Edit filter log

'{{noindex}} {{archive box|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot III|age=30|search=yes}} {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 2 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(30d) |archive = User talk:Obiwankenobi/Archive %(counter)d }} {{Usertalkback|me=watchtb|you=watchtb|icon=lang}} <!-- Template from Template:WelcomeMenu -->{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0" |class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top; color:#000000; font-size:85%"| {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:lavender; padding:0;" ! <div style="margin:0; background-color:white; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:normal; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello! '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to Wikipedia!'''. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place '''<tt>{&#123;helpme&#125;}</tt>''' on your [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] and ask your question there. Please remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on talk pages by clicking [[File:Insert-signature.png|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts|alt=]] or by typing four tildes "~&#126;~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "[[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user|adopted]]" by a more experienced editor or joining a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory|here]] for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! |} {| width="100%" style="background-color:white;" |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid white; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top"| {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:Lavender" ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div> |- |style="color:#000"| * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]] • [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] • [[Wikipedia:Your first article|Your first article]] * How to: [[Help:Editing|edit a page]] • [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|upload an image]] |- ! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div> |- | style="color:#000"| * [[Wikipedia:FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]] * [[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|New contributors' help page]] * Where to: [[Wikipedia:Questions|ask questions]] • [[Wikipedia:Requests|make requests]] * [[Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention|Request administrator attention]] |- ! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Policies and Guidelines</div> |- | style="color:#000"| * [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] • [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|Reliable sources]] * [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] • [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources]] • [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] * [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]] • [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]] <hr /> * [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] • [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] • [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sock puppetry]] * [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Copyrights]] • [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Policy for non-free content]] • [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|Image use policy]] * [[Wikipedia:External links|External links]] • [[Wikipedia:Spam|Spam]] • [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]] * [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Deletion policy]] • [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]] • [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] |- |} |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:Seashell; vertical-align:top"| {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:Seashell" ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">The Community</div> |- |style="color:#000"| * [[Wikipedia:Community portal|Community Portal]] • [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user|Adopt-a-user program]] * [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]] • [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]] • [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Etiquette]] * [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|No personal attacks]] • [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|Resolving disputes]] * [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Build consensus]] • [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Signpost]] • [[Wikipedia:IRC|IRC channels]] • [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Mailing lists]] |- ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Things to do</div> |- |style="color:#000"| * '''[[Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold in editing]]''' • [[Wikipedia:Article development|Help develop an article]] * [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] • [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]] • [[Wikipedia:Requested articles|Requested articles]] * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|Join a WikiProject]] • [[Wikipedia:Translation|Translating articles]] * Cleaning up: [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|General]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|Spam]] • [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism|Vandalism]] |- ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Miscellaneous</div> |- |style="color:#000"| * [[Wikipedia:Categorization|Categories]] • [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|Disambiguity]] • [[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]] * [[Wikipedia:User pages|User pages]] • [[Help:Using talk pages|Talk pages]] * [[Wikipedia:Template messages|Useful templates]] • [[Wikipedia:Tools|Tools]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts|User scripts]] |} |} |}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> == What should I do about someone calling me racist and sexist == [[User talk:Jayen466]] has accused me of being racist and sexist on [[Talk:Rochelle Alers]]. This makes no sense to me since A-well after the hullabaloo started this was the only sub-cat of [[:Category:American novelists]] she was in. B-I explitly explained this. At one point as can be seen at [Rochelle Alers: Revision history] Jayen said "WP:Cat/gender (and yes, I know romantic fiction writers are - currently - a subcat of American novelists). That's too arcane an explanation for our reading public", It is too much to expect readers to understand a person in [[:Category:American romantic fiction writers]] does not need to be in the parent [[:Category:American novelists]]? This makes me fear that we are on the verge of having a massive increase in the number of categories articles will be put in. I am realy not sure what to do at this point.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC) :I agree, I responded there; that was out of line. Sorry for all the flak you're taking. You may want to lower your profile until this whole thing blows over - they have painted a target on your back which is bs.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC) == [[Love Creeps]] == I think your edits have been fair and well-reasoned. Thank you for your help. [[User:Qworty|Qworty]] ([[User talk:Qworty|talk]]) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC) == Winona LaDuke == {{collapse top|title=JPL's answers - don't read plz if you're taking the quiz}} I was not sure where to put my answers on Winona LaDuke, so I decided to put them here and let you move them to where they belong. These are my conclusions. Add - [[:Category:People from Becker County, Minnesota]], [[:Category:American women novelists]] and [[:Category:Jewish women writers]]. Remove [[:Category:American non-fiction writers]] because she is already in a sub-category of that (the enivronmental one), I am actually unresolvedly torn over her being in [[:Category:Native American writers]] and think the only workable solution at present is to create [[:Category:Native American non-fiction writers]]. However I think the general interpretation would be to remove her from that category since she is already in [[:Category:American novelists]]. I would also clearly remove her from [[:Category:Green Party of the United States politicians]] because she is in both a by office and by state sub-cat. It also seems she should be added to [[:Category:Writers from Minnesota]] and [[:Category:Women writers from Minnesota]]. Whther she qualifies for the Oregon and California categories of that type is harder to say, but I would say no. She clearly should not be in any state politicans category except Minnesota, but the connection of place and writing is a lot less clear. I would say though her writing was done as a resident of Minnesota, and so only being from Minnesota needs to be reflected in that.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC) ::Looking over the category I also think she should be added to [[:Category:American activists]] since the only sub-cat of the category she is in is both Nat Am and women. She also should maybe be put in [[:Category:Native American activists]].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) :::Ok, let me see how this adds up. I'm also ignoring new cat suggestions, which is out of scope. It seems you are suggesting:<br> add to: *[[:Category:People from Becker County, Minnesota]] *[[:Category:Jewish women writers]] *[[:Category:Writers from Minnesota]] *[[:Category:American activists]] *[[:Category:Native American activists]] delete: *[[:Category:American non-fiction writers]] *[[:Category:Green Party of the United States politicians]] Is that correct? Feel free to correct the list above directly - just having in list format will make it easier to grade. thanks. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) {{collapse bottom}} *I guess it works, however only because of the really odd nature of splitting categories where people fall in more than one potential sub-cat, but only one of those potential sub-cats exists. It will also push her to 39 categories, which really seems getting excessive to me.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC) == The outrage that isn't == At some level I have to wonder why the NYT did not go after [[:Category:American hymnwriters]], it has only one sub-cat, by religion [[:Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters]] and no overlap at all. This is the extreme of "ghetoization" if I have ever seen it. Of course it is also true I created a large number of articles in that category. So is someone now going to suggest by populating this category I had some anti-Mormon bias? Or are they going to suggest that I was anti-Catholic in not working to develop contents for [[:Category:American Catholic hymnwriters]].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) :That's a good one. There are umpteen other examples. Ultimately, this is ineffable - c'est la vie - and IMHO a massive misunderstanding. I should note however that in my opinion, you (and in some cases BHG) were technically not following [[WP:EGRS]], which does state they should stay in the parent - I wanted to say it to you directly. (Even if I disagree with that guidance, we should follow it until it's changed) I've pointed out elsewhere, solving that problem generally (vs this particular case) is tricky, as you've seen with Winona Duke. {{cl|American male prostitutes}} is another one - do you see anyone raging over that sexist classification (what, they aren't considered "real" prostitutes?) --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC) *Then there is the comment now on my talk page about "unmarried women" being a contradiction in terms. I am very baffled by it to say the least.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC) ::suggest do not engage. No good can come of this. Drop it, don't respond is my suggestion.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 23:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC) *On another note I just added [[Colleen Coble]] into [[:Category:American novelists]]. Somehow I do not see people at the New York Times being enraged we had [[:Category:American Christian writers]] and the effect of it was to excluide writers who wrote novels with heavily Christian themes from [[:Category:American novelists]]. In fact I have this suspicion some of the NYT people would have supported the removal of [[Stephanie Meyer]] from [[List of American novelists]].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) ::Interesting. Per the emerging guidelines, they are in the writers tree, so at the very least, all should be bubbled up to {{cl|American religious writers}}, if you consider that a thematic (and not religion!) cat. Sigh. This duplication into the parent cats is going to make things very confusing - will make it much harder to see who hasn't been diffused yet.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :::I really think though we should diffuse out by specific religion from a category like [[;Category:American religious writers]]. I am also 100% confinced that we should diffuse singers, people in acting, models and dancers by gender totally. I also am pretty sure we should diffuse comedians by gender. On the other hand I would argue that we should not diffuse by race as much in those cases. I would say gender is central to the very roles in how we diffuse there, but ethnicity is not.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) ::::I think we should wait until the CfDs close, and the press moves on, and then start a centralized discussion on reform of the guidance - it's not very good at this point and rather vague.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 04:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) == [[James Baldwin]] == Hi, I don't know what happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Baldwin&diff=552820869&oldid=552820539 here] - all I can think is that my cursor must have been hovering and I inadvertently rolled back. If I'd meant to revert, I would have done it manually. That said, I don't understand why he's left in the American novelist category but there was edit warring to take Ernest Hemingway out of that category. But there's much about this situation that I don't understand. Anyway, just wanted you to know it wasn't an intentional edit. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :ah ok - actually yes you're right, since we now have the men novelist cat, he should be put there instead. good point. I haven't really bothered populating that one, it already has 100 bios - I think I'll just wait for the CFD to finish, then if it is deleted, no change; but if not, he will eventually get diffused down to that one.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) ::::I very strongly ask that Hemingway is not moved out of American novelist. Nor, for that matter should Baldwin. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :::::Yes good point - guidance states that for now, gendered subcats are non-diffusing, so while I disagree and have posted at length elsewhere on the challenges this guidance creates, I am not in favor of violating that guidance until it is changed. So he could be added to it, but not removed from the parent. :::::'''However''', if either Baldwin or Hemingway (or anyone else! - I note that there are currently 3000 novelists that *aren't* in the head category) are also in a diffusing subcat of {{cl|American novelists}}, then they should be removed from the head cat. Read up on [[WP:Categorization]] if you're not clear on what diffusing means: (a quote:"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.") For example, we now have {{cl|20th-century American novelists}}, so both of these fellows would end up there soon instead of the head cat. Feel free to ask questions if you're confused by the above. cheers! --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 12:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC) ::::::I'm very clear, though everyone speaks to me as though I'm stupid. I disagree with it and having brought Hemingway to FA status, I probably suffer more than a bit of ownership - nine months of research and all will do that to a person. But anyway, I recognize that I have zero say or power in regards to any of this. Just wanted you to know the Baldwin edit was a mistake - which given the state of my watchlist was bound to happen at some point. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :::::::Not true at all - you can certainly have a say, but in this case you would need to have consensus to change the guidance, both at [[WP:EGRS]] and [[WP:Categorization]] re: diffusion and non-diffusion of categories. If I were you I would not get held up on having that little "American novelist" tag at the bottom of the page - there are thousands of politicians, and *none* of them have the "American politician" tag at the bottom of their page - they're all in sub-categories - but life goes on nonetheless. This is just the way things work, and we shouldn't attach so much emotional energy to whether someone is in a cat or a subcat. Rather, focus on what's really important - the work people like you do on articles - that's worth much more than cat schemes. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was speaking to you like you were stupid, that certainly wasn't my intent. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC) == I still feel under attack == I still feel that Milowent is attacking me. His most recent statement at the ANI seems to not at all acknowledge that it is wrong to accuse people of things they did not do. I also find it very problematic that people are so quick to try to shoot people down for higlighting women as writers. I think people are not acknowledging that when we have no category for women speifically in a certain category, we might be hiding the fact that any women were invovled in it. This is an even more pronounced issue for ethnic groups. Milowent seems to still want to engage in personal attacks. I have twice almsot responded to his most recent statement, but both times realized there is no way to calmly do so. However it still feels like a malicious personal attack. It seems he is trying to say "all wikipedia's problems are a result of actions by John Pack Lambert." Maybe I am over-reacting, but the mention of "the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem." If that is not a personal, malicious attack, what is? The failure to admit that no one fully understands categorization, and that the rules themselves are less than clear, I think also makes this more problematic.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :Yeah, you're in a tough position - especially now that the media is naming names. But, the proposal to ban you was roundly defeated, and I would just step away from ANI and let the admins there decide what, if anything, to do. Milowent will calm down eventually. One approach may be to try to discuss calmly on his talk page, or on Andreas'. I've found that a gentler approach works better - I keep on forgetting this. I'd also step away from the CFD for a little bit, you've made enough comments - interesting that you changed your mind. I've been thinking about that too - but we *could* fully diffuse {{cl|American novelists}} by century, so I think that may be the best approach, esp since we already have a similar writers tree. If all of these people had been categorizing the 2800 writers and 3700 novelists into subcats by now instead of just bleeding ink, we'd be in a much better position...--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC) *You may have a point about fully diffusing by century. Do we have [[:Category:21st-century American novelists]]?[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *I almost posted this statement in response to Avt tor's statement "A quote taken out of the context in which it was given, and then prefaced with an explantion that says it is about something it is not about, is an attack. I never said I thought "female presidents should be called" anything, I never said anything about female presidents, so in fact, to claim I had said something was false. Also, quoting things people said outside of wikipedia, especially when they were not at all meant to have any bearing on anything on wikipedia, is almost always a personal attack." I am trying to figure out how to get these people to realize that it is inaprproaiate to quote statements made on someone's facebook page, especially in the way that Milowent did so, by lieing about what I said and claiming that I "favor calling female persidents presidentesses", when in fact I have never advocated calling any female who holds the title of "president" any such thing. It is especially egregious when Milowent essentially uses it as a way to say "religious attacks on editors are sometimes OK". They are also ignoring how rude it is to say things like "you ain't gonna change the minds of editors who live in the real world", or to call someone "the unintentional He-man women haters club president". This is inflamatory and attack language, and I do not see anyone really asking for it to cease. Disagreement on policy should not lead to personal attacks, and I do not see any actual acknowledgement on these people's part that it is not right to personally attack other users.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *What is the point of even bringing things to ANI. No one has yet pointed out to Milowent that he should not engage in personal attacks. It feels like no administrators care about how offensive it is to call someone "He-man women haters club president" and the "unintentional" opening does not change things. I am not the person who accused others of not living in the real world, but I am the only one who had a ban proposed. Should I assume we no longer have a rule against personal attacks.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *I also have a sense that people are continually personally trying to blame me for the whole problem. Am I the person who decided to create [[:Category:Women writers]] but not [[:Category:Men writers]]? No. In fact I tried at one point to get rid of such categories as [[:Category:Hispanic and Latino American women]], and those of us who did not like the category were attacked as a bunch of racist mysoginists off-site, so it is clear that trying to dismantle such categories leads to as many attacks as creating them.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *And then there are the lies of salon where they say the work Filipacchi noticed is the work of "a single, misguided wikipedia editor". That is an absolute lie. I did not create [[:Category:American women novelists]]. I have never edited the article on [[Amy Tan]], which is one that Filipacchi brought up. Not have I ever edited [[Alaya Dawn Johnson]].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *Then there is this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwidge_Danticat&diff=548571449&oldid=544191032] where Danticat was not even in the American novelists tree at all till I moved her there.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Latin America == Just a heads up on categorization—Suriname, Belize, French Guiana, and the Falkland Islands are not part of [[Latin America]]. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] ^{[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]} 05:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :Yeah. I was thinking of nominating that head cat to be renamed as South America instead - what do you think? Also, in some cases, those places are considered part of Latin America (it's not just spanish-speaking countries), it's a more general term for south of the US. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 05:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah, I'm not really sure why we need categories for both Latin American descent and some for South American descent—but then again, I am always somewhat flummoxed by the ethnic descent categories. I'm not sure what would be the reaction if we proposed using South American but not Latin American in categories for ethnicity. I think using the broader definition of Latin America is pretty sloppy and/or liable to be criticised as uneducated, but I do believe you that some people use it in that way. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] ^{[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]} 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :::If I did make the nom, my argument would be, we have basically continental categories within {{cl|People by ethnic or national descent}} - N America, Oceania, asia, Africa, Europe - so latin america is the only one that doesn't fit - so rename to South America and resort as necessary (putting central america into N America, or it's own sub cat)? I think the preponderance of latin america categories is overall a problem - as they duplicate many south american categories - thinks like this : [[:Category:Chinatowns in Latin America]] - what's the point? There are many that are valid of course, but in general I think we should eliminate most except really relevant cultural ones. Another question - should I create {{cl|People by ethnic or national descent by continent}} as a container category for the various high-level groupings? --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ::::I'm convinced by that argument. On the other side, I could understand if someone argued that at least culturally speaking, being of Latin American descent is more significant than being of South American descent. But like you say—what's the point? Both categories are extremely broad in scope. I suppose they are OK as container categories. I think a {{cl|People by ethnic or national descent by continent}} couldn't hurt as a container. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] ^{[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]} 08:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :::::If you look at [[Latin America]], it actually has multiple definitions, and the one used in the US includes all of those non-spanish speaking countries. I will nominate that one for renaming, and add the continental container.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :::::: fyi see [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1#Category:People_of_Latin_American_descent]]. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Please be more careful == I'm sure you spent a long time writing the essay you posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=553067066 here]. I haven't had time to read it yet, but I will try to do so when I have time. However, you moved my comment to a subsection where it had no context and looked like a strange reply to your essay, so I replaced it next to the comment it replied to. Whilst I'm sure it was a mistake, it's the kind of mistake I'd appreciate you looking out for in future. If I hadn't spotted and corrected it, my comment would have looked like that of an abject imbecile in the place you left it. Whilst I'm not specifically denying being an abject imbecile, I'd prefer it if other users reached that conclusion based on my actions rather than someone else's. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;">^talk</span>]]</span> 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :Hi Begoon. allow me to express my deepest apologies - it was not at all intentional, it was an edit conflict that didn't appear as such probably due to the fact that I added a header - I was rushing to go to a meeting and hit submit but didn't verify that I didn't screw something up - so again, thanks for being gracious and [[WP:AGF]] and being civil - mea culpa. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ::Heh, no problem, really. I do intend to read the essay, although, as is usual with wikipedia disputes, I suspect the answer is this: The system is broken and we have hundreds of very clever people who all have their own solution. What pisses me off is this - the general public, if it even cared enough to opine, would doubtless tell us just to get our heads out of our asses and fix the problem, and "we" would fail to hear that. We do tend to be very self-absorbed and divorced from reality here. The Reader is the customer. Our job is to swallow our pride, forget our own intellectual masturbatory tendencies, and keep Mr. Reader happy. Hard job, yes, but I already said we are clever, so I think we can do it. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;">^talk</span>]]</span> 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Now someone is threatening me with a block == Now someone is accusiong me of edit warring because I reverted their removal of an article from [[:Category:American men novelists]] when the directive clearly states "Please do not empty the category". This is outrageous that they think they can attack me, because I did not sit back and go along with their pre-close emptying of the category.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :{{tps}} Utterly outrageous. If someone has attacked you I suggest you deal with it firmly but calmly. Not sure about all the category bullshit, but attacks should never be tolerated. Post some evidence at ANI and I'll support you against any user who has personally attacked you. That's a promise. Just commenting because I was here. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;">^talk</span>]]</span> 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Filipacchi's continued poisoning of discussions == I am really getting tired of Filipacchi's poisoning of discussions. Her anger about how she is categorized is quite out of line with the reality of how categorization works. She claims that my putting "three men" in [[:Category:American himor novelists]] was meant to "make it look OK". Well, it is not my fault that at one point our article on her opened by saying that she "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." If that line does not beg for categorization in an American humor novelists category, than nothing does. It was by no means intentional that the other three entries were men. I found them by doing a search on wikipedia "Humor novel" and adding all the American writers of such I could find.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Tag team exclusionism == This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Hampton_Brewster&action=history] edit history for [[Anne Hampton Brewster]] strikes me as underhanded, joint attempts to block another editor, which seems totally out of line. I find it even more objectionable because they did not respond at all to my comments on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anne_Hampton_Brewster].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :Milowent, Avt tor and I are not a tag team, and you didn't make any comments until only a few minutes ago. Remember that it's generally a bad idea to edit-war against multiple editors, which is what you've been doing <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 19:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ::I almost added [[Anne Hampton Brewster]] to [[:Category:American women writers]] but decided for the time being to give into the persistent threats by PBP, and not do anything. Why do I have to sit back and tolerate their exclusion of Brewster from women cats?[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC) :::Well, Milowent waited all of 2 minutes to revert my totally justified addition.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *I just noticed something else. I have made two edits on the page today. 1-I added [[:Category:American women novelists]]. This was not a revert. That was all I did. 2-I reverted the removal of [[:Category:American women novelists]]. How could it be even possible that reverting again would be a third revert, as far as I can tell, that would be a second revert? Am I right?[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) {{tps}}::Last comment I'll make on this - but when the whole thing comes down to counting reverts and wikilawyering about the blue linked policies then the plot has truly been lost. The "rules" are to defend the encyclopedia, not the embattled participants. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;">^talk</span>]]</span> 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC) *I am really trying to not get into a fight with some people over more points. It is quite clear that some want to pick fights.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Hi John - I looked at that page and I agree with your additions - so I've added a few more cats for Anne, and commented on the talk page. I wouldn't revert any more though, and I won't either. We've said our piece. The cats under discussion are in no danger of being emptied either, so I'm also not going to go around looking for people to move. People are very emotional right now, and it's hard to reason with them when they're so emotional. Why not just move to another part of the tree, leaving women writers alone entirely - you've been under intense pressure and media scrutiny, and I feel for you and am sorry this happened - but you may be best just chilling out for a while - this comes from someone who respects the work you do. When you come back, there will be plenty of work to do - our cats are an absolute mess, as I'm sure you know... --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == I greatly enjoyed... == ...reading your contribution [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=553109044&oldid=553108934 here]. Wise words. Regards, [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ::thanks, appreciate it. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) == Cats == Hi Obi-wan, I saw your edit summary on [[George Eliot]]: "per guidance as of now, gendered cats do not diffuse". Does that mean there has been some policy agreement on rewriting cat structure? Recent discussions have ranged over so many pages I have lost track. Is there one main page where this is being worked out? Thanks <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Spanglej|Span]] ([[User talk:Spanglej|talk]])</font> 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC) :It's on [[WP:EGRS]]. That's been the guidance for some time - it isn't always followed, but that is the general rule - gendered cats don't diffuse. :I think I've come up with a very simple heuristic for categorization, that is so stupid and simple I can't believe I didn't think of it before. The algorithm is thus: :# Take your person. Now, remove from your mind all gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and religion - go back to whatever the 'default' might be for that particular job say. :# Now categorize that person as if they were that "default". :# Now, go back and add them to the gendered/sexuality/religion/etc categories. :I think this will always give you the correct result. Try it with George Eliot, let me know what you come up with. But more importantly, come to here, and comment on a new approach using category intersection: [[Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today]] which would make this whole mess go away.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC) *I think applying this to [[:Category:Female models]] and [[:Category:Actresses]] is not reasonable though.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ::Another place it gets tricky is when people are in [[:Category:African-American women poets]]. I just realized I neglected to even fix [[Linda Addison (poet)]] correctly because I forgot to put her in [[:Category:African-American poets]].[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC) :::The discussions on EGRS don't seem to have reached much of a conclusion. Did I miss something?<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Spanglej|Span]] ([[User talk:Spanglej|talk]])</font> 11:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ::::No - those discussions are ongoing, but the extant guidance still holds - which means, categories for gender should not diffuse - the fact that people were diffusing them is what led to this brouhaha in the first place. I personally disagree with this approach (I've suggested others), but for now I'm following it.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 17:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC) == By popular demand... == [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_2#Law_review_people]] == The guy who wrote the CatScan tool ... == ... is Magnus Manske, the author of the first MediaWiki software. See [[Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day]]. Your idea sounds great (no time just now to look at it in detail, but the general drift sounds perfect). [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC) :As I know Magnus a little from local meet-ups I have dropped him a mail asking him whether he could have a look at this. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 03:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ::Hey, thanks a ton- that would be great. Could you send me a link to a page on the German wikipedia that uses cat-scan? I've looked but can't find one. cheers, --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 04:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC) :::Here is one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Mann CatScan is linked at the top. Best, [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ::::Ok - does it ever fill out catscan for you, with default intersections? sorry don't read german - are you expected go to into it and enter the cats you want to intersect? My proposal is a bit simpler - give default links which pre-fill cat intersections and run the tool. Do they do that in german wikipedia? --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 05:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC) :::::Not to my knowledge. They also consider CatScan to be a band-aid solution; originally, I've been told, people expected that one day there would be a proper category intersection search system in MediaWiki, and they designed their categories accordingly, but it never arrived. Are you in touch with Magnus? He tells me that the kind of search function you and I would want imposes serious server overheads. It seems that is the main reason why this kind of functionality has not been implemented to date. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 12:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC) ::::::Ok, thanks Jayen466. Would you mind putting him in touch with me? You have my contact info - I'd love to chat with him offline and get a sense of what is/isn't possible. Appreciate your help - --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC) == The missing novelists == I have found at least three people not yet in [[:Category:American novelists]] because they were not dispersed down from [[:Category:American writers]]. I have a suspicion though that the total would well over 100.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) == help with Category: American novelists == I just realized that editing Category:American novelists to make the change that I proposed is not straightforward. Could you help me do that, or something like that? Correct me if I am wrong, but this recent incident started because Filipacchi thought that that list is intended to be complete, when it is not, and because the list was not properly maintained. I really think it would help the page to have a disclaimer on these two points. You know more than me about these topics; what do you think? How can I make that happen? Thanks in advance. [[User:Olorinish|Olorinish]] ([[User talk:Olorinish|talk]]) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC) :Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC) == Talkback == {{talkback|Silver seren}} <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font>^{[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]} 01:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC) == Request == Please notify [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature]] of the CfD for the children's novels category so that editors familiar with the field can weigh in. I apologized and extended an olive branch but the reverting on Hemingway continued and categories continue to be put up without discussion in the relevant areas. I'm done now. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 02:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) :Happy to notify related projects. I left a note about Hemingway on your page. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 02:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) ::I replied; you ignored. I'm done here. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC) :::?? Waaa? I think you misunderstand what I did. Remember - read diffs carefully plz! --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 02:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC) == Reply == Turn that around, though. Why is it acceptable to diffuse in one area when we have a very recent consensus that it is not acceptable in another closely related area? I have repeatedly called for an RFC on precisely this question, and what bothers me about your conduct is that you seem intent on pressing forward with diffusion on other categories, despite the ongoing discussion and despite the objections of multiple editors. This is clearly a heated debate, and ANI is not the best forum for such a debate - which is why an RFC is necessary. If you are so confident in your interpretation of policy, then put it to an RFC to make sure that consensus lies where you believe it lies. We have an editing guideline that has come into question at a high-profile, high-participation CFD. That would seem to indicate that the guideline (not even a policy!) needs to be looked at. I'm concerned that you seem to have no intention of looking at it, or of acknowledging that consensus may have changed on the issue thanks to this incident. The point is that we don't know, and can't - until we have an RFC. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] ^{[[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]]}~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 14:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) :Understood, but I believe you are reading that consensus far too broadly. Tim, one of the admins '''who actually enacted the results''', agrees - he's posted same at ANI. SilverSeren, JohnPackLambert, BrownHairedGirl - they all agree as far as I can tell. The way I read the CFD is, don't ghettoize by gender, and I'm complying by that (the CFD didn't say anything new, in fact, it only reinforced the existing guidelines). The editing guideline of [[WP:EGRS]]] nor [[WP:Categorization]] was not put in question - it was really about whether people were complying with it or not! The CFD didn't say anything about diffusion in general. As for the RFC, I've never set one up, and I don't even know what question to ask - e.g. "Hi wikipedia - should we comply with [[WP:EGRS]] and [[WP:Categorization]]?" - I think if someone else wants to '''change''' that guidance, the onus is on '''them''' to propose the RFC (Carwil is currently drafting something) - but as I've noted, doing an RFC on American novelists is chauvanist in the extreme - if we do an RFC, it should be around the broader issues, like how do we rapidly de-ghettoize the whole tree, not how do we deal with one special snowflake cat which happened to get a bit of media attention. In any case, I think a topic ban is a bit excessive, especially given all of the other work I've been doing to address the structural issues at play here, such a proposing a prototype for intersecting categories at {{cl|Singaporean poets}} - this whole discussion is too much focused on American novelists, which is just the tip of the iceberg. A new article could be written about us tomorrow, and how we're still ghettoizing African american poets, or Nigerian women novelists, or Singaporean writers of chinese descent - ghettoization is endemic, and I'm actually proposing practical solutions! So please reconsider the topic ban vote, I've already dropped the stick and won't be moving any more women bios, and on the general topic of diffusing novelists, I have by far the fewest edits here - others have been much more active. Best regards,--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC) ::I don't think we're going to agree on this at all. Perhaps a topic ban is excessive, but it seemed less so than a total moratorium on all category diffusion related to living persons pending an RFC on how - or if - such diffusion should take place. And that's where we are, frankly. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] ^{[[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]]}~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) :::Hi Ultra, thanks for your response. I would love to work with you on such an RFC - but I don't think it should just be about diffusion, I think it should be about (a) clarifying guidelines around creation of ethnic/gendered cats, etc. (discussion started, but not moving, at [[WP:EGRS]], and (b) proposing ways to rapidly de-ghettoize the tree. People focus way too much on the American novelists - the problem is '''so much bigger'''. If you'd like to collaborate with me on this, let me know where and we'll get started, I've never done an RFC before, so would welcome your assistance. :::As a side note, I've realized that we've run into a real emotional attachment people have to the term American novelist, while American poet or American writer or American journalist or American politician doesn't carry the same discursive power. But I'm still quite boggled that people don't realize that {{cl|20th-century American novelists}} are, in fact, AMERICAN NOVELISTS - we haven't taken away the power of that brand, we just stuck them with people who wrote at the same time as them. :::As to the topic ban, I'm quite proud of my record on categorization to date - for example, :::*I de-ghettozied [[Maya Angelou]], [[Louis Armstrong]], and many others - :::*I've come up with a [[Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today|potential (hack) solution]] for category intersections esp around gender/ethnicity categories, and created a proof of concept around same (check it out, and let me know your thoughts please) :::*I've nominated a number of categories for deletion which only served to ghettoize and were not in line with our guidance at [[WP:EGRS]] :::*I created a [[Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Correct_categorization_quiz|quiz]] to help editors understand the challenges around categorizing in a non-ghettoizing way (Please come by and take the quiz! would love to see your answers) :::*I added a simple link to the top of the {{cl|American novelists}} category that enumerates all of the novelists including those in sub-categories (again, as a proof of concept). :::*I tagged a number of non-diffusing categories under {{cl|American novelists}} as such, like the whole ethnic tree :::*etc etc. :::I'd also appreciate if you'd again reconsider your !vote - I really am in good faith trying to find solutions to the deep problem here - I've been in recent discussions with WMF, and with the developer of the catscan tool for example about implementing category intersections '''now''' - which would remove this question of ghettoization entirely. A topic ban would mean all of those good faith efforts would have to come to a screeching stop, all for a few diffs which a few people disgree with. Thanks for your consideration,--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 16:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) ::::The only think I'm persuaded about is how little I care about these categories. Do whatever you like. There isn't consensus for a topic ban. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] ^{[[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]]}~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 14:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) == American novelists == I am somewhat surprised that people are so intent on not dispersing this. ALthough no one has yet actually objected to the by century sub-cats, and there is no reason to not fully disperse to them, so I will keep it up. I tried to ask the editor re-adding people to not do so when they have been dispersed, but I am not sure he will respond.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) *From what I have seen, the only reason that you were dragged to ANI is because you edited an article that people are paying really close attention to. I am still not sure what I will do when I get to the Fs in the American novelists category, but that will not be for a while yet.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) ::I'd just skip it - too many people watching, and not worth the drama. Someone will move her at some point - it doesn't really matter that much.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC) == American fantasy writers == I have posed a question on the talk page of [[:Category:American fantasy writers]] about possibly putting in [[Malcolm Marmorstein]]. Marmorstein is a screenwriter who wrote the screenplay to ''[[Pete's Dragon]]'' which is clearly a work of fantasy. On the other hand, he is not a novelits, and the category is currently a sub-cat of [[:Category:American novelists]]. There are three possible courses of action, and I am not even sure the best way to seek them out. One possible action is to create a CfD to split the cateogry. Another is to just unilaterally split the category, and move the novelitists to a novelits sub-cat. The third is to do nothing, and assume by [[:Category:American fantasy writers]] we are using the term "writer" in a sense that does not include screenwriters and possibly also excludes playwrights. What we would do with a short story fantasy writer who never wrote a novel is another issue.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) :This goes to the genre question, I started a post at wikiproject novels, you should join there and ask the question there. It's a good one indeed...--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 22:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) == Your comments == Re: the quiz, I'm really not all that interested in taking part in a hypothetical exercise that serves only to display different people's opinions and isn't actually going to have an effect on anything in and of itself. YMMV, I suppose, but it's not something I'm going to put much priority on participating in. :Ok - for me it's interesting, as it's not so much about opinion (and who is "right" or "wrong") but about how well can we apply our rules and ensure someone isn't ghettoized - so for that I think it's a useful exercise - it is fairly easy (though not always) to detect if someone has been ghettoized. Given that you wrote a fair amount of the guidance, I'd really love to have your answers, but I understand if you don't want to participate. I was also thinking we could use the findings of the quiz, and the questions it raises, to help refine the guidelines, so I do see it as having a practical purpose... Re: Indian women novelists, I'm not sure I understand your question. Which parent category should or shouldn't be getting diffused by the women novelists category in either case? (I ''suspect'', for the record, that the answer to your question lies in the distinction between "diffused" and "diffusable" — it's not necessary for all of the diffusion work to ''already'' have been done for a category to be considered "diffusing", if the category is still "diffusable" — but I can't be sure of that without knowing a lot more about what you're asking about.) :{{cl|Indian novelists}} has no other subcats, so it can't diffuse otherwise. Thus, the women would be the last-rung-of-the-ladder in this case. Most of the other novelists categories are like this. My understanding is, if you have an EGRS cat, then the parent should be able to be fully diffused on some other criteria, no? Re: ghettoization, for the record it's not helpful to apply that test to a parent category that is itself already an EGRS category. That particular test is only meant to be applied to ''occupational'' categories (e.g. "African-American poets", "LGBT economists from the United States") and not to whether something like {{cl|LGBT African Americans}} is warranted or not — it would certainly be ''possible'' to make a case that it isn't needed, but the ghettoization test isn't relevant to the question because none of its parents are occupational in nature. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) :Ah - ok that is more subtle. So then they aren't ghettoized by not being in the head cat? I see your point re: jobs, but I'm not sure the guidance says this (and we all agree the guidance needs work). It's just in the algorithms I've been trying to sort in my head, you have to go up the tree, removing facets, until you've removed all of your facets. So, African-american women poets has to go to American female poets, African american poets, and then onwards to American poets. doesn't the same apply in the LGBT tree - and if you don't have a fully diffusing parent, doesn't that mean the main LGBT people cat will end up with mostly white dudes? Perhaps a solution would be to create {{cl|LGBT European Americans}}, or expand it otherwise to ensure everyone is in at least one cat and you don't have a default populated only by whites.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC) == Talkback == {{talkback|SarahStierch|"women" categories|ts=04:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)}} [[User:SarahStierch|SarahStierch]] ([[User talk:SarahStierch|talk]]) 04:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC) == Talkback == {{talkback|Koavf|ts=05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)}} —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC) == Categories in Being and Categories Manifested == Not to reinvent the wheel, but it seems atom of category content is 'article title';each atom can have one or more 'membership tags'. The membership tags EACH, indivdually IMPLY a category; for example, for author '''Xysys'''<br /> &writers &American &woman &novelist &short-story-writer &essayist &criticism &historical-novels &commedy-of-manners-novels &post-modern-short-stories &childern's-short-stories Rather than a fixed list of Catagory: articles the user is served a page of tags that gives the ability to drag and drop to build a category. And then that intersection is created. And served to the user [with the index bar to choose by initial letter of last name of the author article. In the simplest case that might be all writers; a potentially gigantic list, BUT ONLY ONE PAGE IS RETRIEVED AND SERVED. More complex intersections require more preprocessing but a shorter potential list, but still just 1 page served. Statistics will quickly identify the most used sets of intersections and THOSE sets will be preprocessed ahead of need. A user can build, on-the-fly a category of 'American Old White Men Agrarian Movement Novelists' as easily as a category of Post-Feminist Puertoricano Independencias Novelists. There will be a system learning curve that results in the most requested categories being preprocessed and ready-to-go. The user should have the ability to save the list of intersecting categories for further use. And, of course an 'Advanced Mode' could include boolean operators allowing queries like American Women Novelists who do NOT write children's books. From what I see now (IF I see correctly), categorization puts a big burden on categorizers who evidently can be pretty divorced from the subject matter. How much better a tag system more or less under the wing of the appropriate subject group. I really think this kind of approach might be about as neutral as categorization can become. It might be interesting to try this in a relatively small field; say 'American Novelists' [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk]]) 07:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) : great minds think alike.. Take a look at {{cl|Singaporean poets}} for a prototype of a simpler version of this same idea that i put together - it links out to an external tool.The difference is, the intersections are determined in advance by other editors - if you want a new intersection, you can do so but you have to type in the category names. It also doesn't page the results but I've asked the developer of the catscan tool to do just that and render in a Wikipedia-like font. I think the gender/ethnic slices just make it harder to categorize people - it would be great to facet out nationality as well, but that may impact performance too much, so instead of American + man we may have to create "American men" and "Singaporean men" - to avoid a single list of '''all''' men, which would have performance implications. I also like the idea of caching the common results. Your other ideas are good but I made the prototype considering what was possible now, and without changes to media wiki software. If you look at the wikidata project, they are going this way of factets/category intersections using a different semantic-web type approach - this will be much more robust and flexible, but it may be 1 or 2 years before we get there. I think the call-out to the tool can be done today; and not that painfully. Go to the talk page of [[WP:Category intersection]] for more thoughts on this idea and how to move it forward - help is needed and welcome! [[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 11:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) : one more thing - a lot of people use the word tags when describing this idea but I think it's not a good idea to talk about these as tags - tags in the web 2.0 are flat and non-hierarchical, whereas you actually want nested categories here. For example I'd like to be able to label someone as being from New York City, but if I search on "x from New York (state)" they should show up. Jobs is another example - I may have deep classification schemes for doctors (diff specialties), but if I ask for all doctors I should get them all. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 11:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::In the interest of developing a common vocabulary for category discussion: you just used 'facet' in the same way I just used 'tag'? How about 'signifier'? It seems to me that the fraught categories will mainly be those which have great cultural (in a very broad sense) significance. Jobs (such as medical doctors) less so. On the other hand, D.O. and M.D. etc. could be a problem. [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk]]) 23:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC) :::Yes, I've been using that term, someone else used it and I liked it. For me, tags is not a good word - since tags dont have relationships amongst themselves. We do want facets, but we want those facets to have relationships as well. 'Signifier' is a good word too. I think if we could do category intersection especially for ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion, that would be a big and important start. The rest can come later. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 00:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::Starting with ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion is a good idea. That cluster is likely to be closely watched. And starting there is responsive to the recent wider criticisms. 'Facets' is fine with me, though I do like the connotations of 'signifier' (see the Wikipedia article '''Signifier''' and then the article '''Indexical''' for this statement "In linguistics and in philosophy of language, an indexical behavior or utterance points to (or indicates) some state of affairs." A question - you (or someone else) as mentioned the difficulty of increasing the sophistication of handling of categories. Is this a bandwidth limitation - or a preprocessing limitation (computer power used to select, package, format, and present results to be served in response to a user query? Is there a succinct treatment of 'how Wikipedia machines do what they do'? [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk]]) 03:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC) == Diffusing novelists == With only 4 by century cats, I do not think it will be that hard for people to go through and make sure that the people in those categories are also put in the appropriate other possible sub-cats. No one has even nominated the by century sub-cats for anything. I am 100% sure that the 18th-century and 19th-century cats will survive, and have little doubt the other two will. [[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC) :True - but if you're in the middle of doings lots of edits, why not wait until we have settled gengre cats and whether male novelists will survive? just seems like dual work, and all those in {{cl|American novelists}} are also a list of those needing diffusion - if you diffuse now, you will lose that list. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 20:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) :Also, why not start by ensuring the sub-cats of {{cl|American novelists}} are all classified correctly in the century cats and the male/female cats accordingly? That should be non-controversial for sure.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) == Category-based search == Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection&curid=6384074&diff=554032125&oldid=553680135 this edit], I presume you meant "search time > 10 seconds"? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) :ack. thanks! --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) == List of vegetarians == I think your solution is the best one by a country mile. It removes all editorial bias whatsoever. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC) :thx. I just read through the responses, and realized that the various sides were unlikely to see eye to eye. Do you think SV will sign up for it? --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC) ::Nope, she is intent on getting rid of all "porn stars", but if there is wide support for the randomization approach then she would have to live with it. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC) :::Hmm. I don't see the problem with a porn star in general, though I do see her point - why *must* we have a porn star, and why *must* it be a woman? That doesn't make sense. But if the algorithm chooses one, c'est la vie... --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 02:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC) {{tb|User_talk:Sadads#input_welcome}} == FWIW == If there is an RfC - and unless things calm down, there will be one - it's not really a great idea to go from user page to user page explaining your position. Think of it this way: let's say you and I are in opposition or disagreement, and the community needs to achieve consensus (well in my view, it has, but that's another issue). Have a look at my contribs over the last how many days and see whether you see me discussing this on individual talk pages. Just saying. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC) :I just didn't want to spam the discussion with a restatement - and this is a new entrant who hasn't contributed at all in this debate as far as I can tell... I also just wish we could focus on the real problem, and not this one (which is rather banal).--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC) ::I'm logging out now - but you're not getting my point. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) == [[WP:ANI/I]] discussion notification == Hello. There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--[[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) == Talkback == {{talkback|User_talk:NickCT#just_a_point}} :And again! [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 16:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC) ::Yet again. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC) == J. R. R. Tolkien categorization == Two people have objected to my putting [[J. R. R. Tolkien]] in [[:Category:20th-century British novelists]] because he is in [[:Category:J. R. R. Tolkien]] which is in that category. However I thought we treated eponymous cats as non-diffusing. I half wonder if we should even put eponymous cats as sub-cats of novelists cats. The whole thing seems a bit strange.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC) :hmm. Yes in general, the categorization of eponymous articles vs cats is often decided on a case-by-case basis - see [[WP:Categorization]] - but in the case of a novelist, I would vote for non-diffusing (at least for the novelist, not for the other stuff). They aren't *always* non-diffusing though - there are examples in the guidance of diffusing eponymous cats. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC) == Women poets verses other things == Did a newspaper article really claim that we have fewer articles on women poets than pornstars? Who made this patently false claim, and where was it made, and when? If that claim was made then I really think Filipachi's attacks were fully misguided.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC) :I'm not sure if they made the claim, or just parroted it. The wikipediocracy article on sexism did make the claim, but they later corrected it with actual figures. I think the James Gleick article quoted the claim, which is itself a bit irresponsible without checking facts. In any case, I don't think the claim was ever true, for all or even just the american tree.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC) *I figued I would nip the issue in the bud before another false claim along these lines was made. I have started working on [[:Category:American women journalists]] so that it will not be subject to false smaller than claims. So far I have found that [[:Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents]] has little overlap with the women category, evne though close to half of its contents are women.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC) == Very specific leavings of people in [[:Category:American novelists]] == [[Ann Bannon]] and [[Stephen Crane]] have been returned to [[:Category:American novelists]] despite being in century specific sub-cats. There is no explanation given for this action. I was half of the opinion to try to diffuse them again, but started discussions on the talk pages of both of them. It seems we may come to a point soon where four or five people will be left at [[:Category:American novelists]]. I guess it still will take a lot more work, but it seems sloppy to have just two people before the letter e.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC) :I wouldn't worry about it. If there's really to be an RFC (we shall see), perhaps it's better to deghettoize other parts of the tree like American women poets, etc, then wait to see what consensus is. There are some who strongly do not like the idea of a diffusing century cat, for reasons I still don't get... --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC) ::If they do not like the by century cats, they are free to nominate them for deletion. The specific response to my comment on the Stephen Crane talk page, that I should "stop messing with categorization", really drives me nuts. At present we have lots and lots of people who are clearly not in the right categories.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) *The person doing this insistance on keeping the people in the parent category even admits they have no objection to the by century categories, so their actions are really making no sense at all.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) *::In a different set of categories, I found this problem easily solved by use of the allinclude template: <nowiki>{{all included|the category|the other mention of parent category}}</nowiki> that allows diffusion into subcats AND keeps the general list. (Sometimes both are needed and this is an elegant solution to the ongoing debate). For it in use, see [[:Category:Horse breeds]]. Hope this helps. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]} 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == Asian journalists at CfD == Is this a typo [[:Category:American journalists of Indian descent]] to [[:Category:American journalists of Indian descent]]? [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC) :yup sorry fixed now.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 20:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC) == Direct attacks == I have now been nominated for banning at ANI because I put Filipachi in [[:Category:American women journalists]]. They are claiming I directly ghetoized her because I did not put her in [[:Category:American journalists]], when in fact I put her in [[:Category:American columnists]]. This is very outrageous, especially since one person has supported this move that has no basis in actual fact.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC) *Hmm, is my having actually removed [[Amanda Filipacchi]] from the category in question a-worth bringing up at the ANI, b-of any merit there, c-going to make me get banned for "edit warring". The whole attack seems over the top.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC) *Looking at the ANI I seem to be still being attacked for what makes no sense at all. I did not move Filipachi out of any gender-neutral categories. The whole thing is very frustrating.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC) *The whole thing is causing me undue stress and anxiety. Why do people think they can ban users for following the rules in adding categories? We even have a category that will not tend towards ghetoization. It really distresses me that people seem to want to punish me because the media has attacked actions that are in part my fault. The whole thing is very distressing.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC) ::Like I said before, just don't touch that special bio. Too many trigger-happy guardians. Not worth it. They will categorize the special bio appropriately in time, according to consensus. Meanwhile, if you want to contribute, just keep on de-ghettoizing - seek out past things you've done that may have ghettoized, and reverse them. A good record is the best thing if you're eager to continue - or if not, just go do something else for a while. I don't think the AN/ANI will result in a banning, especially for what you did - putting her in a gendered and non-gendered sub-cat of {{cl|American journalists}} - you've violated no rules whatsoever! One thing that may help - a quick note on your front user page, that says "In the past, I mistakenly categorized people into only gendered categories, this was a mistake, and I'm making up for it (then show edits)." It's ok to make a mistake, if you own up to it. Stay strong, you'll be ok.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC) *What is going on with the most recent edit to the AN where someone wants to ban me because I put someone in [[:Category:American pornographic film actresses]] whose opening line was "Tané McClure (born June 8, 1958) is an American singer and pornographic actress." What is going on? Are they going to ban all the other users who added people to that category? This is more than bizarre. I really feel attacked.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC) ::easy... just take it easy... they have lit torches and are bringing out pitchforks - but the truth will set you free. Just do careful categorization, follow the guidance, and you'll be fine. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) :::Not when people try to kill you for following the lead.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) *I am actually glad I removed Filipacchi from [[:Caegory:American novelists]] even if she was put back in that category. At least the next time someone tries to add someone else back , they cannot claim I am treating Filipachi differently. I am still totally puzzled by the attack on my categorization of [[Tané McClure]]. I was following the lead.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC) *It still feels like it is open season to attack with extreme prejudice John for any edit he has ever done. This is more odd because there is an editor who actually changed the lead.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == Hey, you may not have realized == ...that templating you was more or less ''required'' per probation terms. In this instance, DTTR (which is only an essay anyway) does not apply. I mention this due to your edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obiwankenobi&diff=554979803&oldid=554979573 here]. A dif of you being informed is needed for logging, and the content is set. While it is possible to handwrite a notification, the precise same content must be included, so we use the template. No disrespect was intended. I hope this information is helpful! [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<font color="415651">Chihuahua</font>]] 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC) :Thx for the civil explanation. Cheers --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 03:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == Truthkeeper == I am really frustrated by Truthkeeper's attacks. I am also outraged that people want to attack me for following the lead in categorizaation. Especially considering at other times I have been attacked for removing categories that have no mention anywhere in the article. If someone put something in the lead that does not belong there, should not that person be the one critizied for it? I see no reason to not categorizwe someone based on what the lead says.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) ::I am so frustrated. I am trying to improve the project, but some people want to kill me for it. No matter what I do someone attacks me. If I focus too specifically on one type of categorization tI am attacked for that. Yet if I try to fix the overall categorization of an article based on what the lead says I am attacked for that. What is with people always attacking me. I can take it anymore.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC) *The attack just does not make sense. One suggestion for a category rule is "it is something that can be mentioned in a lead". So now people are trying to kill me for categorizing something based on the lead. This really does feel like a witchhunt.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC) *People wonder why wikipedia does not improve much. It is because any attempt you make to try to improve it is attacked. If the opening sentace to someone is "Andrea Finess was an American dancer, singer and politcian", she should be in all those categories. If people do not think she should be in all those categories they should edit the oepning sentance, not try to kill the person who did it. It is all the more outrageous because these people are not bringing up these issues on my talk page.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == RFC threat == Someone has now suggested that an RFC be oepend against me. This is very worrying to me, especially since BPB has the long-standing grudge to do it, and Truthkeeper, Milocent and a few others might just be willing to try it. I think it is a totally uncalled for threat. No matter what I do people attack me. I am really, really, really worried about this. I have tried to abide by the rules. I have tried to make sure everyone put in [{:Category:American women jouranlists]] is also in a non-gendered journalists sub-cat. However people are still trying to destroy me. Maybe I am overly worried. However I do not want another RFC, and I think that creating the link to a potential RFC was uncalled for. I really am tempted to delete that section. There is absolutely no reason to start an RFC against me. However I am realy afriad someone will try if I do not do anything.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == by century novelists categories == Why do people complain about these and yet not start CfDs about them. Actually one of the people I brought this up with said that they thought the categories work. Some people almost seem to think that the status quo ante was acceptable. I really doubt that. They seem to actually want to shunt off romatic fiction writers and mystery writers, and then have [[:Category:American novelists]] limited to some special group. Creating a CfD is very easy, yet they constantly gripe about things without really making a point.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC) == cuisine of cats (that sounds so wrong...) == I'm not sure if you've noticed--I'm sure you have a lot of stuff on your watchlist--but I made a proposal at the cuisines of x category discussion, and I was trying very specifically to address what I think are your concerns, so I'd really like your opinion so everything wraps up neatly and a collegial atmosphere and not the usual nonsense that dogs discussions about nomenclature. Basically what I'm saying is, and I hope this came through in my commentary, I understand where you are coming from, and you have an excellent point when you say that certain foods are definitely associated with certain places (deep dish, Chicago; gumbo, New Orleans; etc). That's a real world categorization that people make, and therefore makes sense--is necessary actually. Our only point of difference is the definition of 'cuisine,' which I think I can explain better this way: if I tell you we're going to an Italian restaurant, you will have an immediate idea of the kinds of things you can probably expect, given the general spread of Italian cuisine through the western world. Same goes if I say French, or Diner, or Southern, or Tex-Mex; you will likely have an immediate sense of at least some things that will be on the menu. But what if I tell you we're going to a Pittsburgh restaurant? Or a Chicago restaurant? You'll think ''one'' dish. Maybe two... if you can fill up a whole menu, you've got a cuisine. Am I making more sense? It's difficult (but educational, so thank you) to have to explain what are common assumptions inside the industry. Anyway, I look forward to your next contribution to the discussion; we may not agree entirely, but it is clear that your thoughts are deliberate and informed. [[User:The Potato Hose|<span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Potato Hose|<span style="font:small-caps 1em;color:#000;">↘</span>]] 05:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC) :thx, appreciate the note; I responded further there. I see your point, but I think it's a matter of degree, and it feels a bit POV to label some things as cuisine and others as "food culture". I think we either have enough articles to create a cuisine cat, or we don't at all and just slot them into "culture". Otherwise it seems a bit of a downgrade.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC) ==Barnstar== Copy and paste this onto your user page, because you deserve it. {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Peace Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Peace Barnstar 6.png|100px]]}} |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For helping to resolve the JPL proposed ban conflict [[User:Asarelah|Asarelah]] ([[User talk:Asarelah|talk]]) 21:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |} thx. appreciate it.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC) == Project Qworty == Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ [[User:NaymanNoland|NaymanNoland]] ([[User talk:NaymanNoland|talk]]) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) == very wise == [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANaymanNoland&diff=555607944&oldid=555605991 Jedi master]. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) ::Thx. I just think people might be forgetting what happened at [[Amanda Filipacchi]] and why the first salon article was written. We're heading down the same path on his article now... --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi#top|talk]]) 05:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) == Spam == Yes, that's better flatter. Thanks. Thought I needed to continue discussion over many pages, per name. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC) == A barnstar for you! == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Clark_Young&diff=555693856&oldid=555692910 for this] ~~~~ |}'