User talk:Obiwankenobi

Stress

I'm sorry you are stressed. I can certainly identify with that, as I'm sure many of us can. You took a step you believed was correct, and ended up in the middle of a conflict. I'm sure that is disheartening. Wikipedia is an odd, and occasionally unpleasant, place. But it's worth it to me, and to many, and I imagine to you. Sometimes we all need a break. Omnedon (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Obiwan, Spending too much time in RMs and the related policy discussions causes insanity - I've seen it in a few editors here and I found myself once going down that rabbit hole. Fortunately, I think it's still reversible in your case :-). Take some time off, and when you return, spend more time in articles of pure interest and enjoyment! First Light (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to take stress from that discussion. I don't believe there is a credible feeling that you acted in anything other than good faith. --RA (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Obiwan, enjoy the break. Much, if not all, of what you say and do seems well intentioned and, in the example of the Sarah Brown move request, imaginative and positive. If I had one criticism, it is that you are very persistent with your point of view, when less dogged people would have put their hands up, stepped back and walked away. Others have, unfortunately, turned to personal abuse and attacks because they don't have a constructive answer and would rather personalise things rather than find a way out of an impasse! That's the sad side of the faceless internet, I'm afraid. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, hope you'll soon be back, rested and renewed. They can't win. BTW, WP:IRE-CATS is being discussed and heading for a strong "keep". – Fayenatic London 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You've never met me, but I randomly stumbled on your talk page and it sounds like you're going through something similar to what I was dealing with a few months back. Just wanted to offer my support. Reading the Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas and Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism essays may help. :) -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World too. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To all who shared kind words above - thank you, I really appreciate it, and thanks for the advice as well. I'm feeling much better now, taking a break does wonders for the wiki-soul. @Omnedon: @First Light: @Rannpháirtí anaithnid: @Sionk: @Fayenatic london: @Brainy J:--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Provincial capitals RM

Hi. As you participated in Talk:Bac Ninh Province you may wish to be informed that there's also a RM for the same-name-capitals of 5 of those provinces at Talk:Bac Ninh. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Was this an error?

Hello! I noticed that you deleted, without an edit summary, a comment at a talk page by another editor. I have a hunch this was an accidental deletion, perhaps a misplaced hit of an "undo" button which is easy to do. Anyhow, please take a look at this; it would be very unusual to delete an apparently constructive comment by another editor at a talk page. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; somebody else reverted your deletion, assuming (as I did, only I wasn't bold enough to undo it) that it was a mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. You were right it was inadvertent, I somehow hit undo but didn't mean to...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reebok insider trading case article

Now that the SPI has been closed and there is no question regarding my neutrality, I have tried to re-frame the Reebok insider trading case article to focus on the crime and follow NPOV. If you could review, I would be grateful for the second pair of eyes. Factchecker25 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bun cha

Hi, you took part in the previous RM at Bun cha so may wish to be informed it has been submitted as part of a larger RM at Talk:Bun rieu, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Male wartime nurses

Category:Male wartime nurses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Wlmg (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ernest Hemingway 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:

• Benson compares them to [[haiku]]s.<ref name="McCormick p49">McCormick, 49</ref><ref>Benson 1989), 309</ref> -->
• [[Category:American people of the Spanish Civil War]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

imposing outdated/archaic spellings/names AGAIN

Yo. Isn't it time for a spanking yet? It's like he's trying to pick a fight, and has an axe to grind since the RMs where his uppity one-sidedness got derailed.....See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Another unwarranted.2Fundiscusssed speedy by Kwami.....I'm gonna have to look around and see what else he's messed with. As always he didn't even bother changing any content, just the title.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I missed this one back in 2010, he doesn't care that the capped name is the name of the modern government, and that the "ethnic" article is not the same thing. This needs a Skxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation type split...I'm surprised he didn't go and do the "most common" claim and make it Yakima Nation or Yakima people. the category is "Yakama tribe" and the problem there is to most people the lower-case use of "tribe" will not indicate the government though that's the US usage....the "federally recognized tribe" is the Yakama Nation, the historical people ARE the Yakama. Yakama period. This can be done by sorting redirects into various categories, but how can one editor cause so much damage and be such an a**hole when confronted about it?Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed a CFDS, I thought that category was at Category:Yakama.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

you probably monitor the WP:RM talkpage, but.....

Saw this on my watchlist today, and just went WTF, after all that got rolled back against his determined wishes, and all the damage that it's caused, he's still at it. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#reversions_of_undiscussed_speedies_needed_-_NOT_more_RMs. Rogue.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Response on talk page

Check it.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

CatScan V2.0β

Obiwan...
Thank you for posting the very useful forms for CatScan V2.0β. Is there any way to add the equivalent of 'Sort Key' to CatScan V2.0B (by this I mean something that will present the output lists in Last Name first, First Name last (and all the other pesky exceptions) order? It may be just my compulsiveness, but I feel that feature would be very useful. (Does not have to be perfect - but that would be nice). Neonorange (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write that - @Magnus Manske: did. I think it does have an option you can click at the bottom of the form to sort by name. I don't Think it will sort by sortkey however. Did you ever see the category intersection demo Magnus built?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

re namespace collision issue

Please see (and add to if you like)Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Name_issues#FOO_people_issues which I've just been working on/researching. I'm going to post a notice on WP:Ethnic groups too.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Another RfC question

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.

---

Some else brought the previous RfC issue to WP:BLPN. But now I have a new one regarding biased start and closing of an RfC I just temporarily quit an article over because I was so disgusted. Put it here it on editors assistance since maybe it's a newbie question and didn't want to bug Talk: RfC. Your an editor who might feel like assisting! :-) User:Carolmooredc 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried adding economist to the lede since the RFC was asking "which is listed first" - it never said you could not list economist - he was a professor of economics, had a PhD in economics, and wrote several books on the subject, so I don't think thats unreasonable to mention in the lede. We'll see if it lasts. As for the broader issue, that RS say he was an economist while others say he was a theorist, I think a compromise position might work best here - were the editors who !voted involved? If not, it may be worth considering why so many were convinced so quickly. The RFC was silly, and calling an RFC for something as trivial as that is really quite wasteful at the end of the day, but larger RFCs have been had over even less important details.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually "economist of the Austrian school" is down further with the 7 refs. (I had to fight to get it back and only because several people actually came by and supported it did it stay - for this week anyway.

The problem is using this RfC they also got rid of the Economist infobox. They canvassed a lot of quasi relevant Wikiprojects to get the response. The big problem was the RfC was called the day after I said I'd look for better refs, at the same time the editor calling it was harassing me so much on my talk page I had to take him to ANI. So soon enough i got disgusted and quit the article. I really hate starting up with these people again, but it does annoy me to see the process corrupted. But it would be nice to know where to go if they start removing the economist info on basis of this flakey RfC. User:Carolmooredc 23:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Obi. Forgive me if I am blunt here, but I agree with you the RfC was a huge waste of time. It came about as a result of prolonged disruptive editing which I will not rehash here. But despite the trouble and delay of the RfC, it focused our efforts and brought in several new uninvolved editors who shared their opinions. The result was that we reached a an explicit compromise with no editor dissenting after the proposed compromise was stated. Given that this was the explicit outcome of the very recently closed RfC, I am surprised that you would unilaterally change it as you have. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your change and, if you feel strongly about it, proposing your version on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood, but the RFC had an explicit question, which was, which should be listed first. The compromise was to add more sentences later in the lede describing the economics work. Also, very few editors participated in the discussion around the compromise. I was just wiki-thanked by the RFC closer for the edit I made, restoring economist there. Sometimes, why not just accept a compromise on this little point? Why are you so bent on not mentioning the word 'economist' in the first line, given that 6 other editors supported its addition? It's entirely possible those followingt eh RFC didn't notice that the compromise was that "economist" would *not* be mentioned at all - I had to read it several times to catch that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clear [note:written because I didn't notice SPECIFICO's comment]. I'm all for doing it your way - I just assume they'll revert it like they revert anything else that makes him look like an economist. (The two editors claim to be academic economists Specifico refSteeletrap correction: "I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree." (WOOPS, thought that's what the Masters Degree was all about) who [added later to clarify: give me the impression they want to] have final say on who's a real economist.) Even better, I'd like to see fuller description of economist second and putting "An advocate and theoretician of anarcho-capitalism and historical revisionism, Rothbard became a central figure associated with the libertarian movement, writing over twenty books on anarchist theory, history, economics, and other subjects.[3] "But not willing to fight about that issue. User:Carolmooredc 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I request that carolmooredc either provide diffs to substantiate this remark or strike it: "(The two editors claim to be academic economists who have final say on who's a real economist.)" Hundreds of such misrepresentations are what poison the editing process on straightforward articles such as Rothbard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh dear. I hope we're not arguing about someone who was a professor of economics not being a real economist. Whatever your views on his economics, that's a really silly conclusion to come to. It seems there was a bit of a lean towards mentioning the theory stuff first, and most of his article is about that (not his economics), which leads me to believe he may be better known for the anarcho-stuff than for his other economics work, but that doesn't mean he has ceased to be an economist, esp given his academic postings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi, it is extremely distressing to see you accept carolmooredc's disparaging remark about me at face value and to react as would be appropriate if any editor had expressed the view she falsely and without evidence attributes to me. The fact that supportive, productive editors such as yourself might react as you just did is what makes carolmooredc's conduct here so disruptive. My first reaction is to ignore baseless and unsupported disparaging remarks. However the possibility that at any given time and for whatever reason even 20% of readers might accept her statement as fact leads one to engage in otherwise pointless denials. Please consider. I do understand there was an edit conflict and you had not seen my previous post. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO, I've seen some other posts elsewhere that suggest you and she don't really get along. I suggest you should both turn down the temperature a bit. I struck my comment, I haven't read diffs either, so will take your word for it that you didn't suggest he wasn't an economist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I failed to notice SPECIFICO was watching and commenting, though he follows me around so much I should have known better. Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up above that User:Steeletrap is not getting his Masters in economics but just thinks he could refer to self as economist, thus the confusion. Plus I clarified about the impression I get. One can't help getting impressions!!

However, the RfC was totally disruptive of the process of getting more ref'd information into the article about his status as an economist since SPECIFICO started it the day after I said I was going to do that research. If others want to read the archives they can decide for themselves what else was going on... And of course having lots more info on his being an economist is the best way to make the decision of what he is first and foremost :-) User:Carolmooredc 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Hi, again to be blunt. My temperature is very turned down, while carolmooredc can barely make a single comment on WP without overlaying personal remarks on whatever legitimate content-related matter is under discussion. A reason you may be aware of her not really getting along with me might be the fact that she's dragged me to roughly a dozen noticeboards in the past couple of months -- all without any vindication for her slurs and accusations. That gets to be a problem after a while for just the reason you articulated. No editor of sound mind would devote the time to unravel all the facts and circumstances of her unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations. So as in real life, a good 20%+ of the nonsense sticks. I generally refrain from responding or commenting on her off-topic and personal derogations but why should you have to "take my word for it" when I've been baselessly accused and denigrated? I would think that derogatory personal accusations and the like would be entirely disregarded in the absence of diffs or quotes to support the allegations. Forgive the venting, but frankly in additional to my personal feelings, I am somewhat offended that she took advantage of your good will to manipulate you into supporting (even if only for several minutes) her disruption and incivility. I won't trouble you further on this. Thanks for your even-temperament. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 30 July 2013 (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.

Thank you!

	Sledgehammer
	A Sledgehammer for you, for breaking through the clutter and helping me with ready-to-use pointers to the right information. Thanks!

Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (aka @69)

Censorship / Topic bans by Bbb23 on the Men's Rights Talk page

FYI, Bbb23 has topic banned me for 3 months on the MRM page. I noted my displeasure with this censorship on his Talk page. Memills (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc's false assertions

Carol claims I (erroneously) identify myself as an economist. I never said such a thing. Yet this (false) assertion is used by Carol to disparage me in the above discussion. I ask for either 1) permission to edit the discussion with a correction or 2) for you to deal with the problem personally, either by crossing out the remarks yourself or telling Carol to do that. The above quotation, shamelessly cherry-picked out of context, was not said by me, but by user:Stalwart, who was not identifying as an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's just an aside on a talkpage conversation, which is now closed anyway, and I don't think it's worth worrying about - lets turn this convo back into what it should be - what do sources say. We can continue over at the Rothbard article. best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 30 July 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)