User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

P. Oxy.

Your work is good. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your help I appreciate your time and dedication

on helping out on my newbie edits on edius article. you're the man!

my little wiki gift to you Crowbar1981 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosenthal

Hey I've been reading a lot about another Rosenthal Frank_Rosenthal the Chicago Outfit man who ran the casinos, I like the article in your user page thumbs up! (learned to sign ;). Crowbar1981 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

notice

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic_ban_of_single_purpose_account_on_pyramid_sales_scheme

notifying all recent Scentura talk page participants.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calendar2 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome last week, and for all of your help with splitting that article! Much appreciated. Michellecornelison (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Slow aging article

Hi Laylah, I am working to change the tone of the article so it makes more sense. The sources dont support the slow aging concept however, they provide evidence of the use of natural elements, herbs, better food v/s commercially manufactured drugs. The article is really meant to educate and enlighten our readers and help them understand the slow aging phenomenon that we believe in. I am working on potential improvements. Would it be possible to remove it from speedy deletion so I can take time to improve it? Please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot03 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should think about removing it from article space and working on it in your user space until it's ready, and then putting it up at articles for creation to see if other editors think it's encyclopedic. I doubt whether it's possible to write a wikipedia-appropriate article on the subject, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I am, though, so I won't withdraw the nomination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


The article is not talking about use of any beauty products, drugs or any other commercial products/goods. It is truly truly meant to educate people and I do agree that it needs to be re-worded. I do believe that with the necessary changes and appropriate language it will be wikipedia appropriate. Can you help me you with the contacts of the editors who can help me out. I have seen similar articles on wikipedia and would love to talk to someone before i make any further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot03 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Pilot03 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Pilot03

Explanation

I am all in favor of context, but how in the world is the death of this guy from a rubber bullet related? a lot of people presumably died on that day in that hospital even.)

as did an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent whose skull had been fractured by a rubber-coated Israeli bullet earlier on the same day Yehuda was wounded. Mid-East ceasefire talks break up, BBC News, 11 Monday, 2001.

The source mentions the coincidence with yehuda Shohan. Both were shot or hurt on the same day. Both received severe brain damage, both died the same day. Since you find nothing wrong with the other contemporary incidents throughout this arc of time I have added (including 3 Bedouin women, etc) I fail to see why this extraordinary coincidence remarked on in one of our sources, should be excluded. On the day YS was brained by a Palestinian stone, a Palestinian policeman was shot in the head by an Israeli marksman. That the former received massive media focus in Israel, and the other was ignored except for one source is typical, but no reason why, given the striking coincidence, one should showcase (already showcased) YS's tragedy, and elide that of someone on the other side. I call it adhering to what sources say, and securing WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the source mentions it; I don't see that the source connects it as part of the context. I don't know what I think about the other contemporary things yet. There's only so much time. I agree in principle with what you're doing with the article, but I don't see how this incident should be a part of it from what the source says about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
One has to have a concrete policy in mind if something in a source, that is edited from that source, is removed. The source connects it to the events contemporaneous with her death. If you take out this, you are giving a rationale for taking out everything and reverting to the article as it was before I edited it, for consistency's sake. You are making an exception of this edit, and that is not procedurally logical.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it seems to me to violate WP:SYNTH. The source mentions that the event happened on the same day. The source doesn't say that they were connected, even in some context. The three Bedouin women are actually connected in a context by the source. I think I will move this discussion to the talk page of the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In reality

I saw your post and the false, exaggerated, incorrect answer it received.

More accurately would be a case like this, where a street theater person pretends to dress up as an IDF soldier and "harass" a little girl for a framed, cropped photo to spread and bash Israel over something that never happened. Trying to distort what something is to include such ridiculous nonsense as "death casualties" and "every YouTube video" to misinform a well-intentioned editor (you) is despicable to me. --Activism1234 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cherra Companyganj State Railways

I added some references to The Cherra Companyganj State Railways. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I was a little too quick on the trigger with that one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AryoGen

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you want to consdier taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staunton Mall

Not sure if you're aware, but the general consensus is that malls are notable on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I didn't realize. Like high schools, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. There's no set in stone notability, but per WP:OUTCOMES, malls are generally notable. The AFD from back in 2007 — if I recall, the article had no sources, and Google News didn't pull up any of the sources currently in the article. Also note that it was hastily A7-speedied in the last AFD after only a couple days, and that no one seemed to have done any legwork in trying to find sources of their own. Still, I think the one source dating back to the mall's genesis in 1968 shows that its notability is long standing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive functioning (2nd nomination)

Hi,

Adaptive functioning contains no information, as I noted on the AFD. The only supporter is the article's writer. The only source, a primary source, is a neuropsycholist's business site which carries a disclaimer[1]

THE USE OF THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. ADVANCED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, P.C. (APA) EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. APA MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SITE AND/OR ANY CONTENT THEREIN WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, CURRENT, ACCURATE, COMPLETE OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED BY USE OF THE SITE AND/OR ANY CONTENT THEREIN WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE. YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WITH RESPECT TO ANY DEFECT IN OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE SITE IS TO CEASE USING THE SITE.

The one link skillset goes to some council in the UK and has nothing to do with Adaptive behavior but is a council that "supports skills and training for people and businesses to ensure the UK creative industries stay competitive and productive." So there is nothing from Adaptive functioning to merge into Adaptive behavior.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I said in my nominating statement that there's nothing to merge. It's purely promotional. What you found at that website is pretty scary looking, I will say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DotConnectAfrica editing

I believe I have just watched a master class in Wikipedia editing. I have certainly learned a lot, though admittedly have had to broaden my vocabulary to include "tangential" and "puffery"! Working through your edits alongside Wikipedia's Policies and Essays has fast tracked my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I am looking forward to deepening my understanding and improving my skills as an editor.

Thank you. Elekebia (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too, it's been fascinating. Now let's see how long we can hold on to it!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all back, predictably. I've reverted. What sort of warning would apply here? Many thanks. --Elekebia (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary was good. As long as you and I agree, one editor can't maintain a version by reverting without breaking the WP:3RR rule. That'll force them into discussing it on the talk page unless they want to get blocked for reverting too often.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
4th revert just landed with no summary. I am not sure what to do now as I cannot revert without breaking the 3RR. I am extremely grateful for your guidance. Elekebia (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I made the comment on that awkward "DotConnectAfrica" page about "ICANN stated..." etc. Pure guess work on my part. I don't think ICANN would comment on an application that is likely to be contentious, particularly as ICANN staff would be very aware of the history around .africa. My guess is the journalist inferred there is only on applicant from the database ICANN presented. Or someone other than ICANN told them. I am guessing, you were referring to a source. I'll shut up and leave it to the experts called on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.184.238.107 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Prince Victor of Thurn and Taxis

Hello Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prince Victor of Thurn and Taxis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you interested

I can provide you access to to all the resources about the book that I found.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have JSTOR access and seem to be able to get most of them so far. I'll let you know if there are any I can't find.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your excellent work on DotConnectAfrica, thank you very much! :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unrecognised Bedouin villages

I haven't had a proper look for a Hebrew list yet, but this map seems to show all of them (and the regional council boundaries, which could be a useful tool for separating them into geographic groups on a template or list).

Also, I notice you're doing a lot of work on Israeli settlements and places in Israel - I'm not sure many talk pages are being watched, but I'd be happy to discuss any queries you have (particularly if it's an article I created, which is quite of few of them). I translated a lot of them from the Hebrew wiki, so can go back and look there. Number 57 10:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did find that map, but I can't actually read the names from it clearly enough to feel comfortable making a list out of it (it may be my eyesight that's the problem). If you could find something in Hebrew, that'd be lovely and helpful. About the settlements; thanks for the offer. I'll ping you at the same time I put anything on talk pages if I have questions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is better resolution I think [2]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That one won't display on my browser. Hmm.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe try to use save link as--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you, I didn't even think of that. Now, the map says that the blue dots are "unrecognized Arab villages" and that there are 45 of them. How to tell if these are all Bedouin villages? There seems to be some confusion in the article over the number of Bedouin villages. They say between 39 and 45. I'm guessing that the confusion arises because this map doesn't say that all unrecognized villages are Bedouin. Do you have information about this?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
From my knowledge there is no non-Bedouin unrecognized villages maybe the difference is because some of them were destroyed(that my speculation) --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your help. I'll try to write down the names from the map and then go to an actual library to see if I can find non-internet sources to check the names against, since the internet doesn't seem to be helping so much. I'll check any conclusions I come up with with you and Number 57 to see if I'm on the right track.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 59 of this document has a list, complete with populations. Note that some of those have since been recognised (e.g. Umm Batin and Qasr al-Sir). It's also badly spelt (e.g. Amm rather than Umm etc). The last page of this document has a map, so from that we can find them on Google maps and get co-ordinates. Number 57 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
When you have time, maybe one or both of you could look at this: User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Negev Bedouin communities and let me know what you think about anything? I had to disambiguate a few of the unrecognized villages, which I did in the draft with XXXXX (Bedouin village). I don't know if this is reasonable or not. I'm worried about spelling, capitalization, and so forth. Also, the map had Ar'ara as a town. I think that this must be either wrong or another name for Ar'arat an-Naqab, which seems to be in the same place. That makes me worry about the accuracy of the other names. I haven't collated this with the jpeg map at all yet; they seem to be inconsistent with one another.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ar'ara and Ar'arat an-Naqab are the same place (it was given a disambiguator of "in the Negev" as there's another Ar'ara in the north of the country). I've made some additions to the template and corrected some spellings. I agree that inconsistency is a problem though. Number 57 21:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help and advice. I think I'll take a few days at least to look for other sources and figure out what to do about inconsistencies before moving it into reality.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

P.Oxy.

Thanks for your support. Do you know if the other papyri from the old G&H volumes will have articles created? There are a lot of red links in the templates. Not sure how easy it is to do. I can't copy from GoogleBooks all that easily; the latest volume (6) in the template is from 1908 so it's probably out of copyright by this point...--FeanorStar7 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that hard to do. I made this: User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/p.oxy.vol.II.format to fill in the blanks from. It seems that Leszek has moved on to other things for now, and I stalled out because the next one in volume II is massively complicated. When I get around to it again I'll probably skip that one and do the rest of volume II. Although if you want to do a few, it's really not so hard. Of course feel free to use my outline.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit at Palestinian People

Hi, I have the book by Dr. Tessler. He takes care to present both sides version of events, and then tries to find a middle point. The part that is quoted on the Palestinian article is an except of the "Palestinian side", not his own voice. The article is presenting it like it is his own opinion, which seems wrong. It isn't vandalism. 218.250.106.165 (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I'm going to move this to the article talk page, OK? I reverted my revert.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab section and persoanlising language

Why are you so desperate to include this section and why are you so desperate to go personal at the first opportunity in the discussion on the topic also why are you desperate to impose your own section when clearly you know the discussion is ongoing and the section is disputed. you clearly believe you are right but that is not a constructive way to behave on Wikipedia no matter how established you are or how established other users are. Demanding Policies be produced is confrontational and not conducive to a collaborative way of working on Wikipedia. Please consider being a more civil and constructive editor than the current behaviour you are exhibiting is displaying.

You are entitled to disagree with the above comments that is your prerogative, but also consider if you should behave in a way which is more polite and less confrontational.

Sport and politics (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. How did you come to the conclusion that I am "desperate to go personal"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In the second comment you on the section you start going personal by stsating "Why don't you try assuming good faith of a respected and established editor?" It shows a level of desperate personalising in your editing. To attack an editor for not "assuming good faith" and calling the other person "a respected and established editor" implies the user is a dishonest editor who goes out to be disruptive and that they are not "respected". Please refrain from that kind of language. Sport and politics (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I take it very seriously when attacks on my character are made and the content is being diverted from by the making of personal comments. Talk pages of articles are only for discussing content not individual users. If you cannot see that you have gone personal then there needs to be a serious revision of the behaviour you exhibit when editing. If you cannot avoid saying something directly personal about an editor, only say it on their talk page do not say it on the article talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess you really are serious.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I restored a tag you removed because the issue was not rectified. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for supporting me. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Great idea with going ahead and writing an article on Gyppo logger, excellent work! — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Excellent! And there was I, suggesting that we'd never have an article on the subject. [3]. That'll learn me. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Gyppo

Hiya. I've got the two primary IWW newspapers on microfilm for the 1910s and 1920s, so if you ever spot a date reference for a cartoon, let me know and I'll take a photograph and run it up on WP. I always thought the term meant a "non-union, small company logger" rather than one who works on a piece-work basis. I'm not sure how you'd pay a logger by piecework in any event. The Kesey novel Sometimes a Great Notion is about gyppos, for what it's worth. I'll see if I can work up an in-link for you there... I actually dropped $50 on a paperback copy of the monograph of the LLLL (a tough book to find) but I think I sent it downtown to my book shelves there, so I can't pull it and look anything up for you immediately. I'll try to remember to do that Friday. best, —Tim //// MutantPop@aol.com //// Carrite (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to get a date for you. I thought that that's what gyppo loggers were too, but it turned out that in the early days they were strikebreakers. The piecework thing seems to mean that they paid them by the job. That is, they'd offer a crew or someone who could get a crew up a flat rate to stack a pile of logs, or to get a certain number of logs planked out, or whatever. I'm thinking about how to make that clear in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, none of the sources I've found so far mention a date, although one mentions a specific editorial called "The Gypsy's Warning" from the Industrial Worker. I don't know how well indexed the issues are, though. I imagine that July 28, 1917 would be a good place to look, because of this. If you're not up for this I know microfilms are available at libraries around here. Thanks again for your help.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for your addition to Regional vocabularies of American English. It is so refreshing to see an addition that cites a relevant and straight-forward source on language usage, as opposed to an editor's own experience or intuition. Thanks, really. Cnilep (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can only imagine the kind of crap that page must attract. (Well, imagine and look through the history).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Foxy Brown's age

Foxy Brown states in her song "I Don't Need Nobody" that she was born in 1978 (listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfUlZ7FCGCk), NOT 1979. Her correct birth date is listed in her police report: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216072foxy2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinrashad (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I'm sorry for the trouble. I was chasing a random date changing vandal and pulled the trigger too quickly. I'll be more careful in the future.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce

you're doing there. I actually had the page open for two hours and radically shifted round stuff, while adding some new sources, and when I saw your work, decided for my own life to scat. When you've finished drop me a note and I'll add a few things. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to get in your way. I should be about another 15 minutes or so.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Any book I read has a backleaf with 'errata' on it. I'm stuff if I know why I can't spot the same things on screen. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's really hard to spot one's own errors, in books as well as on screen. You know what you want to say, so it's hard to see what's actually there. It happens to me all the time. Keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

The link in this edit[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Migron%2C_Mateh_Binyamin&diff=510062011&oldid=510061245 ] is not working.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How's that? Those newsbank articles are very tricky to link to without requiring an account for some reason. Thanks for the heads-up.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

a makeshift barnstar

a martian landing site barnstar
honestly, while I might not share your POV entirely, I feel your impact on discussion and development of Rachel Corrie is a net positive.
keep up the good work! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Parklaneacademylogo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Parklaneacademylogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IWW & ITU

Greetings. I do not mean to disrupt your edits, so I will not pursue this point if you disagree with me, but I think (perhaps because of my own inability to articulate clearly) you misunderstood the edit I made in the article on the Wobblies. The article originally stated that the IWW and the Knights of Labor were the only unions to welcome Africa-Americans and women as members. That is not completely true, as the International Typographical Union (formed in 1869) also always welcomed African-Americans and women into its membership. I tried to add the ITU to the phrase stating that the Knights of Labor admitted women and blacks, and I tried to give two examples to prove this (Lewis Douglass and Juanita Dickey). If you think it is more appropriate to say the Knights of Labor and the IWW are the only unions to originally admit blacks and women, I'll leave it alone. But, I really think accuracy demands that the ITU be included, as well. Thank you. 24.9.74.139 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's totally reasonable. The problem is that the sentence in the article says that the IWW and the Knights admitted immigrants and Asians as well, so the way you put it in there made the sentence not quite make sense. Without a source I couldn't see how to fix it. I'm going to move this over to the article talk page so maybe others can join in too. I think it's totally plausible that there should be a different sentence with this information.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I have fixed editor name.I hope you don't mind--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, again

For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Premature_close, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California#Requested move. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

[untitled section]

Hello, I'm Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Greenwood, Mississippi because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. As the daughter of the Policeman who controlled the dog I can speak with truth He DID NOT turn the dog loose on the protesters. In fact he held the dog and as was told to me by some of the black people who were present said" Don't worry about Mr.Jim turning the dog loose he is a good man" really wish you had not made a change to the page. the statement "The city police set their police dog, Tiger" now for the statement below that was true "on protesters while white counter-protesters yelled "Sic 'em" from the sidewalk"

thank you Jim's daughter(Jimsdaughter (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

The source says it. I'm sorry, but at wikipedia we go by the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It really sad to "listen/rely" on a source that is not correct. I talked with my family and found out my brother was at the Civil Right's march,he verified my statement. My mom got very upset that someone would tell lies about my father. Facts also My father did not even take his gun, night stick or any other weapon that day and the Professor that wrote the article in his own words was in Alabama when the civil right march was being held. Strange that Wikipedia would take his word. user:Jimdaughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsdaughter (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, but it's just not Wikipedia policy to take people's unsupported word for things like this. Read WP:V and WP:RS to see what I mean. I appreciate your dilemma, and I don't think you're either wrong or lying, but if we just take everyone's word for this kind of thing we're going to end up with a bunch of articles full of stuff that random people happen to think is true. Maybe you can write an article about your recollections, have it published in the local newspaper or someplace, and then we could put your version of events in as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Sorry if you are "on vacation". I wonder would you allow me to respond briefly to your note here, as that forum is meant to be "not a discussion". I never took the issue to that forum. I don't particularly want to see MF banned. Would you prefer if his incivility had driven me away? Unfortunately, the boomerang problem arises only if you try and throw it away after the beating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. The boomerang thing was addressed to AGK for his harping on about who's driving whom away from the project and to illustrate that by trying to prevent editors from being driven away by incivility, some arbitrators are acting in a capricious way that will drive editors away as well. I see now that's it's far too harsh a response to your much milder comment. I would prefer that no one be driven away from the project except for those who really need to be driven away. It's just that no one can actually agree on who those editors are. Not you, though. Anyway, I'll strike your name from that, since I was really mostly bothered by AGK's remarks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That's very civil of you, and the kind of act that engenders mutual respect. Your reasoning there is perfectly sound. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tim98Seven

Wrt to this edit, did you read the entire user talk page and the thread at WP:AN? They appear still to be blocked as a sock. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I'm an idiot. I've already fixed it on the page. One day I'll learn... — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You're not an idiot. This whole mess is confusing the heck out of a lot of people and that one instance - the sock/not sock palaver - is among several sub-issues that have bounced back and forth. I'd be surprised if I've not screwed something up in the midst of all this. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of you. It really is a mess. It's put me off of Wikipedia more even than editing in the Israel/Palestine Maelstrom. I appreciate the stand that you and the other editors who're taking a break over it are taking. I'd do it too except I was already taking a break so I feel as if it'd be presumptuous of me. Anyway, thanks again. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 List of LE Killings too long

We're trying to decide what to do about the size of the list. I've appreciated your WP expertise on this article. Do you have a minute? Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012 --LUOF (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Template has been changed

The article has been improved and the template changed ... and normally I would agree with you about "edit warring", however there has been a recent influx of people to this article specifically because it was terrible and needed to be fixed. As long as that remains so then the template should stay.

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to "agree" with me about edit warring. See WP:3RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Montgomery Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William Simon and Saint James School
Saint James School (Montgomery, Alabama) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to William Simon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

White Women's Magazines

Thank you for your suggestion, although it took me a while and some reading to understand how I should do it. I'll post something on the talk page. Gustavadolphus (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, good luck. You'll need a source that says specifically that Cosmo is targeted at white women. If anyone decides to contest it at Essence, which some people evidently are doing, you can ask them to provide sources that say explicitly that it's targeted at African-American women. I don't care much either way, and when I reverted at Essence it was only because the series of edits left an inappropriate redlink and it didn't seem worth the trouble to fix it. Best of luck!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia failed delivery notifications

Hi! We tried to send your your WP:Questia account access but your Wikiedia email was not enabled in Special:Preferences as requested by the signup application. To remedy this, could you please email me using the emailuser feature or directly at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Your code will be on the way shortly thereafter. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]

See more comments on Filmdoctor1 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]

I am embarrassed to admit that I was unaware of the conflict of interest guidelines when I edited the UCLA pages. I am a member of the UCLA Communications staff. I should have disclosed that, and suggested the edits rather than making them myself. I don't think any of the actual edits are problematic, as I cited outside sources (non-UCLA), linked to existing wiki pages, or cleaned up alpha order and style. But I think you should review my edits with the knowledge that I am a UCLA employee. In future I will confine myself to suggestions. G3gecko (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[.africa]

Hi Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, think its good to see that the ages will undergo improvements with correct facts, on the .africa issue (Remove material sourced to primary source. Let's wait until this material is reported on somewhere) there is another article that covers the issue of ICANN changing names here, perhaps this would be the best to replace the ICANN original source that i had placed Here http://www.itwebafrica.com/internet/334-africa/230237-goodbye-dotafrica-and-hello-africa Goodbye .dotafrica and hello .africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Otsi (talk • contribs) 09:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Korea

Hi! Why do you think "How are the Korea's "sinic"? Their language is unrelated to Chinese"? Haven't you ever seen Sinosphere and Hanja? Oda Mari (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of adding sinic given that it redirects to China, but do what you want; it's not a big deal.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I knew it was a bad link, but the edit summary puzzled me and I was just curious. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. When I said "unrelated" I meant linguistically, like e.g. a lot of languages are written in the Roman alphabet that have nothing at all to do with Latin, like Finnish, for instance. Korean is like that to Chinese, no?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand

I understand and will not edit in this manner again. Thanks for your concern and I take your advice seriously.

Fillin Preacher (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

White Privilege

That's interesting--because the article on "Violence against men" was deleted controversially--bombed for delete requests by radical feminists, as a matter of fact. One of the claims of the extreme feminist groups (I'm really not sure if we should even call them that, for while true feminists advocate equality, they advocate for the extermination of men), is that violence against men does not happen, period. If you're a white male, you don't matter on this website, apparently. I'm just trying to clear up the double-standard, because I'm seeing a LOT of it. And I honestly don't understand why I'm the one seeing it, because I'm not even white. By your standard, I should be on your side--but I'm not. I'm against the white-guilt apologists, and you, and for the equality of all races... 129.255.229.196 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on a side, I'm just telling you that proposed deletion is the wrong process. If you want to get the article deleted you'll have to do an AfD. If you can't figure out how to do that I'm willing to help you. I doubt it will be successful, but for purely practical reasons. I'm offering to help you because I know the process is hard to figure out. Take it or leave it, but don't come here and tell me you're against me or that you know what my side is. Really, you don't know. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to be belligerent here, but when I've read the Wiki articles, attempted to follow the rules, and I've given AMPLE reasoning for why I am attempting this action, in the most diplomatic way, you can surely understand why I feel a bit frustrated when my edits are summarily dismissed without even a fair hearing.129.255.229.196 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand. People here are nasty as hell to IP editors. It shouldn't be that way. Really, I was just trying to help you with the process. If your primary purpose is to change the articles rather than to prove a point about how Wikipedia claims anyone can edit and then shits on IP editors, you'd probably have better luck if you made an account, did a bunch of uncontroversial edits about TV shows or something, and then tried to work on the articles that you're really interested in. That's not how it ought to be but I think it's how it is. Good luck, anyway, with whatever you're doing. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but you're contributing to the hostile atmosphere by deleting my edits, rather than petitioning that they should remain. I thought this was "the encyclopedia anyone could edit". I understand true vandalism has to be curtailed, and in the age of the Internet, that is an ever-present blight. But, perhaps in the sake of fairness, Wikipedia's slogan should be renamed: "The Encyclopedia that account-holders with a positive reputation can edit--as long as the edits fit in with our narrative." Just an idea. 129.255.229.196 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You can take it how you like. Your edits consist of proposing deletion when that's the wrong process to use and has no hope of success. You're obviously right about the slogan being bullshit. It is. Anyway, let me know if you want help taking it to AfD. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your post at ANI

Hello. I want you to know that I have seen IP's do precisely the null edits described to get autoconfirmed and then go on page moving/redirect/etc sprees doing massive damage. Also, I have edited as an IP. I did not encounter problems doing this because I engaged other editors to find out what I had done right and/or wrong. Additionally, I have been helpful to IPs and named users that came and asked me civil questions. I have seen "regulars" treat each other with respect and also abominably. No one here is perfect. I fully understand your post and the reasons that you felt it was necessary to state it. I have posted here but I understand that this may cause offense so please feel free to remove it when you are done and accept my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 00:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:EGG is probably the most on point

In answer to your edit summary question. And I think your pipes are fine. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I hadn't seen that section before. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler

There is no reason to pub Raymond Chandler in Category:American novelists when he is already in a by century sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

take my quiz please

Hi, this is a request for you to take my quiz here Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Correct_categorization_quiz. I hope you find it a useful exercise - other editors who have taken it have said the same thing. It might give you a better understanding of the complexities of "proper" non-ghettoizing categorization in our current tree. Hope to see you there, regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles City College

Hello. I have been notified that you have reverted one of my edits. In answer to the question in your edit summary, I wrote what I was wikilinking to. What other kind of administration of justice is there? James500 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you linked to is about the UK. Its first sentence is "The administration of justice is a prerogative of the Crown." You think they're teaching them at LACC that the administration of justice is a prerogative of the crown? Probably you want to link through to something like Criminal_justice#Academic_discipline, but I'm not really sure. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article that I linked to is a very rough first draft and I was working on the assumption that it would eventually be globalized. The statement that the administration of justice is a prerogative of the Crown is probably an observation rather than a definition. That said, I could be wrong in assuming that the concept to which the article relates is applicable to other countries. James500 (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant to other countries when you're finished, but it's not taught at LACC whatever it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fat Feminism

Apologies for the edits I made to 'Fat Feminism'; it was part of a foolish joke between me and a friend. In all honesty, I thought I reverted the page back to its original format myself, but it doesn't matter, as it's fixed now. Hope you understand. No hard feelings :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsurfer123 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude Men review reversion

I'm talking about your reversion to the Chicago Trib review of Nude Men: Talk:Nude Men. I agree with you, and I think it's important to watch this: I sense sock puppetry at work (and even if it's not Qworty, Wikipedia is going to become an international laughingstock if it continues to dismiss major newspapers as amateur rags). NaymanNoland (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

20th century

I note that we have almost 20,000 categories with the word 20th-century in it -[4]. Per the discussion at the special snowflake bio, you seemed to be proposing that in the case of novelists, we redefine what 20th-century means, to be more of a subjective thematic/genre thing, vs an objective characteristic-of-time-and-place thing, which is the current intent of that, and any other such cats in the Category:Writers tree.

I'm quite sure if you trolled through the other 20,000 categories like this, you'd find they are all about time-and-place, and not about some wonky stuff like "well, WWI was really a 19th century war played out in the 20th century" and "Emily Dickinson was *really* a 20th-century poet" or whatever. If you want to create a new category to capture what you're talking about, like (20th-century (genre) novels) or whatever, be my guest, but I think it would end up being deleted. OTOH, if the category is kept in its current form, but redefined as you propose, that would also be extremely confusing to editors, and it would end up getting filled up with the "wrong" things nonetheless - therefore, no point. I'm just not sure there is a practical way forward in redefining the scope of this category to be what you would like it to be, given the existence of 20,000 other cats that act in a particular way.

Finally, I assume you're not going to take the quiz - would you mind telling me why? I'd be most interested in your responses. Best,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the quiz because it's based on the fallacy of the complex question. You assume that there's a "category tree" and therefore correct categories for things whereas I don't think it's in any way obvious that things can be classified based on a tree structure or in any algorithmic way at all. Those are misconceptions that have been soundly refuted repeatedly by philosophers of taxonomy. I have no problem with putting things into categories anyway, it's taking them out of categories that bothers me. And you can call it wonky to argue that Emily Dickinson was a 20th century poet, but she is one by your own definition of the category. Plenty of her poetry was published for the first time in the 20th century. Now what? Before you go thinking categorization is so obvious and tree-like you might consider reading Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things and the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of Borges piece, he's one of my favorite authors. And no, I *don't* assume there is a perfect "category tree", and "correct categories" - we have a wildly imperfect system, one of the reasons I've been pushing for cat intersects, which makes a lot more sense. The battleground, which I've haunted for a year or so, is CFD, and I enjoy those debates specifically because it is about trying to make an (always) imperfect system slightly less imperfect. Opinions differ wildly there, too, but the system generally seems to get better, and bad categories don't last long.
The quiz is not about the "perfect" categorization, it is about a non-sexist, non-racist categorization, given the current state of the tree (it's actually not even a tree, its more like a DAG - although there are loops, there aren't supposed to be and I kill them on sight). Given that all of the media attention was on sexist categorizations, the point of the quiz is to see if you can do so in a way that you won't be called sexist. So far, no-one has passed- it's quite hard.
Again, you're bringing up much more philosophical questions about the nature of categorization and taxonomies in general, and I'm sure you and JPL could have some good debates on this subject (for example, does it make sense to categorize something based on a country boundary that didn't exist at the time the thing was built? These sort of anachronisms are rampant, but also accepted - as a solution based on categorizing things based on the boundaries that existed at the time they were created would be even more complex and basically useless). As to your Dickinson point, perhaps she's a special case that would be put in both for exactly that reason - either that, or we redefine the category to be about when the writing was completed vs when the publishing happened - that's just harder to verify though. Otherwise, we keep her in 19th-c poets, and invoke WP:IAR for the sake of sensibility and intent.
Take a look at the algorithm I posted at the gender bias task force page - walk through it, and tell me, how would *you* categorize such a person? (again, given the current state of the categories) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Also per "I have no problem with putting things into categories anyway, it's taking them out of categories that bothers me", does this mean if I put someone in Category:Humans, you would say they shouldn't be taken out? I'm not sure how to generalize what you're saying into how an editor should behave.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Your whole program is based on the unproven and almost certainly wrong assumption that there is a good way to categorize things. You say you don't assume there's a perfect tree, but in fact you must assume there's a perfect something. If not, how can you say that the system seems to get better? For something to be said to get better there must be a good state in theory for it to be getting closer to. I don't think there is. Since I don't think there's a good way, I look for a useful way. This means I think things should go into as many categories as are necessary without reifying superstitious and delusional notions of diffusing vs. nondiffusing categories and parent/child exclusion. We'd be better off if editors would just put the things wherever anyone might conceivably look for them and stop being so obsessive about finding the one perfect place. And you should read the Lakoff book, too. Borges is too easy and so easily misunderstood. Your algorithm? I would put her in all the categories and probably a bunch of other ones too. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That's all very nice in theory but it doesn't work in practice! If your theory is "put someone in as many cats as possible so they'll always be found", then shouldn't we apply this same philosophy to all bios, not just special ones we happen to edit? For example, isn't Filipacchi an American writer? Then stick her in Category:American writers - but she's also a writer, right? so stick her in Category:Writers... and so on. So soon, Category:Writers has 50,000 bios in it. What for? How can you possibly tell which bios aren't there that should be? Consistency is important in my mind - otherwise when you go to a cat, you don't have a complete list, you have an arbitrary one, based on the whims of editors.
And no, getting better doesn't assume some known end state. Where do you get that from? Wikipedia itself, I think, in general, keeps getting better, but there is no defined end state. I will put Lakoff on my reading list, thx. Interesting though that you agree with my categorization of "Sue" - so you're definitely more of the maximalist school - which I think I am too, but many others are most certainly *not*. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You'd probably be spending your time more profitably if you worked on getting over your fixation on consistency than you are trying to convince the world of the importance of your categorization scheme. Your slippery slope argument is silly. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Having most categories diffuse is the WP:Consensus, as documented in WP:Categorization. Consistency itself is WP:Consensus - that's why we have umpteen pages of editing guidelines, that people refer to and argue about. And calling something silly without stating the reasons is just a weak way to get out of the logical conclusion of your approach, which seems to be "I'll add people to whatever categories I feel like based on my own determination of how useful it will be to the readers" If this category structure is so flawed, why have you spent so much ink arguing about it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, it's silly because all slippery slope arguments are silly. If we start taking slippery slope arguments seriously we'll have to accept the sorites paradox as valid and then language will lose all meaning. Is that what you want? My approach is that I'll add subjects to whatever categories reliable sources describe them as being in. And your insistence on taking things to their "logical conclusion" is a remnant of untenable positivism. Really, the whole thing is stuck in Oxford in 1920. Be pragmatic, not rational, obviously. I don't even understand your last sentence, which is why I'm not responding to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to be pragmatic, but slippery slope arguments in this particular domain are nonetheless valid. For example, if you say "all women novelists should be in Category:American novelists", then the result is, to be fair, all men novelists must also be there - that's the result of a slippery slope. Ok, fine, but that wasn't the conclusion imagined by anyone in the CFD, even though that's now being interpreted as such - because those voting at the CFD didn't understand categorization. There is a logic to diffusion, and if you undermine that, the result is massive inconsistency in category contents. That's why slippery slope is important and valid here, esp when it comes to categorization of bios, which is very contentious, obviously. If *you* don't care about consistency in category contents, why get in the way of those who do? We have people edit-warring to keep Hemingway out of Category:American men novelists, and at the same time edit-warring to keep women in Category:American women novelists. Its completely inane.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear about my position on consistency. I don't think it's possible to attain and so I'm opposed to attempts to attain it. So I suppose I do care about consistency after all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hehe. Hmm. Logicians would have a field day with that one. The perfect wikipedia is impossible to attain, and yet here we are, building it...
Ok, let me give you a very specific example. Suppose one fine day, a wily editor creates Category:African-American rugby players. It is immediately put up for deletion "this is not a notable intersection!" - and other editors respond with the Journal of African-American Rugby players, and the annual competition for same, and the awards for same, and the new Spielberg biopic on same with Morgan Freeman playing the lead character. So, the category survives, it is kept, by holy consensus.
Would you then help or oppose or stay out of the way in the project of the addition of all known African-American rugby players to this cat?
HA! I just made that example up, and then went and found Category:African-American rugby league players - ok so it's already a thing. Would you oppose if I did a category intersection, and found all of the other African-American rugby players who weren't yet in that cat, and stuck them into it - without spending years poring over sports articles? That's what consistency means to me. If the parameters of the cat are clear, and X person fits the parameters, they should be in it - no dispute. The only dispute is whether they do indeed fulfill the parameters (e.g. Bill isn't *really* African-American, or he doesn't *really* play rugby he just played once as a teenager, etc). If I see a cat like that, and it doesn't make sense, and hasn't already gone through a CFD, my other response is, kill it on sight. I've nominated around 15 such cats in the past weeks, for exactly those reasons.
In the long run, we need to get to category intersection, so I can say Sue is a "woman", "African american" "poet" "novelist" "journalist" "bisexual" and be done. Then, anyone who wants to find all bisexual journalists can pull up the list on demand. But we're not there... yet .... did you see my prototype at Category:Singaporean poets? I'd welcome your input to that too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Put the African-American rugby players in the category but leave them in American rugby players and any other categories that people care to have them in. I just don't see the problem. They should be in it. It's when you want to take them out of parent categories just because that strikes you as consistent or parsimonious or whatever it is that motivates you that I have a problem. What's the problem with that? This is what's going to happen automatically with category intersection, so why not let it happen organically now even if it can only be partial? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps that was a less-than-ideal example - in this case, of course, our guidance would be to also keep them in the parent so as not to ghettoize. So at least we agree, and you *are* agreeing that it's ok to be consistent and complete in filling that one cat.
Now, however, someone goes and creates Category:American rugby players by team because the head cat now has 3000 articles in it - so they start moving everyone down to the by-team categories. Would you oppose their removal from the parent now? We could even take a real-life example: Category:American politicians, which has already been fully diffused. Are you willing to undertake the project to reverse this, and move everyone to the parent? Would you like to ask someone to write a bot which does that for you? Or would you be satisfied with a single link that you can click today, and that recursively enumerates all of the children - so you can get your list of all American politicians without having to edit 10,000 bios to do so? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive_2&oldid=1149831828"