Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 7 June 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Obiwankenobi}} on your page in case you have missed my response. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hello! Welcome to Misplaced Pages!. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

By popular demand...

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_2#Law_review_people

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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: {{all included|the category|the other mention of parent category}} 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 21:20, 14 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 Category:American journalists - 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! KillerChihuahua 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the civil explanation. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:11, 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 ] 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.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For helping to resolve the JPL proposed ban conflict Asarelah (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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/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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	for this   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to stop by and apologize for my intemperate closing comment at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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!

— 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.— 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)

(edit conflict)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... ;)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

— 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 ⋅ 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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 Books by publisher 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 Category:Books by publisher.

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)

Sarah Brown RfC

Hi Obi, I'd appreciate it if you would stop changing the structure of the RfC. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm just trying to make it more clear. It's not *your* RFC, right? I find having quick access to past RMs helps, and many people coming to the page through the link won't scroll up. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When someone opens an RfC, it's normal to let them structure it the way they choose, within reason, and it creates confusion when multiple people are trying to do it at once. I'd therefore appreciate it if you would leave it as it is, and allow people to respond. SlimVirgin 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I didn't change the structure or the questions you asked - I just added a new, useful section (past RMs) that now takes up 2 lines, and a sub-section for discussion which you had left out, which is normal/standard. Again, I'm not aware of any rule by which an RFC is "owned" by someone - these are often edited by many, and in the case of this particular one, it may have been wise for you to ask for consensus on the talk page in forming the RFC/RM and the questions within before advertising it more broadly. Something to consider - as you can see both Tim and I disagree with your points-voting idea. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's poor form to edit war with someone over the structure of an RfC they have initiated. If everyone were to do it, there would be chaos. It's also poor form to badger people who have responded because, again, if everyone were to do it, the RfC would end up unreadable. I understand that you oppose the move, and you've made your arguments clear, which the closing editor will take into account. But for now, please let it run for the 30 days, or whenever consensus becomes clear. SlimVirgin 22:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I really am not trying to do anything disruptive SV - please assume good faith. Also, I am not "edit-warring", I have made changes that I think improve the RFC, which, again, does not belong to you. If you disagree, you can say so, and others can weigh in too, but you really should have considered asking talk page watchers to help you frame out and format the RFC rather than going solo, so I think you may be suffering the consequences of that. I noted for example that you also tried to revert Andy's changes to the section headings. This is not YOURS. Also, I'm not really badgering anyone - I'm asking reasonable questions, which is perfectly acceptable. Cheers and best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked you not to edit the RfC, yet you are doing it again. You have strong feelings against it and shouldn't be interfering with it. One of your edits yesterday caused the request to be malformed, which caused a comment that might otherwise not have been made – which I then had to correct. I recall this kind of issue when you were editing under your previous name. It's really unhelpful. SlimVirgin 18:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you asked kindly. I also asked you kindly to not WP:OWN this RFC, but you continue to do so. So, I guess we have both asked the other nicely to do something, and the other has not complied. I think we should continue to remain civil, and agree to disagree. I could say that you're being unhelpful too, but I'm not sure that it's worth getting into. "You have strong feelings against it and shouldn't be interfering with it." - that one is classic - so *you* can interfere with it, just not me? Hmm. Also, please tell me exactly what edit I made caused the RFC to be malformed? You may be referring to how I moved the "move request" down lower, rather than isolated above between two big boxes. I don't think this would have made any difference in the RFC itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 6 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Category:Concepts 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. 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)