User talk:Obiwankenobi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reich part 2

Monty said to wait until the ARB case closed. Do you have any interest in starting the RM discussion again?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'd say we should wait at least 6 months until tensions simmer down; otherwise you'll have a flood of people saying "Keep per BLP" even if there's no consensus that BLP applies in these cases. I want to move onto something else anyway... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it should wait that long, though I don't have a problem giving it the same length of down time as the Manning RM had (30 days)Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be an RFC on whether or not BLP applies to these cases, that would be a better one to start. I think it doesn't. But if you start the move request soon, many will just !vote to keep per BLP or IAR or whatever else, regardless of policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More thoughts of categorization

The biggest problem I know of with parent/child cats is that say Category:People from New York is a subcat of Category:American people. Yet, the requirements for such are different. Someone who was born in NYC as the child of the Thai ambassador to the UN, and who lived in NYC until they were 10, would probably go in the first, but never in the second. This is with the US's post-14th admendment "if you are born here, you are almost always a citizens". Switzerland, France, the Netherlands and many other countries lack such. Israel clearly does and there are standoffs between Filipino workers and the government about what to do with their children. In fact, some gulf countries have many non-nationals as residents. So from place as a sub-cat of nationality is tricky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good illustration of the challenges... There was a debate a while back about soccer categories, and whether teams who play for team-america were "American" soccer players (since many are from overseas). Nationality/ethnicity is always going to be tricky, there are no clear criteria in the real world so why should wikipedia be expected to have an answer? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably the extreme was Category:Tamil film actors and its brother cats, which were I believe at one point both sub-cats of Category:Indian actors and Category:Tamil actors. The problem was it was defined not as film actors who were ethnically Tamil, but by actors in Tamil-language films. It is now ;Category:Actors in Tamil cinema, and the whole structure works better, although the problematic Indian parenting has not been fixed. Part of the problem is we have never figured out if Category:American film actresses should include everyone in films that are "American" (whatever that mean), or just actresses who are clearly American. I don't think anyone would argue Henry Cavill should be in Category:American film actors, even if much of the filming of Man of Steel was in the US, but Maureen O'Hara clearly was an American actress, even if they had to get her to come back from IReland to film "Miracle on 34th Street".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

On the soccer issue, this is why I have deliberately avoided parenting say Category:BYU Cougars Track and Field athletes to Category:American track and field athletes. People playing sports while on student visas just do not fit as Americans. The problem with that is that not parenting that way creates more categories for people. My guess would be that even that category is mainly Americans, and the BYU alumni category is about 85% American. Yet Eastern Michigan University where I worked on my master's degree had a much lower rate of international students than BYU.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

Hi Obiwankenobi. As one of the main editors who helped draft the WP:CANVASSING policy, I was wondering if you would mind sharing your insight on the regulation here? The matter concerns a content dispute on the Matthew Bryden page between myself and another editor, during which the other editor indicated that he would ping additional users for input [1]. Since one doesn't ping strangers, these contacted editors were obviously all prior acquaintances of his; however, they had no ostensible connection to the topic other than that. I've argued that this is an example of inappropriate notification given the choice of contacts and the notification method used. The editors have in return argued that they are all neutral parties simply weighing in and that the notification protocol was appropriate. They've also now attempted to ban me from editing the page altogether. Your insight/expertise on what exactly the policy dictates on all of this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Total lies

I was doing a google search on my name. I came across this article that has out-right lies about the whole debate over categorization of women novelists in Wikipedia. http://newamericamedia.org/2013/05/wikipedias-sexist-turn-men-are-novelists-women-are-women-novelists.php They claim "If that’s the case why not move the men out to Male American novelists? There was a proposal to do that. It got shot down fast." It is true that the category faced a concerted attempt to delete it but Category:American male novelists exists at present. I am not sure how people get away with publishing such lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That article is from May. They aren't lies, they are just one of many articles that simply got it wrong, they don't understand wikipedia, they don't understand categorization, they don't understand non-diffusing categories, etc. I didn't see any media articles about category gate that actually got it right. C'est la vie, I'd not worry about it, water under the bridge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Overcategorization guidelines

Reading our guidelines for overcategorization by place, I have the impression that these guidelines suggest that, 1-we should not have categories that mix occupation and place, unless the occupation is connected with the place. This suggests Category:Male actors from St. Louis, Missouri should be limited to those who appeared in theatres in St. Louis, the NYC category should be one of people who appeared on Braodway, or in other productions made in that city, etc. 2-the other exception would be splitting the category, but I am not convinced we really are splitting male actor/actress categories by city, since we split by medium. Do you think my reading of the guidelines makes sense?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the by-place categorizations don't necessarily relate to the action in that place, so I don't think actors from New York should only be actors who acted there. That said I think the gendering of actors categories is going too far - I think we should have at the national level, American actors with children: American actresses and American male actors, then all other actor cats should be non-gendered. That would be much simpler, and we can set up simple category intersections if ppl really want them further separated by gender. Much easier to maintain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#By_Location. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

African-American film actors

Category:African-American film actors and similar categories have been up for nomination for nearly 3 months. No one has explained why we have that category but not Category:Hispanic and Latino American film actors. I have tried to be patient, but it is slightly frustrating. Especially since I definitely tried to take a moderate course, acknowledging that Category:African-American actors is a workable category, but smaller subdivision are problemtic, and it seems no one has acknowledged what I am saying. On the other hand, it looks like most people want to upmerge, we have had more participcation in the discussion than some, one of the people never expressed an opinion on the film actors etc, issues, so the whole thing seems to have been dragged out indefinitely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm....a Category:Hispanic and Latino American film actors sounds like a great idea! I'm sure it would be useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

well, I already opined there; I think for both ethnic and gender categorizations, we should do at most 1-level deep (e.g. ethnicity + job); then leave further subtleties as ungendered/unethnicized; let people use cat intersection if they really want to know how many female african-american child TV actresses there are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you are very excited about this cat intersection but the fact is that the average reader doesn't know what this is. On the other hand, they might wonder who was the youngest daughter on the Cosby show and so check out Category:African-american child actressses (but it looks like that category has already been deleted).

It seems like there are category guidelines and then there are the way people user categories. They might not always be the same. And both are interpreted by each Editor who works with categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For me, a category has to meet several tests: (1) somehow useful to the reader (2) compliant with our guidelines and WP:OCAT (3) does not cause too big a maintenance burden. The last one is important, because we were widely attacked in the press for the mostly innocent error of not dealing with non-diffusing categories correctly, but proliferating such categories only makes it more likely that we will ghettoize. Users don't need to know about category intersection, we can set up links, as Category:Singaporean poets shows, that make it easy to click and get intersections that aren't present through categorization. If we have African-American child actresses, then we'd need Hispanic and native american and asian and chinese and everything else - so it creates a huge burden of categorization even if these people are already categorized by several of those characteristics. We need to consider maintainability of a category, and if it's prone to causing ghettoization or error it should be deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Nice user name! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, your evil eminence. As I am on the good side of the force, I am forbidden from further contact with you unless I feel there is still good in you. The jury is still out apparently :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A legend in his own mind

Don't let it bother you. It was clear what Gorand was doing the moment he got added to that Arbcom case. People have a knack of convincing themselves to believe whatever they want to believe, and he has it in spades. And in the long run, does it matter who gets credit? Everyone that was involved knows you were the backbone in forming the new RM.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather stunned by his arrogance - his user page feels like he's talking to an external audience, wanting to assure them that he has done no wrong. The fact that he wants official notification from wmf legal before believing he's been topic banned is choice indeed...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Faux martyrdom is so not in fashion anymore. Once he realized he was getting sanctioned he started preparing his talk page so he can say he quit instead getting fired. I think the "suck a cock" emails he claims to have received are probably bullshit too. Someone that is willing to lie to themselves has little compunction about lying to others. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am that he continued to post about this after he got sanctioned. He should study Elvis. That man knew how to make an exit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm not sure - it's possible he received hate emails, but if he did, why not sick ARBCOM on them? Those sort of emails would be grounds for an indefinite block. But he hasn't posted about any follow-up from those emails, so it's a bit suspicious. Now the question is, will he back down, or just get blocked? I'm not sure what the arbs will do here...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic

Please see WP:AN, section "What exactly was I topic banned for?". User:Dogmaticeclectic has appealed the topic ban that was enacted via a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813, which you closed. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Subjective judgement vs subjective judgement?

Using a third-party WP:RS source which claims that a death is unusual is surely preferable to a tit-for-tat battle between the subjective judgements of individual Wikipedia editors? Would it not be better to await the outcome of the RfD before making large-scale deletions? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The reverts were ridiculous. Death by carbon monoxide poisoning or falling off a horse? Seriously? The fact that I was reverted illustrates the problem with this list in general; it is simply a mish-mash of stories - some of which are deaths where some circumstance of the death is ironic (killed by a packet of chips? how sad?) or deaths of a famous person in an unusual way (e.g. falling off a horse b/c you tripped over a pig) - but again, if we have 100 deaths a year from equine accidents, presumably some of those are people falling off a horse b/c the horse tripped on a log, or was scared by a snake, or frightened by a bee, or scared of a bear, or tripped in a hole, or any number of other reasons someone might fall off a horse - the only reason the king is listed is b/c he is a king and people find it ironic that he died because of a pig. But that doesn't make his death unusual in any way, shape or form.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the elephant death, that's all. I reverted as your rationale for deletion did not seem to be based on any sourced facts, only on your own WP:OR. I don't really see a distinction between adding on the basis of subjective judgement and removing on the basis of subjective judgement. Both actions should be based on whatever criteria for inclusion have been agreed. You say "presumably some of those are people falling off a horse.." I could say the reverse. It does not make either of our positions more valid, only less valid. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, if I find some source that says "There were 1,000 deaths in 2010 from people falling from a horse" - would that make the King's death from a pig less "unusual" in your mind? Or would that be considered OR? This whole discussion indicates why the list is flawed; as I pointed out on talk, if we just go by "unusual", we would have thousands upon thousands of entries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A thousand deaths worldwide in a whole year doesn't very many to me. I think the article should at least explore, or link to, the statistical concepts of probability, Sampling (statistics), accidental death, etc, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

but that would mean 10,000 just in the past 10 years, and I'm sure searching sources we could find such reports. An article on unique causes of death, where no other such case has ever been reported, could be encyclopedic (eg no one in recorded history had ever been killed by a guinea pig until mr smith was in 1999' - but falling off a horse? Seriously?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that your hypothetical example doesn't sound very unusual. The contribution of circumstances and notability of the person are still being debated by some editors. But it's reliable third-party reports that describe as "unusual" we need. The article isn't called "List of unique deaths", but neither is it "List of unusual causes of death". I think "a death" encompasses more than just the medical causes - or even the "coroner report circumstances", actually. There might well be a contribution to unusualness from the antecedent chain of events. I see nothing wrong with that. I think you may be being too "reductionist" in your analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But this article is many years old, and if you look at the history of the talk pages, it is a constant battle over what is considered "unusual" or not. The list is chock full of ordinary people whose only claim to fame is having died in some strange manner. The "circumstances", as I've noted before, are always in some sense "unique", in that that particular person had never done that particular thing at that particular place. The other parts of the chain of events are simply trivia, added to buffer the story and to sell books and lists. There is nothing rigorous about their descriptions of unusual, nor is there much consistency. As I noted, all "unusual" deaths that arrive at a coroner's office are reportable and investigated, but a coroner in a city like Los Angeles will treat hundreds if not thousands of such "unusual" deaths each year. Death comes to all of us, so death is just as common as life; as such a list of deaths that are uncommon/unusual/rare will still be way too long for the wiki and violate WP:NOT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, investigations at the coroner's office arise from deaths which cannot be readily explained - usually by close friends or family, with the aid of a GP. Whether or not that death actually turns our to have been "unusual", after the investigation has concluded, is an entirely different matter. The article currently includes some instances of foul play (which might well encompass military conflict), but not many. I think that is wise. And could even be used as a limiting criterion. But I am still amazed that no-one seems very interested in applying statistics. And of course sampling error could account for (so-called) "unusual" deaths being massively under-reported. Because, obviously, the main witness to the preceding events is no longer around to report them. A person who has died alone may well have had a very unusual death. But unless this can be discovered, by a very expert inquest and post-mortem, it will never be known. This would mean that many types of "unusual death" will be, statistically, much more common that can be known for certain. Well, it's a good job I kept this a secret on your private Talk Page here, 'wankenob my friend, or else it would just be more ammunition for those "Delete" mobsters back at the RfD. D'oh.....!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (... gosh, and I thought I was a bit over-partial to a bit of scrap irony...)

I see that Doomy managed to get the last word in there, despite my best efforts. But, to no avail, as it has been closed as keep. By the way, the article is in fact listed under "13. Death" at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Nevertheless, thanks for the lively discussion - at times quite "animated"! I think you made some very valid points. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FN people vs FN cat on Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest

This is Skookum1. Old habits die hard, but I can't allow this habit to take over my life again....but lately I've been dabbling on my watchlist, I don't want to get fully involved again....one stroke is enough, and Wikipedia got in the way of my income chances and..... well you get the picture.....I note the no paid editing discussions and have a great deal to say in that area, but just don't want to be exposed to the usual contrarian and nitpickery that is the culture of this place. But on a purely technical category matter, I saw your change from Category:First Nations people to Category:First Nations as parent cat of Category:Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest, and no, the FN category is for peoples, not for individuals as "FN peoples" is. So I'd move that back, frankly, and I note that the category and articles Category:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast‎, Category:Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau‎, Category:Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia‎ should not be subcats here, rather the other way around, with the Category:Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest in a subordinate category ("Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest Coast/Plateau" and an article Indigenous people from the Pacific Northwest, for individuals, should replace the "peoples" title currently as main article - probably with "from" instead of "of", and Category:Aboriginal people from British Columbia (and those "NA in Washington/Oregon" articles should probably also be "from", because if someone moves and is from somewhere, they are not in somewhere. I'd do all these myself, but don't want to get swallowed up again; I came back to BC for CT /EKG/Xray and more and now want to go back, somehow..... wikipedia eats up too much energy; if I could be paid as a contractor to write hotel and business articles, which are much in demand, I'd come back, but would have to stay away from topics like this one, I get nothing for my time, and wind up in time consuming and often heated exchanges that I have no more time, or health, to deal with.70.68.136.193 (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skookum. There are problems with these categories in that they mix up people with places and people from those places; in general I'm trying to make it more clean so that we can have trees of just people, to the extent possible. I'll take a look at your suggestions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks for the formatting help at Category:Targeted killing, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, your changes all look fine. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

cheers. Eponymous categories often don't work well in the same categories as the head article, because of the mish-mash of stuff underneath - so they usually end up in fewer categories than the head article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, totally understood, that makes sense. So long as the category itself remains in existence, that's fine with me! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

1. PBS (talk · contribs) has raised a concern with my creation of the page, Targeted killing (disambiguation), because back when I used to be an admin I blocked him for disruptive editing on the topic of targeted killing -- and then a period of time later I've helped improve the quality of pages related to that topic.
2. Please see my response diff.
3. Do you have any input or advice with regards to this behavior pattern of PBS (talk · contribs) ?
4. He's been at it with disruption on this topic going back at least as far back as 2006...
5. Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a concern. Just b/c you blocked someone for something 3 years ago doesn't mean you have a coi.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. Perhaps you could state that at my user talk page, as well? — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OTOH, I don't think that page is needed. I just put it for prod. The other pages aren't ambiguous. Normally you only create a dab if there's a confusion - dab pages normally aren't used as topic-central. The category you created is largely sufficient.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and I'll defer to your consensus and the consensus of the community about that. But can you state what you said, above, at my user talk page? — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your civility in this manner which is refreshing these days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's a most fascinating and intriguing topic and I plan to do more research and quality improvement within the area. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Explorers

Please do not add explorer categories to Abby Sunderland. Sunderland was not an explorer. Being a sailor does not mean one is an explorer. —Diiscool (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite: Category:Circumnavigators_of_the_globe is a direct subcategory of Category:Explorers, and this has been that way since the beginning. I agree, sailors != explorers, but doing a solo circumnavigation is certainly worthy of the title, and the current category structure reflects that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration. While I disagree with calling her an explorer, I'll let it go. —Diiscool (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bremont watch company

hi obi wan Kenobi,

this was my first article written on Wikipedia. I do not work for bremont but am a big fan and wanted to write an accurate firm overview. what is the problem exactly? is it because I put links to the company website?

any hekp would be massively appreciated...thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty.corry (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT people from the United States by state

Yeah, unfortunately that happened. It really bothered me too, for the record, and between that and the Chelsea Manning mess I went into a long tailspin of reconsidering whether I even wanted to continue contributing to the project at all.

I don't want to be perceived as trying to manipulate anyone, of course, but if you feel as strongly about it as you seem to do it is worth remembering that anything can always be relisted for a new nomination at any time — a decision to delete does not mean that the subject can never be recreated in the future if a stronger notability claim or better sourcing can be applied, and a decision to keep does not mean that the subject can never again be renominated if there's a good reason to revisit it. So if you think you can construct a more compelling deletion rationale than mine turned out to be, then you're free to reopen a new discussion on them if you wish.

You'd have to decide for yourself whether that's a battle you're willing to take on, or whether you'd rather just leave well enough alone and accept that we're stuck with them — I can't in good conscience offer an opinion either way about what you should or shouldn't do, but it's worth remembering that as a Wikipedian you always have the right to try if you want to. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. yeah, I think I'd wait 6 months at least, and one must choose their battles - I'm now starting a new discussion to get rid of the actress-and-male-actor-by-states categories which have started blossoming - but my real long term goal is to get category intersection working, like on Category:Singaporean poets, for all bio categories. Do you want to help with that? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Manning Hat

I really don't think you should stick a "this discussion has been closed" tag over a thread complaining about your conduct. It comes across as a high-handed dismissal by pulling rank, and you're certainly not a neutral party to close a thread that's about you. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

all has been said that needed to be said; this is not ANI not rfcu and it was veering wildly off-topic and getting into personal attack as against me. I wasn't pulling rank as I'm not an admin and nothing prevents someone from reverting me but I seriously doubt that is in the interest of the page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought you were; you've certainly been acting like one. As for personal attacks... no. When you conduct yourself in a way that pisses people off, you don't get to cry "personal attacks!" when they call you on it. I honestly cannot conceive why you wouldn't resolve that situation by just being diplomatic and using the pronouns that are less likely to cause controversy. Chris Smowton (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See User:PleaseStand/userinfo for a useful script, that gives you an overview of each user when you hit their page. Secondly, non-admins are welcome to hat/close discussions, and I hope I never claimed anywhere to be an admin. As for the personal attacks, please point me to the section of WP:NPA that defends what you're saying - because it doesn't. It doesn't matter how pissed off someone is, calling me bigoted or racist or sexist or cisgenderist or transphobic all because of a teensy pronoun goes way too far and causes me to shut down. In any case, I'm not planning on responding further to that discussion - everything needed has been said and it's descending into personal attacks on me and contributing to a toxic editing environment, and it's literally contributing zero to the article itself, so doesn't belong on that talk page in any case- people are welcome to come here to harangue me about it further if they feel the need to vent. Also, people need to accept that different people have differing POVs on this issue (and many others), and there were dozens of editors who agreed that the MOS should be modified to not force use of current-gendered pronouns all throughout life. The recent book by Kristin Beck, written in part by Beck herself, interchanges male and female pronouns throughout the text, and we actually have no idea what pronouns Manning prefers to describe her pre-transition life - everyone is different. The bottom line is, positing that there is only one "right" way, which certain trans* advocates propose, is not correct in any sense of the term and they need to accept that others have different views, including others in their own communities, on which pronouns to use when. I've pointed out below the larger issues and debates around womyn-born-womyn spaces and cotton ceiling and other areas where MTF transgendered people are seen as intruding into women-only spaces by claiming they are women too. Well, Virginia, it's not so simple as that. This article, by a MTF, explains it rather nicely [2]. OTOH, the "my way or the highway" language is very off-putting to me, and it just makes me more stubborn unfortunately... You claim that striking would be the polite thing to do, well, it would also be polite to not call me bigoted and to claim I hate transgender people as a result. Politeness is a two-way street, and I've made no personal attacks against anyone in that discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there are TG people that are OK with old pronouns, and yes, there are groups other than cis people that presume to dictate terms regarding who "earns" a pronoun. Nontheless the fact remains that when a trans* person is not known to accept their old pronoun, its use is much more likely to come across as a derogatory reference than use of their new one. Note the small rows that emerge each time you do so, as compared to their noteworthy lack when the new pronoun is used. Politeness is indeed a two-way street, but someone has to move first and I'm asking you to be that person. I am confident that good faith would be met in kind. Chris Smowton (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I still want to push to allow use of old pronouns in MOS for pre-transition discussions. I think it's more in line with NPOV. I really suggest people cease getting worked up about this. There was much worse in the Manning move discussion and it didn't generate this kind of heat for most editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've felt you were controlling discussion. When I first came to the page I thought you were the admin in charge of controlling discussion but if you are you're certainly not neutral. And hatting a discussion on your conduct seems incredibly self-serving. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hatting it b/c it's not in the right place. If you want to continue the discussion here, please hop in the water's warm. On talk pages, the focus should be on content, not on users. There's no such thing as an admin in charge of controlling discussion. In any case, you yourself said it should be closed, this whole thing is a time-waste on that page, and is better discussed elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page conduct, which can turn a safe place into a toxic one is incredibly relevant to healthy discussion of improving the article. If the talk page isn't functioning then it follows that article will not improve efficiently or will continue to demonstrate the bias of a certain subset of editors. Your hatting amounts to cherry-picking or censoring others' criticism of your actions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is really important to you, I suggest putting forth an RFC to create a wiki-wide talk page policy that says something like "There are specific pronouns that must be used in all discussions anywhere on the wiki to refer to TG people at any phase of their life, and any violations of same are subject to sanction" - but it's very unlikely to pass IMHO; as noted before there are calls to change how MOS handles this and permit other pronouns for different phases of life, so I don't know why talk pages wouldn't follow the same policy. I think this should be continued at WP:MOS, and restart that older conversation which was never settled.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Common decency is important to Wikpedia operating well. I don't see any conversation on this subject with you as being productive so will simply encourage you to be more respectful of other editors. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Who called someone transphobic, bigoted, offensive, etc? Why aren't you asking others to be respectful of me? I didn't call anyone names. NPA applies here, please remember.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No one called you anything - " I'm glad we are making some forward movement but it's unfortunate that those of us who are sensitive to these issues still have to weather comments that sure feel unwelcoming, hostile, and yes transphobic at times." Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Excuse me if I take a zero tolerance policy to those who continue to hold these toxic, inaccurate beliefs about trans women"; "you don't respect trans women as autonomous human beings with dignity" - if those aren't personal attacks, and unfounded/incorrect/indefensible to boot, I don't know what they are. Sportfan, I'm sorry you found my use of "his" transphobic, but really, I think there are bigger battles to fight, and has been pointed out upteen times, not everyone, even not every TG person, is in agreement as to the proper pronouns to use when, and neither you nor I know which pronouns Manning prefers when talking about their youth. If using the wrong pronouns is always offensive, how do you deal with people who want non-standard pronouns? I'm not ready to go around calling people 'v', sorry, just not going to happen - but per your position, that would also be transphobic if I don't bow to that person's desire. I pointed out above that Kristin Beck's autobiography mixes pronouns (mostly pre/post transition), and the LGBT Journalists association suggested old pronouns for pre-transition. Even Manning's own filing to the president, post transition, used male pronouns. There is, at the moment, no categorically "right" way to do things, even if you personally feel that way; I may personally feel a different way, and I may personally feel that cisgender is not a term I identify with, but me railing about it won't stop others from using it. Many Ukrainians find the use of Kiev incredibly insensitive, and many Palestinians may find the very notion of Israel toxic, and many Muslims may find images of the prophet to be anathema, but we all have to get along, ideally without personal attacks and creation of drama. In some cases, we need to agree to disagree. As I already stated, I usually try to avoid pronouns, but if they creep in in the middle of a long discussion I don't think it's fair to be slammed against the wall for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, Manning's lawyer said in an email to slimvirgin that the new pronouns should be used only for post-announcement material - so we do have a statement of preference from the subject's proxy that me saying 'his birth' is fine and dandy. People need to stop being POV warriors it's starting to irritate me. manning is not a pawn of the movement but has been used as such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Crystal cake

Sorry for the late response; I never had the page watched, and didn't realise that my comment had a reply. Furthermore, I've been swamped by exams recently. I've responded to your request over there. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for the additional sources. Also, WTF on "If there's no english source the topic doesn't exist" - where did that come from? We'd probably have to delete half of the articles on villages in Vietnam if that were the case... serious case of systemic bias --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Descent question

I left you a long answer on my Talk Page in regard to all of these descent categories. I just noticed today that User:Solar-Wind (who had created a lot of these Jewish Asian categories) is now creating a Jewish-X descent category for every nationality that doesn't already have a category. I just looked at his contributions so I haven't checked to see whether the categories are empty or filled. Just thought you'd know better if this required a closer look. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. I think we need to prune this, it's getting out of hand. We have such a huge tree of ethnicity, and it's all completely lop-sided, and has nothing to do with how humans actually intermingle... I'm getting more and more down on these "descent" categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just when I thought there was a consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism that Jews were not, by default, Asian, there is a user of a different opinion who is reverting my edits removing these categories. I responded to him on the WP:JUDAISM talk page but it's clear he's going to plunge straight ahead. I don't want to get into an edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Do you have anything to shed light on my question here? Debresser (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Category deletions

Hey Obiwankenobi, thanks for all your work on cleaning up gender-related categories. I was wondering though, if you might want to slow down the pace of the nominations a bit though, since it's becoming hard to keep up with them all. I imagine that some of them will set precedents that will make future discussions easier to suss out, so maybe it would be best to let a few of them close before nominating new ones that are similar. Just my 2 cents. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I don't have an easy way to queue things; when they hit my watch list, I'm basically tempted to nominate for deletion straight away - this also prevents people wasting time filling up categories that may end up being deleted. You may want to consider posting a note to ask @Ottawahitech: to slow down on gendered category creation - I just looked at [3] - it's a flood, and I'd say a good number are worthy of deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to post something similar. There are plenty of categories with one or two articles or that are duplicates or poorly named, that need to be renamed or merged. The focus on eliminating gender categories en masse is making me nervous and sets CfD up for a backlash. Why not work on more redundant categories than go after ones that are more controversial or questionable? There are reasons for highlighting the work of women or minorities in separate categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

hi Liz - I'm afraid I must strongly disagree - your reasoning sounds like POV advocacy, which is not the point of the category system. Someone might say 'we need to highlight the contributions of Ethiopian-Americans to silk-screen printing' - but if it's only motivated by highlighting their contributions, it should be deleted. WP:EGRS is clear on this, and probably 80% of the gender-based cats I've nominated for deletion have been deleted by consensus. I go after all bad categories, by the way, not just gender-based ones, so I also try to clean up dupes and get rid of sparsely populated categories - and im not trying to delete gender cats en-masse but @Ottawahitech: has been creating them en-masse - when this happens it's better to act quickly so others dont waste time filling cats that are destined for deletion. Do you really think Category:Woman janitors is a good category that we need here? I've done a ton of work in deghettoizing categories and it has demonstrated to me the wisdom of the last-rung rule, as last rung cats - many of which I've been nominating for deletion- are a guaranteed way to ghettoize, even just by their very structure. Instead of risking ghettoization, now or later, its better to delete cats thst will always be sparsely populated and tend to ghettoize. During the whole hoopla over women novelists,, the very existence of gendered categories at all was sharply debated, but I never heard anyone say 'we need more (any job) + woman' - instead the drama was about ghettoization - that's what the world, and Wikipedians, were concerned with - not the fact that we didn't have a woman + every arbitrary thing. For example there is now - to my mind - a ridiculous discussion about keeping women from (province) - as if women + province is a special thing - if we did accept that, that gender is somehow closely related to living in British Columbia, then to be neutral we'd have to create men + province and transgender + province. And then add states, and cities, and provinces and states of other countries. Thus besides the slippery slope, where creation of a new scheme obliges us - because we must be neutral - to propagate that scheme globally - The creation of a single gendered category massively complicates the tree as it requires gendered parents as well, and few people understand non-diffusion to avoid ghettoization. Indeed, when i asked wikipedians to correctly categorize Winona Laduke without ghettoizing, no-one got it right. As such, when such categories are not defining or such divisions are not regularly discussed in reliable sources or it cannot be established that gender - especially the female gender - has some special relation to the particular thing in question, then they should be deleted, the sooner the better. You must realize that by deleting bad categories, Wikipedia is getting better. Were it not for CFD Wikipedia categories would be an absolute mess. I haven't proposed all new gendered cats for deletion as some are worthwhile, but I'd encourage all of you to consider carefully before creating such cats as woman + X is not always a good idea, and it's often a bad one a either because unsourced or because it structurally ghettoizes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 15.
Message added 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:African people of Arab descent

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 4#Category:African_people_of_Arab_descent.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Set categories

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 12#Category:Set_categories.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Obi. You've been around here for quite a while. What is your opinion on articles having "cultural reference" sections comprised of mostly pop culture mentions of a subject, and without any references? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think they're relatively harmless. They should of course have sources, but sometimes the only source is the primary source. I would tend to favor those which received coverage and in notable media sources themselves, vs. "Mel Gibson was referenced in a youtube video that was viewed 20 times" sort of stuff. is there a specific example you are thinking of?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Drakar Noir. The article seems silly with all that junk.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit excessive. I think it should be trimmed to remove instances where it's simply a line in a TV show where someone says "That guy is wearing Drakkar Noir" - rather should focus on where Drakkar Noir is a key plot point or element. Otherwise it's just name dropping. We don't have a list of every time someone mentions "Bill Clinton" in a movie or TV show.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 14.
Message added 00:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Talback –categorization of Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

rename !vote

you made a typo in your bolding I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Name

I will be sure to do that! Thank you for your concern. --ObiWanDiscuss 17:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Muslin FOO categories

In this edit you asked, that you be able to manually assess the contents of Category:Muslim warriors, Category:Muslim generals and Category:Muslim military personnel. Had you done that already? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi; sorry, no I haven't yet... I will see if I can take a crack at this over the next week or so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Crazy cat lady

I give to you on the one hand a gradually diminishing backlog at CFD, but on the other hand a backlog mostly of your own making at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple merge targets (see here). Congratulations on carrying the day at CfD, but comiserations on, well, carrying the day at CfD :) PS. If there's a bot-based mechanism for a multiple merge, please let me know! Splash - tk 22:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, sorry about that. And while I appreciate that the tit-for-tat wasn't helpful, but allow me to share what happened if it wasn't clear - I nominated initially three by-state categories [4]. Instead of waiting for the discussion to follow it's course, Alan started creating dozens of other by-state categories and populating them with a few names each. So, I then nominated his new ones, and he got mad at me, etc. I was just trying to save work...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much. Not a problem really, just gave me a lot of (speed) reading I could have saved. Splash - tk 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of "Children of Holocaust Survivors"

I am very frustrated at Alansohn for his personalized attacks on me in the discussion of the children of Holocaust Survivors category. I quoted from the opening of the article on Holocaust Survivors, which gives no clear definition of Holocaust Surviro. Actually, it almost seems that per its definition every person in Germany who was still alive in 1945 was a Holocaust Survivor. The lead does not at all discuss what traits other than being in "Axis occupied Europe" a person needs to be a Holocaust Survivor. His bringing up Amanda Filipacci and her real discussion destroying allies I find very disturbing. I think citing them to try and say those oppose to you have no right to speak, which Alansohn really seems to be doing, should be viewed as bullying. The very fact that there is only attacks for anyone who suggests the term "Holocaust Survivor" is not as clear as others may thing, while we have an article that does not give a clear definition, that admits that it is sometimes meant for those who were sent to the concentration/death camps and lived, but then goes on to include others without any clear indicication of what other possibilities could be included, is very disturbing. I find the willingness to attack on the part of especially Alansohn to be disturbing. He is constantly avoiding any attempt to assume good faith. I am so frustrated by this I do not dare try talking to him. The whole tendency to attack people who are not willing to speak is disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Based on List_of_Holocaust_survivors it seems the "parent" subject is fairly loosely defined. However, I would perhaps question the existence of the child cat - Is that generally considered a "defining characteristic"? For the actual survivors - no question, but being children of someone who survived? That seems pretty weak to me. Particularly when considering non jews/communists/gays/gypsies (IE regular non-targeted europeans who just happened to live in occupied areas) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on that category Gaijin, please weigh in here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_25#Category:Children_of_Holocaust_survivors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

JPL, I'm sorry for the attacks. Alansohn is currently being berated at ANI for bogus accusations of anti-semitism. He has a fast trigger finger. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I think your point is a good one, but could have been made more delicately - it is true that there are clearly holocaust survivors (e.g. people who made it out of the death camps alive), and then there are jewish or other families who left France before the Nazis arrived and are thus technically "survivors" but who had quite a different experience of the war. In any case, I don't think that's an argument to delete Category:Holocaust survivors, but it does point out that the definition of the term is a bit muddled. As you can see, this causes debates in the real world: [5]: "Experts agree on one thing: there is no single definition of who is a Holocaust survivor. Everyone agrees that it includes those who were in the camps and were caught in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1933 to 1945 But there are some who adopt a wider definition." Here is the definition from Yad Vashem, which is the foremost authority on the Shoah (from a Jewish point of view): "How do you define a Shoah survivor? Philosophically one might say that all Jews alive by the end of 1945 survived the Nazi genocidal intention, yet this is too broad to be useful, as it lacks the distinction between those who suffered the tyrannical Nazi boot on their neck, and those who would have, had the war against Nazism been lost. At Yad Vashem we define Shoah survivors as Jews who lived for any amount of time under Nazi domination, direct or indirect, and survived it. This includes French, Bulgarian and Romanian Jews who spent the entire war under anti-Jewish terror regimes but were not all deported, as well as Jews who forcefully left Germany in the 1930s. From a larger perspective, some think of other destitute Jewish refugees who escaped their countries in front of the invading German army, including those who spent years and sometimes died deep in the Soviet Union, also as Holocaust survivors. No historical definition can be completely satisfactory." However, for wikipedia, it may be more neutral to reject this definition, because they exclude all non-jews and consider them instead victims of Nazi-ism: "How do you define a Shoah victim? At Yad Vashem, we define Shoah victims as Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis or their accomplices during the years of Nazi power, i.e. 1933-1945. Many non-Jews were also murdered at the same time, but they are counted as victims of Nazism, not as Shoah victims. This is because of the Nazis’ unique drive to annihilate all of the Jews." I think it would be more neutral to use a similar definition of holocaust victim, but include everyone - but there's also a risk of this getting too broad - what about French civilians who were killed as part of the resistance ... where they holocaust victims? According to Yad Vashem, if they were Jewish, they were. The same holds for survivors - is a gypsy family that made it alive out of France a holocaust survivor? Anyway, yes its a fuzzy boundary, and there are contested definitions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Characters with supernatural abilities in professional wrestling

Hi Obi

I have closed the Jan 24 CFD as "delete manually", since some recategorisation is needed. Your comment implied that you had identified what needed to to be done, so please could you be kind enough to do that recategorisation? Sorry for the imposition, but it's only 5 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi; I moved a few of the redirects. The category can now be deleted, thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Now in the queue for deletion, thanks to your help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Muslim warriors

Hi Obi

After I closed some CFDs before christmas, you asked me to wait a bit before implementing their deletion, so that you could review their contents.

The categories are:

• Category:Muslim warriors
• Category:Muslim generals
• Category:Muslim military personnel

Have you finished reviewing them? They really should have been deleted now, but are still listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other pending your feedback. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with Muslim warriors and Muslim military personnel; those are all fine and you can delete the cats. I still need to tackle Muslim generals, which will take a bit longer. Any help you can provide would be great, I will also reach out to wikiproject Islam to see if they can help classify those generals more appropriately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Muslim generals isn't my territory at, so I can't help, but I wish you luck -- it's a big category, with 174 articles. I hope that Wikiproject Islam can help, and don't forget WP:MILHIST, which is one of the most active and organised projects on en:wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Women ceramists

Hey Obiwankenobi,

I don't have much experience with categories, could you help me out? What is the difference between merging a subcategory like 'Women ceramists' with 'Ceramists' vs. deleting 'Women ceramists'? Will articles belonging to a subcategory automatically move to its parent category when the subcategory is deleted? Thanks, -- (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

no - deletion just kills the cat. If you're not sure it's safest to merge, which basically means add all articles to merge target category then delete the other category. A bot does this automatically in most cases. If the contents already have appropriate parents, merge is not necessary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just realized I !voted delete so I updated to vote for merge at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Marquisate of Bodonitsa

Hi,

I saw you added Category:Marquisates by country to Category:Marquisates of the Crusader states. I won't undo it, but I'm not sure how much sense that makes either, as it seems to imply the crusader states were in any sense a country, i.e. a geopolitical unit. As far as I'm aware, they really were not. I think it would make more sense to put Category:Marquisate of Bodonitsa under Category:Marquisates directly, as it was pretty much a sovereign territory. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I placed a comment on the talk page of the cat in question, could you respond there? thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

köszönöm szépen! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

FM class

Obiwankenobi, I undid two of your changes to wikiproject banners because the files are featured images. Something else has changed, however. The banner used to display them with an FM-star for quality (compare File talk:Coquina variation3.jpg), and I think it used to put them in Category:FM-Class Women scientists articles. Now it doesn't. I'm wondering whether the change to extended quality scale has somehow messed this up. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe, I don't know. Are u sure though? I found them in the NA-class category - I don't think they were put in FM-class. If you want to create the FM-class category be my guest, and we'll see if the magic puts them in that cat. I don't really know how FM class works--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not so sure. I have been looking at templates that work the way I thought I remembered this one working, and they are all custom templates (QUALITY_SCALE=inline or subpage). So maybe I'm thinking of a different project. However, there is no down side to classifying them as FM, since at worst the behavior is exactly the same as file. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, keeping as FM is fine with me, if they want to extend to a custom class mask thats up to them, I don't know how it works so I just normally bring things to extended which helps in filtering cats and images.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm o.k. with extended. Much easier to implement than custom. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

since unilateral action seems in vogue, I might as well too....

I've reverted your re-depopulation of the "illegal" category, and since the resulting title is disambiguous just added the category disambiguation template to it. By re-populating it you have by default participated in the depopulating of the category intended to be for the ethnic group, and thereby underscored someone's ex jure re-creation of a justifiably-deleted category name. the only reason it should exist is as a disambiguation category....your participation in Usyvidi's unwise hijacking of both categories is questionable. The solution lies in the correct and authentic endonym, not the use of the geographically-complicated anglicized form. Bnut it also lies in respecting process, and what Uysvidi should have done, rather tha a hujacking, is launch a CfD/R on Category:Squamish people instead of wade in with pirate boots on and screw around in somebody else's backyard when she clearly knows nothing about the subjects at hand. Would you have supported my own "illegal" action if I'd unilaterally ignored the CfD by creating and using Category:Skwxwu7mesh in the same way you have supported Usyvidi's new re-created "illegal" category? For now the categories should be used as they were mandated by the CfD decision, you should not underscore Uysivid's out-of-line-ness by repeating her depopulation of Category:Squamish people. The solution is Category:Skwxwu7mesh and Category:Skwxwu7mesh people, it is not in trying to find some way to use the anglicism ("bastardization" is how I've heard it described) "Squamish" with all its complications.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath

I didn't do a c&p move, I know better than that as you would have seen from my extensive edit history. My edit to the lead just happened to edit conflict with the page move.--ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I did think it was bizarre, when I went to your page and saw 100k edits. I was like, hmmm... anyway no harm no foul. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my nomination for renaming the American Theater Hall of Fame inductees category (changing it from T-h-e-a-t-r-e to T-h-e-a-t-e-r). Let me know when the category will be renamed as soon as possible. Thanks again for everything. Mr. Brain (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

patience... discussions usually close after 7 days but it may take longer, depending on backlog. just watch the category - when it moves you'll see it in your watchlist. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tranquility of Soul

Hey, OWK,
This editor, like Solar-Wind or Censored Scribe, is fond of creating new categories. I know it's fun to do, I do it myself, occasionally. While some of the categories are fine, they are mostly focused on "fictional" topics that have to do with comic books, anime and manga. I don't know that literature but I think it's ill-advised to create sweeping new categories that are not medium-specific based on comic book narratives. I'm not really asking for anything to be done, just a head's up since you work so much with categories and have more hindsight than I do. I know we disagree on some issues but I value your experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up. I rarely trawl through the fictional categories, they mostly just make me depressed, finer and finer grains of categorization... it's endless. But i'll keep an eye out...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Deaths in worship

The creator of the category you suggested for deletion has recreated it as the article List of people who died in worship Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mariticide

I apologise, misspelt 'Mariticide', which is killing of ones husband. If you feel these Latin terms are worth inclusion, then include all of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

got it already. There may be some missing from the women cat as well, I added matricide, but there's also one for killing your sis or wife.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe there's a list on one of the articles? Are there pages for other languages that use terms like these or is it just Latin who have words specifically for murder by various categories? Is there a 'Violence against gods' category for 'Deicide'?--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

hehe. Yeah seems like most of those articles have the full list, up top and on the bottom -could be trimmed. I assume other languages have such words, you can check the interwiki links.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Might look into it. Personally I think it's a little trivial but I do understand the purpose is for Wikipedia to categorise everything in their articles, not just the most relevant. Also, Category:Crimes against women has a different meaning to Violence. One could work as a subcategory of the other though, I'd say Violence beneath Crimes, as Crimes could also include non-violent crimes --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

not quite - normally you focus on the key aspects of the article. So for example an actor who once worked as a waiter isn't in Category:Restaurant staff, and an article about domestic violence in the US doesn't get put in Category:United States--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand then. With the 'Emo killings in Iraq' category, you argued for including 'Violence against men', even though the reason for the killings was their sexuality and cultural interests, irregardless of their gender. In fact, their gender is not a key aspect to that article at all, but one that, when you list others, becomes one. Where do you start and stop including things that are relevant (or in this apparently case, irrelevant) to the articles? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It was their sexuality and their gender, at least from the articles I've read - lesbian girls weren't targeted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that covered anyway in 'Homophobic violence'? Men weren't targeted who weren't perceived as homosexuals, so it wasn't violence against the male gender in particular. Also could 'Human rights in Iraq' be a candidate for inclusion? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

the same argument could be made about honor killings - highly-educated women from moderate families arent targeted, therefore it doesn't belong? Etc. I think you need to take a step back, you are making a lot of edits that bely a very strong point of view. A good Wikipedia editor is neutral in their edits, even if not neutral in their beliefs. Further discussion about the emo cat should continue on the emo page so others can weigh in. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While we're being condescending, I think you should do the same.--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not intend to be condescending, so sorry if you read it that way. But my point stands. You seem new here, and your pattern of edits reveals that you are pushing a particular point of view. I suggest that this is not aligned with WP principles. For example, removing mention of 'violence against men' from category 'violence against women' is pure POV pushing. If we look at sources, and I have looked at many, they will often discuss violence against men in comparison to violence against women, so I dont know in what world would such a series of edits be justified. You also started to empty a category and then nominated it for deletion - this is generally a no-no - if you think a cat should go, nominate it, but plz don't empty it. Editing to correct bias is always welcomed but you must take a neutral point of view, and not promote the opposite bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

POV Editing

You do not have the last say in editing an article, and when there is a vote on the categorisation of an article that is against the change you could make, you should not take it upon yourself to make said change. There was an equal tally for and against it, with more strong againsts. Your reasoning was that 'I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't be in this category' but there are pages and pages of reasons on the Talk page, even if you do not personally believe them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One more thing - just noticed this: "There was an equal tally for and against it, with more strong againsts" - decisions at wikipedia are not determined by # of !votes, nor how many people said "STRONG oppose" or whatever - they are decided by consensus and applicability of arguments to policy and guidance. This is why I'm bringing in reliable sources to the discussion, to demonstrate that this particular work is discussed by reliable sources in the context of violence against men, which gives good reason to add to the category. 5 opinions against this, especially if not backed by anything, won't do much to change the WP:CONSENSUS. please read WP:NOTAVOTE.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was actually speaking about several other cats which you removed, on which there was no discussion. In any case, when there is a dispute it is common to keep the defacto / ante-dispute version until the dispute is formally settled.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Both categories were added together after the debate had begun, and 'Misandry' and 'Hate speech' are in a similar line to 'Violence against men'. For fairness sake, I'll just remove the discussed one, and then we can begin debating the other two. That said, surely it is better practice to have no categories, rather than possibly incorrect ones, much like including a potentially incorrect quotation is more inaccurate than waiting until it is sourced to include it? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also commend the inclusion of 'Violence against trans-men', I think you're probably right that pruning the categories is better than outright deleting them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Drowning, as far as I can tell that category has been there for a while, so per WP:BRD, you need to get consensus to remove it, and I'm not seeing that on the talk page right now. As for the other two, misandry is an obvious one, I can cite a number of sources that call the work an example of misandry, although we also need to decide how much Category:Misandry and Category:Misogyny are allowed to contain such works (there was a previous consensus to remove them), so if you're up for a purge of both sides of the aisle we could do that too. For example, if we remove this one from Misandry, we should remove Donkey_Punch_(pornographic_film) from Category:Misogyny - which may be the way to go, to do a wholesale purge. Otherwise, people start adding things that are much more marginal, saying "But Bills' book is so MISOGYNISTIC it deserves to be in this category!!" etc.

If you think the Violence cat should remain, you can withdraw your proposal to delete it, which will allow the conversation to be shut down early. Category:Violence against trans men is new, so please add to it if you find examples.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I will withdraw the proposal to delete it, some of the more ludicrous inclusions such as 'Woozle effect' and 'Hanged, drawn and quartered' were successfully removed. I still disagree about the SCUM Manifesto but I think we reached a point in which neither of us were going to back down and most literature is open to interpretation. I requested more comments as I think we are both polarised on either side of the argument (I also want to say, for fairness sake, I hope you have read the work - I can't quite tell reading your edits) I will do, Trans men tend to be focused on less than Trans women in the media (MtF is what most people think of when asked about trans people), but if I find any I will add them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example: Problem_Solved which is in Category:Misogyny and Category:Violence against women in the United States; as far as I know the t-shirt creator never pushed a woman out a window, nor did they espouse a form of radical masculism or inspire a whole generation of radical mens' rights activists - but nonetheless this article has been in Category:Violence against women since 2007 without dispute, and Category:Misogyny since a year, again without dispute, and unfortunately people arguing at SCUM will likely not join up to clean out Category:Misogyny as well - that's the problem with non-neutral editing. If anything, I think it's possible we have overcoverage and overcategorization of women's issues, and undercoverage of the same for men - there are 836 articles at level 3 under Category:Violence against women, and here was had a proposal to delete Category:Violence against men because we don't have enough articles. Do you really think it's because the content can't possibly exist, or because we have not produced sufficient articles on this topic? We have 104 sub-categories of "Women by occupation", but only 21 for men. We have to be very careful of reverse bias here, and I see it all the time unfortunately - on one side we have fewer bios of women, so people try to address that (good!), but on the other side we have a massive number of articles about women's rights/women's issues and very few on men's rights or other forms of gender discrimination. Neutrality demands better of all of us. When you decided to join wikipedia to clean up bias, did you think "Well, I've got to make sure Category:Violence against men and Category:Violence against women and Category:Transphobic_violence and Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans and Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States and Category:Racially motivated violence by country and Category:Child abuse don't contain any hoaxes or satire or jokes, or did you only target the men category? If you only target one category, that's a classic example of how bias can get introduced (honestly, the fact that you broke the links between men/women was shocking to me, literally shocking). I look forward to seeing *all* of your edits to both sides of the aisle... :) cheers. FWIW I have read the work, for a gender studies class a long time ago, and I looked it over again during this debate - yes I know it's all quite ridiculous, but, it's nonetheless taken seriously, for better or for worse. I honestly think if she never shot Warhol it would just be a pile of typewritten papers that would be forgotten by history, but she got her 15 minutes and the manifesto lives on because of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added and removed articles from 'Violence against women', as well as 'Symbolism' and 'French erotic novels' since joining. I have to say, I did join pretty much because of the inclusion of 'Woozle effect' in 'Misandry' though, which verged on propadanda, and my editing may seem a little biased from that, but I have been a member less than a week. I'd also rather you didn't suggest I don't care about race issues or trans issues. Anyway, I will continue to edit on both sides as long as I have the time to do so --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a question, not a suggestion. Good to hear. I have no idea what woozle is about, I read it and am still confused.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I do intend to do so on all fronts, and have studied race and trans issues. I've read lots of articles on Woozling on MRA websites. The suggestion in linking it to those categories, that of misandry and what not, is that feminist thought is based on nonfacts, and that no great oppression of women ever actually existed (for instance, they think that women said "woman might be oppressed" enough and it became "women are oppressed" to the general public, which again, considering the huge amount sexism in day-to-day society, is absurd, but I've also met people who think that the dinosaurs never existed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't get the connection. I agree, thats pretty weak. the article Woozle effect is not about Misandry. Those cats obviously don't belong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees

I have just posted a new RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. Given your previous involvement in the discussion of a related RfC there, you might want to comment on mine. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUMSHOP, starting an RfC while another on the same issue is ongoing doesn't seem appropriate or permitted. Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP says, "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." I did not do that. I raised the new RfC on the same talk page as the original one and only posted notices about it to the same boards that had been previously notified about the earlier discussion. But I am quite happy to put off further discussion of my proposal until after the previous discussion has been closed. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not about guidelines, it's about confusing the issue. the discussion is ongoing, RFCs usually stay open a month, let this one have it's time in the sun. What's important is not the title, it's the scope, so we should have a discussion about the scope of the list first. If there is agreement to have a list scoped that includes people who have black african features, no matter where they are from (what about if some poor fellow from the Andaman islands wins - are they "black" enough?), then we can discuss the title, but I'm not seeing consensus yet for a change of scope. having two RFCs at the same time is simply too confusing and will fracture the discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"It's not about guidelines, it's about confusing the issue." That makes perfect sense, so, as I said above, I have no objection to putting off my RfC until the other one is closed. I also agree that the question should be scope, not the words being used to describe that scope, which is why I wanted to shift the discussion from the objections that were being made specifically the the word "black" and not the idea of scope that motivated both the proposal and the support. My reply above to Middayexpress was simply to point out that he has mischaracterized my RfC as forum shopping. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

When the RfC is closed, a decision on how to name the page will have been established. Per WP:CCC, ignoring that decision would constitute disruption. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. First, there is a difference between a RfC and requesting to move a page. The result of a RfC discussion is not the same as the result of a move discussion. Second, if a page has "A" as its title and someone says they think it should be changed to "B", the result of that discussion cannot settle whether or not the page title should be changed to "C". There is no consensus that the title should not be changed to "C" until there has been a discussion of that suggestion. Opening a new discussion with a new suggestion is not to ignore a consensus. It is merely to propose a new change. And as WP:CCC says so clearly, "consensus can change". 99.192.66.175 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to continue this discussion of hypotheticals but allow me to disagree with 99. This RFC is equivalent to a move discussion, and whatever the result, during such a discussion it is considered that all alternatives were appropriately tabled. People have every ability to vote for a new option and move discussions often move to a title not originally proposed. So, there are many possible ways this discussion might end whereby it would be inappropriate and disruptive to propose another rename a short time thereafter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nurse!!!

I've rearranged the redir page - if you put the tag below the redirect code, the redir still works and everyone will think the page is sorted. Put it above, and you don't get whisked to the target without finding out what's going on. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Synthesising including Category:Misandry to Seperatist feminism

I understand your thinking behind adding this category but you would also have to add Transphobia and Homophobia if you want to list all the flaws in Separatist feminist thinking, which would be alike including Category:Misogyny to Patriarchy (which is something you removed I believe) In other words, misandry is a symptom of Separatist feminist thinking, not its aim or focus. Also none of the sources you added support the category you included. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi/Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer)

Can i create the articleWikiOriginal-9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

yes-I wasn't able to find many English language sources so I hope you speak German.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding personal attack on Talk:Separatist feminism

I would prefer it if you kept conversations on topic rather than going out of your way to debase me as an editor on article Talk pages. Also please read WP:PA --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

listen Drowning you are new here, so it's possible you made some mistakes. I will go easier on you but please don't make blanket statements about all of the misogynistic and sexist editors you've encountered here, I've been interacting with you on many pages and I haven't seen such misogyny or sexism yet. Remember our goal here is to write good articles from NPOV, not right great wrongs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to a poster who had brought the topic up, why did you bring up some of my previous edits rather than contributing to the conversation from a NPOV perspective? It definitely seems like WP:PA I know we are not here to right great wrongs, that isn't what Wikipedia is for, but I would still edit against material that reinforces racist stereotypes, for example. I also think you are editing from a distinct perspective and it's possible you didn't quite notice it, especially as your edits sometimes support it. I would also prefer it if you didn't tell me to "listen" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Drowning, I understood Carol to be mainly talking about issues she has with trans* people in the wider world, not on wikipedia (at least, that's the way I read it), whereas you brought up directly misogynistic editors - whenever you lambast other editors like that, you might expect someone to point out your own pattern of edits. I am indeed editing from a distinct perspective which is follow sources and NPOV. let me give you an example - we have a huge amount of material on "Americans" but the story of "Americans" is told from the POV of the winners - e.g. the white colonizers of the Americas. The story of indigenous people is a sub-story, and a sub-category, of the dominant narrative. Even if we neutrally following sources, but result can still seem biased, from a particular point of view. This is an area of tension, without a clear resolution. Jimmy Wales has argued for more activist correction of such bias. I'll give you another example of where I see such bias - a strong group of pro-feminist editors that monitors pages such as Misandry and Men's rights, and will remove any statement/link/source that does not directly mention Misandry or Men's rights, but no-one has done the same process at Women's rights or Misogyny - that to me is the very definition of non-neutral agenda pushing editing. I'm all for following our policies, but we need to follow them across the board. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

She explicitly said the following, which I was replying to: "Of course, women already are practising boycotting of Wikipedia because of the atmosphere and I'm getting closer to that every day myself. Thus I leave a whole series of extremely sexist articles just as they are", and you went out of your way to slander me for contributing to a discussion that I did not even start. Well, that is very similar to what I am doing. The dominant narrative in the Patriarchal world is that of the male, so in NPOV would be supporting the less dominant narrative, that of the female. Is that not also Activist correction of that bias? When a person makes edits to support Misandry and Men's rights, but none to support Misogony or Women's rights, then they are contributing to non-neutral agenda pushing editing, and I'm all for following our policies, but we need to follow them across the board. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made a parallel set of edits to both misandry and misogyny categories, so not sure what you're talking about.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I did say "when a person"... I thought we were both talking about users in general? I've made edits to the Misogyny category as well as the Misandry one, they just aren't as contested --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

yes, well, for users in general I've seen a lot of POV pushing from all sides to be frank, and it frustrates me when Wikipedia is accused of perpetuating patriarchy when we also have opposite forces at work here but people don't mention it. No-one should *ever* make edits in 'support' of women's rights or men's rights or masculism or feminism - I'm fine with filling out lesser-covered area - but based on sources - and making articles more neutral, but all you have to do is look at feminism vs mens rights movement and you'll see a dramatic difference in neutrality, many outside observers have noted the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can see a different in neutrality between those two articles. There's a huge deal more content on there but that's partly because Feminism has spent centuries defining itself, often at huge length due to societal pressures against it, but the men's rights movement is largely a modern cultural phenomenon and it will most likely take a few decades until it has a similar wealth of sources to use. Wikipedia generally relies on sources and is a few years behind the curve in this sort of thing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

length is only one issue. A much deeper and more insidious problem is how feminism defines itself through feminists, while men's rights movement article is structured as follows:

• Topic : Men's rights proponents think X (source). Critics and scholars claim Y. (Source source source source source).

OTOH, the feminism article looks like this:

• Topic : X-type feminists claim Z. Y-type feminists claim Z'. Very few critiques of feminism by non-feminists are there, and are especially not placed inline like they are in the MRM page. Additionally, the MRM page cannot include any source that doesn't mention MRM, whereas feminism and women's rights articles are chock full of statistics and claims and so on that also don't make reference to women's rights movement nor feminism. If you point this out they say WP:OSE. Bottom line is, while there is certainly anti-female sexism, like pushing nude pics or defacing women's bios etc, it's mostly frat-boy style crap. Otoh, there is also a strong feminist bias in a number of articles in the feminism tree that goes unchecked and unchallenged for the most part. That's probably why I reacted so negatively to your attempt to delete/erase/de-link violence against men, as I saw it as more of the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's funny you think there is a problem with certain users removing from Category:Violence against men when you spend so much time removing articles from Category:Violence against women. Are you sure you don't have the opposite prejudice? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between removing something entirely from a category (which is what you were doing) and placing it in a subcat (which is what I was doing). See WP:SUBCAT. I have a fair amount of experience with categorization, and when I see a category that is in need of help I just clean it up. You'll also notice that I created several "Rape in X" categories. I don't have an agenda to push, I'm just cleaning it up. Rape is a deep and complex topic, which is why it has a whole subcategory devoted to it. It isn't useful to bubble many of those articles up to Category:Violence against women and Category:Violence against men and Category:Violence etc as there's no reason to not bubble all of them up, so better to keep all of them organized in the subcats. The only counter example is things where the article is about rape, but also other forms of sexual violence, in which case it could be in the parent and child - this is a case of a partially-diffusing category - e.g. the "Rape" category can diffuse some parts of articles in Category:Violence against women but possibly not all of them, in which case you have dual categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of them 'are' relevant to those subcats though and it helps to have dual categorisation when it is possible to. You also edit very boldly and it misses the subtleties of some of these topics. See WP:OWN --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Those are parent cats, not subcats. And no, it doesn't help to have dual categorization in most cases, it leads to inconsistency. Please read WP:SUBCAT. Dual categorization in parent/child should be avoided in general. Stop stalking my edits please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't ask me to ignore your edits, this isn't your personal encyclopedia. That article states "unless the child category is non-diffusing" and it helps to have both --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rape is not a non-diffusing subcat of Category:Violence against women, it is diffusing. It's not about "it helps to have both" - it may help to have many hundreds of articles about rapes in Category:Violence against women but we don't do it, we subcat them appropriately. Your mass reverts of my edits that are according to policy are becoming disruptive, I will seek admin assistance if you don't cease.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that, in removing them from Category:Violence against woman, you draw attention away from the fact that these are often gendered topics and that women are frequently the victims of rape. I'd really prefer it if you didn't refer to my edits as 'stalking', it's another instance of your rude and patronising behaviour towards myself and it distracts from the actual issue. If I were to make lots of edits, and you reverted many of them, I wouldn't accuse you of stalking, that would be absurd --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Drowning, categorization is not a political act, and should not be used to "highlight" issues. Categorization is used for navigational purposes to group like-articles together. You are new here so I'm willing to be patient but please don't speak as if you are an expert in categorization here. You make claims about non-diffusing categories but I believe you don't really know what that means. re stalking, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, this is common terminology here. If Category:Rape were really non-diffusing, then we would put ALL of the contents in the parent. since we don't, it's obviously not non-diffusing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case then you have frequently 'stalked' my edits, as quite often I will make an edit only to have you revert it without much of a comment a few minutes later. Category:Rape doesn't show that these are gendered issues and the other category does, so both are legitimate. That isn't a political act either --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain why the other 1381 articles about rape aren't in the VAW cat then.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Not every article in Category:Rape is relevant to Category:Violence against women, and that alone probably proves why, although the Violence against... categories are parent categories, not every Category:Rape article is relevant Violence against women or men. If anything I think the two should be separate. Also I wasn't going through editing articles that I felt should be in Category:Violence against women, I was reverting your changes as I felt they were unfounded --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Category:Rape is no longer a subcat of Category:Violence against women, that would change things, but I think you're unlikely to get consensus for that change, so WP:SUBCAT would apply. if "Not every article in Category:Rape is relevant to Category:Violence against women" is true, then that is also an admission that Category:Rape is NOT non-diffusing. You can't have it both ways. I agree not all Rape is violence against women (nor are all articles relevant), but for topic categories we are generally more flexible vs set categories, so I think that parenting relationship is reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Not every article in Category:Rape is relevant to Category:Violence against women" is true, but that many articles in Category:Rape are relevant to Category:Violence against women as they affect women in the majority is also true. I think this is another instance where categorisation should be flexible, as ignoring the fact that rape is often a gendered issue is reductive to the categorisation of said articles, and removing all of these categories from the articles like you have done so does that. You may not think rape is a gendered issue, but there is a huge amount of sources on the rape articles that supports this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would never claim that rape isn't a gendered issue. I simply think that using the category system to make this point is in violation of the way we use categories everywhere else here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't making a point about it, it's reflecting how the issue is. It isn't POV that rape is a gendered issue, it's proven, and the categories should reflect that. Those articles are very relevant to Category:Violence against women --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Reminder of CFDWM

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Other – still waiting for you, apparently. – Fayenatic London 00:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates

I have reverted your edit to Ernest Hemingway. The discussion about Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, and John Wyndham templates were all held at one time so that we don't have to hold the same discussion over and over for every author. If you wish to re-reaise the issue, please open a new discussion at WP:NOVELS or WP:LIT

the discussion I saw was closed as NC. This means we need to have another one, or work it out on each article individually.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of bell hooks quotation to Circular Reporting

You'll have to forgive me as I'm quite new to this but you suggested that I added it as an example, would you say this reads correctly? Circular reporting

cant do it u need to revert. I thought we had a wikispace version of this. You cant add it to mainspace as we only know about it through OR. Lets see if we can find a wikispace version, or you could have a feminist writer friend do a piece about it in a RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've removed it from the page then. Is there no wikispace version then? I don't have any feminist writer friends sadly, it's more of something I research than a lifestyle --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

not sure. We could ask at the help desk, maybe someone there knows of a place to put this story. I wasn't able to find one, there is a list of Wikipedia hoaxes but not sure if this fits, it seems more like one bumbling error after another than a real intent to mislead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell of intent. I think it's possible that it was done with intent as gender issues often get quite heated, but it is also possible that one person along the line somehow confused that synthesised summary of her works to a direct quote and made said referencing error despite it. I'm hoping it's less likely to reappear online after we've discussed it at such length anyway (as google results will possibly lead to our conversation on it) but if there is a suitable place it's worth noting quickly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

the original intent seems to be opinion, although it was entered with the summary NPOV - but the edits weren't. However, the person who sourced it to bell hooks made other reasonable edits and seemed interested in feminism- I think it was just sloppy, not malicious. Then the book writer turned it Into a quote and of course never verified the original source. We should write bell hooks and let her know, she might be amused and write about it, then we'll get a RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, this whole process involved people from many different positions concerning the topic. I'd find her too intimidating to write to, I admire that woman so much. If you do so please let me know though, I'd be really interested to see her standing on the matter --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

CFR / CFD notification

Hi, thank you for the notification for the CFR for Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities. However, in the future, please take note of the comments on creation of articles and/or categories. Being one of the main admin's that dealt with Categories for Renaming and Categories for Deletion (CFR & CFD), I literally created, deleted and/or renamed literally thousands of categories. Since all of these creations/renamings were done through the consensus of the CFR process, I personally don't have a stake in whether they get renamed or deleted after. Also, if I were to receive a notification on every single one of these that I handled as an Admin, I would be receiving a ton of email. I always appreciate the opportunity to provide my input on these matters, but in the cases such as these where I created the category specifically as an Admin based off of a CFR, which I noted on the Category in question, it is not necessary to inform me of any future nominations. Thank you for your time and efforts. «»Who?¿? 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

it's automatic through twinkle, some people complain when not notified, and I don't usually check history of category ; additionally I find it useful to have comments from admins who close such discussions when the cat has already been through one - so, I guess I'm saying, it may happen again, but I will see about reverting if I see your name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Films shot in...

Hiya. Over at WT:FILM you'd indicated that you might nominate some of the "Films shot in..." categories for deletion. Were you planning to proceed with that or have you reconsidered? Just curious. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

I hope you did not take offense of my removal of your comment, as much as it would be great to see FOX changing it's tune it does not really help much to the article other than being general discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

no worries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Technologists

I have closed this CfD as nominated, and listed it at WP:CFDWM. You may wish to implement it. – Fayenatic London 11:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Banksia redirects

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24#Category:Banksia_redirects which I am minded to close as "no action" unless someone takes it forward. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I closed it as Delete, but listed it at WP:CFDWM for the talk pages to be tagged first. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about WikiProjects

Hello, I'm just curious as to why you linked the discussion about SCUM Manifesto to WikiProjects:Men's Issues but not to WikiProject:Feminism despite the article being hugely more related to Feminism as Valerie Solanas was writing a Feminist text. Isn't this Canvassing? WP:CAN --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

prob because the discussion was about misandry and violence against men which are obv more relevant to men's rights.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, with the other two, but not with The SCUM manifesto. I mean for one thing, many of the editors at WikiProject:Feminism will have read the text. Is that really the reason or is it just because you did them all at once and it was easier? It's probably accidental WP:Votestacking in that case --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

the only scum manifesto discussion i was notifying on was about categorization as violence against men, so no it wasn't vote stacking.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, surely it's good to have perspectives other than the Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues one, that most likely mirrors your own. Also how is a debate on categorising a not relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism? I'm still assuming good faith and that, in adding all three articles in one post, you didn't think other opinions were necessary for that one specifically, because otherwise it is definitely WP:Votestacking --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

wikiprojects are not intended to be opinion-focused they are intended to be topic-focused. Thus, non-gay people are members of LGBT and non-feminists are members of feminism and non-mRAs are members of mens issues. It would be ridiculous is every time there was an article about a feminist one notified WikiProject men's issues, and similarly when discussing a category under the scope of men's issues we don't need to inform the feminist project for every discussion. You are free to notify whoever you want in any case. There are no boogeymen in the closet, I simply notified a project of 3 discussions clearly in its scope.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I personally believe that a discussion concerning a Feminist text is most appropriately relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, but I guess not everybody makes that connection --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Really appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy, certainly deserving of an award. Keep it up! Shakehandsman (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A bit annoyed that some people are being lazy or sloppy in their research... so I wanted to make a decent case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find this article in your list: [6], hope that helps. Edit, realised its by Sacks so maybe not the best source, how about this instead [7]--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Can you please stop edit warring on the Template:Violence Against Men [8]. You've reached the 3RR limit. I know that I reverted you as well, but at least I have attempted to initiate discussion on the talk page.

Additionally, your edit summary says: will engage tomorrow until the. Read brd

This is daft.

First, if you won't "engage until tomorrow", then ... don't *revert* until tomorrow.

Second, instructing *me* to "Read brd" when you have completely failed to discuss the issue on talk is dishonest.

It's really becoming clear that there's a pattern of disruptive editing here, problems with POV pushing, and a WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality when it comes to topics associated with these so-called "Men's rights". Maybe you should step back from the topic area for a bit? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marek, an edit to a template affects perhaps hundreds of pages. As such reversion to the original pre-dispute is normal. I know you know what bRD is I'm just asking you to follow it. I will post my reasoning as soon as I'm able to out together reasoning - you're using too broad a brush and throwing baby out with bath water. Sorry. Also accusing me of edit warring - now THAT is daft.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

reversion to the original pre-dispute is normal.. Ok. Here is the pre-dispute version [9]. All that extra junk was added not that long ago by User:Ranze. Note that some of this extra junk was removed not just by myself but also by other users. So if you are making the "As such reversion to the original pre-dispute is normal." argument in WP:GOOD FAITH, and not as a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic, you will follow your own advice and revert to that version (here it is again, to avoid confusion [10]).

If you know what BRD is then please FOLLOW IT, rather than just lecturing others about it. If you cannot come up with a "reasoning" for your edit warring, then don't edit war. At least not until you can muster that "reasoning" up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you're still editing [11] despite your statement that you won't engage until tomorrow. If you're not going to engage can you self-revert your revert at template, until such time as you're willing to participate in the discussion? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if you're gonna keep editing then either adhere to BRD and participate in the discussion or self revert your edit warring. You're obviously online so ....Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marek, those edits had been in place at least a month by the time you reverted them. It's not logical at all to say that we should revert to a time BEFORE those edits were made. be patient, I will get to the talk page of the template tomorrow, don't worry nothing bad will happen if they remain another day. silence is consensus, so given those remained even through several other edits, suggests other edits agreed with them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If "nothing bad will happen" then self revert please. Nothing bad will happen. There was an earlier version of the template, somebody added disputed, nonsense, topics to it, the addition was disputed. Then you showed up and started edit warring to re-insert the disputed additions. Above you said "reversion to the original pre-dispute is normal." All I'm asking is that you actually adhere to what you say. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of those "nonsense" topics are the ones you are now actively trying to remove categories from, and for which I've just dumped lots and lots of sources. So, why not go do some homework, I will deal with the template tomorrow. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If "nothing bad will happen" then self revert please. Otherwise it seems like you're trying very hard to game good faith and the edit warring rule. You're editing now. You have been editing for the past several hours. Blindly reverting others and edit warring with the justification of "I'll discuss the issue when I feel like it, at some unspecified point in the future" is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the least of which is WP:BRD, which you yourself brought up. Likewise, if you really think that the template page should reflect the "pre-dispute" version, then please kindly revert to that pre-dispute version rather than making up excuses to justify your own preferred POV version. Consistency and honesty and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor request

I have no problem discussing my creations at deletion fora, but can you do me (and presumably other creators) the courtesy to notify them that their work is at CfD? I wouldn't have known about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15#Category:People_who_had_their_work_censored is I hadn't checked my watchlist today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

try this: look at your talk page, ~6:15 yesterday.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I am awarding you this barnstar for your careful and meaningful work in encouraging other users to perform more reliable Google searches, as you have done at User talk:Msnicki. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, thanks 81.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome: I have seen your name come up alongside sensible comments before. As I wrote on the talk page, it might be best if you just let the argument lie: the other user obviously feels very strongly about the outcome of the request. Any sense of 'right' or 'wrong' should be clear to any other users reading the discussion. On a related note, have you ever considered applying to become an administrator? 81.135.61.62 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I think the RFA process would be a bit too stressful for me now. Maybe in a year or two, who knows... But thanks for the comment, I appreciate it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for defending me against the accusation of sockputting when I was unable to do so myself. I hope this qualifies as thanks Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and welcome back. I don't think this needed to be brought to ANI. I'd take guidance from Alf tho - I don't always agree with them (indeed I often disagree) but they are good people. I do believe you can be a good contributor here and look forward to collaboration when possible. Someone once said the sign of a neutral editor is that you can't tell what position they hold by looking at their edits. This is a standard we should all aspire to, myself included.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I honestly feel quite bad about the whole thing. At first I was very offended by the warning but seeing it context it was inspired by my own mistakes. I don't think anyone agrees with others all the time, but you're very right that I should make more varied edits. It's hard because when I add or remove categories to literature related articles it tends to be more clear cut, as in "this is this movement or this is that" and it isn't reverted, whereas there is a lot of dispute around gender related ones so it takes more edits to make a single change. That said, I do intend to make more edits around the board --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if you edit only in one area, the key is to try to be balanced (at least in my opinion). Do you mean you were offended by my warning on your page? It wasn't intended as a warning, e.g. I wasn't threatening any action, I was just suggesting that you needed to be more careful, I also need to be more careful! For example, one of the things that frustrates me is when people make edits to one page and hold one page to a certain standard, but don't hold the same page on the other side of the spectrum to the same standard. There are a lot of double standards at play here, it's a good way to identify POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I meant the ban attempt sorry, I probably need to reign myself in a little. I think I would have responded better if the user had talked to directly rather than have that started, but it's mostly comes from my confusion with how the whole website. I'm getting to grips with it and I made some edits that were far too WP:BOLD in my first week and I probably make mistakes still. I'm glad I wasn't banned for good though Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I myself wouldn't have brought that to ANI, although an RFC/U may have been more appropriate, but I felt that the discussions you were having with Alf seemed to be bearing fruit and your edit pattern was changing so I think admin action was premature. In any case, I don't think the referral to ANI was a suggestion of a ban or even a block, although in such cases topic-bans can be proposed, but this wasn't a case where a topic ban would have passed. Don't worry i have 25k edits and I still make mistakes all the time...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, terminology note: sockpuppet, not sockputting; and a block means you can't edit wikipedia for a time, a BAN means, you have been kicked out of the community forever. A topic ban, much less severe, just means you can't edit in a certain topic area for an amount of time. A ban is a really extreme measure, rarely applied, you're nowhere near risking that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'm still learning the website and some of these procedures take some learning. I guess it's better to learn through experience though right? Anyway, I hope in the future editors go to my talk page before running through something like that. I can be opinionated but I'm certainly not unreasonable. You're right that we all make mistakes, I guess the thing with Wikipedia is that our mistakes are recorded indefinitely Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The one thing I regret is that I mentioned my gender during the debate. I was hoping to keep it to myself and maintain this user as relatively anonymous. I suppose it's not a huge deal though and things like that tend to get obscured in time Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drowninginlimbo: Your gender is still listed in the wikipedia prefs, so some people can see it. Try adding this to your common.js: importScript("User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js"); - it shows gender + number of edits of any user. If you want to be more gender-free, just untick that pref. As for your other comment, it reminds me of that terrible joke - what is the diff between love and herpes? Herpes is forever. As are your edits on wikipedia... That said, many users start out making mistakes and then correct them over time. I made many mistakes when I started, and I'm still making them. It's all good...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I just changed it, thank you for mentioning that. Oh god, I have quite a funny anecdote related to that joke but its quite risque and keeping in mind with the whole edits on Wikipedia lasting forever thing I'll keep it to myself for now. You have a good point, I think it's difficult to not make mistakes, and it's so easy to fix them on here that it isn't a huge deal. Looking back on the whole ANI thing, I think a short apology probably would have solved it in the first place Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT feminists

It's not great as a broad "all four quadrants" classification, no, but the concept of lesbian feminism is a pretty notable branch of feminism which can be said to constitute a defining characteristic in its own right. The problem, of course, then becomes what you do about a person who is strongly associated with lesbian feminism, but who is technically bisexual rather than lesbian — e.g. Kate Millett or Camille Paglia — or one who identifies as queer instead of lesbian. (I'm not aware of any notable examples offhand, but it is even technically possible for a woman to be a "lesbian feminist" while actually being purely heterosexual in her own personal sex life.) I agree that the categories are being overused for people who aren't really identified with "lesbian feminism" per se (Lady Gaga? Lesley Gore?), but it's not always an invalid categorization — it's just one that that should be restricted to the particular context of people who are specifically associated with "lesbian feminist" thought and literature instead of being extended to every single person who happens to fit into both "LGBT" and "feminist" trees. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the bi- and queer feminist cats exist already. And while lesbian feminism is notable as a philosophy are lesbian feminists? As you point out is this about adherence to a philosophy or is it intersection of sexuality with feminism ? I'm sure there are lesbians who are also feminists but who don't adhere to 'lesbian feminist' philosophy (indeed there are lesbians who aren't feminist at all!) perhaps it's worth clarifying the intended scope - and maybe emptying LGBT feminists as that sounds like an intersectional vs philosophical cat, no? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

also fwiw I nominated polyamorous people for deleting, take a look and weigh in if you like.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)