User talk:Obiwankenobi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

really? I mean really?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
  • 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)

I'll do it in the morning; it's 3:21 am here; no CfD should have been invoked and no procedural gambits either; if WP:Rivers and WP:Geography of Canada and WP:Alaska and WP:WikiProject BC and so on have any such guidelines prohibiting such a category, I have never heard of any such thing and in the case of the vast geography and huge river basins of the Pacific Northwest/Pacific Cordillera it makes no sense at all to restrict subcategories to political geographic units. None whatsoever, especially given in BC where there are overlapping systems of political subdivisions of the province. I can see I barked up the wrong three - can't a guy be left alone or will the harassment stalking from the person who dumped a block on me in spite of the ANI closer's verdict that there was no consensus for same continue to dog my days in Wikipedia? Why? Yeah, you really have to wonder why......to drive me out with harassment by burdening my with yet more procedure??? Hope to WP:BAIT me into some more "excessive verbosity" worth banning me for??

• • I'm one of the most prolific geography contributors there is, and built the category system and list pages for BC mountain ranges, rivers, and lakes and more..... This is a nuisance CFd from someone who (a) doesn't even have a guideline that says what she's maintaining, only a "I don't see anything at Category:Rivers" stab in the dark, and (b) has never heard of any of these rivers or ranges before (other than the Canadian Rockies perhaps).

Skookum, I really don't think you should take everything so personally. I nominate categories for deletion ALL the time, and I never even look to see who created them, I actually don't really care. It's not about whether there is a guideline prohibiting the category, it's more that if you look across geographical features, there seems to be a broad consensus to classify geographical features by the political boundaries they find themselves in. That is a form of consensus, by the actions of hundreds of editors across a long space of time. You are starting or expanding on a new scheme and questions are being raised whether this scheme should be expanded, or be deleted (it's no good to have a half-assed scheme - either we take it to the limit or we kill it entirely). If you want the cats kept, I suggest (a) no personal attacks (b) Concise framing of your reasons why they should be kept, and how you imagine expanding the scheme in the future and (c) What navigational value this will provide to the user. We also are not a database, and we shouldn't use the category system as a sort of relational scheme nor try to mimic other databases that have much richer capabilities.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Obiwan, get real. Don't be disingenuous; I've seen a string of RM closures completely against the grain of those moved by Cuchullain, BDD, Xoloz and others, with guidelines shoved aside, TITLE and support votes ignored or equivocated, from someone who blocked me without consensus to do so and closed some RMs, including personal derision and attacks in her closing comments - and now this. I'm no innocent and I don't buy the "don't take it personally" line about someone who has been indeed very personal in the last weeks and is apparently continuing to do so; sure, cats come up for CfD all the time......but zeroing in on a new one created by me, mouthing off speculations about river and geography categorization without any specifics....that you could shrug this off with "don't take it personally" is ..... never mind, admins never criticize their own, as I have been repeatedly told. I'm going to avoid the CfD which as far as I'm concerned is nothing more than a nuisance; if my cats are tossed out on technicalities the way her bad closes of the RMs were handled, it's just more proof that content does not matter here and contributing editors don't have a hope in hell of getting and constructive work done without someone who doesn't like them fielding procedure to hobble them with and who, as with the RMs, doesn't know anything at all about the subject matter at hand and in fact doesn't really care about the subject matter...only some guideline that hasn't been cited yet (and if it is, twisted beyond all recognition contrary to the spirit of the guidelines.....such that there may be). Telling me to "not take it personally" when I'm clearly being targeted for some procedural not-fun-and-games means less real work, more time wasted, and more bad ideas being fielded to overturn good, practical ones. It's 4 am in Samui and I should have been bed in hours ago....but nooooo, someone wants to boot me around yet another discussion board for no very good reason at all.`Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed those other RMs so I can't comment; also I'm not an admin, and I have had some very large battles with BHG in the past so I'm not rushing to her defense, and she has fought against my ideas many times in the past. You can't control her actions, you can only control your own. Anyway, you've seen my suggestions on how to handle this, the rest is up to you. Finally, allow me to suggest this in the kindest way possible, when you complain that it is late at night, or that on-wiki issues are causing you real-world health problems, please remember that no-one is forcing you to be here and there isn't a deadline, so if you need to sleep or need to take a break for personal reasons just do so. When you make such comments it has a tinge of "blame", in that you seem to be suggesting that BHG or some other admin is tethering you to the computer and forcing you to respond, and that somehow this CFD nomination was timed to keep you up late... I'd just leave stuff like that out - contribute when you can, and don't when you don't want to. We're all volunteers here, everyone understands that, and no-one is demanding your immediate response.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

She's not forcing me to respond, she's just tagging everything I've done tonight; here's more:

• (diff | hist) . . Category:Rivers of the Cariboo‎; 21:34 . . (+333)‎ . . ‎BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)‎ (CFD: propose merger)
• (diff | hist) . . Category:Rivers of the Chilcotin‎; 21:34 . . (+333)‎ . . ‎BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)‎ (CFD: propose merger)
• (diff | hist) . . Category:Rivers of the Okanagan‎; 21:34 . . (+333)‎ . . ‎BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)‎ (CFD: propose merger)\

Does she actually write articles or just hang out on discussion boards looking for people to throw horseshoes at?? Those are all normal regions of British Columbia, perfectly natural as a frame of geographic reference/classification......will the madness never end? - the madness that is people completely clueless about the topic area they're messing with feeling the need to challenge and delete/merge useful categories. Will I never see the end of more stalking by this person????Skookum1 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If she believes that those new cats are part of the same scheme already nominated, then it is disruptive to continue creating them. You don't need to race to create new cats, just wait until the discussion closes, and perhaps as I suggested open up a broader discussion at the geography project around a consensus way to categorize rivers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A broader discussion at the geography project would be a good idea. This may be an appropriate form of categorisation, but my concern is simply that it appeared to be either a lone outrider or the start if a whole new categorisation scheme without apparent precedent, and without any broader category structure to underpin it. As Obi noted above it should either be expanded, or be deleted because it's no good to have what Obi called a half-assed scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's anything but a "half-assed scheme". Category:Rivers of British Columbia is gigantic and needs breaking down by region. I'm the person knowledgeable about those regions and also the mountain-ranges-as-regions and other landforms-by-region. It's the CfD that's "half-assed".Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, by 'half-assed' I meant we should not divide rivers by geographic feature X in the northwest if we're not signing up to do it for analogues everywhere else in the world.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not be needed elsewhere in the world (other than Alaska, Yukon and e.g. the Cascade Range in the US Pacific Northwest, but dividing the massive provincial categories by region is the only viable course of categorizing British Columbia; mountain ranges are regions, among other kinds of region in British Columbia (e.g. the Interior Plateau, the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland). Some of the regions are necessarily mountain ranges, others like the Okanagan are that valley and the adjoining highlands and plateaus overlooking it; the Cariboo is a prominent and highly identifiable cultural/social region within British Columbia; so is the Chilcotin. For example we also have Parks in the Canadian Rockies‎ for national and provincial parks, classified by that mountain range, which is a region unto itself though overlooking the East Kootenay, Robson Valley and other areas within the Rocky Mountain Trench. The only other citable system for categorizing these items is by Land District, but that is not a common usage for region-names in ordinary English, though some people have created such cats (before I started to, that is) and populated them with geographic items located within them. This is not "overcategorization", it is necessary categorization. What is "over" here is over-CfD'ing by people who know nothing about the subject matter and the regions in question. I do, and built nearly all of the parent categories (if not all, which may in fact be the case if I were to go look). Referring to the Cariboo or Chilcotin or Okanagan is like referring to County Kildare, Ireland; any of those regions are similar in size to, or larger than, the whole of Ireland; the mountain range categories are larger than Britain; we do not have a county system in British Columbia (regional districts are not the same thing and are not generally citable for classification of such items; doing so would be Original Research. Citations for lakes, mountains, rivers etc can be found in the MoF Forest Districts/Regions, MoE and Parks Branch regions, Ministry of Tourism regions - and geographic regions (which are where the dual names of many regional districts came from) per the source on Landforms of British Columbia by S. Holland.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know

The {{essay-like}} tag says this:

That's not what a lot of people expect from the Twinkle description, but now you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the documentation? It says, "Use this tag to identify personal essays. Personal essays describe the author's own feelings about a topic. Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to publish users' personal opinions." Can you find anything in Male rape that describes the author's own feelings about the topic? Perhaps you should consider an accurate tag, like {{tone}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ex:" there are many situations where a boy, after being gradually manipulated with attention, affection and gifts, feels like he wants such attention and sexual experiences. In an otherwise lonely life (for example lacking in parental attention or affection), the attention and pleasure of sexual contact from someone the boy admires can feel good. But in reality, it’s still about a boy who was vulnerable to manipulation and betrayed by someone who selfishly exploited the boy’s needs for attention and affection to use him sexually" that's one example. Whether it's true or not it still seems too personal in tone - I removed already some of the most egregious parts but to my mind it still reads like an essay, at least some parts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What about that makes you think this is the editor's own personal feelings on the subject?

If you wanted to complain that it's a massive copyright violation of the cited source (please see https://1in6.org/family-and-friends/myths/), I'd agree with you. But I see nothing here that could be considered the author's own personal feelings—especially since it's word-for-word out of the cited source, which is pretty much proof that it's not the editor's own personal feelings about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

I just thought I would let you know that I have started a move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. I am very concerned at the inaccuracies caused by the current artificial article name. I think I have suggested a solution that solves this and also satisfies those complaining about (completely non-existent, in my opinion) 'sexism'. I have included some of the guidelines you cited in the previous discussion, so I am writing to thank you. I will not be around for the discussion, but I hope it goes well and that Wikipedia users can reach an appropriate conclusion. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bibi Aisha psychological problems

Please see: Talk:Aesha_Mohammadzai#Psychological_problems. Badon (talk) 06:52, 21 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)

I've started a formal move review of the RfC. Your input there would be appreciated. Whatever the outcome, I'll start drafting a proposal for a long overdue, dedicated WP:RACES policy. The new policy will gather in one place all of the various existing policy clauses on "race", as well as several new clauses. I'll link you first to the draft sub-page so that you may edit it yourself as needed before I formally submit it for evaluation. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's up. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ask an uninvolved admin to SCUM Manifesto debate

How would I do this? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Stick a neutral request here: Wikipedia:AN/RFC. I'd rather we have someone uninvolved determine consensus/no consensus there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I posted one --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cfd closure

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21#Category:African slaves in the Americas

The above discussion is closed. I'm not placing it for automatic depopulation in order to give time for manual depopulation, if wanted. - jc37 22:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad

I completely agree that it should be based on nationality and citizenship, not race. My initial impression was that the article pertained only to Asian Americans, wherein Middle Easterners would obviously have to be removed. I also wasn't particularly thrilled with the blatant ignorance and borderline racism in excluding Natalie Portman and others like her. They should be included.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

we need to remove the asian americans too. Go to the talk page discussion has stalled, but it seems some want it to be race based. Good ouck defining which races are asian.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Already left a comment. The scope of the article should be limited to nationality and citizenship. Race needs to be removed from the equation entirely.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

agreed - and we should get the asian americans off the list. This may mean portman isnt allowed, unless RS regulrly call her israeli.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Natalie has Israeli citizenship, and is usually referred to (and refers to herself) as an Israeli. If I can find reliable sources, I'll put her in. The entire article will have to be updated to meet this criteria, though.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey thank you for taking care of the type category, I am not going to lie I somehow forgot about the existence of speedy deletions. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

do you have twinkle? It saves a ton of time, and has all of the speedy stuff built in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the help with the archiving, it's appreciated --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

no worries at all. I've set it up on dozens of article talk pages so I'm rather used to the syntax... :) welcome to the wonderful world of bots. Now you can have the joy of wondering - why isn't it archiving my page? What's wrong with the bot? Does it not like me anymore?? Just to be clear though, you want to keep 20 threads on the page at all times? Your perogative, just wanna make sure that was your intent.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've seen them in action but this is the first time one will be working for me. Do you picture them as robots going through the actions themselves or is that just me? Well, the intention with that is for 20 being the maximum. Is that not what I've done? Also, different question but I've been thinking about this for a while, do you know if there is a way to get a text link to add a new section to the talk page without adding the huge banner to the top? Like Leave me a comment here or something in the text? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'd been meaning to say for a while that I appreciate the Borges reference in your categories --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

yes I love Borges. Alf turned me on to that one. No, 20 will not be the maximum, 20 threads will always remain in the page - thus 20 will be the minimum that always remain. There could be more, if you get 70 messages in 10 days they will all remain, but after 20 days 50 of them will be archived, the other 20 will stay there until new messages arrive. In my browser I have a 'new section' link in the header that does exactly that - does yours have that? If you want to create a box you can use a link like this. There are prob templates that do this but you'd have to dig around, try to find a category for user page talk templates.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I came across him when I studied Foucault last year, I haven't read much but I intend to when I have more free reading time. Oh right, well in that case I'll probably change it to zero. Thank you for the heads up. I have a New Section thing in the header too, I just thought it could be useful for new users. I might have a dig through, I'd ideally like it without the lock --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I found it in the end. There isn't an explicit section for it but I found a mostly text header and took that part out from it. It looks quite good though so I'm content --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Information box at Category:American women novelists and at Category:American male novelists; ambiguity

I don't know if you can stomach one more look at the aftermath of this category-gate, but the information box at Category:American male novelists and at Category:American women novelists is confusing to me, as it seems to be ambiguous. The content of the box is This is a distinguished subcategory of Category:American novelists. It includes American novelists that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent. To me, this content implies that Category:American novelists can be the direct parent of an American novelist bio. And, to me, it seems that the correct parents of American novelist bios are the by-century categories of American novelists (plus the diffusing subcategories, as mentioned), which categories themselves have Category:American novelists as the parent (or grandparent at some level). I still occasionally find new bios of American novelists directly categorized into Category:American novelists (by experienced, as well as inexperienced editors); this, I think, may be a consequence of the ambiguity in the information box contents (notwithstanding the contain only disclaimer in the information box at Category:American novleists. I'd like to edit these two information boxes to remove the ambiguity - it'll probably take me 30 minutes, but I will get it right B^) Gee, it's difficult do precise, unambiguous prose that is also readable! And scintillating? Pity the poor technical writer. - Neonorange (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a generic template. I see your point, but I don't think it's worth editing the template just yet. If someone leaves a novelist in American novelists, that's actually great news - as it means, we can now categorize that novelist fully according to the guidelines. I think that's a good thing in a way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. And I see your point. So it's all good. Since I, on occasion, come across author bios directly in American novelists, do you have a cheat sheet for fully categorizing American novelists bios (the hierarchy)? I've been merely removing the American novelist category and adding the appropriate by-century, women, and male novelists categories. Usually these are stub or start articles that don't contain enough information for complete categorization, or that get the genre and other subcategories right. - Neonorange (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No cheat sheet, just whatever we wrote in the header at Category:American novelists. If you want to improve that header with better instructions on where to put people, please go ahead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I have restrung my "vote" at Talk:Afghan Girl and needed to move one of your comments as a result, dif I hope that's OK with you and admit it was my error in putting my "vote" at the bottom of the discussion rather than in the poll. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

no worries. cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Obiwankenobi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it didn't arrive, you may want to resend. best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-sent. I don't think this is affected by the current discussion. Thanks - WPGA2345 - ☛ 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sit on it for now. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Official & diplomatic protocols

Do you think it'd be helpful to have sources establishing that "spouse of the PM" as a formal/official title like this one [5]? They could be used for a "10 Downing street duties" or somesuch. Unfortunately this one is for St-Lucia and not the Uk. I think this article would benefit from being less tabloidy and more about politics and matters of state. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. However the anti-misogynist crowd seems unwilling to have any mention of the word spouse in the title. Not sure if we can get past that reaction.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a section titled "Duties as spouse of the Prime Minister" or somesuch should be written regardless of the outcome of the title discussion, between "Marriage and children" and "Public perception". Including stuff like official state visits, what she did to support the political campaigns of Labour, etc. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

RM record for Sarah Jane Brown

In this edit at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown, you asserted that RM #7 was "withdrawn early by nominator". But it appears to me that the nominator didn't do that. The closer was an IP, as was the nominator, but it appears to have been a different person than the nominator. Can you please check the history? Also, I'm not sure I would personally characterize the closing of RM #8 as "per IAR". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

the IP had changed but the IP repeatedly stated they had closed it early/withdrew it. I have no reason to mistrust them. The first close was by Drmies and was indeed closed per IAR. Indeed there's no other justifiable reason to close since it was clearly not snow.would you mind reverting those edits? Thanks --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote somewhere that the closing IP said they were the same person as the nominator? I can see that the IP suggested that the discussion wasn't going to succeed and should be closed so they could submit a new suggestion, but I don't see the IP saying they were the nominator. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the history. The several closings and reopenings of the last two RMs are rather complicated (and certainly not what we would ordinarily expect to find as a matter of routine procedure). I think the last close in each case is the one that ultimately counts. I somewhat refined the descriptions of those closings, and I think they are accurate in their current form. If you think those descriptions can be improved, I am willing to listen. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Muslim generals

Do you still work on this category? There doesn't seem to be any progress at all. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @Armbrust:, I haven't had a chance to get back in and clear it out. I will try to take a look over the next week or so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clueless complaints at RfD

Probably I did not make myself clear. Both the redirect and the article itself in user space have been deleted by @Bishonen:. The reason I said refuse jurisdiction is that, yes, RfD is the right place to discuss redirects, and in fact I opined keep the article (in user space) but delete the redirect. Then there was a hullaballoo about whether the article was simply entrapment in the first place. I think all of us do have a sense of humour but unfortunately the encyclopaedia (in article space, at least) doesn't: which is a pity, sometimes, because most other encyclopaedias there are a few jokes in them when the editors are nodding and they slip past. Even Samuel Johnson's dictionary has a few jokes in it. So I am not against jokes at all and I wish Wikipedia would lighten up a bit sometimes, and I know it is WP:BAIT and WP:NEWBIES but anything we can do to attract new editors should be encouraged not discouraged: there are actually not that many regular editors (about 10,000, less than attend a first-division soccer match in England on a Saturday) compared to millions of readers. Making one's first edit is daunting, and we should not discourage it. I am sorry that I sound too serious; in real life I am a very happy chap and always joking, but things in print and things said face-to-face can come across very differently. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry, i know this is now water under the bridge (save a troll crawling out from under said bridge) - but im still not clear on what your desired outcome was. Did you want the userspace page deleted as well? Or did you want nothing done? I thought the page was ok, a bit mean spirited but fine for a laugh, but anyway it seems she's iced the whole thing so, i guess the joke is over.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Administrators' noticeboard

An edit conflict or bug may have caused the loss of your comment at the administrators' noticeboard. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peter James: thanks, I figured something odd happened but my edit wasn't all that important. Does look like a bug though.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation

You'll find that the article Rape is in both the Violence against men and Violence against women categories. I recommend you revert your edit as it goes against your reasoning on all the articles with the category Rape that you removed the category Violence against women from --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, since Rape can be seen as sort of a head-article for that one - but we also have a more specific gendered head-article now at Male rape, which is reasonable to include in the parent, esp since the child is ungendered. If we had "Rape of women" as a specific gendered head article I'd put it in VAW as well. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning though. It's already in the category Rape which is in the parent category Violence against men. When you removed the category Violence against women from all of those rape articles "per WP:SUBCAT" you were saying they weren't gendered issues? How can you make that discrepancy? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really more about navigation - from "Rape", as the head article for that category, you can get to most of the other articles. However, since we have a specific article about violence against men, and the Male rape article is a form of a "head" article relating specifically to rape of men, therefore it doesn't need to fully be diffused into the non-gendered rape subcat. OTOH, it wouldn't make sense to move 50 articles from Category:Rape back up to VAW. We're talking about 1 article here, not more - I'm not suggesting moving prison rape, etc up - and again if there were a head article Rape of women then it should be bubbled to the parent as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But they are still in the child category Rape. I know we're talking about one article, one article that fails your own criteria in the initial removal of the "Violence against" categories. Are you saying that every single rape article that you removed the "Violence against women" category from was a non-gendered issue? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's centralize discussion...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but for the record, Rape is in the categories Violence against women and Violence against men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Gay men category

I've raised similar concerns about Category:Gay men and Category:Lesbians in the past at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT — they were always meant to be strictly container categories for gay-specific or lesbian-specific occupational categories, and were never intended to directly include individual people. Despite that, however, they have both ended up getting regularly used for a random and very partial selection of individual men and women who didn't fit into an existing G or L occupational subcat (and sometimes ones who did, too; I was just now able to catch half a dozen people who were actually double-filed in both "Gay men" and a gay occupational category at the same time, just by eyeballing the category for names for which I immediately knew the correct occupation just by seeing the page title). But they've never been added comprehensively to all gay men or lesbians who don't have a G/L-specific occupational category to go into — which is really the only way that point of categorization could ever actually be valuable at all.

As currently formulated, you're right that it isn't actually a helpful categorization at all, for the same reason that it's not actually valuable or helpful to add people directly to Category:Men, Category:Women or Category:People — we would need to either empty them of individual articles and then regularly monitor them for maintenance purposes, or undertake a comprehensive project of making sure that they were added to every article that would belong in them (an unrealistically large and complicated job that I'm certainly not willing to undertake, and which would result in unbrowsable and unmaintainable megacategories.) But whenever I've tried to empty them out, they just fill right back up again with new additions or eff-you-Bearcat reversions, and keeping them clean on an ongoing basis is also more work than I'm prepared to accept.

So I've never known what to actually do about it, except to occasionally throw up my hands and wish there were a way around it — such as a system revision that would make it possible to designate certain categories as technically impossible to add to individual articles (e.g. the way certain spamlinks can be blacklisted as "page will not save at all if this string is in the edited text"). But there's pretty much zero chance of that ever actually happening, so I'm at a loss. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks @Bearcat: Ok I may take a stab at emptying them we'll see how far I get. We should add some language about this to the EGRS to discuss these container categories which are also EGRS but which shouldn't contain people. Also Fwiw your input welcome to the discussion at EGRS I'm having with BHG.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, another question - we also have all of the nationality-subcats of LGBT, like Category:LGBT people from South Africa - do you think those should also be container categories? Or, is it enough to intersect "LGBT" + nationality for categorization purposes. I can see those as container categories, but I'm not convinced they should be populated, otherwise it potentially violates EGRS, since the intersection of "LGBT-ness" + "nationality" is not necessarily DEFINING per se, its rather once you get into different job types that it becomes moreso.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that the intersection of nationality and sexuality is defining to an extent; for example, my life as a gay man living in Canada is rather different for a whole host of reasons from the life of a gay man living in Russia (where, er, you know). And at any rate, categories that would be so massive as to be effectively unbrowsable if they were undifferentiated are allowed to be subdivided by country, regardless of whether that intersection is strictly a defining characteristic per se (see size exemption to WP:OC#LOCATION). So no, I wouldn't say that "LGBT people by country" categories should be made "container" — because not every occupation necessarily warrants an "LGBT occupation" intersection, each "LGBT people by country" category contains a significant number of people who would have nowhere else to go except back up into an excessively oversized mob at "LGBT people". Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Acknowledging that the argument we put together for the HRC Move Review will fall on deaf ears, I'd like to note that it was great to get your input on it. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... I have a feeling I know how this story ends...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Filipacci again

I guess the most recent issue is one I have brought on myself. Still, I feel that no one is recognizing how hurtful it was that I was called sexist and subject to other personal attacks. The most objectionable line is "if those personal attacks are supported by outside sources, you need to go after those sources outside of wikipedia." Basically it seems that I have to show deference to anyone who has an article on wikipedia, but other editors can insult me all they want if they are using "outside" sources. This feels like a double-standard, which is what began this. It all started when I tried to mock the double standard of people making waves about the American women novelist category, and ignoring the American women philosophers category. The whole thing is very frustrating. Maybe I am just letting it get to me, but it seems like no matter how much I try to build peace all I get is war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

John, I suggest you stop responding there. Post an apology, say that your emotions got the better of you, and that you will voluntarily stay away from editing her article. Continuing to vent is doing you no good, Wikipedia will not apologize especially the mob that has gathered there now at ANI and would love to make of you their next victim. Don't let them. Stop responding entirely, just apologize and walk away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Style guide for disability topics

Due to your earlier topic about categories, you are cordially invited to participate in a discussion about Developing a style guide for articles involving disability. Advice about categories (as we discussed) can also be included in the guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Organizations opposed to.

Page moves are subject BRD, Obi. By making it difficult to revert your undiscussed move of List of organizations opposing homelessness by filling up the redirect page, you're flirting with being accused of edit-warring. You should probably self-revert to avoid looking like you're trying to thwart normal process. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

EQ, you are bringing this debate to all sorts of places except the place where it belongs. If you disagree with the move, please open up a talk page discussion there and provide your reasons. I'm quite willing to listen to them, but others should participate as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

BRD means that your move should be reverted, and then we can discuss. I am giving you the good faith opportunity to self-revert. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be reverted with a reason, which you seem unwilling to provide..."No consensus" is not a reason...Anyway, since you seem passionate about this, why not start a discussion at the place where the article lives, and see what others think, perhaps we could find together an even better name for the list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're in violation of policy, both here, and I see, at the Women art historians page. You can't move pages multiple times in the middle of discussing what the title should be. If there's any debate at all, a page move is supposed to be treated as controversial. You also can't stop an undiscussed page move from being reverted. There's no need to make things so hard for your fellow editors. If your move has merit it will find support, but you should attempt to find that support when it is desperately obvious that not everyone will agree with your changes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you like the wiki-police? Are you going to issue me a citation? You keep on complaining but you haven't engaged with the content yet! Please post your reason that you disagree with the move, and propose a better name, over at the article, and stop wiki-policing. sheesh... And yes, you can move a page multiple times, it's called WP:BOLD, it may ruffle some feathers but whatever, I did 2 page moves, and someone did two other page moves. so far no-one has complained about the homelessness move which you protest, maybe since you haven't yet figured out why it's bad (and maybe you're secretly afraid it was a good call!).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is impolite to call me no one, Obi. I asked you to self-revert your undiscussed page move. You're declining to do so. The reason "(x) organizations" is often a bad construction is that it often becomes unclear if it's describing advocates or opponents. Think about how vague "Child abuse organizations" looks. As for your other moves, you actually shouldn't move a page while it's in the middle of a debate. You're supposed to consider that a possibly controversial move if there's been any debate about the title per things like WP:RM/TR. You should take the advice Drmies gave you on the other page and attempt to find consensus for your move before making it. Jerking titles around just annoys people unconstructively and you shouldn't make a pattern of it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of homelessness, indeed that's the point. These aren't organizations that all "oppose" homelessness, indeed some of them are fighting for the rights of people to not have to live in a fixed home. It's not that they are advocating making people homeless, but many of them are not fighting to end homelessness either. It also matches the categories better, and is a broader more inclusive title that matches the contents of the list. The rest is you tsk-tsking, I'm not sure why you feel the need to comment here about it, I haven't violated any policy and am already engaged in discussion about the women art history page. What purpose does it serve for you to berate me here for a problem which is non-existent?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice

You have received multiple barnstars (including one from me) and accolades that praise your diplomacy and calmness in Wikipedia conversations, as well as your prose. I need your advice on a dispute that I am in, one that is stressing me out and making me rather emotional. Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd#Hanged_vs_.27found_dead.27 I do not want you to go and argue for me on my behalf, nor revert or anything of the sort as people would probably accuse me of canvassing on ANI and game me for a block, when in reality I am just looking for advice. I however would like to humbly request your overall feelings and thoughts on the dispute, what directions I should take, whether I should just drop it entirely, etc. Thank you in advance. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words. While it is rare that I agree with Tarc, I think he was spot-on, and it was my first instinct as well - "Several sources report that the cause of death was hanging, but the police have yet to release the official cause of death to the public". This isn't really undue, as it highlights that several sources report the hanging, while not going out of the way to say "Dozens of other sources didn't mention the cause of death" - as we don't need to tell people what sources didn't say, we should tell them what sources DO say, and I'm sure we can find sources that say "cause of death not yet released". I didn't look at the edit history, I just read through the discussion so I'm not sure what language was being proposed, etc, but the "some sources say this, official sources are mum" formulation has been used before. Sometimes consensus is about compromise.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm gonna try to look at it from your perspective and decide what I do next. Thanks again. Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Myth of Male Power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]'', called it "A bombshell...forcing us to see our everyday world from a fresh perspective".<ref>[http://www.warrenfarrell.org/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

About Category:Contents of websites

Hi, thanks for your comment about Category:Contents of websites. I've created this category for articles that the main subject of them are only contents of websites (like "list of most downloaded contents", "list of contents", "about notable contents"). I believe that this category is useful for find these articles. Please help me to improve this category. I think that it needs a description. DZTREQWS (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how that works. How do you separate the website from the contents of the websites? Is a facebook group a "content"? or a twitter handle? The category doesn't make sense to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check the history of the Misandry article

Here is when the contested edit was originally added. The contested edit was not the deletion. Here is the first R, which was the removal of the material. To have the article in its state before the contentious edit would require removal of the material. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

NotAllMen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NotAllMen. Since you had some involvement with the NotAllMen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shiori (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Lists

Hi OWK. Sorry I am not ignoring you just very short of time. I also think it would be more time-effective to address the race lists centrally via policy/guidelines. HelenOnline 10:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

no problem. Notice in the discussion how they are refusing to elaborate inclusion criteria... Think of the uproar if we started a list of mongoloid billionaires... People seem to think that just because there are black Americans that you can extrapolate to a global black quasi-ethnicity...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Vexatios delete proposals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have to admit I have grave reservations about the Proposed Deletion pathway. To me it seems like a way to get rid of articles without being fully open about it. There was just a proposal to delete the article on George B. Handley, on the grounds that it lacks sources, when the article in fact has four sources. The person who did so has been in my mind carrying on a campaign to remove as many Mormon related articles from wikipedia as he can. He has also on multiple occasions tried to institute some sort of ban against me. His actions, especially in this case, seem to border on being vexatios, and also seem to be built on deliberate lies. The fact that the article on Lino Alvarez was deleted with only one weak support and 2 clear oppositions makes me more frustrated. Articles are not getting fair hearings, and one editor with animus agaisnt any aritcle that uses LDS sources has imposed his unsupportedly broad antagonism in a way that really seems bothersome. Yet if I speak out at all I know he will try turning me into the scape-goat for the whole complex diffusion of categories being turned into a simplistic process scandal again. I feel his general treatment of me has been vexatious, and his specific proposal to delete here is based on down right lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, fortunately Wikipedia does have processes to appeal deletions. I once had an article which I believe should not have been deleted, and that the support was simply not there. It was SEXINT, and I took it to deletion review, and it was overturned. Take it to there, and make your points, but make sure to discuss it with the deleting administrator first, as I believe it is a requirement. Additionally, if your points are cogent and entirely valid, I will support them myself. Tutelary (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)First off, JPL, I believe that unsourced BLPs should be deleted, regardless of who creates them. The articles I nominate for deletion I nominate without regard to authorship, though I admit a sizable proportion of them are by you or by Stokes. There are two clear findings in my mind in regard to LDS articles: 1) There are topics that the LDS Church has articles about that other faiths do not, and 2) many of these topics have few or no sources aside of LDS publications and websites. The reason Alvarez was closed the way it was was because none of the votes in opposition were in line with policy: policy dictates that an articles' sources must be independent of the subject; the two votes in opposition ignored notability guidelines. Also, what's REALLY vexatious is that you talk about me on third-party pages rather than address your concerns specifically to me. Oh, and you accused me of telling downright lies. Completely unacceptable. pbp 22:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89:, I think you should read proposed deletion guidelines for BLP again. Specifically, this text To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. . The external links at the bottom of the article, even if they are malformed references, are references nonetheless and therefore BLPPROD would not have applied, even after the end of the 7 days, as the reviewing admin would have taken note of this and simply deprodded it. I've done this as a mistake, thinking that external links did not count. Nope.@Johnpacklambert:, I think it would be best not to let it get personal to you. PRODs are a lower form of deletion and requires that no one contest it, and in this case, BLPPROD means that even if it did have no references, the only thing you would have had to do was to add one reliable source and that would make the tag void. There is a higher form, articles for deletion, but generally it requires a full fledged discussion and in the majority of situations, at least 7 days to decide. Tutelary (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I find PBP's most recent comments on my talk page a continuation of his inapropriate and attacking behavior. Beyond this, his claims of a majority in his favor just does not work. When there are two votes to keep, and one weak deletion on Lino Alvarez, that is not in any way a majority in favor of deletion. I really think that the actions involved here border on general violations. His continued ignoring of requests that he avoids attacking me is also troubling. His refusal to admit that claiming an article with 4 sources had none and doing so in a Prod Deletion was not acceptable behavior is also troubling. If he was not such a vindictive person, who is willing to go to any lengths to try to destory wikipedia editors he disagrees with, I might try to make some sort of general nomination against him. His crusade against LDS articles has largely been carried out in the most antagonistic way possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You essentially ignored every thing I said. You also forgot to count the redirect votes in the Lino Alvarez AfD. As I've noted twice before, I've nominated both articles you did create and articles you didn't. This is not about YOU. And nothing I said on your page was a personal attack; it was anything but...because this is not about YOU! pbp 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• PBPs costant yelling, his making up "votes" when there were only 3, all described about (the weak delete became a redirect, there were not other redirect votes) and his general hounding against lots and lots of LDS articles are all disturbing. He has still ignored that his nomination for PROD of a page that had 4 sources with a claim that it had absolutely no sources was not an acceptable tactic. No sources, means there is nothing there that is in any way, shape, means or form a source. Such things clearly existed on the page. It is not the same as "no reliable sources" or "no well formatted sources" or anything else. It means there are no sources. None, nada, zilch. There were sources, so his nomination was vexatious. Of course, so have been some of his ban proposals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe using BLPPROD was wrong, but using general PROD would have still been acceptable. Using AfD would have still been acceptable. Bold merging or redirecting would have still been acceptable. Also, the proposal to topic-ban you from certain areas was first proposed by someone other than I. pbp 21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, there were 2 redirect votes on Lino Alvarez, but I still find the general Amero-centricity of source gathering methods involved in the whole discussion, and the refusal to consider his heading a major educational institution at all in the discussion disturbing. OK, maybe I just want to gripe. But I am troubled by the fact that well-written articles like the one we had on Lino Alvarez get deleted, and I am extremely discouraged by the deletionist methods of some people. In fact, my general observation of the methods involved here is that they are designed with the goal of driving some editors away. Definately the language of "no non-LDS sources involved" makes LDS people feel unwelcomed and unwanted in the Wikipedia community. Some how if someone tacked on an article "no none Black sources involved", I do not think such maginalization of certain types of sources would be so easily accepted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Being LDS and being black are not analogous, and by "major educational institution", the dude was a high school principal, was he not? High school principals need more than that to be notable. pbp 21:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YesAllWomen

Hello! I have started a discussion about the gendered description of the slain victims. Since you reverted me, I thought I'd notify you. Hopefully, we can reach a consensus. It's not a huge deal to me; if nobody else participates in the discussion, we can just leave the text in the article. However, I think that it's undue and unnecessary detail, and I'd prefer that it be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Getting heated

Hi Obi-wan. At Talk:Black billionaires you appear to be getting heated. Do you find it an emotional issue? I largely agree with you, but some more patience is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder. I'm just irritated at the argument style of someone who refuses to give any semblance of inclusion criteria. It's a losing battle anyway, so next step is AFD. However, I'd rather pass a broader policy saying that list of (skin-color) X is not permitted since race is defined so differently and biologists tell us a global race doesn't exist, and local racial designators all differ, so we can't per NPOV choose one, thus we should choose none. We started work on it at middayexpresses' page. What do you suggest?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. So far, by removing the template link from Template:Lists of billionaires, I see potentially significant incoming links coming from the following:

• Index of articles related to African Americans
• African-American history
• Rich black
• Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi
• Tabloid talk show
• List of African-American firsts
• List of topics related to the African diaspora
• NEWBO
• Post–Civil Rights era in African-American history
• Mike Adenuga

I haven't looked at these yet, but the list is short. Few incoming links is an indicator of a non-notable topic. I am still thinking along the lines that the article fails to be reliably sourced, in that it reports "blacks" who are "billionaires", and that it contains significant WP:OR, where it goes beyond the forbes source, and where it doesn't go beyond the forbes website, it is reproducing excessively tabloid-style information from a single source. Whether the article should be deleted, or rescoped, is the question. It could be rescoped to cover the interest in the notion of "black billionaires", as an anthropology article, but probably that would be too great a rescoping, and if such an article is to exist, it might be better made from scratch. I'm really not sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it could potentially survive as an anthropology article, like Black people, but we shouldn't add specific people in a list as composing the list requires OR or POV, because we have to decide on one version of "black" (systemic bias), or accept all versions of "black" in any language, while eliminating Tamils, South African Indians, and accepting "brown" brazilians (thus, pure unmitigated OR).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Delete or smerge and redirect to Black people" is probably a viable option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

see User_talk:Middayexpress/WP:RACE, your comments and feedback welcome there - there is an idea to try to get consensus around this as a policy, to get rid of race-based lists entirely.

A Dobos torte for you!

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

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Intersection tool

Thanks for the tip on the intersection tool, it's very nice! Yet, I suppose that the tool is not very well-known - especially not among the more occasional Wikipedia readers - so I doubt if this can be considered as a practical alternative for the double-occupation category that was being discussed. Although I agree with you that the double-occupation category makes an ugly impression. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics RfC

Hello - I'm inviting you to be part of a small group to help devise a comprehensive RfC on the topic of diacritics usage on WP. I'm trying to include editors with a broad range of approaches, and openness to collaboration, in order to make it as strong a proposal as possible. If you're interested, let me know, or pop over to User:Dohn joe/diacritics to participate. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Any interest or advice? Dohn joe (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Experimenting with Category Intersection Javascript Question

• I followed the instructions and got the intercat working at User:RC711#Category_Intersection.
• I copied the js to my common.js and modified it to see if I could get category trees to open, instead of going to the particular category pages. User:RC711/common.js
• This is my first time using js on Wikipedia. I do not know how individual features like intercat and categorytree interact. If I knew where the categorytree js was, maybe I could integrate it to make a nice category.
• Have you used the Template:Category tree all? Do you think there is a way to combine the category tree display with the intercat?

RC711 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi RC. Sorry, I'm not that good with JS and wikipedia either, I cribbed off Magnus Manske's version, he wrote the backend code and the initial javascript. I think the category tree template is unrelated, and something that is built into wikipedia somehow, but I"m not sure, you can look at the source for the category tree template.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I found some of the source code for the category tree, but it did not seem to fit very well. I may have to build something from scratch. You would think that category trees are a core element of wikis, but there is very little support for them. I am trying your category intersection tool. It works, but blows up on larger categories. Thanks. RC711 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Magnus' page, that's because mathematics tree is very problematic, it includes most of wikipedia actually as a subset.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

What's with the edit warring without discussing your deletion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict and was on mobile so lost my whole response...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that edit conflict came from me. Sorry 'bout that! I'll try to not add things until at least 15 mins after. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

no worries... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive closing of RfC

Your closing of the RfC on talk:YesAllWomen seems disruptive. Neutral uninvolved editors do not appear to agree with you, and I question the appropriateness of an involved editor, such as yourself, abruptly closing an RfC like that. You never even specified what you found non-neutral about my contributions. If you actually specify, and it seems reasonable I would be willing to strike it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole RFC is corrupt, with edit warring on the header and 'additions' and 'context' provided by only one side. The original statement was fairly neutral, it could have been moreso, but the additions you made esp with characterization of myself and another editor was totally inappropriate esp for a header of an RFC. Much better to agree on short neutral wording of a new RFC, since we obviously don't agree on the wording of the last one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

No one named you at all. Are you referring to text that 2 editors were “very firm” in wanting a version with gender breakdown included but no context on gender breakdown included? I actually have no problem striking “very firm” (even though I believe it is accurate). It’s not really needed info for the content under dispute. The important thing is the readers know what the content under dispute actually is. Tutelary’s brief summary didn't make that clear. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was not really worth copy editing to neutralize since it was full of your own POV on the matter. An ideal RFC statement should be neutral and BRIEF, and in this case we do not need to cloud editor's minds with a play by play of what has happened in the past and who argued what and especially not with who was being stubborn and who wasn't. I think in this case, it's much better to just present 3 versions - "gender breakdown", "no gender breakdown" and "gender breakdown with your preferred "context" (but, an attempt must be made to improve the "context" you pushed forward). The RFC as originally framed was supposed to just be about the gender breakdown, but you and Tara added to it and attempted to expand it post-facto. I'm ok with doing this, but it needs to be done together and not unilaterally, esp since she started the RFC and she didn't consent to your additions to it, but you warred them back in anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review edit summary on talk:YesAllWomen. It seems the only person who edit warred there was you. Seeing someone edit war, on a talk page, in attempt to move the comments of others is a new one for me. With regards to Tutelary, she never mentioned any concerns regarding my comments on RfC being non-neutral, nor asked me to alter them prior to your closing of RfC, and she has been actively participating. As I said before, if someone had raised concerns regarding comments I made being non-neutral, I would have been more than happy to strike them. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing somebody obliquely critique other editors in a supposed-to-be-neutral RFC header is a new one for me too, so I guess we're all breaking new ground. Your addition was inappropriate for an RFC which is why I moved it. Rather than attempting to escalate this further, why not look at the proposed language for a new RFC which I think will be much better for new readers, and provide your comments (and proposed changes) there, this is the path we should have taken to start with in any case - I think if we can agree on the RFC language we are halfway there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A completely uninvolved editor disagreed with you that my contributions were inappropriate. But regardless of whether my contributions were neutral or not, please reconsider your current approach to editing on YesAllWomen and attempt to be more collaborative. Specifically, discuss first before repeated reversions. Discuss before deletions of RfC's, etc.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted, but the person who started the RFC actually felt they were... Can you please stop working to correct my behavior, and focus on your own for a spell? Continually haranguing me does not move the issue forward. Contributing to neutral RFC wording does, because without it we don't have an RFC to hang our hats on. Why not focus on that now?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually completely willing to focus on my own behavior and have repeatedly indicated willingness to strike non-neutral contributions, if reasonable objection raised to my contributions. Tutelary is free to speak for self on matter, but for the record, I am willing to strike non-neutral contributions if Tutelary (or anyone else for that matter) explains why they seem problematic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For a matter such as this, given the obviously contentious nature, it should not be your individual turn-of-phrase or POV. I was blocked and couldn't contribute so I wasn't able to weigh in, but I would have much earlier if I could have. It's no longer about you modifying your statement, you need to understand that. We need to work together to draft a single consensus framing for the RFC. that's the only way this will work. Otherwise, you'd have to let multiple people frame their own versions of the events as you have, and then you'll lodge complaints against the non-neutrality of MY summary of events, and then Tara will lodge a complaint about Tutelary's non-neutral summary of the events, and it becomes a recursive nightmare. It's just not workable. We need a single question to ask the users, and we should LEAVE out of the RFC header any attempt to summarize past discussion or provide argumentation or defense of certain positions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Question re. WP:COP#N

Hi,

I left you a question regarding WP:COP#N at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Two categories. Maybe you didn't see this yet or didn't have time yet to answer. I'd really appreciate you answer there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Irish noble women

Would you like to implement the split of Category:Irish noble women, as approved at CFD April 25? It is on the list at WP:CFDWM. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on Talk:YesAllWomen

Your behavior on the article talk page since returning from your block has been rather unproductive. Closing the RFC was quite bad enough, but there were editors attempting to work on a new version of the RFC statement: re-opening with the version you had tried and failed to get consensus for in the way that you did was simply uncalled for. There's no rush. It's a Sunday for crying out loud. I strongly advise you to reconsider your actions, and either re-close the RFC and wait for consensus or remove your additions from the heading. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, I really can't win with you. You're mad when I close the RFC, and you're mad when I reopen it. I propose a section to work on new neutral language and you don't participate, and then you open a separate section to discuss the lede and you reject each and every one of my ideas. Can't you see that it simply wasn't going to work? I was willing to start from zero and develop a brand new consensus RFC header that we all would participate in, but there was constant pressure from others lambasting me for putting the RFC on hold, and I couldn't handle it anymore, so I reopened and just added my own statement along side yours and Bobo's; fair is fair, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You're asking for consensus around the lede of the RFC? That's what I've been begging for for several days Tara, and you've refused to engage even in a discussion on the matter, instead spending most of your time being mad at me. If you recall, the main change that I originally wanted was to simply move your and Bobo's comments to the "survey" section - a very simple change, but that was anathema to you, you fought it tooth and nail, so, I really can't see what other choice I had. I strongly disagreed with those additions and the specific wording of them, but you didn't seem willing to listen or compromise, and at the same time were insisting that the RFC be reopened. Well, it's now re-opened. Can we just move on and stop arguing please? (or at least, stop meta-arguing?) - it would be fun to get back to discussing content for once.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My issue is with your habit of acting unilaterally: refactoring an ongoing discussion, closing said discussion when the refactoring was disupted, and re-opening it your proposed wording in place while a discussion about reworking the statement - at your behest - was still ongoing. These are all actions that you should not be making so lightly. And yet every time someone tries to caution you, your approach seems to be to call it 'water under the bridge' and ask us to 'move forward' with your changes in place, rather than to take their concerns under advisement and retract, or at least refrain from such drastic behavior in the future. At this point you may as well be saying 'I do what I like. Deal with it.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "refactoring a discussion" - it was "removing what I considered, and the person who started the RFC considered, non-neutral statements from the RFC header". Anyway, I know you love to dwell on what has past and pontificate about what I could have done better, but I did try another path, which was to write a new RFC, but you rejected that path. You may want to reflect on that, and consider if, anywhere in this discussion, is there anything you could have done better? In any case, as a result, the only path left open to me was to modify the header of this RFC, so I tried that too, making suggestions on removing Bobo's biased summary and tweaking yours, but you also rejected those ideas - I'm afraid to say I didn't see consensus at the end of that tunnel. So what was I left with? I really don't want to spend a week arguing over how to fix a broken RFC and pleading with you to change the wording of a comment you felt was "yours", better just to re-open it, add my 2c up top, and move on; if you still want to reword your comment go ahead, I won't stand in your way, but I'm not going to complain about it if you keep it as is. As I said, nonetheless, if you have suggestions on how to improve my specific header addition, I welcome them. And now that I've placed my comment in your preferred ordering, I really don't know what you have to complain about, unless it's the specific text I've added, and I've already opened up a channel for your feedback on same. Otherwise, it's the same old RFC that you so appreciated, and it's open again. Why aren't you happy about that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Violence against men

Obi... read the last CfD. Then please try to explain how Domestic violence and pregnancy is a form of violence against men, which is what it was classified as. I was trying to clean up the classification scheme to make more sense (including by adding violence against men tags to articles where they *do* apply,) and you started reverting me pretty much as soon as I started on cleanup. If you don't want to follow the conclusion of the last CfD, I'm not sure what to do, except to !vote to delete the whole category. Because Domestic violence and pregnancy is not a form of violence against men, as are many of the other reversions you made. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Because those category trees of domestic violence and rape are not gendered, we have to accept that the contents may sometimes not match - for example, Male rape is in Category:Rape but a subset of Category:Violence against women - this is just the way it works, the only other solution would be to do a gender split of Category:Rape and of Category:Domestic violence but I see no value in that and it would be a lot of work, especially since the articles, organizations, etc usually address these crimes against both genders.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Or... we could tag individual articles instead of top level categories so that only articles that were actually legitimately covered by the category would be effected by it. That'd present a pretty handy solution where we could tag all articles about violence against men without suggesting that Domestic violence and pregnancy is a form of violence against men. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, the same problems apply to the violence against women category, there are plenty of examples of articles in subcat X that aren't about (or aren't exclusively about) violence against women. It's not ideal but it still works nonetheless as a system. Deleting the whole VAM tree because you can't deal with a bit of inconsistency is really stupid IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, Category:Patricides is in Category:Familicides which is in Category:Domestic violence which is in Category:Violence against women. One solution, as I suggested above, would be to put all of these non-gendered categories that still have a significant gender-based aspect to them into Category:Gender-based violence - but then if they're no longer in the same tree you end up having to recategorize everything twice, so instead of something being in Category:Rape in the United States, it would be in Category:Rape in the United States and Category:Violence against women in the United States, and would entail recategorizing about 1500 articles, at which point you may as well gender split the whole tree, but that would mean you'd have to create dozens of new subcategories, etc. It's simply not worth it, much better to accept some inconsistencies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

SCUM Manifesto

I'm confused by your comment "this is better, as a first edition vs a much later edition". Both illustrations are of later editions. The 1977 one is much more obscure, however. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The source claims this is the 1967 version.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it must be incorrect. I realize I can't readily prove this, but you'll have to trust me on it. I'm very familiar with the publication history of SCUM Manifesto. After Solanas was released from prison, she self-published another edition of SCUM Manifesto in 1977 due to the fact that she considered all of the commercially published editions to be "incorrect" (due to punctuation changes, etc). This is a copy of the 1977 edition. I'll see if I can dig up some evidence... Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, the 1967 was mimeographed. We should update the caption/description on the file that was uploaded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I get it

I've felt like I've been under assault this week too, I get where you're coming from. I can't help myself, if I had the self-restraint to keep myself from opening my mouth then I wouldn't need the help in the first place, but I can point it out when I see you doing it. Anyway, looks like you made a friend.--v/r - TP 23:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm of the opinion that some of the comments being directed at Obi are violations of the MRM sanctions. The pages may not deal with the MRM, but the sentiments being directed at Obi are that he is nothing more than some mens rights shill. While they weren't expressed directly in the ANI thread, they are being expressed in the fringe theories noticeboard, and over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 24.--Kyohyi (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Obi has the patience of a saint. These people are directly violating principle 7 of the Manning decision. Arkon (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what to do about it. What do you suggest? If you haven't weighed in at the category discussion, please read the sources and share your thoughts on whether those cats should be kept...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much of a suggestion, but I can tell you that I'd raise hell about any -ist being applied to me or my editing (back it up, retract it, or off to arbcom we go). I really really do hate how categories are done on wiki, so I generally try to stay away from that area. Arkon (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

VAM

@BoboMeowCat: - how about this, I will remove the isla vista massacre and argue no further for its inclusion. Furthermore I will work with you and anyone else interested to do an RFC on inclusion criteria, but not now, emotions are too high - in a months time. Also for that month I also won't add anything more to the cAtegory, but we keep the current contents pending the RFC. In exchange you change your !vote, attempt to convince others to join you, and agree to work with me on the inclusion criteria for both VAM and VAW. I'm trying to find a compromise position here that doesn't involve throwing out good work and valid categories that have oodles of sources behind them (both VAM and Massacres of men)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

to respond to your question I don't think so. People try to convince people all the time to change their views. Canvass is about bringing biased editors into a discussion who weren't there before.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is canvassing. How is it appropriate for me to try to change votes of others, in response to some deal you make with me? On User talk: Atlantictire you said, if you change your !vote and convince others to, I will stay away from VAW and VAM for a month. I think you're crossing the line here Obi (or at least getting really close to crossing it). If you seriously want to make such a deal in hopes of saving the category, I really think you should consult with admins, who can actually enforce that you keep to such a deal. I'm not comfortable being involved with this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not convassing if they are already in the discussion. What Obi is doing is negotiating. Also known as attempting to reach a consensus, which is what all editors in a dispute should be doing. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo it's just an agreement not a contract. If you want to leave out the bit about convincing others that's fine - I didn't mean bring new people in I meant convincing others who participated already - but we can axe that. I do keep my word and if you agree I will keep it. Your vote also matters to me because even though we disagree you are thoughtful and at least willing to engage without calling me names which I appreciate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Massacres against men

I don't really see how me personally changing my own mind is going to make a difference to whether a consensus is established to keep or delete it. If it convinces enough people that it is warranted, then it'll be kept; if it doesn't, then it won't; and if it splits down the middle as a "no consensus", then it'll still be kept.

And to be honest, when people try to actively solicit me on my talk page to come back and change my mind in a deletion discussion, the gambit usually gets my back up and makes me even more reluctant to seriously consider actually changing my mind about it — I'm trying to resist that kneejerk reaction because it's coming from you (an editor whom I do respect), instead of from the kind of "I want my COI spam here for advertising purposes" SPA that it usually comes from, but I'm still not entirely sure I understand why it's so important that I personally rescind my initial reaction when one vote wouldn't actually be enough to sway the consensus in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Because what Obi is trying (at least that is what I think he's trying to do) to do is achieve a consensus with someone who is willing to talk with him, and not just talk at him. Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration, not a winner takes all mentality, and sometimes it is easier to identify and come to a mutual agreement over an individual editor's reservations about a subject by dealing with them individually instead of a larger group. The simple reality is Obi is doing Wikipedia the way Wikipedia is meant to be done. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Bearcat: - I respectfully disagree - every !vote matters, and yours in my mind a lot more than others because of your expertise in categorization. The reason I reached out to you is because I know you to be a reasonable editor and your !vote seemed based on a false premise - that these were massacres of combatants, but they aren't, only civilians, not partisans, not irregular military - civilian men/old men/boys/sometimes infants. The literature calls this gender-based violence or sex/selective massacre and as I noted on your page outside RS have built specific databases of these instances that are studied as distinct from other massacres that are indiscriminate. We even have a head article for the topic at Androcide but admittedly that needs work. But yes i believe in a discussion as contentious at this a reasoned voice like yours defending these categories would make a huge difference. I've tried hard to provide detailed sources around various aspects of gender-based violence against men to demonstrate that this is not coming from MRA blogs but no-one on the oppose side is engaging with the sources, instead they just close their eyes and say 'propaganda' - but I honestly believe it's not and it's studied in a wide variety of literature, I've found at least 50 sources to date. Anyway I won't ping you further on your talk page but it would mean a lot to me if you looked at the work of Jones and Buchanan and Carpenter on gendercide who specifically study the gendered nature of these crimes (which impact men but also are sometimes directed at women). Just read the sources and then decide whether you agree they call this gender-based violence against men. Indeed when men and boys - including very young ones - are plucked from the women and then slaughtered, it's hard to see how this isnt based on their gender.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the trouble is that I don't have the free time right now to delve deeply enough into those references to formulate an opinion on them until at least the middle of next week — which might well be too late. The best I can offer is a willingness to strike my vote in favour of a "no opinion" — but this weekend of all weekends, I simply don't have the time to examine it in any real depth. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks, every little bit helps - I appreciate your willingness to consider diving into the sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

==No hard feelings== I hope you know this isn't personal. My objection was mostly that road you're on can only lead to ArbCom. jps is not your enemy, and it would probably be a good idea if you and she started over. Let's not forget that most women also have tremendous empathy, no matter what you may have heard.:-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI May the force be with you.--AT Atlantictire (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarify, then

• Just so everyone understands your impression of the inclusion criteria - it does not include "men being killed for random reasons," but it does include the 2014 Isla Vista killings, Stop Abuse for Everyone and the Peterborough ditch murders. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the best place to discuss individual contents, you're welcome to discuss on my talk page or elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that I've been welcomed, I'll do so. Please explain your inclusion of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. One explanation that might make sense is "I lost my temper and engaged in WP:POINT and I won't do that again." Perhaps you have a different explanation. I'd love to hear it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

On that one, it's all laid out Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Violence_against_men_category in detail, most other editors agreed with me. I am reconsidering, however. If we modified the scope of the category in a way which satisfied you, or removed certain elements that bugged you, might that convince you to change your !vote? see: Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Violence_against_men_category--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I'm not sure it's accurate to say most editors agreed with you, because many in disagreement wouldn't vote, on grounds that it doesn't seem reasonable to hold a vote without having at least one reliable source support it, prior to voting. [[6]] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the silent dissenters. Anyway, I'm reconsidering on that one... I've offered you a proposal Bobo, what say you?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? They're not "silent dissenters'. Multiple editors have been very vocal. See link provided above. ps - not inclined to change vote as I've already indicated repeatedly --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it can't be said that I didn't try. How about keeping it open - what WOULD convince you to change your !vote? Believe it or not, your particular vote, for whatever reason, is important to me, in the same way Bearcat's was, and I suppose I would be quite glad to get dil's vote as well. Something about your attitude, which jives with me. Let's say, I like your style. So, how can I bring you to the dark side of the force - if you join me we can rule the violence against men galaxy together luke :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the category were not being used to violate WP:POINT and push a POV, I would not vote that the category should be deleted for violating WP:POINT and pushing POV's, which is how I voted. So, yes. However, in summary, I will constantly vote "delete," if the category is merely being made to make a pointy argument that other categories should not exist on specific articles - which is the argument you wanted to make on 2014 IVK, but chose instead to disrupt the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - "other categories should not exist on specific articles" - what do you mean? And again, if an editor on an article makes edits that bug you, do you nominate the article for deletion? It's the same thing here. The proper way to deal with content disputes is discussion, then dispute resolution and RFCs, I've stated multiple times I'm very happy to craft an RFC around inclusion criteria for VAM and VAW categories. But deleting? To what point? If we recreate later, most the contents will the the same? I'm still not sure what POV the existence of the category is pushing. Is sexual/gender-based violence against males a topic of study? Absolutely. And that is more than enough for a category - we have categories that exist on much flimsier grounds - and are kept. Categories are navigational in nature, they exist to help readers navigate between similar articles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't play dumb with me. Hipocrite (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I welcomed you to my page, and you are still welcome, but state what you mean, clearly. I really don't know what you mean re: "other categories should not exist on specific articles" - which cat, which article?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't play dumb with me. Hipocrite (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

this game is getting boring Hipocrite, and you might just be booted off the island, but I like you, so let's try again. What do you mean? Please just be clear. A lot of people ascribe a lot of bullshit to my motives, but very few know the actual truth. So what are you suggesting re: POINT - what POINT was being made in your mind, so I can respond. thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear - in order for me to write down my opinion as to your motive, I'm going to need a waiver of WP:NPA for my next comment on your talk page (Specifically, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," but I'll insist on a general waiver.) Please provide such. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha.. No, I've had a long day, not really in the mood. Just try to phrase it nicely. You say I was making a point by proposing to add that category (an addition the majority of other eds agreed with). What was the point, and war was this other category that I wanted to not put or put on what other article. I'm really confused, honestly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on being protected by the strictures that you insist I violate by speculating on your motive, with all due respect, I decline. I'm referring to the VAW category, of course. Hipocrite (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Ok, so do you mean, I was putting the VAM category there because the VAW category was there? That's not a correct read. I think VAW belongs on that article, I actually added it back recently after your friend jps removed it. He clearly was targeting women - a specific subset of women, actually, college age attractive women that he was spurned by - but I don't think any reasonable debate could be had to remove that category. The reasoning for the VAM category was laid out elsewhere, but mainly it comes down to the fact that he didn't kill men randomly in the process of targeting women (which would be the case, say if the Taliban shot a few security guards on their way to massacre girls at a school). In this case, I made the argument (and others agreed) that Rodgers specifically targeted sexually successful MEN - that is an essentially gendered attack, because it was based on the gender role those men played that he was unable to. But, as I said, I'm in the process of reconsidering the value of having the category there, since it causes so much consternation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear, if the VAM cat is removed on consensus, I will still !vote to keep VAW there. Does that answer your question re: POINT? I created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it, I also added several to VAW in Pakistan, and others. I have nothing against VAW and have tried to strengthen that category. I nonetheless believe VAM is a valid category and has plenty of sources behind it as a topic and area of study by serious people - not just MRAS (I disagree with MRAs on calling battles gendered violence, or on the titanic story, etc). Currently, the VAW category has probably 50-100X the # of articles of the VAM category, so I don't know why people are so threatened by the VAM category, as if it somehow diminishes the VAW category. It honestly boggles me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're still welcome to contribute in the voting for that, if you can make a good argument it could still be removed --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that is an example of canvassing, dil.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You provided the link ;) --80.193.191.143 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

This, and the references therein, may be of interest to you. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add to my list. Not sure if this interests you, but I'm considering writing an article on the broader topic of VAM or perhaps even specifically on sexual VAM in conflict. Any interest in working on that with me? Thanks for your !vote of support by the way, it means a lot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pickup artists

Wouldn't something like Category:Dating coaches or Category:Seduction coaches be a better choice for this category? I don't really see "pickup artist" as an occupation any more than I see "seductress" as a job. Most if not all of the subjects are involved in the industry of advice/coaching, which is the actual occupation. SFB 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Intereting. I just created it since they were all in the "seduction community" super category or something, and pickup artists seems like the most frequent way they're referred to, but if you have other sources which use a better name we could propose the category for renaming (like dating coaches, which isn't bad).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few of them refer to themselves as dating coaches, and it's a term that's well used. It does change the scope a little (as this includes relationship building and not simply seduction). There is a bit of a gap here between Category:Advice columnists, Category:Relationships and sexuality writers, and life coaching, most probably because many don't find it an encyclopaedic topic (prevalence would suggest otherwise). SFB 21:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine if the scope changes. I just saw in all of the ledes these guys were defined as pickup artists (at least it seemed that way).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure individuals like Roosh V can earnestly be described as artists, Seduction coaches sounds like a more fitting name --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

another thing however - category names usually follow article titles and the head article is at pickup artist. Now I remember that's why I chose that name. Normally categories just follow the head article, if one exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Massacres of men

@Hipocrite:, you stated that the massacres of men category was misrepresenting it's members and pushing a POV. Several of the elements in the category are actually covered as a case studies of gendercide in [7], while others are attested as such in other literature. What POV do you believe is being pushed by inclusion of these ~20 articles in this category? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: - what specific POV is being pushed by this category? Do you believe the sources that cover this are fringe or non-RS? I took them to the reliable sources noticeboard, and people there did not agree. Thanks for your response.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Karen Straughan

Despite what I think about the actual substance of MRM's positions and arguments, the movement itself is notable. Maybe it's a bad idea to suggest something that is likely to cause more hair-pulling, but why is there no article on Karen Straughan?

I just watched a video where she's debating Naomi Klein. Weird. She and Klein are basically on the same page, except Klein seems to think rape is a problem. The manosphere (sorry... you probably hate that term) spin on what Klein was saying was truly bizarre. Klein is anything but a man hating feminist cliche.

If the MRM really wants to bring about meaningful improvements in men's lives they should probably try very very hard to stop coming across as a movement that exists primarily to harass feminists. A good way to do that would be to identify as feminists. Another would be to take very seriously what Antigone Darling had to say about how the conflict between MRMers and so-called feminists is a false and internecine one that serves only to distract both groups from the real issues of appropriation and coercion at the root of all this harm. I'm not an anarchist, but I agree that nothing is ever just given to the oppressed and exploited for asking nicely.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who she is. i think the MRM is wrong to spend so much time attacking feminists, and I think feminists are wrong to spend so much time attacking MRM. It would be better if people would just accept that bias and prejudice actually impacts everyone - violence impacts everyone - and whatever our system is - call it patriarchy, call it "modern capitalism", whatever, it impacts men and women differently, but it isn't uniquely good for one and uniquely bad for the other. I hate black and white and I detest binaries, the world is a lot more complex than that. If we want to advance as a species, we need to see beyond the interests of our own particular gender/sex. I think feminists and MRMs are both missing the point on that matter (thats one of the reasons I don't identify as either, fwiw and in spite of the assertions of your friend jps).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope I'm not telling you anything you don't already know by pointing out that the position you've just articulated is thoroughly feminist. The only people who would disagree are those who insist on equating feminism with hating men. Not saying there aren't women who self-identify as feminists that hate men, but on the whole it's a trite and unhelpful stereotype. This movement would be a whole lot more productive if it would refocus exclusively on positive outcomes for men rather than attacking feminists. Especially when anyone with the capacity for analytic thought will recognize the average A Voice for Men poster's characterization of someone like Naomi Klien is an utter hallucination.

Because there are still so many real, actual injustices that women--especially poor women--face which do require feminist agitation, I fear you may have irreparably sabotaged yourselves.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not one of them atlantic, I'm not one of them... In any case, I think both movements have done some good, and also some bad. I consider myself a humanist. Perhaps there is overlap of my philosophy with some of the more moderate strains of feminism, but sadly their voice is sometimes drowned out by the more radical side. Young women are rejecting feminism in droves, you have to ask yourself why. I don't think feminism at it's heart is about hating men. I do think however that by focusing sometimes SO much on women and the issues facing women, they have left off half the planet. I think it's time for a new movement, focused on gender but not called feminism or masculism.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly has the men's rights movement done for men? I've seen many gender nonspecific homeless shelters and women's shelters set up by feminist groups, rape support groups set up by feminists that are again gender nonspecific etc. whereas men's rights activism doesn't really quantify anything but shouting at feminists online. Again, I would be really careful standing behind a movement fronted by somebody who once said women bring rape upon themselves because "they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though [sic] life with the equivalent of a [sic] I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING B**** – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads" and that "should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true". I'd also be careful arguing based on straw man arguments of feminism, the movement is massive. Opinions such as these don't help when editing in gender studies based articles --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't identify as MRA and don't stand for them nor support their views. That we both agree the sky is blue doesn't mean I'm their shill. i haven't studied them enough to know what exactly they have or haven't done for men, vs the contributions of feminism. I know feminism is big.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well in that case I suggest you do some research into them. The SPLC case report is probably the first place to start, I would also strongly recommend reading David Futrelle's blog and follow up some links from the RationalWiki page. I don't blame you for not supporting their views but after these allegations I would read into them for insurance. I also think there are areas concerning men's rights that do deserve some representation, but the men's rights movement as it exists is not much more than an antifeminism movement. Concerning the name Feminism, it is probably based on when the movement came about. Whatever your opinions about sexism now, things have historically been stacked very against women, and that isn't something you can as easily deny. It's named as such because egalitarianism would have minimalised female voices to a point where nothing would have been done. People have struggled for centuries to fix these issues and it's mostly why I'm so strongly against the misrepresentation of these topics on website. If Wikipedia is going to present itself as a reliable resource for this topic area then we can't have MRAs constantly disrupting things and pushing a skewed worldview --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No disagreement from me on that. but what you said applies to all articles, all topics, no matter what. Feminism doesn't get a special pass - it needs to be covered neutrally, like everything else. Today, wikipedia is less-than-neutral on these issues, and does not treat them in a neutral fashion. I understand the history of feminism, we studied it in school, and I know that there was and still is an imbalance. But that imbalance is not one sided, and if feminism doesn't engage in the issues men face, then MRA will only grow stronger - that's a sad fact, because those guys don't speak for me and their extremist fringe is odious. But feminism doesn't either. That's why I don't have a side here, I'm somewhat in the middle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't get a pass, I'm not so sure what you mean by less-than-neutral. I've found it's coverage of feminist topics to be more critical than academic sources would treat them. A large part of third wave feminism does concern men's issues, hence the feminist groups advocating for more support systems for male rape survivors. It's traditionalism that silences men, feminism largely speaks for them, something that MRA do really badly. The MRA doesn't really do that much for male survivors of rape or domestic violence. It is much, much, much more interested in people who have been accused of rape or domestic violence but claim to be innocent. That's probably the important distinction between feminism and MRAs. It isn't really a fringe. The main websites are extreme. I don't think I can list one MRA website that is good, the Good Men Project has frequently denounced them and they are probably the only decent men's rights website. It certainly could do with better representation within feminism but again, that's what the third wave is for. I would happily support a men's rights movement that doesn't consist of aggressive antifeminism and supporting abusers. The one that exists right now makes me utterly ashamed of my gender, a really guttural kind of ashamed that is part of the reason that I am so strongly towards covering their topics neutrally (aka as they are without propagandic spin). I really suggest you read some of their websites and articles before you say you are in the middle. It's one thing standing behind a hypothetical men's rights movement that does support men, but another standing behind this one, or even between it and feminism, that is probably impossible given it is not much more than a large antifeminism group --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We'll, I don't ask the Anti-Defamation League why they aren't worried about mercury pollution from power plants. I'm sure most people don't want mercury poisoning, but the ADL is probably busy with the issues that are its mandate. I'm just not sure it's helpful to address feminism as this monolith that exists to deprive men of their rights. It's like getting mad about the New Black Panthers, while failing to take into account that until the 1950s and 60s the Federal Government refused to enforce basic constitutional protections for African Americans. I recognize that the New Black Panthers are a fairly marginal group, but the fact that they exist shouldn't surprise anyone. It's a matter of empathy. I'm not going to paint all civil rights activists as New Black Panthers. MRM anti-feminism sorts seems like the War on Christmas with fedoras. Comes across as overly touchy, and I don't see how it's helping marginalized men. Anyway...--Atlantictire (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The New Black Panther Party are an excellent analogy. They are significantly more violent than RadFems and utilised for straw man attacks by white supremacists in exactly the same way that RadFems are by men's rights groups. I'm also quite fond of the original Black Panther Party so when I see that analogy on white supremacist websites it is very frustrating --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, not sure where this discussion is going. I don't identify with either of these movements. I agree they arose for different reasons, and I agree the MRM has some problematic elements, and aren't doing themselves any favors with some of the language they allow. but there is also a pretty nasty fringe of the feminist movement. I wish people would just relax and focus on positive forward movement instead of all of these ideologies. we're all human after all, alone on this pale blue dot in the middle of a dark sky.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least you recognize that trolling feminists is pathetic and counterproductive and does nothing to improve the circumstances of marginalized men. Here's to that! ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, trolling is stupid no matter who does it. The problem is, what to me is a neutral exploration of a topic -e.g violence against men - that is well studied in the literature, here becomes transformed into MRA activism. It's rather stupid. Perhaps I pressed the envelope and tried to add some things that were marginal, but I really wish y'all would consider not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, deleting the category seems really extremist and the personal attacks I've subdued over the past days has really taken a toll on my well-being. What can I do to get y'all to change your mind? I'm very open to compromise here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know, your attitude concerning these sorts of things was part of what drove me off the project in the first place. I'd like it if you didn't try to frame people trying to remove content from the categories as misandry. It rarely is. My approach when I joined a few months ago was close to WP:TNT but honestly the category was an utter mess and it still isn't that great. As an LGBT person I personally find it repulsive to frame anti-LGBT hatred as anti-male like in the Emo killings in Iraq and the content dispute concerning the SCUM Manifesto was exhausting for me. I've studied and wrote on Warhol, I don't need somebody to tell me that Solanas' attitude towards men is problematic, but framing what happened as "Violence against men" is ridiculous and inconsistent to her and Warhols relationship. I've edited with you for a while and I think your attitude concerning these topics is quite frequently regressive. I don't just mean the category here, your attitude as YesAllWomen is what brought me to join in on this. I intended to leave the community aspect alone and I'd quite like to vanish after this and just focus on editing and improving articles. I'm not interested in making friends on here or really being known as an editor. I just want to improve the articles themselves. If you can do one thing, I would go to a library and take some books out on gender, maybe take a part time gender studies class. I think most of the issue is lack of knowledge within the topic --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if I had an impact on you, it was not intentional, and I've reached out with multiple olive branches, both then, and now. As for the Emo killings plz read the discussion, at the time you actually agreed, as sources had framed it as such. If you think homophobic attacks do not have a gender aspect, then no offense intended but IMHO that's an overly simplistic view. Homophobia esp bias against gay males (which is usually how it manifests) intersects strongly with societal notions of gender and gender roles. It's not just one or the other. As for SCUM we can just drop it, since I don't want to antagonize you further, but painting me as the instigator is not fair, that discussion was started by others 2 years before I ever looked at that article. Anyway I do wish you the best, while also wishing that you'd keep your commentary about me here, and civil, vs talking about me in a forum where I cannot respond. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah Obi. Like I said, it's really up to you how much you want to attempt to empathize with your opponents in these arguments. Maybe try to understand just how long and hard women had to struggle just to get the sexism taboo. Try to remember that this taboo is still extremely precarious, as in most parts of the world it doesn't even exist. I can absolutely see how what you're doing comes across as trying to find petty, trivial and incremental ways to undermine the sexism taboo. I myself can't help but wonder about your motives here.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this has taken a toll on your well being Obi. I truly am. I'm never pleased with myself when the internet succeeds in making me mad.

Of course do what you like, but the thing with the categories seems like an incoherent provocation. Recently, I was in a very very short lived dispute with a feminist editor who wanted the feminism portal box in the lead of the Gibson Girl article. Uh, no. Let's not confuse a feminine ideal created by a man with an actual feminist cause. Confusing cause and effect is never a good thing, and I think even a lot of conservative editors are having difficulty understanding why you're superimposing an arbitrary cause on instances of violence. It's very Derrida, actually. Obi, you're an accidental feminist and an accidental post-structuralist. I really don't know what to do about you. ;-)

I think maybe take Kevin Gorman up on his offer to collaborate on gendercide articles.

Steven Pinker has a lot of smart things to say about the ways in which boys are effectively discriminated against, especially in the public education system. He gets picked on a lot by the Left (very unfairly I think), and as a result he can get peevish and even trollish, but at the end of the day he's an enormously competent and ethical scientist.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to correct systemic injustices against men. I just wish people would get past thinking this requires attacking feminism, because that's insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever attacked feminism, at least not per se, have I? Suggesting that some of the approaches of some feminist thinkers have become less than helpful is not really an attack...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gendercide

Hi Obi - it's been a while since I've directly contributed really substantially to an article, since so much of my recent work has been outreach focused, but I do quite enjoy writing content. Do you have any interest in rewriting gendercide with me? There's a hell of a lot of appropriate sources for the article, and the article in its current state doesn't really take advantage of them - I'm thinking of starting a sandbox and slowly building up pretty much an entirely new version of it. I know we have significantly different viewpoints on many issues, and to be clear I am intending on writing it using the highest quality sources possible and trying to avoid stuff like common news reports where possible (though genuine investigative journalism is awesome,) but I don't see any reason why we can't work up a solid new draft of the article together. If you don't have access to academic journals/paywalled stuff, in most cases I should be able to email you copies for the purpose of working on the article without an issue. Gendercide is a socially significant and well-established concept, and I'd like to see it better covered than it currently is. (As a few examples of what I mean - I don't think the current lede is very good, I'd much rather cover the information about Ciudad Juarez using some of the tons of high quality academic sources that are available, instead of the El Paso Times, and I'd much rather use a more recent source with more detailed analysis than the 1911 Britanica.)

I'm a bit busy generally so I'm not proposing, like, a one day rewrite, but since it's a topic both of us are interested in and one that has a plethora of good sources, think that working on improving it with you could be neat. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but let's wait a while, say a month. Tensions are too high right now. Actually we should fix Androcide first, that's in need of help more than Gendercide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued bigotry

In a deltion discussion the following occured:

Delete Subject lacks the indepth coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC) The sexist guy who famously violated Wikipedia's rules gets a vote. Great. Another point for Wikipedia's reputation. http://usedbooksinclass.com/2013/05/05/wikipedia-steps-on-women-writers-in-stepping-towards-the-scholarly/ 137.63.63.65 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I find this to be a major violation of multiple policies. I was trying to find a place to report such blatant, unconnected and vengeful, as well as just plain false personal attacks, and could not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. and that article is terrible - completely full of errors - you didn't even create that category! And still the boogeyman of sexism that caused it all...even though multiple female editors did the same thing before you, and multiple "sexist" male editors ghettoized Category:Male nurses and Category:Male feminists in the same way. Blah. I just looked at the Geek feminism wiki, to see how a progressive feminist outfit would handle these complications - and guess what - they have, as far as I can tell, NO categories for men, at all! They only have categories for women. Men, when they exist, don't even get put in biography categories as far as I can tell... see [8] - he isn't in any biographical categories at all - the only biographical categories that exist are for women. Should I go explain to the geek feminists how to have a non-sexist category structure?? hehe...

On your issue, it's an IP, not sure what you can do. You should see how they're slamming me at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Massacres_of_men - I'm not a sexist for defending those categories, I'm a straight up misogynist - a woman-hater. The vitriol is stunning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force

Obiwankenobi, compromises are reached on talk page, not via aggressive editing. Why are you trying to force your vision of how categories regarding women should be handled, on a task force dedicated to addressing the under-representation of women as wiki editors? This seems especially inappropriate when your vision of how these categories should be handled actually seems contrary to the task force goals. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I agree with you, which is why I've been discussing. You're the one barging in and deleting stuff. I know you think my approach is contrary to the goals of the project, but that's because you don't assume good faith and think my goal is different. I'm happy to take all the time you need to explain to you that my algorithm and goals re: deghettoization are both aligned with the project goals and aligned with our guidelines on same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are discussing after restoring material deleted by multiple editors (including myself, SlimVirgin, QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV) Other editors have very clearly weighed in on talk page regarding wanting this content removed. You are the only one restoring. I'm disturbed by your repeated tactic of aggressive immediate reversion of consensus positions on talk pages. You appear to be online much more than the others participants, so are able to revert your version immediately. This is not "discussing" or "compromise".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, normally the way things work is "Bold, revert, discuss". Slim re-added the material yesterday after discussion, and discussion was ONGOING. You cannot unilaterally declare that you, alone, have understood consensus, because there were multiple threads on the issue and it's all quite confusing. Slim has said that categorization was ontopic (I think yesterday), and she also proposed, along with others, that it should be in a subpage, which I have just done. I'm trying to find compromises. If you think the list of categories to be deghettoized should be moved to the subpage, that's fine with me to, but we should keep a link on the main page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Obi, I think I counted 84 edits in two days? Isn't that the same kind of editorial overkill that got you in such hot water just the other day? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

An old test CFD

Hey, I was just wondering about this test nom you did awhile ago. Did you ever follow up by nominating any of the subcategories? Looks like the tree still exists, or has been revived, if they ever were deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertent deletion

Sorry about that. Lot's of edit conflicts and my browser jockeying mucked that up.Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all. Let me know if you agree on a general cooling down period. I think continuing to add/war over such categories absent a broader community consensus on inclusion criteria for both is likely to lead to strife.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I see wikibreak is over...

Hi Obi, Apparently you went on wikibreak to avoid sanction and I see you've ended break [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] I would just like to politely ask you to remember what got you in trouble previously and request you keep talk page contributions reasonable in length and volume and make an effort not to bludgeon the process. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually still on break. I just broke it in that case to support the suggestion to suspend discussion, to offer an olive branch of removing the cat, and to propose other eds join me in a bit of a break before a focused discussion on inclusion criteria. But yes I will keep volume down.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I wasn't actually criticizing your specific talk page contributions, as I honestly only skimmed 'em. Personally, when I encounter lengthy posts on talk pages, I'm much less inclined to read 'em, and I'm probably not alone in this...just something to think about. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

yeah, if I had more time I'd be more brief (I think twain said that)...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your versatility of interests and basic sense of understanding. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on YesAllWomen

Your recent reverts on YesAllWomen are concerning considering this is an article you agreed to step away from completely following your disruption on article, in order to avoid potential action. This also seems concerning considering you are suppose to be on wikibreak to avoid MRM sanctions from Bbb23. It seems you have decided to just ignore your prior assurances to Dennis Brown and Bbb23. What's going on? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a brief wikibreak from my wikibreak. I agreed to step away from the RFC discussion, which I've done. I also stepped away from gender bias page, which again I have done. Not sure what those reverts have to do with MRM?? I've posted my reasoning in the talk page, why not engage their and try to build consensus or develop a compromise wording.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't discuss via edit summaries please

Re. the concept of "sensitive categories" was rejected as a title for WP:EGRS, so trimming this and making it simpler — I couldn't make sense of what you were trying to say there.

Seems like you're falling in your bad habit again of discussing via edit summaries. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)