User talk:Obiwankenobi

Precious

categories
Thank you for quality articles, such as Magnus Manske, and for sorting categories and article names as a Wiki Gnome, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

wow - thanks Gerda. I've seen Some of your work in the music articles, you make excellent contributions as well - so thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice award, from a top-notch editor. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm on a kitten giving binge, and you deserve one! Thanks.

User:Carolmooredc 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine categories

I closed the discussion here as no consensus. Feel free to immediately renominate for a fresh discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note

fyi: [1] - jc37 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for tireless contributions to tedious tasks. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User Drmies submitted the following nomination to Editor of the Week:

"Hey, I'd like to nominate Editor Obi-wan-kenobi for getting one of his first articles, Kristin Beck, on the front page in the DYK section--and the article got like 11,000 hits. That's a nice morale boost--Obi's been grumpy because he suffers from the oppression of men and the fallout of the "Female American novelist" category issue."

To be fair, @Drmies:, when I was a bit grumpy in June it was not due to the American novelists issue (which was ultimately resolved rather well I think) but due to accusations of bad faith by a number of editors after I made a carefully thought-out move-close at Hillary Rodham Clinton that turned out to be quite contentious, and accusations of sexism and misogyny followed by that infamous bulldog and others. I wasn't mad that the decision I made was overturned, I was mad at how certain editors treated me. But I do appreciate the sentiment that led you to nominate me for this award, so thx again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I figured there was more going on but I did not wish to presume too much. And I'm very pleased with how well your article did. As for treatment by others, I understand, believe me, and I hope things are better now. Time heals not all but some wounds. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your work! The Interior (Talk) 15:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Gryphon

Obiwankenobi

Editor of the Week for the week beginning August 4, 2013

Obiwankenobi is a tireless worker in the Categorization of Wikipedia articles, a complicated and sometimes fraught area. This editor is always civil, has amassed 15 thousand edits, and does not shy away from making difficult editorial decisions. Aside from categorization, Obiwan writes on a variety of topics, with a focus on health and gender issues.

Recognized for

Categorization, getting Kristin Beck on the DYK front page with over 11,000 page views.

Submit a nomination

• I'm Drmies and I approve this message. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Aww shucks. That is far too kind. Thank you Drmies, and supporters of my nomination, it is greatly appreciated and brought a smile to my face.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Glad you have returned to the trenches. Your hard work is appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Congrats, and thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• I just saw that you had recently received this award and it is so deserved. You've been nothing but helpful to me. I'm glad your hard work and collegiality are being honored. Congratulations! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Category question

Hi, Obiwan! (and congrats on the Editor of the Week award) I know you are a category expert; wanted to pick your brain a bit. I stumbled across a couple of categories, namely Category:Petaluma (minor league baseball) players and Category:Petaluma Poison Oaks players. The first contains one page, the second has two. Both are about long-defunct, very minor minor-league baseball, so they are unlikely to be expanded. I wanted to propose merging them back to their parent category, Category:People from Petaluma, California. But when I went to Categories for discussion I couldn't figure out the instructions for multiple related nominations. Do you want to propose them, or tell me how? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @MelanieN:. sorry for the delay. I'd suggest leaving as is - it seems to be a pattern, that minor league baseball teams, no matter how small, get a category - there are over 3000 here Category:Minor_league_baseball_players_by_team. small categories are allowed in these cases. In any case, if you want to propose merges to categories, install Twinkle, it has nice tools which automatically can generate merge or delete requests for categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have noticed there is often a bigger pattern to this kind of apparent anomaly; this seems like another such case. I'll drop it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, another example is Category:Albums_by_artist, which has no less than 16,333 sub-categories, many of which with only a few, and likely to never grow. Some weeds should just be left alone to grow I guess...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Category and use of template

In working on clean-up for by-century novelists categories I have come across some that do not have support within the article for by-century category inclusion. One in particular does not have support in either of the two cites (the article is a stub). I have checked both sources and done what independent research I could. I then (after a bit of trouble) placed two 'Category unsourced' templates just after the one-sentence lead-in. The result looks pretty intimidating since the templates loom so large in a stub. I had placed a question about one of the by-century categories in the article talk page two weeks ago (with no reply). Did I follow a good proceedure? Or, does the very prominent request for maintenence detract from the utility the article has at present (short though it is)? Should I just remove the by-century categories and leave a request on the article talk page? And/or leave a message on the talk page of the editor who originally added the categorization? See: recognition for Editor of the Week and you get lots of questions B^) and Congratulations! Neonorange (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Neonorange:. This one is pretty straightforward - I couldn't find any record of her having written a novel. As such, I removed the categories. If you come across cases like this in the future, a note on the talk page is enough, and if you've searched and can't find any evidence that person X belongs in category Y, just remove them - you could leave a follow up note on talk to explain why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me with my question about Bias Categories, Obi-Wan; you're my only hope

(Sorry. You probably get that gag a lot. Still--great handle!)

Hello. I happen to have Robert Jeffress on my watchlist. Recently, the categorization "Anti-Catholicism" was deleted from his page per the rationale discussed a while back over at CFD. I read the discussion, and was immediately persuaded by it, and I'm glad to see someone working on it. So far so good. So, I scrolled down to the bottom of the article (curious what categories Jeffress was still in) and saw that he was still in "Critics of Mormonism" and "Critics of Islam." So now there was an asymmetry (he was categorized for some of his allegedly biased statements, but not others). So I thought I might add "Critics of Catholicism." But there's no such category. And, frankly, a "Critics of Catholicism" category would probably just duplicate the BLP problems that "Anti-Catholicism" already had/has. That leaves me wondering: Should there be categories like "Critics of Mormonism/Islam/whatever"? By the rationale of the CFD consensus on the more "anti X-ism" and "X-phobia" categories, it seems like "Critics of X" categories have all the same problems. And as it now stands, we have BLPs that CAN be categorized for anti-LDS or anti-Muslim statements, but not for homophobic or anti-Catholic or racist or anti-whatever statements. Again, an unattractive logical asymmetry in categorization. The CFD page is intimidating as all heck, so rather than raise the issue there, I thought I'd start by asking you what ought to be done, since you seem to be a category expert. (On the Jeffress page, I just deleted the two "Critic" categories. Which works for him, but I don't presume to know if it's a good general solution.)

Thanks very much, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. @Rinnenadtrosc: I think your solution of a new "critics of catholicism" category is reasonable. Being "anti-Catholic" is quite different than being a critic of catholicism - in the same way one can critique Israel or Judaism without being an anti-semite. I don't think "critic of X" carries the same BLP issues, provided the person in question would not oppose being so-labelled, which I think in most cases they would not - if I've written a book called "the 100 problems with the catholic church today" I wouldn't find it odd someone called me a critic of the catholic church. it's a fine line, but I think it's probably reasonable. Again, however, a critic is NOT simply someone who once railed against catholics - criticism to me means thoughtful, considered, and written commentary based on study and expertise. Thus, I would not label Mel Gibson as a critic of judaism, even though he has frequently issued tirades - he's not known as a critic (though he's labelled sometimes as an anti-semite, but that is too charged a category to put people in for now - we still have a reductio-ad-Hitler issue with that one though, as I haven't dared to remove the Nazis from the anti-semitism in germany category yet. Per our previous consensus, they should be gone, but there's perhaps an exception to the rule to be made here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I've indirectly referenced your action on ANI. Abductive (reasoning) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning vs Talk:Bradley Manning

Hi,

I think I must have been unclear: the change requested at Talk:Bradley Manning should have been made to Bradley Manning (the article-space redirect), not to Talk:Bradley Manning (the talk-space redirect). Since the article redirect is fully protected, I don't think you'll be able to do that.

Unless I've missed something obvious (certainly wouldn't be the first time today), can you put the edit request back?

—me_and 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

yup sorry my fault, I undid it already. And now an admin did the needful I think. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —me_and 22:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bling

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For wading through the massive Manning talk page and bringing some order in it. Yintan  13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Aww thanks. It's now 1MB at least. Part of me would like to split it somehow - but I'm not sure how - could we somehow move all conversation about X to a different sub-page? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah. The closed threads will automatically be archived in a day or two, so I suggest to leave that work to the Miszabot. Yintan  14:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Water under the bridge

I've replied to your comment here explaining why I keep repeating that point. --RA (✍) 21:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

I think "has decided not to move it back" was a gross mispresentation. I assume it was based on Talk:Chelsea Manning#Early close. But what User:BD2412 actually said was "To be very clear, the page was moved back and forth several times, and then move-locked prior to my volunteering to oversee the discussion. That was a decision of another administrator, and one that I do not believe I can address without a consensus..." That's not exactly "chose not to" - if anything, it's more like "felt he was unable to". StAnselm (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

He stated elsewhere that it didn't make a difference where the page sat during the move request, so he wasn't going to move it. To me, that sounds like a decision. In any case, I reworded again - we need to actually ANSWER the question in the FAQ, and at least give the reader something to chew on, so they know that (a) this isn't normal, but (b) a decision was made, somewhere, to not mess with it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The two statements are hardly incompatible. I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to move the page after this back and forth, nor do I think it matters in the long run. Another concern for me is that when this issue came to my attention, dozens of editors had weighed in with !votes of "support" or "oppose" premised on a move from the title of the page as it stood at that time. To move the page to another title after so many had weighed in, and as many others were in the process of weighing in, would have only contributed to this chaos, and would certainly make it impossible for me to credibly address the results of the discussion itself. All that being said, since I have the administrative tools to move a page, it is correct that I "decided not to move it back"; however this decision was for the reasons stated, and was not an endorsement of the propriety of any action made before. Wikipedia has spent years developing processes for such things, and these processes are very well thought out. Trouble erupts when they are ignored, or even followed sloppily. bd2412 T 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We should have just asked you and saved ourselves time. Feel free to reword the FAQ accordingly, per the above - if necessary to capture that sense of "the closing admin decided for the following reasons to not move it" or whatever. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles

Since you participated in either the previous RfC or in a recent related RM you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo and Chelsea

Re your comment "I know Jimbo has argued for a bit of "editorializing" on this, and has proposed IAR in order to keep at Chelsea." — Any chance you could direct me to where I can read his conversation on this? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Transphobia_on_Wikipedia. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk back

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

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You have new messages at April Arcus's talk page.
Message added 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manning and MOS:IDENTITY

Hello,

I'm addressing this comment to you because I'm completely lost in the talk page for Manning.

Despite the disagreements, there appears to be consensus that MOS:IDENTITY unambiguously dictates that Chelsea Manning should be addressed as "she/her" etc. I am no experienced Wikipedian, but I don't think that this is the case. MOS:IDENTITY says that the person's wishes are to be granted for any person whose gender might be questioned. Can Chelsea's gender be questioned? Not only is there no evidence against the common perception she's male, but in her own statement she says "I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition." This amounts to an admission that she's a man; otherwise why would she need transition to a new state?

In fact, my opinion is that MOS:IDENTITY says, in the Manning case, the exact opposite of what people say it says. MOS:IDENTITY implies that when a person's gender might not be questioned, that unquestioned gender should be used; and Chelsea's statement implies she's still male. Therefore, MOS:IDENTITY dictates that she should be addressed as "he". Yes, I understand you can oppose this with many arguments, however my point is that the notion that MOS:IDENTITY is unambiguous and clear is plainly wrong.

For what is worth, I have donated to the Bradley Manning Support Network, and when I send her a card to thank her for what she's done, I will call her Chelsea. But a WP article is different.

--Antonis Christofides (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I think it's clear from the talk page that there is confusion, both among editors and the world at large, over what "gender" Manning truly is. (Note: this is different from biological sex). So at least from the POV that developed MOS:IDENTITY, as soon as someone "identifies" with another gender, then they *are* that gender, no matter what their body looks like (and no matter how confused everyone else may be). Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, so there is a discussion happening at MOS:IDENTITY which you are welcome to join. Finally, in frankness we have no idea what her biological sex is - I would guess that she is male, but we don't know the makeup of her chromosomes, and don't know if she was born with ambiguous genitals (see Intersex) - so there are lots of edge cases, and there's not just 100% male and 100% female.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

In checking recent changes in my watchlist I found that a editor with ~ 40 edits (half in the last two days) has made 20 edits that added scholarly publications he wrote to the 'Further reading' section in 12 biograpies of authors. The username is the same as the credit for the added publications. Should this be of concern? And, if so, how should it be raised? Neonorange (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you were hoping for a subject less fraught. Neonorange (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:SELFCITE#Citing_yourself. So, it's really a matter of judgement. I'd suggest dropping a note on the editor's page, reminding them of this policy, and suggesting that he consider proposing the additions on the talk page before adding going forward, to avoid perception of COI. If it's obviously relevant and has been left off, it should be fine, but if a reasonable editor thinks it's excessive, then there may be some promotion going on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I will follow you ideas and let you know how it turns out. (Also thanks for your previous two answers - did not want to add thanks earlier as so much was going on for your you (good work, by the way in striving to bring clarity to doing the right thing for the Chelsa Manning article and subsequent flood of comments.)Neonorange (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel bad for the closers. No matter what they decide, many people will be upset. I hope it doesn't go to move review, that will be a waste of time. We just need to let them decide, and move on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For many, reading a post three times before hitting the save button might alleviate angst for all: once for 'copy proof', once for 'did I say what I meant', and once for 'should I say what I meant'.Neonorange (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread at AN

You may be interested in this thread at AN:

• Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_parties.3F

--RA (✍) 09:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)