User talk:Obiwankenobi

Hi and welcome to my talk page.

• If you're trying to respond to something I left on your talk page, please leave it there -- I have it on my watchlist.
• If you post something here, I will reply here.

Thanks!

Hello, Karl.brown! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

I highly suggest you stop sending articles for deletion. First off, it is probably the most significant action one can take Wikipedia... the deleting of an article. It should be handled carefully. Secondly, you are relatively new. I suggest you take part in some discussion, read the guidelines and ask questions before you nominate any more articles. Nominating multiple articles that editors are saying snowball keep will only infuriate other editors and give you a bad name.

So, please slow down and if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

for what it's worth, I have sent only 5 articles to AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_from_Republic_County,_Kansas result: Delete

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Bushby (open) consensus is for keep

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Usage_share_of_browser_color_depth result: Delete

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Usage_share_of_browser_display_resolutions result: Delete

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Zuzzio (open) consensus seems to be for keep

So while I appreciate your recommendation to hold off, 3 out of 5 ain't bad!--Karl.brown (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

About "Securité logicielle des smartphones"

Hello,

It will be a pleasure to help you during the translation.

Regards, PST (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I wasn't reverting willy-nilly — I was declining your attempts at speedy deletion because they did not qualify (explanation at talk). That's an administrative action. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

oh dear

couldnt give a dam and not commenting at the cfd - was part of creating the wikiproject asia because it needed it and for a while was working on making southeast asian things - am very tired of cfds etc - do what you like I aint in the conversation - asia as a category is far too big - thats it. cheers SatuSuro 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

changed mind will do so - asia for templates and categories is absurdly too large in range and scope - any separation is useful for readers and users and editors SatuSuro 08:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For creating a wonderful article: Universal health coverage by country Yasht101 17:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Re

Yes, I saw that they are collective info from other articles. But collecting all the info and then making it suitable for 1 article is itself a hard thing to do. And also your contributions have been of good ones. You are doing great work. You deserved that award and keep up the good work, I may award you more of different types if you continue your tempo! :) Yasht101 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to say +1 to Yash's barnstar and statement above. I was just looking at a list of people who've recently made their 1,000th edit to articles, and you're on it Karl. I would give you a barnstar, but I got beat to the punch. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it. It's my first star! :)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

neuroinformatics

Hi, Karl. I think they are connected, but more indirectly than the name would imply. Bioinformatics is often times synonymous with Computational Biology. As a field, it is concerned with developing computational methods for advancing our knowledge in biology. Neuroinformatics is most accurately described as a sub-category of this field. In my view, the hierarchy should look something like this: Biomedical Informatics branches to Clinical Informatics and Bioinformatics; Bioinformatics branches to Neuroinformatics, which is also a child node of Computational Neuroscience. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambertk (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately we don't have biomedical informatics - currently that redirects to health informatics, which is what the category is now called. We also don't have a sub-category for clinical informatics, again because of a lot of overlap with health/medical informatics. Would it be wrong to have bioinformatcs contained within health informatics? (in addition to where it is now) or make it a sister (link as 'see also' in the head)

--KarlB (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. Health Informatics, to my knowledge, isn't even really a term used in the literature. Biomedical Informatics is the parent discipline under which are Bioinformatics and Clinical Informatics. As a Bioinformatician, I don't really understand why wikipedia would have it structured the way you're describing.

Ambertk

Actually health informatics gets more hits in google scholar than biomedical informatics... in any case, i think i will just list is as a 'see also' in health informatics, and make the same link the other way - that way we aren't implying bioinformatics is a subset of health informatics. --KarlB (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD - Hospitals in Ireland

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Hospitals_in_Ireland

The discussion was closed as "Keep and repopulate". And as you said you emptied it, please repopulate this category.

And in the future, please don't empty a category before/during nominating for cfd. In the past that's been considered disruptive (among other things, because it affects the ability of commenters to see what a particular category consisted of, and so could be seen as attempting to circumvent consensus), and could cause sanction, such as being blocked, and I presume we'd all like to avoid that. Thanks. - jc37 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There isn't anything left to repopulate; all hospitals have been diffused to their proper national containers, so I'm not sure what you want me to do here... --KarlB (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. As long as the rest were merely diffused to subcats, then I think everything should be fine. - jc37 23:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also a question - I was berated for doing such diffusing. You for example noted that I had emptied the cat, but what I had mainly done was diffuse articles to their proper country resting place - I suppose the error was de-linking the two cats Category:Hospitals in Republic of Ireland and Category:Hospitals in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned that I had done that in my submission (so I wasn't hiding anything). Then I was later attacked by Mais Oui for diffusing a hospital, which he reverted and issued a 'warning', and then BHG made the same edit. So I'm still not sure what I did and didn't do wrong here - are we not allowed to diffuse a category when it is being discussed? --KarlB (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise against it. That said, very small/few changes are sometimes acceptable as long as every change is specifically noted (and linked) to the discussion, to maintain transparency. Though, if in doubt, don't. There are very few changes which cannot wait the length of a CfD discussion. - jc37 23:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess i was just following the lead of BHG, who was busily reorganizing the hospital categories, so I contributed, and none of my changes seemed controversial (as evidence, the change I made and got yelled at for, was made a few hours later by BHG, who disagreed completely with the nomination, but supported the diffusion of the hospital... In addition, I'd note that Mais Oui *placed* the item in the category after the discussion had started, to prove a point. So I'm just not sure what is allowed - you can add things to a cat? You can diffuse them (but not too many?) In any case, as I explained in the deletion discussion, I didn't start by trying to delete the hospital cat, I just was cleaning it up - but by the time I was done, I realized it was empty, and there weren't ever going to be any entries (as a hospital can't really *be* in Ireland), which is why I proposed the CfD. I'm still learning but additional advice would be welcomed. --KarlB (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When people add to a category, they also tend to declare it in the CfD. (Though this is most often done when dealing with a nom with a rationale of WP:OC#SMALLCAT.)

I would rather not get into who did what when, at this point. Let's just chalk it up as a learning experience and move on : ) - jc37 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mobile security

Hello,

I will read your translation asap, but after a first look it seems to be a good work.

About embedded computer and security, you could also take a look on the french articles fr:Sécurité matérielle des cartes à puce (smartcard) and fr:Sécurité de l'information au sein des RFIDs (Radio Frequency IDentification). They are also "relevant" on their topics, and the first one is well documented. Another one is also relevant, but it is already in english : Computer security compromised by hardware failure.

Best regards, PST (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mobile security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sms, TCP, UDP, Trojan, MMS, Sim, Firewall and Appstore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

by Yasht101 11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi KarlB, this is because of the Afghanistan problem on Wikipeia, infact Afghaistan is West Asian (rarely), but I think it should be added, also Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle East, if you can add that too, please

Sorry for any hassle, I am new on Wiki, I am finding it hard to tell people why I have been editing this

Hope you understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA193 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Gay memoirists

Just to let you know, I've removed the "Gay memoirists" category from the batch nomination for "Gay people by nationality". It may still be worth renominating separately, but the reasons for or against it aren't the same as the reasons for or against "Gay people from England" or "Gay writers from Ireland" — so it can't really be considered within the same batch as all of the others, but rather would need its own separate discussion. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done on gay memoirists; haven't tackled the others yet (but oh my ugh.) Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of C-Tools 2.0

I have removed the prod tag you placed on C-Tools 2.0, as it was discussed at AfD in 2005 and is therefore permanently ineligible for prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of your deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Twinkle barfed your nomination. I've manually created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-Tools 2.0 (2nd nomination); feel free to re-enter your nomination rationale there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done more work on the article. I'm now at "Weak Keep." Note that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY-- if something was ever notable, it'll always be notable until notability policies/guidelines change to weaken the case for notability. The Keep case here is not very strong, so I could still be swayed. But I think there is a Keep case. Would appreciate any followup comments you might have. Yakushima (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193

Hi Karl. Looks like AA193 tried to report you, for being against freedom of speech. :) --SMS ^Talk 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know what we should do. He just keeps on making edits, and is not going to the talk board as suggested.--KarlB (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish unionism

Hello, Karl.brown. My reasoning is simply that the outcome of the debate focussed my attention on the fact that we were lacking a category for Irish unionism. We plainly need one in any event. Moonraker (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

hmmm. I'm not sure I agree... what is it for? so many articles are about both sides - england and ireland. And as was pointed out, some of the protagonists who are unionist feel ethnically british (while, I would argue, others feel ethnically Irish). In any case, I'm not sure what good the separation does. --KarlB (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If Irish unionism merits an article, Unionism in Ireland, then it merits a category. In particular, pre-1922 Irish Unionism is plainly not British Unionism. Ireland was never part of Britain. Moonraker (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir... i realize that, but the consensus seemed against me. in any case, what about calling it Unionism in Ireland then to match the article, and making a sub-cat of British unionism? the word 'irish' is also problematic here - which is why i argued the whole time for geographic vs ethnic or political categorization. --KarlB (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Names are emotive, and you can't make "British" include "Irish", any more than you can make "Austrian" include "Hungarian". Moonraker (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

With regard to this edit, it is a serious abuse of the rollback tool to use it for edit-warring. Moonraker (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked you to kindly bring such discussions to the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note there, to which you will perhaps be kind enough to reply, but in my view it is not the place to complain about your very incorrect use of rollback. Do you agree that this was unacceptable? Moonraker (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I hit the wrong button (instead of undo). Please let's just discuss this at the article page. Sorry should not have rolled back meant to undo. --KarlB (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and as you have agreed it was incorrect I do not need to take the matter up anywhere else. Moonraker (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Relax Moonraker, Karl is relatively new to wiki (active since 1 month only) so can make such mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. I rollbacked a CSD tag 2 weeks ago. Karl is a good editor and use rollback quit well, so how can you say that they abused the rights with only one edit which can also be a mistake. Directly accusing someone for abuse is discouraged

Calling such mistake an abuse of userright is not at all a good thing to say to anyone. Abuse is a serious allegation.

Dear Karl, remember; Rollback is used only to undo vandalism or any unconstructive edit

Regards, Yasht101 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yasht101. Thanks for accepting the apology Moonraker. --KarlB (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement in the Republic of Ireland

I raised the issue here in October last. The template at the bottom for law enforcemnet by country has been wrong for a long time. I was pretty inexperienced back then so I didnt know what to do, or phrase it right in my comment. Basiclly, still, if you click the Northern Ireland link in the brsckets after the UK you get brought to Law enforcement in Ireland. This until you great job of seperation yesterday also included every detail of the ROI policing, and likewise a click on the Ireland link in the template brought you to the same article, until yesterday. So well done on that Karl. I tidied the "new" article up a bit. Any ideas on the Law...in Ireland articles next move? Could we make a Law Enforcement in Northern Ireland article and then just leave a stub article with links to the main articles? Would that mean adjusting the template? Murry1975 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers thanks for the kind words. I do think that moving Law enforcement in Northern Ireland to its own section makes sense; it doesn't really make sense to have a single page for the whole island, which is why I separated it in the first place. I think going forward, the Law enforcement in Ireland page should contain a section on the history of law enforcement in Ireland, short stub links out to the main pages for each country, and then perhaps a section that talks about cooperation between the two.--KarlB (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

On Dublin Harbour Police have found this on rté [1] The Dublin Port Harbour Police force has ceased after having been in existence since 1870. 21 staff left on a retirement scheme. It's understood that three of the force remain in the port, but port access duties will be undertaken by private security companies, will try to find more later and probably find out if it still going in any form. Murry1975 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, its a start, and worth adding the rte source. its strange there wasn't more reporting about it. KarlB (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Security

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		for translating Mobile security Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008! It's only my second barnstar. I appreciate that you took the time to recognize the work. cheers. --KarlB (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

health cats

Your claims that health and healthcare are the same is the issue. I think it is clear that these are not the same and so it is reasonable to have categories for both. So, no, I'm not likely to back off of this position since I don't think that it is wrong, unreasonable and it is supported by ample sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite fair. I've agreed, several times, that health and healthcare are *not* the same. That's not my point. However, I'm afraid the evidence is not there that 'health law' and 'healthcare law' or 'healthcare legislation' and 'health legislation' are not the same. In fact, I've provided overwhelming evidence that they are used interchangeably by people in the field. Can you please please please explain why that does not sway you? Is there something wrong with the sources I've copiously quoted? Do you not agree with them? I'm not making this stuff up.

Take a look at this guide - and see how healthcare is used interchangably with health: [2] - or look here [3]; which is how different states classify their health laws - here are a examples:

• Health and environmental control generally
• Health, Safety, and Housing
• California health and safety code
• TITLE IV PUBLIC HEALTH

Here's another example - St. Louis university is ranked by [US news & world report as having one of the best 'healthcare' law programs in the country. So, what do you see on their website: [4] - health law! etc etc etc.

So let me ask again - given that I am not claiming health=healthcare, but rather that the world does not differentiate between these terms when they are used as adjectives for law, legislature, film, or software - how much evidence of real world use would it take to change your mind? Or alternatively, since you say your position is supported by ample sources, could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation vs health legislation, or health films vs healthcare films? I'm willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. Are you? --KarlB (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because more of these in law may be correctly classified as health does not mean that none of these are correctly labeled as healthcare. Your arguments and the contents of that category do not support the elimination of health care in this case. Your arguments support that in almost the entire tree we need to add heath categories where needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation does not mean the same thing as health legislation, or health films is not used interchangably to describe healthcare films?" If you cannot provide sources, please just admit it.--KarlB (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabic as an offical language for Afghanistan

I have seen that thejustinj90 has added Arabic as an offical language, but Arabic is a minority language, so I think to stop further edits, add a new colu under offical langauges, called minor languages, and add: Arabic, Turkish and Uzbek.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA193 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Conflict Resolution (album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Conflict Resolution (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Conflict Resolution (album)

Hi Karl, thank you for your message. I was typing one on the article's talk page as you were typing one to me. CSD A9 is for recordings by bands that don't have an article. I would suggest in this case that you create the band article first, then the album(s) afterwards. If deleted (and I'm guessing it will be) it can later be restored on request after the band's article has been created. Sorry for the inconvenience.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per wp:notability guidelines, if an album passes WP:GNG, there doesn't need to be an article on the band. There are also enough refs to create an article on the band, would you mind giving it a shot? I have to go to work soon and won't be able to do much on it this week. --KarlB (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the existence of a band's article is often the key notability stepping-stone for other inclusions throughout the project. I don't like to be a bad guy in this case, but I truly believe the decision should be left up to the patrolling admin. I hope you understand.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

per Wp:nalbums, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline." CSD A9 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist " but I believe the additional links I added provide evidence of why its subject is importance; thus the A9 should be removed. --KarlB (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's also the first album by a band with no article, which doesn't appear to make claims in the way of charting, sales, awards, etc. Trust me, I do not believe in wholesale deletion, and I think this one is best left to the decision of the patrolling admin.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As reviewing administrator, I am prepared to give this a chance; but I am unconvinced that the references you have supplied are enough for the GNG, so I plan to take it to AfD. In view of your "underconstruction" tag, I will give you a couple of days to see if you can improve it (and, of course, the AfD discussion would provide seven more). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a reply and comments at Talk:Conflict Resolution (album). Regards. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest

Hi. Can you tell me why you are removing Category:Healthcare policy in the United States from this article? The organization is directly involved in shaping healthcare policy through lobbying. Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you've gone back to the article and removed a bunch of other appropriate categories. [5] Can you please explain what you've doing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes; however it doesn't make sense to classify every organization into every issue they are involved with; it makes the categories cluttered so you can't find articles about that issue (instead of wading through articles about every organization involved with that issue). For example, there is Category:Disability law and Category:Disability rights organizations - you don't want to put this firm in both. For the same reason, this firm is not a healthcare policy, they may be interested in healthcare policy, and even work on it, but that doesn't mean they should go in the category. Can you imagine if every organization that worked on healthcare policy was in this section? Category:Healthcare policy in the United States? That is why the organizational categories exist.--KarlB (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

some of the other cats I removed were b/c you don't need to put something in the parent and child cat. For example, it is already a law firm in new york. It doesn't also need to be an organization in new york, since law firms are underneath organizations. see this for example:

"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below." Wikipedia:Category#Categorizing_pages --KarlB (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

perhaps this would make sense? Category:Healthcare reform advocacy groups in the United States. there is also a list you can add it to there. --KarlB (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cite PMC

I noticed you used cite pmc. That template does not work right at this time. I have fixed it. Please use cite journal, cite pmid, or cite doi instead.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the British Isles

Category:Politics of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --RA (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland

Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GS/BI

Karl, are you aware of this? WP:GS/BI? --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read about that the other night. Are you still on probation? --KarlB (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but it'll be reviewed soon hopefully. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit drastic of a measure to take. But I guess there were problems back in the day... I hope the review is favorable... --KarlB (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Karl, you have now restored content 3 times to the article Ireland-Isle of Man relations, after it has been removed by another with repeated requests to discuss it on the article's talk page to seek consensus. In the following edits, you have added Category:Politics of the British Isles on 4 occasions, reverting its removal on 3 occasions:

• 00:10, 24 May 2012
• 12:10, 25 May 2012
• 14:46, 25 May 2012
• 15:21, 25 May 2012

This is edit-warring. Please revert yourself, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page to seek consensus, or I will take this further for action against edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. You've also reverted 3 times. So, let's call this your final warning as well. I guess we're both at our limits - and if you revert again, I may have to take action against your edit-warring. Best regards.--KarlB (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you added the contested material 4 times. You are over the limit already, and 3RR is a bright line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I might suggest that you read the following Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule. I only reverted 3 times. But I do appreciate your continued efforts to improve the encyclopedia. --KarlB (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles

Karl, I'd just like to say that Politics in the British Isles is an excellent article. You've obviously put a great deal of effort into it. Unbiased and open-minded readers of Wikipedia will find it an asset and a good addition to the encyclopedia Van Speijk (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)