User talk:Obiwankenobi

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)

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)

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)

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: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)

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)

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: [1], hope that helps. Edit, realised its by Sacks so maybe not the best source, how about this instead [2]--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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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 [5]).

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 [6] 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)

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)

List

Hi Obiwankenobi. The RfC finally expired, and an administrator erroneously closed it in favor of the page move when there was clearly no consensus for it (five votes for the proposal vs. five votes against it). Despite this, one of the accounts that supported the move has attempted to edit the list in that direction. I've left a detailed explanation of the situation here. Your input there would be appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 15 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)

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)

really? I mean really?

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
  • I have worked on geography and geographic regions categories for all of my time in Wikipedia; mountain range categories and the system encompassing them I helped build, no less in my own region built it from scratch. This is a nuisance CfD and in the light of recent events is highly inappropriate. To me this just more procedure that will take up valuable time that could be spent on improving and creating river articles and region-based categories as needed and suitable. \

• • My attempt to inform editors from related WikiProjects who may wish to comment was not CANVASSing, only an effort to broaden input on the discussion from people who work regularly with river articles and categories.....come to think of it I didn't notify WikiProject Mountains and perhaps should.

• • There are other region/river categories in British Columbia already: Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island and Category:Hydrography of the Okanagan and I just created Category:Rivers of the Lower Mainland. Mountain ranges are regions in British Columbia and necessarily so because of the vastness of the regions they take in; the Boundary Ranges are something to the scale of the British Isles, or at least Britain, in size, for example.

• • Overlapping hierarchies of subdivisions of British Columbia are noted in my initial response to the CfD; there is no one way to break down British Columbia by region or by political geography; all can be used provided they can be cited e.g. as someone has already used the land districts...which is what BC Names uses to classify all toponymical objects in BC, as does CGNDB; the GNIS uses Counties and City-Boroughs (for AK) but Canadian sources do not; S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia breaks the province down by landform - lowlands, ranges, plateaus, including mentions of lakes and rivers within them, and that is the source document for BC Names' descriptions/entries.

• • there is no guideline (that I am aware of) saying that there cannot be geographic object categories based on natural regions. An example already provided for similar is Category:Lakes of the Alps.

• • I just want to create and improve articles and refine categories e.g. Category:Rivers of British Columbia which are too large in their current form. Instead I am being pulled into a needless CD and now am having procedural challenges thrown at me......this is amounting to something a bit too much like stalking to comment on further with "official admonishment" and maybe more "punishment".
  • I am well aware that regional expertise is frowned in some quarters, and that "neutral" interloping from people with no expertise at all is celebrated by some as somehow superior, but can't a guy get any work done without having more procedure thrown at him by somebody with no knowledge of the region and probably who has never heard of the Boundary Ranges before nor any of the many rivers within it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• • BTW brought this to you because I saw your name in the edit history of the CfD page; and figured you might see my point (re all above) and also likely would appreciate my desire to be left alone after two-three weeks of duress from time-consuming procedural "disscussions".Skookum1 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I will refrain from further comment except to note that this began by my creating the Keta River article earlier and noting the number of river articles within Category:Boundary Ranges; and so in the absence of a suitable cat to include all rivers in these ranges (which are many) and so that they are not in a mountain ranges category directly, created that cat by necessity as these are not mountain items as normally go in such categories but rivers located withing the range. Similarly the Canadian Rockies subcat was created for the same reason; rivers were in categories where mountains are the norm (lakes and waterfalls in the Canadian Rockies and in other ranges and landforms e.g. the Cariboo Plateau and Thompson Plateau are also natural geographic tierings within geographic contexts in British Columbia as also elsewhere in Canada .e.g "Lake of the Canadian Shield". Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really interested in that CFD so I'm unlikely to comment there. I do think that a broader discussion should be opened at the geography project around the best way to categorize geographic features, especially ones which cross national/political boundaries, but this scheme could create thousands of more categories so before pursuing it further I'd get broader consensus at the geography page - in which case do we classify by a geographic meta-feature, vs a political boundary? As for WP:CANVASS, your notifications were not neutral, e.g. "I find it rather odd that anyone would object to anything so simple as classifying the rivers of the vast Boundary Ranges by their location and points of origin/issue there, effectively to insist that e.g. they only be classified by Ketchikan and Juneau boroughs rather than by their actual natural region." and "Using the Stikine Region or Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine is not relevant given the changeable boundaries of that system, and the irregular shape of the latter, which spans several mountain ranges and regions and has no basis in natural geography." - you're arguing the case. I'd suggest replacing those comments with a neutral notification. It's best to use {{pls}} for such notifications, and keep your own arguments to the CFD page. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)