff=554032125&oldid=553680135 this edit], I presume you meant "search time > 10 seconds"? isaacl (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ack. thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

List of vegetarians
I think your solution is the best one by a country mile. It removes all editorial bias whatsoever. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thx. I just read through the responses, and realized that the various sides were unlikely to see eye to eye. Do you think SV will sign up for it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, she is intent on getting rid of all "porn stars", but if there is wide support for the randomization approach then she would have to live with it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't see the problem with a porn star in general, though I do see her point - why *must* we have a porn star, and why *must* it be a woman? That doesn't make sense. But if the algorithm chooses one, c'est la vie... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW
If there is an RfC - and unless things calm down, there will be one - it's not really a great idea to go from user page to user page explaining your position. Think of it this way: let's say you and I are in opposition or disagreement, and the community needs to achieve consensus (well in my view, it has, but that's another issue). Have a look at my contribs over the last how many days and see whether you see me discussing this on individual talk pages. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just didn't want to spam the discussion with a restatement - and this is a new entrant who hasn't contributed at all in this debate as far as I can tell... I also just wish we could focus on the real problem, and not this one (which is rather banal).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm logging out now - but you're not getting my point. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI/I discussion notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 * And again! NickCT (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet again. NickCT (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien categorization
Two people have objected to my putting J. R. R. Tolkien in Category:20th-century British novelists because he is in Category:J. R. R. Tolkien which is in that category. However I thought we treated eponymous cats as non-diffusing. I half wonder if we should even put eponymous cats as sub-cats of novelists cats. The whole thing seems a bit strange.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * hmm. Yes in general, the categorization of eponymous articles vs cats is often decided on a case-by-case basis - see WP:Categorization - but in the case of a novelist, I would vote for non-diffusing (at least for the novelist, not for the other stuff). They aren't *always* non-diffusing though - there are examples in the guidance of diffusing eponymous cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Women poets verses other things
Did a newspaper article really claim that we have fewer articles on women poets than pornstars? Who made this patently false claim, and where was it made, and when? If that claim was made then I really think Filipachi's attacks were fully misguided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if they made the claim, or just parroted it. The wikipediocracy article on sexism did make the claim, but they later corrected it with actual figures. I think the James Gleick article quoted the claim, which is itself a bit irresponsible without checking facts. In any case, I don't think the claim was ever true, for all or even just the american tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I figued I would nip the issue in the bud before another false claim along these lines was made. I have started working on Category:American women journalists so that it will not be subject to false smaller than claims.  So far I have found that Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents has little overlap with the women category, evne though close to half of its contents are women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Asian journalists at CfD
Is this a typo Category:American journalists of Indian descent to Category:American journalists of Indian descent? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * yup sorry fixed now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Direct attacks
I have now been nominated for banning at ANI because I put Filipachi in Category:American women journalists. They are claiming I directly ghetoized her because I did not put her in Category:American journalists, when in fact I put her in Category:American columnists. This is very outrageous, especially since one person has supported this move that has no basis in actual fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is my having actually removed Amanda Filipacchi from the category in question a-worth bringing up at the ANI, b-of any merit there, c-going to make me get banned for "edit warring". The whole attack seems over the top.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ANI I seem to be still being attacked for what makes no sense at all. I did not move Filipachi out of any gender-neutral categories.  The whole thing is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is causing me undue stress and anxiety. Why do people think they can ban users for following the rules in adding categories?  We even have a category that will not tend towards ghetoization.  It really distresses me that people seem to want to punish me because the media has attacked actions that are in part my fault.  The whole thing is very distressing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, just don't touch that special bio. Too many trigger-happy guardians. Not worth it. They will categorize the special bio appropriately in time, according to consensus. Meanwhile, if you want to contribute, just keep on de-ghettoizing - seek out past things you've done that may have ghettoized, and reverse them. A good record is the best thing if you're eager to continue - or if not, just go do something else for a while. I don't think the AN/ANI will result in a banning, especially for what you did - putting her in a gendered and non-gendered sub-cat of - you've violated no rules whatsoever! One thing that may help - a quick note on your front user page, that says "In the past, I mistakenly categorized people into only gendered categories, this was a mistake, and I'm making up for it (then show edits)." It's ok to make a mistake, if you own up to it. Stay strong, you'll be ok.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What is going on with the most recent edit to the AN where someone wants to ban me because I put someone in Category:American pornographic film actresses whose opening line was "Tané McClure (born June 8, 1958) is an American singer and pornographic actress." What is going on?  Are they going to ban all the other users who added people to that category?  This is more than bizarre.  I really feel attacked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * easy... just take it easy... they have lit torches and are bringing out pitchforks - but the truth will set you free. Just do careful categorization, follow the guidance, and you'll be fine. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not when people try to kill you for following the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am actually glad I removed Filipacchi from Caegory:American novelists even if she was put back in that category. At least the next time someone tries to add someone else back, they cannot claim I am treating Filipachi differently.  I am still totally puzzled by the attack on my categorization of Tané McClure.  I was following the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It still feels like it is open season to attack with extreme prejudice John for any edit he has ever done. This is more odd because there is an editor who actually changed the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you may not have realized
...that templating you was more or less required per probation terms. In this instance, DTTR (which is only an essay anyway) does not apply. I mention this due to your edit summary here. A dif of you being informed is needed for logging, and the content is set. While it is possible to handwrite a notification, the precise same content must be included, so we use the template. No disrespect was intended. I hope this information is helpful! Killer Chihuahua 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx for the civil explanation. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Very specific leavings of people in Category:American novelists
Ann Bannon and Stephen Crane have been returned to Category:American novelists despite being in century specific sub-cats. There is no explanation given for this action. I was half of the opinion to try to diffuse them again, but started discussions on the talk pages of both of them. It seems we may come to a point soon where four or five people will be left at Category:American novelists. I guess it still will take a lot more work, but it seems sloppy to have just two people before the letter e.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. If there's really to be an RFC (we shall see), perhaps it's better to deghettoize other parts of the tree like American women poets, etc, then wait to see what consensus is. There are some who strongly do not like the idea of a diffusing century cat, for reasons I still don't get... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If they do not like the by century cats, they are free to nominate them for deletion. The specific response to my comment on the Stephen Crane talk page, that I should "stop messing with categorization", really drives me nuts.  At present we have lots and lots of people who are clearly not in the right categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The person doing this insistance on keeping the people in the parent category even admits they have no objection to the by century categories, so their actions are really making no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In a different set of categories, I found this problem easily solved by use of the allinclude template: that allows diffusion into subcats AND keeps the general list.  (Sometimes both are needed and this is an elegant solution to the ongoing debate).  For it in use, see Category:Horse breeds.  Hope this helps.   Montanabw (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Truthkeeper
I am really frustrated by Truthkeeper's attacks. I am also outraged that people want to attack me for following the lead in categorizaation. Especially considering at other times I have been attacked for removing categories that have no mention anywhere in the article. If someone put something in the lead that does not belong there, should not that person be the one critizied for it? I see no reason to not categorizwe someone based on what the lead says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am so frustrated. I am trying to improve the project, but some people want to kill me for it.  No matter what I do someone attacks me.  If I focus too specifically on one type of categorization tI am attacked for that. Yet if I try to fix the overall categorization of an article based on what the lead says I am attacked for that.  What is with people always attacking me.  I can take it anymore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The attack just does not make sense. One suggestion for a category rule is "it is something that can be mentioned in a lead".  So now people are trying to kill me for categorizing something based on the lead.  This really does feel like a witchhunt.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * People wonder why wikipedia does not improve much. It is because any attempt you make to try to improve it is attacked.  If the opening sentace to someone is "Andrea Finess was an American dancer, singer and politcian", she should be in all those categories.  If people do not think she should be in all those categories they should edit the oepning sentance, not try to kill the person who did it.  It is all the more outrageous because these people are not bringing up these issues on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC threat
Someone has now suggested that an RFC be oepend against me. This is very worrying to me, especially since BPB has the long-standing grudge to do it, and Truthkeeper, Milocent and a few others might just be willing to try it. I think it is a totally uncalled for threat. No matter what I do people attack me. I am really, really, really worried about this. I have tried to abide by the rules. I have tried to make sure everyone put in [{:Category:American women jouranlists]] is also in a non-gendered journalists sub-cat. However people are still trying to destroy me. Maybe I am overly worried. However I do not want another RFC, and I think that creating the link to a potential RFC was uncalled for. I really am tempted to delete that section. There is absolutely no reason to start an RFC against me. However I am realy afriad someone will try if I do not do anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

by century novelists categories
Why do people complain about these and yet not start CfDs about them. Actually one of the people I brought this up with said that they thought the categories work. Some people almost seem to think that the status quo ante was acceptable. I really doubt that. They seem to actually want to shunt off romatic fiction writers and mystery writers, and then have Category:American novelists limited to some special group. Creating a CfD is very easy, yet they constantly gripe about things without really making a point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

cuisine of cats (that sounds so wrong...)
I'm not sure if you've noticed--I'm sure you have a lot of stuff on your watchlist--but I made a proposal at the cuisines of x category discussion, and I was trying very specifically to address what I think are your concerns, so I'd really like your opinion so everything wraps up neatly and a collegial atmosphere and not the usual nonsense that dogs discussions about nomenclature. Basically what I'm saying is, and I hope this came through in my commentary, I understand where you are coming from, and you have an excellent point when you say that certain foods are definitely associated with certain places (deep dish, Chicago; gumbo, New Orleans; etc). That's a real world categorization that people make, and therefore makes sense--is necessary actually. Our only point of difference is the definition of 'cuisine,' which I think I can explain better this way: if I tell you we're going to an Italian restaurant, you will have an immediate idea of the kinds of things you can probably expect, given the general spread of Italian cuisine through the western world. Same goes if I say French, or Diner, or Southern, or Tex-Mex; you will likely have an immediate sense of at least some things that will be on the menu. But what if I tell you we're going to a Pittsburgh restaurant? Or a Chicago restaurant? You'll think one dish. Maybe two... if you can fill up a whole menu, you've got a cuisine. Am I making more sense? It's difficult (but educational, so thank you) to have to explain what are common assumptions inside the industry.

Anyway, I look forward to your next contribution to the discussion; we may not agree entirely, but it is clear that your thoughts are deliberate and informed. The Potato Hose  ↘  05:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thx, appreciate the note; I responded further there. I see your point, but I think it's a matter of degree, and it feels a bit POV to label some things as cuisine and others as "food culture". I think we either have enough articles to create a cuisine cat, or we don't at all and just slot them into "culture". Otherwise it seems a bit of a downgrade.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Copy and paste this onto your user page, because you deserve it.

thx. appreciate it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty
Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

very wise
Jedi master. — Ched : ?  05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. I just think people might be forgetting what happened at Amanda Filipacchi and why the first salon article was written. We're heading down the same path on his article now... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Spam
Yes, that's better flatter. Thanks. Thought I needed to continue discussion over many pages, per name. Widefox ; talk 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology
I wanted to stop by and apologize for my intemperate closing comment at Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young. I've now given it a proper close, which I should have done initially. It was very frustrating to be the (seemingly) only person who felt it was critical to remove the COI content immediately, but I should not have directed that frustration at my fellow editors. I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia for a while, but I didn't want to log out before trying to make things right with the participants at the AfD. Hopefully we will meet again under happier circumstances. Best, 28bytes (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx, and no worries, water under the bridge already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know if you were editing, so figured I'd clean it up. I'm not an experienced spam fighter - I usually just revert, leave a warning or so, but I never follow up - is there something one should do? Someplace I should notify? cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, the warning's enough unless it doesn't stop. No point taking the time to report this kind of nonsense.  But thanks for taking care of it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the fun never stops. Thanks for the assist. I feel like we're in one of those hokey buddy westerns. Can I play Owen Wilson? You can be Jackie Chan. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aww, I tried to report it (twinkle does that - cool!) - but someone had beat me to the punch, and the IP is already blocked. What efficient processes we have here... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. Here's the note I was trying to leave you when I got hit with the ec:
 * Reported here by User:Racerx11. I was thinking more Lash LaRue and Randolph Scott. We'll flip for the white hat... ;)&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Swords?
Does this refer to me? If so, then you'll understand why there's a black banner on my page. More importantly though - is it really necessary to keep up the combative stance, particularly when I made it very clear that's what drives editors such as myself away? Don't bother answering, just thought I'd ask. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No - it just has to do with the fact that Alf and I were getting along well, I sent them a beer, etc, and then we bumped into eachother on another article. Just a light-hearted joke is all, and nothing to do with you. Cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Navigation
Blergh. Removing the category does make some of these difficult to find, and it's certainly a central characteristic of many of them. But I',m not sure how one would handle the category if it allowed inclusion; how antisemitic (or homophobic, etc.) does one have to be to merit inclusion? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. I wasn't part of those discussions, but would have voted the same way. Let the article discuss in detail their views, or create lists, but categories are just not the solution here. It's a bit easier on the other side, e.g. if someone has actively espoused a view and agrees with it, but many of these cats, like racism, anti-semitism, etc are negative labels as opposed to positive affirmations of an individual's POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

what you think?
what you think is not always going to be what carries the day. You have a very (opinion) high handed manner, at least in your talk page edits. I feel that a ADMIN warning IS an ADMIN action, so as such needs to remain on the page. it is not your roll to decide when a discussion is irrelevant or has gone on too far. This sort of unilateral editing is at the root of some of the problems that this particular article has been plagued by. That, and of course my carping. I have no plans to revert my edit. If you wish to end a discussion say so there and see what the others involved feel about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 22 May 2013‎
 * Two separate people asked you to desist that line of discussion, you haven't, I tried to BOLDLY close it off, you reverted... you will do what you like, I asked you to re-hat, you didn't want to. I don't want to argue this endlessly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on Obi, look on the bright side, this way should an admin say something I could not deny being warned. When an editor that I respect asks me to back off I typically will. I don't remember that happening.  However I do respect the Killer so will cease and desist as requested.  I have been told that I edit with my emotions.  One of the major observations about men is that they are not in touch with any of their emotions except perhaps anger, and even that is as often as not very appropriately expressed.  it's so confusing? Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't want to argue this endlessly. I also feel like you just said you don't respect me in a round-about way - but whatever, you reverted, I'm not going to dispute it, lets let sleeping dogs lie. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American films now needs purging
The CFD for Category:African-American films has (finally) been closed by me. As discussed, the category needs "purging". Because you participated in the discussion, I am notifying you in case you would like to participate in purging the category. I am not expecting that you do this or suggesting that it is your job; my comment here is simply a notification so you are aware of the situation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young's "Works"
I've commented on the talk page of "Robert Clark Young" about the exhaustive "Works" section that you've added. I don't wish to revert your edit myself (as I've decided not to touch that entry), but you might want to look at my remarks. NaymanNoland 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks - trust me it's far from exhaustive, look in the history. I checked a number of other bios, even for lesser known authors, Wikipedia seems pretty open to having quite long lists. While I appreciate that you're staying away from editing it, you should nonetheless consider that your views on this may not be neutral. I personally believe that his bio and it's contents should have nothing to do with behavior of qworty. Otherwise, we've sunk to his level. As you can see the article is filling up with (sourced) drama, so that will remain his legacy here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No question that I ain't neutral. Not sure anyone here really is. Restricting my comments to his talk page means that if my non-neutrality gets disruptive, I can be carefully dismissed. That said, I also checked out some other author bios - see the talk page. (My lack of neutrality is a useful counterbalance, I think, to excessive generosity mistaking itself for neutrality. I'm erring on the dark side, to make sure that we don't err on the saintly.  In between is appropriate.) NaymanNoland 00:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about link to Qworty Cleanup
I'm probably just being dense, but the redirect from the various Qworty Cleanup threads in fact takes you to this confusing long list of things, none of them related to this issue. You then have to know to click on the "talk" tab, in order to get to the actual cleanup page, which where you want to be. Is that normal? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply redirect to the talk page itself? NaymanNoland (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * that long list of things is the list of all edits made by Qworty. The idea is, look at the edit, and if the edit itself was bad, then go to the article, fix it, and mark the edit bad. The talk page is to discuss the overall project. The redirect, in any case, is just a redirect from your userspace, I don't think many people will be using it. We could split "clean-up" into multiple parts, but they should all be on or linked from the "project" page, and the talk page should be used to discuss the project itself. Feel free to add more exposition at the top of the project page to explain and give context.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, holy... That's a serious list. I thought it pertained to every single cleanup project on Wikipedia, but it's just QWORTY??? So much for the notion that we've "addressed everything". Yikes. NaymanNoland (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * we'll see. I just did a couple - almost all of his edits have already been addressed by other editors shortly after he did them. His technique was rather scorched-earth, but I have a bit of respect for it as it got results - there would be articles tagged for refs for 2 years, with nothing. Then Qworty swings by, ices the whole article, and two days later, it is restored, with more refs. So he compelled people into action. And frankly, while brutal, the edits I've seen so far are technically within guidance, especially around BLPs - unsourced information can be deleted on sight (but I think that provision was intended for removal of defaming information, but Qworty stretched that to apply to all information). So don't see that whole list as a list of terror - much of is it ogre or dragon-like rather. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say that I've seen several articles where Qworty deleted whole bibliographies, properly constructed with ISBNs, publishers and publication dates as "unsourced". The same goes for discographies, filmographies, etc. I've also seen links deleted as "dead link" that weren't, proper sources deleted and the material that was cited deleted afterwords as "unsourced", and other incorrect editing. Also, in some cases a general tag at the top of a page dating back years that suggests the article could benefit from more inline citations was used as an excuse to delete huge chunks of the article, ALONG with proper citations that had been added during those years, with a comment like "three years is long enough to wait". Qworty did not bother to examine the content of other editors' work and sort out the solid editing from the questionable, or simple tag items that he felt needed a citation with "citation needed"; his purpose was not to improve articles, but to sabotage them. He also engaged in what he called "streamlining", which meant deleting all headings and making whatever he left of the article into a less readable block of text; sort of "anti-Wikifying". Rosencomet (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's also true, I've seen ones like that as well. I didn't see any deletion of discographies/bibliographies yet, but I have only done a few... he did use a rather large axe when doing this work...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

CFD now closed
This CFD has been closed. Splitting can proceed. I have added it to WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ERGS rules
Am I reading ERGS rules right in assuming that all people in Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters should also be in Category:American hymnwriters or a non-religion specific sub-category thereof (which do not exist, there are no other sub-cats. I have to say that some of the arguments to keep this category really do seem to be "Latter-day Saint hymnwriters are not real hymnwriters, and we should not let them sit in the category for reald hymnwriters". Considering that William Clayton's "Come Come Ye Saints" is used in non-LDS worship, it is really off putting that people claim that Latter-day Saint written hymns are not used outside of Latter-day Saint worship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd read it that way too - some of the religion cats are trickier IMHO, but that one is simply "hymn writer" who is "Latter day saint", as such it should probably not be diffusing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for your help to edit
Hi Obiwankenobi: I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Wikipedia with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwankenobi, you may want to take a look at the findings of every single page Lightspeedx has taken this problem to. Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page. Here is a link to the sockpuppet investigation . Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick correction, braveyoda wasn't Lightspeedx's sockpuppet, they were a MeatpuppetCoffeepusher (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwankenobi, as you may see, I asked people how to cite a video/TV film credit. They said not to link to a YouTube if the said YouTube video is not uploaded by the copyright content holder. They suggested that I link using the actual TV footage credited to the original TV station/producer. I did that. I also added citation to Reuters, a printed book, etc for Andrews' titles. No matter how I try to cite or produce any online or print evidence to support the content, it is never enough. The reality is, it will never be enough because Coffeepusher, similar to Qworty and Little Green Rosetta prefers to delete as oppose to add. So, really, let's use some common sense here. Whether I asked in 50 or 5 forums, whether I am accuse of high crimes by anyone, let's parse it down to sheer common sense. Andrews won her titles, it is well-documented and is factual. Not lies. Not some fabricated crap that I made up. She also starred in 2 movies, acted in some stage plays and all of which are documented and are facts. She also appeared in music videos. 1 of which is mentioned in an LGBT publication. 2 of which her work isn't. Of these 2, one of which you can see her in it IF you know her and how she looks like. So I will agree with the advise of some people who have said that while I or any fans of her may know it is her, how can anyone else know? For that, well, unfortunately music videos don't publish a detail cast list (I've since learned that). So let's use common sense. Why are other entertainer bio pages full of mentions of their achievements without a need for miles of citations but yet Andrews' article is an anomaly where every one of her achievements seem to have to be verified by the Pope before it is allowed on a page? See the articles on Robert Wagner, Stefanie Powers, Cher as examples. Mr Wagner, Ms Powers, Ms Cher are very much alive and yet their bios have their filmography and professional achievements detailed out without citations. Those are some examples, there are many more. Why is the Andrews article picked apart? Coffeepusher has never been able to answer based on common sense. In fact, he does not even know who Andrews is nor researched or read up about her. He is merely here to continue Qworty and LGR's games by obstructing common sense edits. When I ask him for details as to why he objects, he resorts to ad hominem by bringing up meatpuppetry. I have never lied about that I may know some of the people who have edited the Andrews article. The key word here is "may". I cannot ascertain 100% if I know them personally unless they out themselves to me with their real names. Many people knew Ms Andrews in real life. She was very well traveled and was a very warm person who reached out to many people when she performed. Either they knew her or they knew friends of friends of hers. Please, let's use common sense here regarding the Andrews article. It's been so far lacking normality and common sense never existed in the Qworty and LGR world. Let's bring it back. Lightspeedx (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may want to take a look at WP:CANVASCoffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a look, and added her to some categories. If you know of more categories she should be in, please add them. Lightspeedx, I think there is a tricky balance here - primary sources *can* be used, even in BLPs, provided the information you pull out of them can be easily verified. For example, if there is an interview with the subject posted on youtube, the text on the video confirms this is an interview with Erica Andrews, and she says "I like blue dresses", then you can use that quote in the article. So, I think those who say you can't use primary sources are wrong. However, other sources, such as lists of drag-queen winners that aren't primary from the organizers of the contest itself, and can be filled in by someone simply emailing something, should not be used - even if "everyone knows". For sourcing information about things she acted in, you can cite the films directly if she is credited. Otherwise, you may just have to leave some things out - you could start a list at the top of her talk page, of things you know she has done but which you can't find sources for, and perhaps in time they could be added. I don't know why this article gets attention, perhaps because she recently died, and any time there are lots of editors looking, they tend to throw the book at an article and insist on adherence to the policy whereas other bios slip by. There's nothing much you can do about it - but having more eyes on it means more sources will be found.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

American novelists
When is a decision going to be made to either empty the head cat once and for all or to fill it completely. It looks like there is no more discussion really going on in the matter, and we right now have the under 100 people deemed "American novelists", essentially by just one editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's let it run a full 10 days. I'll propose to Alf that we will ask for an admin to close the discussion on May 4. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you mean June 4th?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yup sorry. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

note
thanks for your note. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sewing circle
Thanks so much for rescuing that article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you look at the german and spanish version, they are full-on about the lesbian story - barely a mention of the social aspect, which is IMHO much more notable and durable as opposed to just a sort of nick-name for some gals who got together in the 40s. In any case, it can still be significantly expanded, so I hope you can give it a shot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be away for the next week, but I'll definitely try to work on it when I get back. Meanwhile, I found Sewing circle (Mennonite), which could use a clean up, especially in light of the new direction of Sewing circle. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Container category
Hi. Recently I wrote the category preface and did not include template container category because the latter is emphatic and seems to draw a hard line: "contain only categories".

So I wrote "This is primarily a container category for subcategories of books grouped by publisher. It should not include articles on particular books, only on books by publisher." Certainly I thought of that, and omitted the template, because there was one list in the category. (It happens to be a poor one, whose name I misread as "... phantom ..." lowercase.)

I think some articles on particular small presses or fine presses should be and may be lists as I understand that here, broadly. Perhaps Underwood–Miller and Cheap Street are examples. As lists I suppose they would be pages in.

Are there other so-called container categories that do by design actually include subcategories and lists (and perhaps a main article such as Publishing) but no other articles?

--P64 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know the small press or fine press field and the latter article leaves me unknowing (Talk: Fine press). --P64 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... usually not, though there are exceptions. If you want to remove that template, that's fine with me. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

MR addition was sourced
Please explain, you did not provide a summary when you undid this. Was something wrong with the reference? Ranze (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ack sorry. Am on my phone hit that by accident I hit back and it said failed so I didn't THI I it went through. Not on purpose. Sorry. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Concepts
Greetings, There is an interesting thing going on with Category:Concepts, which I originally created. I am not sure what side I am on necessarily, but the result may have implications elsewhere, and I am wondering how things will go. There is an editor who is adding it to the "main classification" category. (I support your removal of it, I suppose). The intention of the "fundamental categories" is that between the four subcategories (matter, life, society, and concepts), they would cover every single article in Wikipedia. I am thinking this is also true of "main classification." So in my mind, that should mean that one should be reserved for the type of categories that would be the name of some academic department at a university, and the other would be ontological (i.e. it tells us what type of thing, the article is about). Any thoughts? Greg Bard (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all rather abstract, obviously. I guess the question is, is there value in having two top-level trees? Why not one? Or three? It's a bit arbitrary, in a way. I reverted the addition because it seemed they were supposed to be in one or the other, but then I saw that Society and Life were already in both, so... Part of me thinks it might be better to define a single top-level set (e.g. main classification) - but defining what that top-level *is* will keep philosophers up at night... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is that every single article in Wikipedia should be in at least two categories. One tells you "what it is" and the other tells you "who studies this." Greg Bard (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ? As in, directly? There are plenty of articles only in 1 category, and there are probably even *more* categories that are in only 1 category. In any case, I'm not sure if those pages are that frequented - who ever goes to anyway? How many hits a month does it get? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean category trees, for classification purposes. I don't know how popular anything is, and I don't find that metric useful in this case. The idea is that we are clear on what is being discussed in the article, and what the article is intended to be about. Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying every article should be in at least 2 categories, and one of those categories should lead up to meta-cat-X, while another cat should eventually lead up to meta-cat-Y? the problem is, with topic categories (which many of these are, at the top level), you're not dealing with true sub-set relationships - instead you're dealing with "is related to". This happens all the time in the cat system, and I've decided you can't really fix it - there are going to be *relations* that are captured as parent-child relationships. I guess, in my mind, there isn't much difference between having one top-level category with 20 topics, and having two top-level cats (one with 4, the other with 16). For the vast majority of users, they will never notice the difference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I can understand the confusion. Things are quite mushy. Some categories are formed in a "x is related to y" manner, and some are formed in an "x is a type of y" manner. It is difficult to be responsible for consistency. I do believe that every article should be in at least two categories, and the only exception should be articles that are also the main article for a category (in which case it can be in just that one). Yes, very few people ever know the difference, because it doesn't make a difference to the vast majority, because it only makes a difference if you look to the supracategory of a supracategory of a supracategory, etcetera. I think it makes the biggest difference when articles and categories are split or merged, and people have to make a choice. Greg Bard (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at this: - I mean, what is the point? I can't see it mattering that we find some way to guarantee that you can get to every article through one of two paths, when the actual paths are forking, twisted, and innumerable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. No one is "getting to articles" using these paths. The purpose of categories isn't just navigation, it's classification. Greg Bard (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, theoretically, it seems you're suggesting that from any article, one should be able to click up the category tree and end up in one of two places, right? Not that someone would do this, but more as a conceptual exercise? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey
I saw your thread on User talk: Tarc. I agree with you, the comment was completely uncalled for. IMO, after watching Tarc more closely prior to his post in ANI on the Filipacchi dispute, that comment takes the cake as one of the worst I've seen him make. Therefore, I will be bold and strike it for him, since it obviously construed a personal attack. You may want to inform him of my striking, since He has "banished" me from his talk page. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar  16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. I bet Tarc will revert. But I wonder, more broadly, why has nothing been done about this? He's been brought to task for his incivility many times in the past, there's even an external website devoted to cataloging his incivility, and yet, no sanctions have been imposed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for sloth. Kristin Beck is awaiting your advocacy. Drmies (talk)


 * sorry, gonna be a busy weekend. will try to look later --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

re Fuck peer review

 * 1) Fuck (film)
 * 2) Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) - admit it - you are doing all of this just so you can write "Fuck peer review" as a (valid) header for a section. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, well I suppose it's a side benefit... &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Women sportswriters
The thing is that there isn't any need for it to be marked as a non-diffusing category. If its non-diffusingness is a completely moot point, because its parent category is already diffused and thus there isn't any content for the "non-diffusing" category to non-diffuse in the first place, then what's the value in it? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is *still* non-diffusing, just as is non-diffusing on  or  is non-diffusing of . I think we just need to fix the template so that it says something like "This is a non-diffusing sub-cat of X. Its contents should remain in X, or in a diffusing sub-category of X." Technically, if we are following the last-rung rule, then every non-diffusing gendered category will have a diffusing category as a sibling, and the articles need to be placed in both the non-diffusing and the diffusing cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, fyi:Template_talk:Distinguished_subcategory. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A category that could use some attention
Per your comment a few minutes ago about you not liking cruft, and our previous talk about some animal rights-related categories, I thought I'd draw your attention to Category:Animal rights advocates. I'm not saying that the category needs to be deleted or anything, but I do think that it's ridiculously overpopulated, with every celebrity who has ever said anything nice about animal rights, as opposed to persons who have made such advocacy a central part of what they do. I don't have the inclination to do it, but, if you want to, I think it would be very helpful to go through each page in the category, and remove the category from those where animal rights advocacy is not presented in the text as a major activity of the person. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to, just a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of these advocacy categories are cruft-collectors, because ill-defined. (As an FYI, I've nominated the vegans category tree for deletion, weigh in if you like.) If I find some free time I may go through and clean out animal rights advocates, but perhaps first would be better to start a discussion on the talk page re: inclusion criteria which are ill defined for now I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll do both of those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MM bio draft
Hi Obi, I've (finally) had a look at the draft and made a (suggested) edit, just because the sourcing in that first section is a bit weak. I think less is more in that case; see what you think. One might also debate whether sources 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 should be cited, given that they are primary sources, but it might be defensible in this special case. Rest looks good. Best, Andreas JN 466 05:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * cheers, thanks so much. Yes, I know they are primary sources, but I think we can cite primary sources if the material we are pulling is simple, per WP:PRIMARY, and given these things have already been described in other secondary sources, such as the FOSS architecture book. But I appreciate the review.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CFD
Hello; you recently participated in a discussion about Category:Reissue albums, which I closed as "no consensus". The category has now been re-nominated for deletion; you may be interested in participating in this second nomination. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should include sets such as The Beatles Stereo Box Set, correct? -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yes I think so. To me reissue means the album remains intact somehow - a compilation is more of a mishmash of multiple albums. A box sex of reissues should be placed in reissue albums unless we get so many we create reissue box sets...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet Category:Box set albums was deleted even though the first sentence in such article probably starts with "Foo is a box set...". -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ireland CfD

 * this diff

Per the CfD, I've reverted the above edit (for now).

Please also see User_talk:Fayenatic_london. - jc37 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:DeltaQuad
I have no idea why folks want to jump the gun on this - CU results were out. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories
Hey I noticed you blanked the category on my page. This was there simply to have a link to it for a project I am working on. I didnt realize I was added into the category. Is there a way I can have a link such as Category:Straight edge individuals but that links to the category? Black Dragon 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sure try --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

K thanks Black Dragon  15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kristin Beck
The DYK project (nominate) 01:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Obi. Did you count the hits? Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, traffic seemed to about double. Thanks again for your help. happy fathers day! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy **** - calling User:Drmies - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Kristin_Beck - almost 11,000 hits yesterday! Wow... DYK is bad-ass. Ok, I have another one for you: User:Obiwankenobi/sandbox/Magnus - take a look and let me know your thoughts. Its a (somewhat famous) wikipedian. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, isn't it funny? Mind you, I rarely go over 2,500 hits or so for my DYKs. I knew this was going to be a big one. Congratulations Obi! Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For Magnus you could consider that toast for a hook... Looks like good stuff, Obi. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

dashes
My edit summary was a bit unclear. I prefer spaced endashes and I don't mind emdashes. But when using the emdashes, we ought to be consistent in usage. Either all unspaced or all spaced. Not a combo. – S. Rich (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * of course - feel free to remove the spurious spaces - but I don't think spaced endashes are used commonly, and since it already had emdashes, we should stick with that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Already - done – by — me. Your-good–buddy—S.Rich (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hehe. nicely done! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton closure
Regarding your recent closure of the Hillary Rodham Clinton move proposal, I must ask that you undo it. While there are several elements that I think are significantly amiss about the closure (things I'll elaborate when I have a few more minutes to spare, as may others), the most severe and immediate is that renaming a stable article title isn't warranted without consensus – and the contentious discussion (from which the proposer himself has been instructed to disengage) is about as far from consensus on support for the move as any I've seen.

I'm posting this as an earnest attempt at a resolution, per WP:MR; given the lack of consensus, I again strongly urge you to undo the "move" closure. Thank you. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 03:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the civil note. When i first looked at it (i came to it through RM backlog), I decided to not do it. Then, as I read it, I felt that there were strong arguments on both sides, and no-consensus to move was the result, so I decided to try to close it. Then as I read the arguments again, and a third time, and studied the policies and guidance quoted by people, I realized that there was a policy-based consensus to move, and those opposing had weaker arguments. So I didnt come into it with an expectation, rather through careful consideration of the arguments. Consensus is not about counting heads, and if I did count heads, it would have been roughly even. Instead, consensus is about the strength of arguments presented. The support side pushed on several fronts, but mainly on commonname and precision and conciseness. These are all pure policy arguments, and HC passes on all of these. The oppose arguments were a bit more scattered, but not as strongly based on policy considerations. Some on the oppose side basically admitted that HC was probably more common in sources, so it could have been moved on that basis alone, but I ultimately felt that would not be enough, as it is not overwhelming, its more like say 50% more common in books for example. However, when you add to that precision and consiceness, that pushes it over the edge. It was an oppose voter who introduced this line of reasoning, which i agreed with in principle, but it was support voters who pushed on the precision angle which i hadnt really captured in the first read through. So, it was a tough call, but I do think there was a policy-based consensus there. Remember, its not headcount, its strength of policy and guidance based arguments. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are mis-using the word "consensus". To have consensus there must be general agreement. Perhaps not unanimous, but without strong and clear opposition. There was strong and clear opposition in this case, and policy-based arguments were made on both sides. Without general agreement, the kind of move that you performed can only cause strife. What do you mean by "policy-based consensus"? Omnedon (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * trust me, I have read the consensus policies many times. Rough consensus does not mean agreement by all or most parties. In addition, we can discard arguments that aren't based on policy or guidance. I outlined arguments that I discarded, and outlined why one side had much stronger policy-based arguments to move. The other side wasn't citing policy, or when they did, they were mis-citing it, and I gave examples of that. Yes it was contentious discussion, and good arguments all around, but the move arguments are stronger and purely based on policy and had evidence behind them. I came to this conclusion based on careful reading of he guidance and policy they all quoted. For example, the oppose voters said things about correctness and official names and its her real name and all sorts of other arguments which may have been useful ancillary arguments, but when put agains commonname, precise, and concise, they just can't compare - and those three are all policy So that's what I mean - if you weigh the arguments based on applicability to titling policy, you get consensus to move. I would find consensus to move with 2 arguing to move and 10 arguing against if the arguments of the two are policy based and the arguments of the 10 Are not - no matter how vociferous. Read 'determining consensus' which explains this point. Finally, there  was rough consensus, across all players, that commonname held for HC, and rough consensus / no debate that HC is more concise - which is a key aspect right at the top of WP:AT. If you read carefully, they even agreed that HRC was more precise than HC, but you dont need to be the most precise, you need to be precise enough, and there was no dispute that HC was not precise enough. Thus, on the substantive points, there was consensus, where there was disagreement was on the end result, but you always have that. Again, I did not expect this call going into it, I expected the opposite, but the policy based arguments held sway and were simply much stronger..I disagree with your point that strong opposition means a non consensus finding. If that were the case, we'd never close anything here. Ultimately, it was a call, that I believe is well within reason, but you're welcome to disagree, and I hope it is restored and taken to MR so I can explain it further if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Trust me as well -- I've long dealt with various interpretations of consensus, conciseness, et cetera, as many of us have. Details of the decision will, I'm sure, be discussed at the review, but for now...  Many discussions are not as controversial as this and close one way or the other without issue or substantial difficulty. And in any case, it's simply not right to say "we would never close anything" -- this discussion was inevitably going to be closed as all discussions are, but it should have been closed as "no consensus". This was clearly controversial, and I entirely disagree with your assessment that "the policy based arguments held sway and were simply much stronger" as if to say that only the "pro" side had policy-based arguments -- both sides made those arguments, and there were responses to the "pro" arguments which you seem to have disregarded. In a case like this it should have been patently obvious that performing the move would cause conflict. Where there is no consensus, we don't move, to avoid that very thing. And a side note -- there is an odd definition of "concise" that seems to be prevalent on Wikipedia. Some seem to equate "concise" with "shortest". It's not. Conciseness involves saying much with few words, being both brief and comprehensive. It simply isn't "shortest". Thus, "Hillary Clinton" is not necessarily more concise than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Having said all this, I will repeat (as I did on the article talk page) that I believe you acted in good faith, but will add that you were misguided, although attempting to do the right thing. See you at the review. Omnedon (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * re: concise, I was reading the language in the policy, which is pretty explicitly about length. That is consensus policy, and that language is explicit. If you disagree with the language around concise, I'm sure you know what to do - but debating it in a RM isn't really valid, which is why I downgraded that line of argument. You should outline all of the policy-based arguments for oppose - I only saw one significant one, which was COMMONNAME - I didn't see any other policies being invoked with regularity (the oppose votes were mostly around softer issues). Of course doing the move would cause conflict, but so would closing a no-consensus - there are many passions on both sides of this debate, but that doesn't mean there isn't a clear policy-based consensus for moving, which I found (already detailed elsewhere). Finally, the "if there isn't consensus we don't move", I see this as a red herring - of course we don't move if there's no consensus, that why the finding is called no-consensus. But again, consensus is not judged by strength of numbers, but strength of arguments, and no-one put forth arguments that sufficiently contested commonname, precise, or concise - all policy based. Even if we ignore the strong evidence for the supporters, and end up calling COMMONNAME a wash, then the other two lead us to move anyway, for the good of the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never said that consensus was a simple vote, yet you seem to keep hitting that point. But you simply cannot have a consensus where serious arguments are made on both sides by many participants. I entirely disagree that closing with no-consensus would have generated this same kind of upset, as that is the expected result of a situation where no consensus exists. Even some editors who favored the move see your evaluation of consensus in that debate as flawed. It is simply not true that the only policy-based oppose argument was based on common name -- for example, MelanieN cited WP:TITLE. Omnedon (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, she did - she actually quoted WP:TITLECHANGES, and I explicitly addressed that in the close (WP:TITLE is just the overall policy for titles). However, her arguments around TITLECHANGES were disputed (I think by B2C), and as I recall no other editors took her up on it or defended it. Per the guidance on finding consensus, "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." If more people had argued for WP:TITLECHANGES then this may have had an impact, but they didn't - it was brought up and discounted. Further, the ngram and other evidence provided strong proof that SOMETHING has indeed changed, and that usage of HC is changing over time - this was an argument made by the support camp, and the oppose camp didn't have much to say against that either.
 * If you study the case again, the arguments, from a policy perspective, centered otherwise almost entirely around WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, and conciseness, and the evidence on balance for all three of these was clearly in the move camp. Again you state "simply cannot have a consensus where serious arguments are made on both sides by many participants". I disagree completely, absolutely, and totally with this statement, and you really need to go read some of the even more brutal arguments that have been had in the past - say the Jerusalem RFC, or the Ireland article titles, or any other such thing. There are many cases where there are STRONG policy arguments on both sides of an issue, but still, a call is made. In this case, the policy arguments overwhelmingly favored one side. The other side had good, and serious arguments for their position, but they were largely NOT policy-based. That's why I made the judgement I did. FWIW, in the MR, you said I had interpreted conciseness to mean "no longer than necessary", but that is not an interpretation, that is a DIRECT QUOTE.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a DIRECT QUOTE that was incomplete. You used only a portion of the sentence to support your own interpretation. From this point, continuing at the review. Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Hillary Clinton
An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. user: j (talk)  05:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My unformulated thoughts
Yeah... I usually do formulate my thoughts before I write... this time I didn't. My apologies. I understand how it can cause problems, especially on a high traffic talk page like that. Thanks for the polite reminder. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

FGM
Noticed some comments you made on various talks, it really is a difficult article to improve with all the POV-holders reverting anything that adds clarify eh? Ranze (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Also I'm blocked from editing there due to edit warring for a little while yet I think... I think it's crazy that they refuse to provide a link to Clitoridotomy from that page, and that they reverted sourced additions to the synonyms list without reading refs. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion
Hi, again, Obi. I noticed your mentioning the various notifications you've left for others regarding the move review discussion. It looks like every person you've invited (thus far) to comment has been supportive of your close... While I'm sure that's more of a coincidence of timing, inviting a user who has commented recently in support of non-administrator closes, but not any others from those discussions who may have not supported such closes is probably not the best selection of a neutral audience. ;) I'm just as interested in a clear outcome in this review as you are, but it would probably be best to allow a neutral party to make any such invitations in the future.  (Which excludes me, too. The appearance of selecting a non-neutral audience, even if that isn't my conscious intent, is the reason I usually avoid making notifications at all.) My goal is just to try to make sure that there isn't further drama surrounding the move and its review...  I just don't want to see the outcome of the review be unnecessarily questionable, no matter which way it goes.   user: j  (talk)  16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had intended on notifying everyone yesterday, but didn't get around to it. I did notify several people who voted oppose - what I did was walk through the whole list, exclude anyone who had already !voted in the move review, and inform everyone else. I did not exclude notification of anyone because of their !vote on the rename - if I did, please let me know and I will correct immediately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One reason I think notifying everyone who commented in the requested move isn't usually very helpful is because it often simply becomes a re!vote of the original discussion. Either way, mentioning the notifications in the move review was a good idea.  And I almost think the discussion there has been more in-depth than was the original move debate.  Oh, well.   user: j  (talk)  17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. HOwever, as you've seen, we've already had several people switch sides - some !oppose voting to endorse, some "support" voting to relist. I'm personally getting rather tired of the supervote attacks, to be honest. I actually spent about 30 minutes building a case for strong keep based on some of the oppose arguments, I forget which - but then had to discard them based on something else I read in the policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't on that argument. (I mean that sincerely and frankly, not pejoratively.)  While I think the amount of refinement it took for you to find any consensus either way would be seen by some as a case of reasoned thought, I think it also makes an argument that the consensus simply wasn't clear.  I realize you've had an epiphany that made the consensus clear to you, and I realize your detailed close summary was an attempt to share that epiphany with others, but it didn't quite happen (at least not for me).  Then, again, the lengths you went to to share your rationale behind your close — even if I disagreed with part of it — is what reaffirmed for me your good faith in making the close.  It was still a very bold close that I disagreed with, but clearly not one that you made without considerable thought.   user: j  (talk)  17:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I feel like the more I explain, the more people think it's a supervote, so perhaps I should just stop talking. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning, to people (not you, but others) who are assuming bad faith it seems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's a larger, underlying issue: that wp:officialnames may be somewhat inadvertently exposing the project's systemic wp:bias. In both the requested move and move review discussion, we are (almostly entirely) a bunch of guys — based on a quick, unscientific survey of our user pages of those participating — arguing that a notable woman's choice to retain her maiden name as an important part of her name after marriage may be, essentially, unimportant by a particular — but contested — interpretation of our policies and guidelines.  That may be fuelling some of the heightened concern.  While I don't think it should be directed at you, or any given editor, it is something that I think is a genuine concern.   user: j  (talk)  19:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. I think only Tarc brought up the "sexist" angle here, but I'm frankly not seeing it - seems to be making mountains out of molehills, esp given Hillary's own website and twitter and many other things besides have no maiden name attached. If she scrupulously eschewed it, that would be understandable, but if you read articles on this, the middle name has come and gone over her career more due to political expediency - they do polls and compare which name works better. I can guarantee you without a doubt, if she runs in 2016, they will do focus groups and polls and use the name that plays best, regardless of her sensibilities. As such, I think in this particular case, it's not really a relevant issue, given she's a politician. Plenty of married, powerful women do not retain their maiden name as a middle name, and plenty of others do. It's really a personal choice. Now, if we go down the road of saying "if all else is equal, go by the subject's preferred moniker", I could see that, even as a policy added to WP:AT. Another option could be: if COMMONNAME is under dispute or split (e.g. encyclopedias do it this way, books do it that way), go with the official name. But it's not in the policy now, so I (obviously) couldn't close based on that. Anthonyhcole is saying I should have invoked IAR and reasoned based on that, but it's the same issue - IAR was not brought up, so as a closer I can't bring it in, that would get me in even more trouble.

One more thing - I've been somewhat muted about this over there, but I want to share it here - I really think the ngrams test is quite powerful. If ngrams showed "Hillary Clinton" always beating "Hillary Rodham Clinton", I would be less impressed - since we might say "well, the book starts with HRC, then the rest of the time they call her HC" - but that's NOT what the ngrams show. Instead, they show a switch - from HRC being DOMINANT, to HC being dominant, over the past 8 years. That to me is compelling evidence of a shift in usage as argued by several editors, and several other editors found that graph compelling as well. I participated in the Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast move, and was quite disappointed when it moved to Ivory Coast - the whole thing hinged on COMMONNAME, and that was a much more robust argument with much better evidence brought, and frankly a much closer call, as it depended on which news source you used to paint the picture - encyclopedias/etc use Cote d'Ivoire, while news outlets in the UK use Ivory coast, but news outlets in Africa use Cote d'ivoire, so there was systemic bias in our selection of only "western" news sources vs "english-language" news sources. If it taught me one thing, it is this - determining COMMONNAME can be difficult. For an example of open/shut COMMONNAME, check out Deadmau5 which was recently moved to Deadmaus - here's an example of completely obvious commonname, as in, orders of magnitude more usage, but it conflicts with our titling guidelines, so it got moved. I still haven't voted myself, but it's an absolute mess over there.

In any case, my previous experience with contested moves is why I roundly discarded the raw google search results - those are basically meaningless. Much stronger, but not fully done, is searching directly in an agreed upon set of high quality news sources (you have to choose the sources first, then test, to avoid confirmation bias), and then clicking through to the end of the results to get the ACTUAL numbers. Someone did do a search of news sources that was strong, but they didn't do the click through. That is why, in spite of the edge I gave HC for COMMONNAME, I never would have closed on that basis alone.

I would actually be supportive of a change to WP:AT to say "If commonname is strongly disputed, and the subject's "official" name is one of the commonnames, prefer that - even if it's less concise." That way, Ivory Coast could move back, and Hillary would as well, so we'd both get what we want :) FWIW, if we *did* change that policy, I'd be on the front lines of arguing to move her article back.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd make the leap from systemic gender bias to "sexist." The latter implies much greater intent, at least in terms of how I think about the concepts.  I will say that, once again, I'm impressed by your thought process and how you describe it (even if I don't agree with every single assumption, I see how you arrived there and ultimately agree with a lot of your conclusion).  I think that the relative decrease in the usage of one and the "surge" in the usage of the other wasn't her doing, but rather an animal of the office she held during that period of time...  "Secretary of State Rodham Clinton" was relatively unheard of compared to "Secretary of State Clinton."  Clearly the State Department's official biography of her, its press releases, her speeches, etc. all usually included "Rodham."  But fitting "Sec'y Clinton,"1 "Secretary Clinton," "Secretary of State Clinton," or even "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" into a headline or even copy is a lot easier than "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton."  Modern newsmedia focusses a lot on social media, platform or channel versatility, etc.  Which means shortest often wins out over accuracy or even concision, which is what I think skewed the past few years the most (plus the resulting feedback loop across all platforms, triggered from that).  That being said, I think your idea re: wp:at makes a lot of sense and I would, likewise support that concept.  (While still understanding that, at least in my interpretation, wp:official was more geared towards preventing the article from being at Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton than it was at trying to move it away from Hillary Rodham Clinton.)   user: j  (talk)  20:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * re: sexist - sorry didn't mean to go there, just every time Tarc sees me it seems, he accuses me of being sexist or misogynist, so I'm just a bit defensive on that point. Hmm. Yes, I can see your point. However, on the "headline/copy being shorter" issue, I think in the case of a book, that doesn't obtain - you don't have length restrictions. If you read my close, I very explicitly rejected the argument that "the article title is where the subject is identified, and the first line is their official name", because of exactly what you said - headlines are shortened, so we should not be surprised to see HC instead of HRC in a headline. Thus, I rejected that as a way to discredit sources that used HC in the title and HRC in the first line of the body. I still think the body counts more than the headline. But this is all rather pedantic, given that "Martin Luther King" is ALWAYS "Martin Luther King" --> - so when someone is *only* known with their middle name, it shows, and sources follow it. Yesterday I started playing with google search trends, which is another interesting way to see what are USERs looking for. Now, the results for Hillary are not surprising:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * But you may say, well it's a search, who's gonna bother typing the middle name in? But check out this:
 * Jamie Lee Curtis
 * Edward James Olmos
 * John F Kennedy


 * Thus, by large margins, people search for those last 3 WITH the middle name, but they don't search for Clinton WITH the middle name. I'm not offering this as evidence for the close, as (a) I found it yesterday and (b) No-one brought it up, but I think we should enhance COMMONNAME with some more help for people on how to determine "frequency of use in reliable sources" - it's terribly vague, and if you know what result you want, you can cook up data to fit it. There should be a standard, that we just apply unless someone can show otherwise. The standard should be:
 * ngrams
 * google scholar search, clicking through to the end to calculate actual #s of results
 * google trends, so we see what USERs are looking for
 * Other encyclopedias (at least 3) references
 * Search of 10 agreed upon news outlets, scoped appropriately for the topic (thus, for a Brit, use UK sources; for an American, American, for a country in Africa, use Africa-based english-language media; for a musician, Billboard and RollingStone, etc.). To make it fair, each side could decide on 10 outlets, then the other side would choose 5 of them (sort of like, I cut the cake, you choose the slice).
 * Absolutely forbidden would be bullshit like "ZOMG, "Hillary Clinton has 54,000,000 hits, while Hillary Rodham Clinton has only 24,000,000 hits" - its completely useless, as those google hits are just (very) wild estimates, and basically meaningless beyond 1-2 orders of magnitude.


 * If we had a rough consensus standard for determination of COMMONUSE, it would make so many move discussions much easier, as everyone would just do the standard searches, and then debate the merits of the results were inconclusive - it would be so much better than the current thrashing around in circles we see in these moves so often.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt and Hillary
I understand your reasoning for ignoring the WP:Yogurt Rule. However, if your decision survives review, it will stand as a test of this "rule". I hereby predict time will prove the applicability of the rule in this case, as 3, 6, 12, 24, 48+ months from now, unless something radical changes, (like she becomes president and usage of HRC becomes more prevalent again), there will be no strong argument to move the article back to HRC, so it will stay at HC. --B2C 20:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion above, I've actually argued that if we change "official name" to upgrade it as more of an option in policy in cases where COMMONNAME is disputed and hard to discern, I would !vote to move Hillary Clinton back to Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, I don't think yogurt would apply here. Also, I looked at and read carefully the other day all of the old moves. They were all terrible, from the support side - terrible arguments, not based on policy, and clear KEEP or no-consensus. I guess the verve was there, but not the argument, so I'm not sure what yogurt has to do with that, but the past renames never would have passed, at least I never would have closed them any other way (except even more strongly to keep vs no-consensus)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. But whether or not the good arguments for moving were actually argued in the previous attempts, all that should matter for the WP:Yogurt Rule to apply is for the arguments to exist, and to have been argued in at least one (including only in the current) proposal.  --B2C 19:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I think only time will tell. In any case, thank you for the kind comments at the move review. I have caught a sh*tload of flack for that move, but the !votes seem closely split for now, so who know what will happen here... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a landmark RM case on several points. First, it tests the recent apparent change in community consensus with regard to accepting controversial NACs. Personally, I have always thought NACs were fine, but my understanding of community consensus was that they should be limited to "obvious" cases.  That seems to have changed, but many are not aware of that. Second, it's about reading WP:CONSENSUS based on strength of the arguments presented in a discussion vs. measuring WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essentially by counting !votes. Although everyone knows closers are not supposed to do the latter, many apparently expect it.  Consider how many in the RM review seek overturning based solely on their unsubstantiated opinion that there was no consensus.  Why is it unsubstantiated?  Because they only way they could substantiate their reading of "consensus" as being "no consensus" is by counting !votes and finding them to be nearly equally distributed. Finally, if it survives review, it will be an eventual test of the WP:Yogurt Rule.  Yes, you, the closer, did not explicitly invoke it, but that's not necessary.  After all, it was not explicitly invoked at Yogurt either.  The idea is that in any case where the three conditions are met, and the title is changed (regardless of whether explicitly invoking the Yogurt Rule is at play in deciding to make the change), that the title will be stable and not seriously challenged again (unless something external changes).  If that happens in this case, then the Yogurt Rule will be sustained.  If it doesn't, then it will be disproven (at least in the form it sits now).  I hope that eventually the rule will be proven a sufficient number of times to gain community consensus support so it can be regularly invoked as appropriate. Very interesting.  --B2C 20:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. well, I didn't mean to start anything dramatic - as I said, I went into it expecting NC! I should have stuck with that gut feeling :( Anyway, life goes on. I have asked at Huwmanbeing's page for them to tell me explicitly what are the policy-based arguments for keeping at HRC. I've read the discussion several times, but if you are ONLY looking for a policy reason to keep at HRC, I haven't found it. OTOH, what would you think about a change to WP:AT that says "If COMMONNAME is disputed/unclear, and one of the common names is also the official name/subject's own preference, then prefer the official name." ? That would actually switch a lot of this RMs in a different direction, but not necessarily bad - since COMMONNAME is sometimes really hard to establish.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, when common name is difficult to establish, I think official name is a reasonable tie breaker, assuming it's not broken by any of the other criteria, and that the official name is also one of the titles in the "tie" (that is, if the two most commonly used names are A and B, you don't use C just because neither A nor B is clearly most commonly used, and C is the official name). But that was not the case here.  HC is clearly more commonly used, so there was no need for a tie breaker of any kind.  Besides, concision breaks the tie in favor of HC already.  --B2C 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I had said elsewhere that if it was between Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham instead, I probably wouldn't have found for a move, since both are precise enough, and both are equally concise. Are you aware of other people who are known by 2 and 3 names, where usage in RS can be split (e.g. an encyclopedia might have it one way, but a news article would have it the other?)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Li
I might do that later on. I gotta sign off now, I'll be out for the rest of the day. Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring you or anything ;) --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush. i was gonna try, but then decided against it - since I don't speak chinese... I've been able to create interwiki links in the past to foreign languages, but this one requires expert help! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Noticed that 栗 doesn't have an article on zhwiki; the zh:百家姓 (hundred family surnames) article has zh:栗姓 as a redlink. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, that's very kind. (Note to stalkers: this was for this), on our friend Deadmau5. Now I'm gonna have to download some songs, so I know wtf I'm talking about...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For a quick catchup: Ghosts 'n' Stuff is the one that got them their fame and they are also known for several works such as Professional Griefers (The most expensive dance music video to date!), Aural Psynapse, Maths (song) and has even toured! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * k thanks for the recs! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK
Issues were raised at your DYK nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Mrv template
Per previous discussion, only editors are involved in move discussions, and move review discussions, so the only place for the Mrv template, which indicates there is a discussion in progress, and an MRVdiscuss template, which indicates there was a discussion, is on the talk page. There never are both templates at the same time, although they have already been merged into one template, despite the discussion not being closed yet. Hillary Clinton currently has the appropriate template on the talk page, which is why it was simply removed from the article space, where it does not belong. Apteva (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this discussion - where is it? And why woulnd't we want to notify readers of a move review? It suggests there was a controversial title move, they should know too... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, re: false distinguising between editors/users, see study by Aaron Schwartz on Who writes wikipedia: . We should be very cautious about creating a false dichotomy between editors and readers - much of our content comes from "readers" who add a few key lines here and there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion on whether to put requested move templates on the article was at Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2013. The emphatic answer, particularly on Mrv was "No". Apteva (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am considering closing the Hillary Clinton move review, but before I go any further, please could you tell me how many RM closes have you done? If "lots" then just the number over the last month. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No edits from August 20, 2012 to March 17, 2013, since then:

-- Apteva (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Pitbull (rapper)
 * 2) Talk:Reebok insider trading case
 * 3) Talk:FilmAffinity
 * 4) Talk:The Dakota
 * 5) Talk:Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka)
 * 6) Talk:Corporate spin-off
 * 7) Talk:Extra (acting)/Archives/2013
 * 8) Talk:Deadmau5 Circa 1998–2002
 * 9) Talk:Hillary Clinton

Mrv template location
Per request, can we come to a consensus on where this template should be located? My understanding is it was originally located on the article page, but was essentially never used there, and per discussion was moved to the talk page. It was, in my opinion, erroneously moved back to article space, with no discussion. Several links have been provided to discussions about having links to requested move discussions on article pages. This is a followup to your post about deadmau5.

Readers have no problem finding the talk page of an article, and actually often use it to find out the reason the article says what it does. This is a topic that has been discussed at length with the result that it should be on the talk page. The Mrv template would be nothing but a tease as pretty close to 100% are not overturned. My recollection is that Deadmaus has already been re-opened, but I see that it is editors complaining, and not very many IPs, but this one sure did, although it is not their first deadmau5 edit. Would the Mrv closure been different if it had been advertised sooner on the article? Not likely. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been at least 3 requests at the help desk from IPs on how to move the Deadmaus article back. After it was moved, an influx of editors arrived to !vote the other way. The whole discussion would have been much different, IMHO, if the original MOVE had been notified on the article page itself. I think we should retain mrv and recreate the move-notice template as well, not for use on every move, but on any move which may be considered controversial, which is widely advertised, or in which many editors participate. A move review itself suggests that the discussion was contentious, and thus it's even more of a reason to inform readers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It will just be Tfd'd in my opinion, and just divert from the more important issue, of getting articles to be at the correct title. Nobody complains when they are. Overturning a move close is almost impossible, but I am guessing that Hillary Clinton will be, as far as I know the only one to ever be overturned. I would not want to see "controversial" be used as a criteria for using a template on the article. Basically they either belong there or they do not, and long standing practice is to not have anything on the article. This goes all the way back to the beginning of RM's. Apteva (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Magnus Manske
Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga.
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Men's Issues
Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights.

I have gone ahead and created a candidate page for WikiProject Men's Issues and will make the page an actual WikiProject page once enough people sign up and give their input. I think it would be useful to have a place where work together to prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights.

Interested? Ummonk (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese provinces; renaming discussion
Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Stress
I'm sorry you are stressed. I can certainly identify with that, as I'm sure many of us can. You took a step you believed was correct, and ended up in the middle of a conflict. I'm sure that is disheartening. Wikipedia is an odd, and occasionally unpleasant, place. But it's worth it to me, and to many, and I imagine to you. Sometimes we all need a break. Omnedon (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwan, Spending too much time in RMs and the related policy discussions causes insanity - I've seen it in a few editors here and I found myself once going down that rabbit hole. Fortunately, I think it's still reversible in your case :-). Take some time off, and when you return, spend more time in articles of pure interest and enjoyment! First Light (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to take stress from that discussion. I don't believe there is a credible feeling that you acted in anything other than good faith. -- RA (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Obiwan, enjoy the break. Much, if not all, of what you say and do seems well intentioned and, in the example of the Sarah Brown move request, imaginative and positive. If I had one criticism, it is that you are very persistent with your point of view, when less dogged people would have put their hands up, stepped back and walked away. Others have, unfortunately, turned to personal abuse and attacks because they don't have a constructive answer and would rather personalise things rather than find a way out of an impasse! That's the sad side of the faceless internet, I'm afraid. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope you'll soon be back, rested and renewed. They can't win. BTW, WP:IRE-CATS is being discussed and heading for a strong "keep". – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You've never met me, but I randomly stumbled on your talk page and it sounds like you're going through something similar to what I was dealing with a few months back. Just wanted to offer my support. Reading the Ignore all dramas and Don't-give-a-fuckism essays may help. :) -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And It's not the End of the World too. -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To all who shared kind words above - thank you, I really appreciate it, and thanks for the advice as well. I'm feeling much better now, taking a break does wonders for the wiki-soul.     --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Provincial capitals RM
Hi. As you participated in Talk:Bac Ninh Province you may wish to be informed that there's also a RM for the same-name-capitals of 5 of those provinces at Talk:Bac Ninh. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Was this an error?
Hello! I noticed that you deleted, without an edit summary, a comment at a talk page by another editor. I have a hunch this was an accidental deletion, perhaps a misplaced hit of an "undo" button which is easy to do. Anyhow, please take a look at this; it would be very unusual to delete an apparently constructive comment by another editor at a talk page. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind; somebody else reverted your deletion, assuming (as I did, only I wasn't bold enough to undo it) that it was a mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. You were right it was inadvertent, I somehow hit undo but didn't mean to...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reebok insider trading case article
Now that the SPI has been closed and there is no question regarding my neutrality, I have tried to re-frame the Reebok insider trading case article to focus on the crime and follow NPOV. If you could review, I would be grateful for the second pair of eyes. Factchecker25 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bun cha
Hi, you took part in the previous RM at Bun cha so may wish to be informed it has been submitted as part of a larger RM at Talk:Bun rieu, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Male wartime nurses
Category:Male wartime nurses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Wlmg (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

imposing outdated/archaic spellings/names AGAIN
Yo. Isn't it time for a spanking yet? It's like he's trying to pick a fight, and has an axe to grind since the RMs where his uppity one-sidedness got derailed.....See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.....I'm gonna have to look around and see what else he's messed with. As always he didn't even bother changing any content, just the title.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, I missed this one back in 2010, he doesn't care that the capped name is the name of the modern government, and that the "ethnic" article is not the same thing. This needs a Skxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation type split...I'm surprised he didn't go and do the "most common" claim and make it Yakima Nation or Yakima people.  the category is "Yakama tribe" and the problem there is to most people the lower-case use of "tribe" will not indicate the government though that's the US usage....the "federally recognized tribe" is the Yakama Nation, the historical people ARE the Yakama.  Yakama period.  This can be done by sorting redirects into various categories, but how can one editor cause so much damage and be such an a**hole when confronted about it?Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I must have missed a CFDS, I thought that category was at Category:Yakama.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

you probably monitor the WP:RM talkpage, but.....
Saw this on my watchlist today, and just went WTF, after all that got rolled back against his determined wishes, and all the damage that it's caused, he's still at it. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. Rogue.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Response on talk page
Check it.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

CatScan V2.0β
Obiwan...

Thank you for posting the very useful forms for CatScan V2.0β. Is there any way to add the equivalent of 'Sort Key' to CatScan V2.0B (by this I mean something that will present the output lists in Last Name first, First Name last (and all the other pesky exceptions) order? It may be just my compulsiveness, but I feel that feature would be very useful.  (Does not have to be perfect - but that would be nice). Neonorange (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that - did. I think it does have an option you can click at the bottom of the form to sort by name. I don't Think it will sort by sortkey however. Did you ever see the category intersection demo Magnus built?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

re namespace collision issue
Please see (and add to if you like)WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Name_issues which I've just been working on/researching. I'm going to post a notice on WP:Ethnic groups too.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (aka @69)

Another RfC question
Some else brought the previous RfC issue to WP:BLPN. But now I have a new one regarding biased start and closing of an RfC I just temporarily quit an article over because I was so disgusted. Put it here it on editors assistance since maybe it's a newbie question and didn't want to bug Talk: RfC. Your an editor who might feel like assisting! :-) User:Carolmooredc  21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried adding economist to the lede since the RFC was asking "which is listed first" - it never said you could not list economist - he was a professor of economics, had a PhD in economics, and wrote several books on the subject, so I don't think thats unreasonable to mention in the lede. We'll see if it lasts. As for the broader issue, that RS say he was an economist while others say he was a theorist, I think a compromise position might work best here - were the editors who !voted involved? If not, it may be worth considering why so many were convinced so quickly. The RFC was silly, and calling an RFC for something as trivial as that is really quite wasteful at the end of the day, but larger RFCs have been had over even less important details.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually "economist of the Austrian school" is down further with the 7 refs. (I had to fight to get it back and only because several people actually came by and supported it did it stay - for this week anyway.
 * The problem is using this RfC they also got rid of the Economist infobox. They canvassed a lot of quasi relevant Wikiprojects to get the response. The big problem was the RfC was called the day after I said I'd look for better refs, at the same time the editor calling it was harassing me so much on my talk page I had to take him to ANI. So soon enough i got disgusted and quit the article. I really hate starting up with these people again, but it does annoy me to see the process corrupted. But it would be nice to know where to go if they start removing the economist info on basis of this flakey RfC. User:Carolmooredc  23:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Obi. Forgive me if I am blunt here, but I agree with you the RfC was a huge waste of time. It came about as a result of prolonged disruptive editing which I will not rehash here. But despite the trouble and delay of the RfC, it focused our efforts and brought in several new uninvolved editors who shared their opinions. The result was that we reached a an explicit compromise with no editor dissenting after the proposed compromise was stated. Given that this was the explicit outcome of the very recently closed RfC, I am surprised that you would unilaterally change it as you have. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your change and, if you feel strongly about it, proposing your version on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, but the RFC had an explicit question, which was, which should be listed first. The compromise was to add more sentences later in the lede describing the economics work. Also, very few editors participated in the discussion around the compromise. I was just wiki-thanked by the RFC closer for the edit I made, restoring economist there. Sometimes, why not just accept a compromise on this little point? Why are you so bent on not mentioning the word 'economist' in the first line, given that 6 other editors supported its addition? It's entirely possible those followingt eh RFC didn't notice that the compromise was that "economist" would *not* be mentioned at all - I had to read it several times to catch that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to be clear [note:written because I didn't notice SPECIFICO's comment]. I'm all for doing it your way - I just assume they'll revert it like they revert anything else that makes him look like an economist. (The two editors claim to be academic economists Specifico refSteeletrap correction: "I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree." (WOOPS, thought that's what the Masters Degree was all about)  who [added later to clarify: give me the impression they want to] have final say on who's a real economist.) Even better, I'd like to see fuller description of economist second and putting "An advocate and theoretician of anarcho-capitalism and historical revisionism, Rothbard became a central figure associated with the libertarian movement, writing over twenty books on anarchist theory, history, economics, and other subjects.[3] "But not willing to fight about that issue. User:Carolmooredc  23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I request that carolmooredc either provide diffs to substantiate this remark or strike it: "(The two editors claim to be academic economists who have final say on who's a real economist.)" Hundreds of such misrepresentations are what poison the editing process on straightforward articles such as Rothbard. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Oh dear. I hope we're not arguing about someone who was a professor of economics not being a real economist. Whatever your views on his economics, that's a really silly conclusion to come to. It seems there was a bit of a lean towards mentioning the theory stuff first, and most of his article is about that (not his economics), which leads me to believe he may be better known for the anarcho-stuff than for his other economics work, but that doesn't mean he has ceased to be an economist, esp given his academic postings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi, it is extremely distressing to see you accept carolmooredc's disparaging remark about me at face value and to react as would be appropriate if any editor had expressed the view she falsely and without evidence attributes to me. The fact that supportive, productive editors such as yourself might react as you just did is what makes carolmooredc's conduct here so disruptive. My first reaction is to ignore baseless and unsupported disparaging remarks. However the possibility that at any given time and for whatever reason even 20% of readers might accept her statement as fact leads one to engage in otherwise pointless denials. Please consider. I do understand there was an edit conflict and you had not seen my previous post. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi SPECIFICO, I've seen some other posts elsewhere that suggest you and she don't really get along. I suggest you should both turn down the temperature a bit. I struck my comment, I haven't read diffs either, so will take your word for it that you didn't suggest he wasn't an economist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I failed to notice SPECIFICO was watching and commenting, though he follows me around so much I should have known better. Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up above that User:Steeletrap is not getting his Masters in economics but just thinks he could refer to self as economist, thus the confusion. Plus I clarified about the impression I get. One can't help getting impressions!!
 * However, the RfC was totally disruptive of the process of getting more ref'd information into the article about his status as an economist since SPECIFICO started it the day after I said I was going to do that research. If others want to read the archives they can decide for themselves what else was going on... And of course having lots more info on his being an economist is the best way to make the decision of what he is first and foremost :-) User:Carolmooredc  00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)
 * Hi, again to be blunt. My temperature is very turned down, while carolmooredc can barely make a single comment on WP without overlaying personal remarks on whatever legitimate content-related matter is under discussion. A reason you may be aware of her not really getting along with me might be the fact that she's dragged me to roughly a dozen noticeboards in the past couple of months -- all without any vindication for her slurs and accusations. That gets to be a problem after a while for just the reason you articulated. No editor of sound mind would devote the time to unravel all the facts and circumstances of her unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations. So as in real life, a good 20%+ of the nonsense sticks. I generally refrain from responding or commenting on her off-topic and personal derogations but why should you have to "take my word for it" when I've been baselessly accused and denigrated? I would think that derogatory personal accusations and the like would be entirely disregarded in the absence of diffs or quotes to support the allegations. Forgive the venting, but frankly in additional to my personal feelings, I am somewhat offended that she took advantage of your good will to manipulate you into supporting (even if only for several minutes) her disruption and incivility. I won't trouble you further on this. Thanks for your even-temperament. SPECIFICO  talk 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship / Topic bans by Bbb23 on the Men's Rights Talk page
FYI, Bbb23 has topic banned me for 3 months on the MRM page. I noted my displeasure with this censorship on his Talk page. Memills (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc's false assertions
Carol claims I (erroneously) identify myself as an economist. I never said such a thing. Yet this (false) assertion is used by Carol to disparage me in the above discussion. I ask for either 1) permission to edit the discussion with a correction or 2) for you to deal with the problem personally, either by crossing out the remarks yourself or telling Carol to do that. The above quotation, shamelessly cherry-picked out of context, was not said by me, but by user:Stalwart, who was not identifying as an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just an aside on a talkpage conversation, which is now closed anyway, and I don't think it's worth worrying about - lets turn this convo back into what it should be - what do sources say. We can continue over at the Rothbard article. best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I'm on a kitten giving binge, and you deserve one! Thanks.

User:Carolmooredc  20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 

Cuisine categories
I closed the discussion here as no consensus. Feel free to immediately renominate for a fresh discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note
fyi: - jc37 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  categories

Thank you for quality articles, such as Magnus Manske, and for sorting categories and article names as a Wiki Gnome, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * wow - thanks Gerda. I've seen Some of your work in the music articles, you make excellent contributions as well - so thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a nice award, from a top-notch editor. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User Drmies submitted the following nomination to Editor of the Week:
 * "Hey, I'd like to nominate Editor Obi-wan-kenobi for getting one of his first articles, Kristin Beck, on the front page in the DYK section--and the article got like 11,000 hits. That's a nice morale boost--Obi's been grumpy because he suffers from the oppression of men and the fallout of the "Female American novelist" category issue."
 * To be fair,, when I was a bit grumpy in June it was not due to the American novelists issue (which was ultimately resolved rather well I think) but due to accusations of bad faith by a number of editors after I made a carefully thought-out move-close at Hillary Rodham Clinton that turned out to be quite contentious, and accusations of sexism and misogyny followed by that infamous bulldog and others. I wasn't mad that the decision I made was overturned, I was mad at how certain editors treated me. But I do appreciate the sentiment that led you to nominate me for this award, so thx again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured there was more going on but I did not wish to presume too much. And I'm very pleased with how well your article did. As for treatment by others, I understand, believe me, and I hope things are better now. Time heals not all but some wounds. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your work! The Interior (Talk) 15:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm Drmies and I approve this message. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aww shucks. That is far too kind. Thank you Drmies, and supporters of my nomination, it is greatly appreciated and brought a smile to my face.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you have returned to the trenches. Your hard work is appreciated. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, and thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw that you had recently received this award and it is so deserved. You've been nothing but helpful to me. I'm glad your hard work and collegiality are being honored. Congratulations! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 15:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Category question
Hi, Obiwan! (and congrats on the Editor of the Week award) I know you are a category expert; wanted to pick your brain a bit. I stumbled across a couple of categories, namely Category:Petaluma (minor league baseball) players and Category:Petaluma Poison Oaks players. The first contains one page, the second has two. Both are about long-defunct, very minor minor-league baseball, so they are unlikely to be expanded. I wanted to propose merging them back to their parent category, Category:People from Petaluma, California. But when I went to Categories for discussion I couldn't figure out the instructions for multiple related nominations. Do you want to propose them, or tell me how? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi . sorry for the delay. I'd suggest leaving as is - it seems to be a pattern, that minor league baseball teams, no matter how small, get a category - there are over 3000 here Category:Minor_league_baseball_players_by_team. small categories are allowed in these cases. In any case, if you want to propose merges to categories, install Twinkle, it has nice tools which automatically can generate merge or delete requests for categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I have noticed there is often a bigger pattern to this kind of apparent anomaly; this seems like another such case. I'll drop it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, another example is Category:Albums_by_artist, which has no less than 16,333 sub-categories, many of which with only a few, and likely to never grow. Some weeds should just be left alone to grow I guess...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Category and use of template
In working on clean-up for by-century novelists categories I have come across some that do not have support within the article for by-century category inclusion. One in particular does not have support in either of the two cites (the article is a stub). I have checked both sources and done what independent research I could. I then (after a bit of trouble) placed two 'Category unsourced' templates just after the one-sentence lead-in. The result looks pretty intimidating since the templates loom so large in a stub. I had placed a question about one of the by-century categories in the article talk page two weeks ago (with no reply). Did I follow a good proceedure? Or, does the very prominent request for maintenence detract from the utility the article has at present (short though it is)? Should I just remove the by-century categories and leave a request on the article talk page? And/or leave a message on the talk page of the editor who originally added the categorization? See: recognition for Editor of the Week and you get lots of questions B^) and Congratulations! Neonorange (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This one is pretty straightforward - I couldn't find any record of her having written a novel. As such, I removed the categories. If you come across cases like this in the future, a note on the talk page is enough, and if you've searched and can't find any evidence that person X belongs in category Y, just remove them - you could leave a follow up note on talk to explain why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me with my question about Bias Categories, Obi-Wan; you're my only hope
(Sorry. You probably get that gag a lot. Still--great handle!)

Hello. I happen to have Robert Jeffress on my watchlist. Recently, the categorization "Anti-Catholicism" was deleted from his page per the rationale discussed a while back over at CFD. I read the discussion, and was immediately persuaded by it, and I'm glad to see someone working on it. So far so good. So, I scrolled down to the bottom of the article (curious what categories Jeffress was still in) and saw that he was still in "Critics of Mormonism" and "Critics of Islam." So now there was an asymmetry (he was categorized for some of his allegedly biased statements, but not others). So I thought I might add "Critics of Catholicism." But there's no such category. And, frankly, a "Critics of Catholicism" category would probably just duplicate the BLP problems that "Anti-Catholicism" already had/has. That leaves me wondering: Should there be categories like "Critics of Mormonism/Islam/whatever"? By the rationale of the CFD consensus on the more "anti X-ism" and "X-phobia" categories, it seems like "Critics of X" categories have all the same problems. And as it now stands, we have BLPs that CAN be categorized for anti-LDS or anti-Muslim statements, but not for homophobic or anti-Catholic or racist or anti-whatever statements. Again, an unattractive logical asymmetry in categorization. The CFD page is intimidating as all heck, so rather than raise the issue there, I thought I'd start by asking you what ought to be done, since you seem to be a category expert. (On the Jeffress page, I just deleted the two "Critic" categories. Which works for him, but I don't presume to know if it's a good general solution.)

Thanks very much, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I think your solution of a new "critics of catholicism" category is reasonable. Being "anti-Catholic" is quite different than being a critic of catholicism - in the same way one can critique Israel or Judaism without being an anti-semite. I don't think "critic of X" carries the same BLP issues, provided the person in question would not oppose being so-labelled, which I think in most cases they would not - if I've written a book called "the 100 problems with the catholic church today" I wouldn't find it odd someone called me a critic of the catholic church. it's a fine line, but I think it's probably reasonable. Again, however, a critic is NOT simply someone who once railed against catholics - criticism to me means thoughtful, considered, and written commentary based on study and expertise. Thus, I would not label Mel Gibson as a critic of judaism, even though he has frequently issued tirades - he's not known as a critic (though he's labelled sometimes as an anti-semite, but that is too charged a category to put people in for now - we still have a reductio-ad-Hitler issue with that one though, as I haven't dared to remove the Nazis from the anti-semitism in germany category yet. Per our previous consensus, they should be gone, but there's perhaps an exception to the rule to be made here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I've indirectly referenced your action on ANI. Abductive (reasoning) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning vs Talk:Bradley Manning
Hi,

I think I must have been unclear: the change requested at Talk:Bradley Manning should have been made to Bradley Manning (the article-space redirect), not to Talk:Bradley Manning (the talk-space redirect). Since the article redirect is fully protected, I don't think you'll be able to do that.

Unless I've missed something obvious (certainly wouldn't be the first time today), can you put the edit request back?

—me_and 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yup sorry my fault, I undid it already. And now an admin did the needful I think. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —me_and 22:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bling

 * Aww thanks. It's now 1MB at least. Part of me would like to split it somehow - but I'm not sure how - could we somehow move all conversation about X to a different sub-page? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah. The closed threads will automatically be archived in a day or two, so I suggest to leave that work to the Miszabot.  Yinta n  14:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)