User talk:NickCT/Archive VI

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orgastic potency

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orgastic potency. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Executive Order 9066

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Executive Order 9066. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meša Selimović

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Meša Selimović. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

re 'Wikipedia:Ambiguous Biographical Classifications' in your sandbox

(The talk page seems to relate to something else - so I'm commenting here instead.)

This seems a very sensible approach to the problem. A couple of points come to mind:

I'm not sure that nationality is generally ambiguous - it is a matter of legal status. Obviously there are cases where it may be - e.g. when countries break up etc - but often the problem is actually one resulting from confusion of ethnicity and nationality, as in the 'Was X Polish or Russian' type arguments - it was entirely possible for instance to be ethnically Polish even while there was no Polish state.

I think the examples in the 'self-identification' section might be improved - I'd not take an assertion from a politician that he/she was 'moderate' as necessarily sufficient grounds to describe them as such - and in fact I'm not sure we should be making such statements in Wikipedia's voice at all. Moderate compared to what? Someone who's politics might be moderate in the US say might well be seen as right-wing in parts of Europe - and we are writing for an international audience.

'Descent' is a tricky one - we all have multiple ancestors, often of different heritages, and there is sometimes a tendency to imply that because one heritage can be sourced, it is the only one, which may be entirely misleading. I'm not quite sure what the solution is here though.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - Thanks for comments. Appreciated.

re "nationality is generally ambiguous" - Good point. The "nationality" question has caused some problem in the past. I think some confusion might be arising here between "nationality" and "national identity". If you look at a simple definition for nationality, I think "nationality" may fairly be taken to mean, and is often taken to mean "national identity". So for instance, "John is Russian" may be interpreted to mean "John holds Russian citizenship" or it may mean "John was born in Russia to Russian parents, speaks Russian, speaks English with a heavy Russian accent, loves Borscht, and is culturally Russian". After having been in a couple arguments with folks about whether Joe Blow is Canadian or Swiss or Swahili, I can tell you that those arguments feel very much like the "Is Johnny Papist really a Catholic?" debates.

Perhaps a solution here would be to simply say "National Identity", rather than "Nationality". Does that float your boat? Worth noting though, that saying "He is Polish", can similarly be taken to be a statement about someone's "nationality" or their "national identity".

re "the examples in the 'self-identification' section might be improved" - Take a swing at it! re "Moderate compared to what?" - I guess compared to other US politicians? I guess, what I'm really trying to say is that Arlen Specter doesn't get to decide whether he is "moderate", and some random RS doesn't get to decide whether he is "moderate", but if you can show that BOTH Arlen Specter AND an RS think Specter's moderate, then it's fair to say he's moderate. In other words basic verifiability or self-identification aren't alone enough, but together they're OK.

If you agree with the idea, but just don't like the example, please change the example. I think there are 1,000 possible other ones we could put in. It be nice if we had some which covered "political orientation" though. I take your point about it being a matter of perspective, but really, isn't that true for all the categories we're discussing (i.e. sexual orientations, religious affiliation, etc)?

re "'Descent' is a tricky one" - So the reason I put this in, is because a number of "Is McClearly really Irish?" debates I've been in have settled with a resolution that is something like "You can say McClearly is of Irish decent, but not that he's Irish". I've often felt those are fair conclusions. It's always struck me as a far more vague and less controversial thing to say someone is of such-and-such heritage. re "we all have multiple ancestors" - Ok. But I'm not sure what the issue is here. I mean, if I can find a reference for John Q Public's mom being Polish, but can't find a reference for the fact his dad if Swedish, would you really take issue with someone categorizing John Q as "from Irish decent"? Perhaps I'm not getting the point.

P.S. Please feel free to be WP:BOLD in my sandbox. I think our thinking here is about as close to complete consensus as you can get.

P.S.S. I like your earlier "what Wikipedia is not" suggestion. I was a little concerned that a small subsection of "What Wikipedia is Not" might not fully encapsulate the idea we're trying to get across.

Always appreciative of cooperative brainstorming. NickCT (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Riin Tamm

I would support a move to deletion of this article. Amazing how it got onto the front page, with photo! Great CV pushing, mind... David (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. Article is now nominated for deletion. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Dominion Tire Plant

Hi Nick, I've responded to your flag for speedy deletion of the Dominion Tire Plant article on its talk page.ARMY101 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons

The link you've posted to your sandbox will only work for you - I suggest you replace it with User:NickCT/sandbox.

I agree with your suggestions (bar minor details) but frankly, I don't think there is an icecream's chance in hell of getting them approved by the Wikipedia community. I suspect that an approach to the WMF may be necessary before anything further is done - especially when we appear to have admins who argue that the WMF's recommendations regarding BLP policy should be ignored. [1] Of course, it is entirely possible that at some point, the question of where all this 'categorisation' fits in within information privacy law, and with regard to EU contributors in particular the Data Protection Directive and the relevant national laws may become a factor. I've seen people claim that 'it doesn't apply to Wikipedia', but I'm not entirely convinced - and I certainly wouldn't take the word of anyone but a lawyer specialising in the field that it doesn't, given its broad scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the link. Careful you don't step into Wikipedia:No legal threats with data protection thing. With a little lobbying, we may be able to get some policy changes, no? I'd say we have more than a snowball's chance in hell. More like a snowman's chance in hell...... NickCT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that data protection laws exist and may possibly be applicable isn't remotely a legal threat. As for 'lobbying', I'm not sure who you are proposing to contact - any policy change will have to come about through open discussion, unless the WMF steps in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting content on WP is in contravention to some law has the odor of a legal threat........ Re 'lobbying' - Andy, you and I clearly feel sorta similarly on this issue. We aren't alone. A whole bunch of people have suggested policy changes along the lines that we're discussing. I've seen at least a couple dozen editors talk about the importance of "self-identification". I think an organizing effort might help these voices be heard a little more clearly. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abe Vigoda

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abe Vigoda. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi. Input is needed on a an RfC. You were randomly selected from the WP:FRS list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated at the RfC about the Nobel Prize. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Hsien Loong

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lee Hsien Loong. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent issue related to the Flag of Western Sahara

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

notification about blp issues

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Charlize Theron. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger proposal and/or Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Birth Data for Shrii Shrii Anandamurti

I have altered the birth data from Vaisakhi Purnima 1921 to 1922. This is correct as has been confirmed by His own family although many books and references give 1921. His sister was born in November 1920 and she was 18 months older than Him. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciacst (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference or citation for him being born in 1922? Can you point to a book or article that states that this is the case? NickCT (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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.

Directed-energy weapon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

Laser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

Laser Weapon System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, Re: DPL bot is sick: Did you carefully read the Disambiguation link notification above? A diff like the one from Directed-energy weapon clearly shows that you inserted the links to ABC with the references in the articles listed above. (I fixed them, see here). If you need more help (next time) let me know. Cheers LittleWink (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Woops! I wasn't looking at the references. I see it now. ABC as in ABC news. Man I feel silly for not seeing that. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. That can happen to anyone, especially with a disambiguation like ABC. Greetings LittleWink (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph P. Moorer

Surely this must have been a mistake if you read the article? – Connormah (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Self reverted. I'm really not sure what the rules are surrounding notability of military folks. Does being a vice admiral automatically make you notable? I mean, I realize that quite a high ranking position, but it doesn't look like he is noted for anything other than simply holding the position. NickCT (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Believe he should pass per WP:MILPEOPLE - vice admiral is a general officer level one below the four star rank, and United States Naval Forces Europe is a major command (you will see that almost all of the other commanders of it were full admirals). – Connormah (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're specifically referring to "3. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or". Ok. That's fine. Honestly, I know little about military ranking, or the rules surrounding military notability. I'm willing to take your word for it. You have my apologies for a hasty deletion request. NickCT (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, we all have these moments. I would expand if I had the time, and there should be sources, however it will probably be quite the task to pick apart the sources on him from those on his brother, Thomas, who was the Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the JCS at one point - the two top ranks in the Navy and Armed Forces respectively. Anyways, keep up the good work, I've seen a lot of good things from you at AIV in the recent months! – Connormah (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks! Same to you. NickCT (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism

I'm afraid that your recent use of rollback on Ann Arbor Public Schools was not justified, nor was your warning to the IP editor. Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP was inserting external links into the article in a manner that didn't appear appropriate for the page. I did an "edit test" revert, which I sorta think of as a "soft" vandalism reversion.

Looking back on it, I probably could have just reverted with a note rather than a warning to the IP. NickCT (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A7 and schools

Hi Nick. Just letting you know I declined the CSD tag you placed on Marysville Middle School - A7 specifically excludes schools (and other educational institutions) from its potential targets. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for catching that.

I've proposed to delete. Seems to me that a single line and a external does not an article make.

That said though, I'm conscience that WP has always had an inclusionist bias towards schools. Never really been a fan of this policy. NickCT (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, if I'm honest - I've never seen why schools should get a free pass on deletion. But, as Bruce Hornsby once put it: "that's just the way it is..." Yunshui 雲‍水 12:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Donor Trust

I have replied on the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added additional information on climate change denial to the lead, per your point on the talk page, and begun clarifying the verbiage. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I begin to feel badly treated. BRD requires discussion. Eliminating material and references without discussion is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't eliminate material without discussion. You added without discuss. Give me one second. I'm putting some of your material back in! NickCT (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no problems. I was editing too fast. Sorry. I'll leave the article alone for awhile to see how it goes. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Maharis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

AF447

Re "only slightly less RS", you seem to have read that as "only slightly fewer RS", which was not my intent. I meant that FlightGlobal and Aviation Week are highly credible publishers whom we can treat as being reliable on the topic of aviation. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused by your point. Are you suggesting that the 2 RS you've offered are similar in weight to the "literally hundreds" of RS I pointed to? NickCT (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pan Am 1736/KLM 4805 (Tenerife Airport disaster)

Nick, you asked me to provide a citation. It's in the sources already cited for the CVR transcript. The original Spanish report does not include the obscenities. However, it does mention "natural expressions" of shock and horror on the Pan Am flight deck upon sighting KLM 4805. However, the PBS source that is also cited does include the last statements from the Pan Am cockpit. Another source, if you want one, is this book.[2] Bragg repeatedly said in interviews for various documentaries that he yelled, "Get off! Get off! Get off!" to Grubbs when he saw the KLM. I restored the edit, and added an additional citation. Thank you. Sacxpert (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello NickCT! Have you received an email from me? I sent you an email through the Wikipedia interface on May 4 regarding an RfC about the infobox issue in the Air France Flight 447 article. If not, I can re-send it to your Yahoo address. I would like you to respond to my email. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 22:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey mate,

Sorry for a late response.

I'll start to work up a quick draft. Hold for further details. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

just a point

I'm not sure if you've followed *all* of the discussions, but the brouhaha over Category:American novelists has nothing (or little) to do with gender. It has to do with whether Category:American novelists can be diffused into by-century cats like Category:20th-century American novelists, Category:21st-century American novelists, and so on, or whether everyone should remain in the parent. So, essentially the question is about whether Category:20th-century American novelists should be a diffusing category or not. It is not about unequal treatment of women/men - they are being treated equally for now... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Obi-Wan Kenobi. I've been partially following the brouhaha, but haven't delved too deeply into it. My understanding is that the debate started when someone complained that female authors seemed to be getting relegated to the less prestigious "American Female Novelists" rather than staying in what was perceived to be a more prestigious "American Novelists" category. I guess this 20th/21st century debate is an evolution of the former one?

There was a good NPR piece on the gender debate.

Regardless, thanks for your perspective on the issue. I'm not super interested in getting wrapped up in this conversation. This is one of those subjects which I think is doomed to be an endless wikidrama. NickCT (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, yes, it's an evolution - sorry I should have pointed that out. The gender thing was dealt with already (it never should have happened in the first place) - but now there is a move to empty the parent cat entirely and put everyone into the by-century cats (I happen to agree) - so anyway, just wanted to clarify that this particular issue is no longer about gender, but around whether people get a special "tag" at the bottom of their profile that says "American novelist" or whether that tag says "20th-century American novelist". Really a major wikidrama over very little at this point...technically it's about the words "20th-century" or "19th-century" vs "". Anyway, I don't even know why I'm so involved, and your position may indeed be wise :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I think I follow what you're saying.

Out of curiosity, was there a really clear consensus somewhere that the gender category thing was wrong? Can you provide a link? And if there was a really clear ruling why the heck is Category:American_women_novelists still on Amanda Filipacchi? Seems like an obvious WP:SUBCAT violation.

re "Anyway, I don't even know why I'm so involved" - Well hey, a little Wikidrama is sorta fun now and then, no? I find the gender debate sorta interesting b/c I've always had a strong opinion on the slightly broader debate surrounding categorizing/listing biographies by gender/race/ethnicity/religious affiliation/sexual orientation.

I'm sorta curious about this "diffusing" issue, but I'm not really well acquainted enough with categorizing to have a good opinion.

I'm constantly amused by the rancor over categorization issues. I can't imagine many readers actually care about/use categorization all the much. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What, praytell, is your strong opinion? :)

The most recent consensus came from here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists (don't bother reading unless you are sitting down and have nothing to do for a few hours...) and it said it is ok to have such a gendered category (since it is provably a topic of interest and scholarship), but the members should be in the parent as well. This wasn't really news, as WP:EGRS has always been stated this way, to avoid ghettoization. So for now, the community has still reconfirmed that it's ok to have gendered sub-cats, but those sub-cats should be non-diffusing.

Now, the tricky thing in this case is, the community didn't weigh in on whether it was ok to diffuse Category:American novelists to non-gendered cats after the fact. Some people read the consensus to say "all American women novelists should *always* be in the parent cat forever more", but that has never been the case- many American women novelists have never been in the parent, as they were also in non-gendered sub-categories like Category:American romantic fiction writers or whatever - even today, there are ~3000 novelists which aren't in the parent, and never were. If you have a special rule that if you're a woman, you automatically end up in the parent, then you have to do the same for the men, and now everyone is in the parent. I personally think this is an exaggeration and a misreading of the consensus. Now, they're launching an RFC over this silly issue, instead of dealing with the real issue with our categories today, which is continued, widespread ghettoization.

In general, non-diffusing just means that if you're in a subcat, you should also be in the parent. Most cats are diffusing, OTOH, by default, which means if an article is in Category:Paris, it shouldn't be in Category:France as well. The thing that trips people up is that certain types of cats, especially those around sexuality/religion/ethnicity, should be non-diffusing. When people forget this, nasty articles get written. It is also slightly tricky though, in that a category can be diffusing to one parent, and non-diffusing on another. For example, Category:American women novelists is non-diffusing on Category:American novelists, but it *is* diffusing on Category:American women writers.

With the writers tree specifically, you also end up with an even more subtle issue of, partial-diffusion-by-characteristic - I'm not even sure if that's a thing - but let me give you an example. Bill is an essayist and novelist, and Category:American novelists diffuses Category:American writers (in other words, if you're just a novelist, you don't need to remain in Category:American writers. But Bill is a complex beast, and if we just put him in Category:American novelists, we shouldn't right away *remove* him from Category:American writers, as we've only diffused on *one* of his characteristics - we need to also add Category:American essayists, so as a fully diffuse all aspects by which we categorize. In some cases, it's not possible to do so - so the person has to remain in the category regardless. That's why people use the term "fully diffusing" sometimes, or "fully diffusable", meaning that no matter what, you have a set of categories to which everyone can be placed. Things like "X by century" or "X by state" are fully diffusing - but "Novelists by genre" is not fully diffusing, as we don't have categories for all novelist genres, and some novelists are just novelists. Anyway, it's a messy messy world. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for an in-depth perspective. Interesting ideas. Frankly this diffusing/non-diffusing shenenigans seems to lie in clear and obvious contradiction to WP:SUBCAT. I don't like that. Subcat exists for a good reason. I understand the desire to avoid ghettoization, but I feel like the solution applied by WP:EGRS leads to some unholy complication (i.e. the "messy world" you refer to). A good example of someone trying to patch a problem, and creating several problems in the process.

Frankly, my initial impression is that we should just backtrack and reaffirm WP:SUBCAT as the guiding principle. Ghettoization is surely better than this silly debate.

Awww well. Don't tell me any more. I don't want to sink any further in this debate. NickCT (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point - and I don't mean to ignore your last sentence but I had to respond... :) I agree, it does create an unholy mess. If you want to read about how messy it can get (and have a lot of free time), check out this piece I wrote: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_132#On_structural_and_categorical_sexism which gets into some of the subtleties and attempts to define "sexism", (if it exists), and how do we spot it? In the general case, it's actually quite complex. I even created a quiz, where you can try your hand at categorization in a non-sexist way. To date, everyone has failed. Nonetheless, I've recently come around to the idea of non-diffusing categories, based on a completely different tree: Category:Presidents of the United States. Now this cat has a subcat, Category:United States presidents who died while in office. It makes no sense to me, to have John_F._Kennedy in that sub-cat, but *not* in the parent. Thus, Category:United States presidents who died while in office must be non-diffusing (and once you accept one cat can be non-diffusing, you must therefore accept that other cats can as well)

In the same way, it also doesn't make sense to say a female novelist is also not a novelist, and the result (if you remove all women, and all african-americans and asian-americans and native-americans and so on) is a category full of white men - which is problematic (and leads to NY times articles)

There is an alternative to non-diffusion here, which is to make all of the gendered/sexuality/etc categories "fully diffusing", but that would mean creating Category:European-American novelists and Category:Heterosexual novelists to offset the other ethnic/sexuality cats, and those cats would never survive, because people would say "Heterosexual novelists is not a notable subject of study - kill it with fire!"

In a few cases, we have been able to fully diffuse things like the Category:Actors tree, which is (mostly) split by gender at the top (at least, it was). We still need to grapple with people who are neither male nor female (see Category:Gender.

Thus, while complex and messy, I do now believe that non-diffusion of G/E/R/S cats in general, given our current category system, is the only way to go, and that non-diffusing categories as an exception to WP:SUBCAT, applied rarely, are ok. The big novelists debate going on now really comes down to whether Category:20th-century American novelists and its siblings can diffuse or not - I am obviously on the side that they should, but the protectors-of-the-novelist think not, as it will remove the sacred Category:American novelists talisman from the bottom of pages like Ernest Hemingway and he will be instead a Category:20th-century American novelists, which is abhorrent to some.

A better way is category intersects, which I've described and prototyped here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - I'd welcome your thoughts on that too, but I also can see you've fallen far enough down the rabbit hole so maybe you should get back to something important, like, editing articles or something :) cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(fwiw no talkback needed cheers :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

re "It makes no sense to me, to have John_F._Kennedy in that sub-cat, but *not* in the parent. Thus, Category:United_States_presidents_who_died_while_in_office" - Hmmmmm.... I see where you're coming from, and mostly agree. I think I'd say that it would be good for JFK to be in both categories, if the mechanics of doing it that way was easy. I feel like the issue here is that you (and probably a lot of other folks) want categories to be like lists (i.e. comprehensive). Again, my "newbie" impression is that categories are not like and should not be like lists.

I'm having trouble thinking about the diffusing/non-diffusing issue, b/c it seems to me like the topic is an attempt to make categories something they shouldn't be.

I guess a really big question here is, "how are readers using categories?". As I said before, my guess is that in general, they are probably not, which is why I'm having difficulty taking this topic seriously.

I'll take a look at your intersects idea when I'm feeling a little more inquisitive.

Again, this is an interesting topic (even if its largely academic), and I appreciate your insights. NickCT (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your question earlier re "What, praytell, is your strong opinion? :)" - My strong opinion is that when it comes to gender/ethnicity/religious affiliation/sexual persuasion unless it obviously relevant to the subject's notability or completely undisputed it should be avoided at all costs. NickCT (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanity

Hi NickCT, hope you're doing well. :) I just noticed this comment of yours back in April, and I thought I should point out that we generally try and avoid the term "vanity editing". Have a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD, and in particular this post from Jimbo that is linked from it, for the details. It's not such an urgent and important problem now that search engines don't link directly to AfD pages any more, but probably still worth watching out for. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Couple things.

1) Let me congratulate you on a sorta amazing reference to old discussions. I think this is perhaps the first time someone has pointed me in the direction of a comment from Jimbo from as far back as 2006. A little stunning that you can recall policy discussions of that nature from so far back. Kudos.

2) I partially take your point, and since it's fairly explicitly laid out in policy, I will abide. That said, as you noted, this policy seems to have originated from the "top ranked link in google" thing, which is apparently no longer a concern; and hence the policy would seem out-dated. Also, as I'm sure you're more than aware, vanity editing does exist, and I so hate when we refuse to call things what they are out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

Regardless, I endeavor to comply with policy (even when it's bad policy). Let me know if you want me to strike/delete the comment. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

organized by Wiki Project Med

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Have time on Saturday?

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 20:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Robson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laura Robson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp

Hello Sir! Thanks so much for your level-headed contribution to the discussion over at the Emily VanCamp article. I'd like to provide you with a little bit of context about what went on. I originally stumbled upon the article and saw the Personal Life section where it was mentioned the actress was currently dating her Revenge co-star Joshua Bowman. I happened to now that she'd previously dated Chris Pratt, did a couple of minutes of digging, and just added to that statement, mentioning briefly the past notable relationships she's had. Another user however, fought me tooth and nail on this, no matter how many sources I could produce. I then decided to completely revamp the article, which included getting "the Personal Life section gets expanded" as you suggest in your conrtibution. Sadly between my edit and the time you went to see the article, another user completely obliterated my work. I have now reinstated it, and can hopefully judge for yourself how "stalkerish" (lol, wut?) or not the inclusion is. Thanks Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Reassessed. Changed position. See talk page. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for repositioning yourself there. I've got to ask you, since you seem like someone quite involved with the, um, "bureaucratic" elements of Wikipedia. A couple of users seem to have tag-teamed to revert my work on the article at every turn. I have consistently invited them to discuss their issues on the talk page while leaving the article as is in the meantime, which they've completely ignored, claiming that the article doesn't follow guidelines etc... Do you have any suggestion as to what I could do at this point? Thanks. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for a late response. No problem on the re-position. The content I was looking at changed, and consequently, so did my viewpoint.

re " A couple of users seem to have tag-teamed to revert my work" - Yeah. Unfortunately you can often get one or two editors w/ strong viewpoints on particular issue/subject owning a page so to speak. It's an unfortunate situation, b/c it makes it darn near impossible for another editor to come in and make edits which the two "owners" don't like.

There are a plethora of ways to go around combating this kind of activity, but I find one of the simplest is to write WP:RfCs. If you can work up a simple RfC that clearly demonstrates consensus favors your position, it is very difficult for anyone to argue with. The trick is to write a clear and concise RfC which makes consensus for something obvious.

If you'd like any help or support drafting an RfC, let me know. Seeking to try to clearly measure and demonstrate consensus on an issue is one of the fastest, "healthiest" and most permanent ways of putting disputes to rest. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

BP RfC

Hi Nick, sorry to bother you with this, but would you consider clarifying your RfC response? You said "Agree with User:Petrarchan47," but she wants the opposite of what you've argued for (here and in the previous RfC), so the closing editor may have difficulty interpreting your comment. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Never a bother to hear from you Slim. You're completely correct. I wasn't very clear. I've sought to rectify that. I hope my clarification is satisfactory.

Thanks for your focus on BP by the way. Strikes me that the article could use some attention. I think it could seriously benefit from some trimming/splitting. Looks like 12,000 words, no? Too much..... NickCT (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's too long, but I don't want to focus on it. I'm really tired of it. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to hear that. It does look like your current efforts should at least cut out a couple paragraphs. That's a positive step. NickCT (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're Invited: Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian

File:SAAM facade.jpg American Art Museum

Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia. This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Smithsonian American Art Museum Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.) Capacity is limited, so please sign up today! If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list. Message delivered by Dominic·t 03:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

Luce Foundation Center

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cabal Team rules! :D

Hi Nick, well, for me C and T are initials, but not my name initials (and the mystery must end there on the advice of my attorney :) and when I was in high school on Long Island I spent several weekends in New Haven because one of my aunts works for Yale and it just worked out that way. I love the campus and surrounding area, but the only other part of Connecticut I've really seen up close is the I-95 corridor. But I live far away in the Western US now, although soon I might get to spend some time in various pacific rim nations overseas. How about you? EllenCT (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I used to hail from the great state of Connecticut. New Haven is indeed a beautiful place, and I don't think you're alone in mostly having seen CT from I-95. Most folks I discuss CT with unfairly associate it w/ traffic, b/c our portion of I-95 isn't great when it comes to congestion. Ah well..... Could be worse. We could be NJ and have I-95 run through industrial wasteland.

Pass my regards to your attorney. And please ask the cabal to reply to all the applications for membership I've sent in. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Talk:Small_molecule#Small_molecules_are_often_considered_superior.........
Message added 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.