Jump to content

User talk:Obiwankenobi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Van Speijk (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 30 May 2012 (→British Isles: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi and welcome to my talk page.

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

Thanks!

Hello, Karl.brown! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Proposed deletion of C-Tools 2.0

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

Looks like Twinkle barfed your nomination. I've manually created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-Tools 2.0 (2nd nomination); feel free to re-enter your nomination rationale there. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done more work on the article. I'm now at "Weak Keep." Note that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY-- if something was ever notable, it'll always be notable until notability policies/guidelines change to weaken the case for notability. The Keep case here is not very strong, so I could still be swayed. But I think there is a Keep case. Would appreciate any followup comments you might have. Yakushima (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish unionism

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

hmmm. I'm not sure I agree... what is it for? so many articles are about both sides - england and ireland. And as was pointed out, some of the protagonists who are unionist feel ethnically british (while, I would argue, others feel ethnically Irish). In any case, I'm not sure what good the separation does. --KarlB (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Irish unionism merits an article, Unionism in Ireland, then it merits a category. In particular, pre-1922 Irish Unionism is plainly not British Unionism. Ireland was never part of Britain. Moonraker (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're preaching to the choir... i realize that, but the consensus seemed against me. in any case, what about calling it Unionism in Ireland then to match the article, and making a sub-cat of British unionism? the word 'irish' is also problematic here - which is why i argued the whole time for geographic vs ethnic or political categorization. --KarlB (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Names are emotive, and you can't make "British" include "Irish", any more than you can make "Austrian" include "Hungarian". Moonraker (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of rollback

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

I've asked you to kindly bring such discussions to the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note there, to which you will perhaps be kind enough to reply, but in my view it is not the place to complain about your very incorrect use of rollback. Do you agree that this was unacceptable? Moonraker (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hit the wrong button (instead of undo). Please let's just discuss this at the article page. Sorry should not have rolled back meant to undo. --KarlB (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and as you have agreed it was incorrect I do not need to take the matter up anywhere else. Moonraker (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relax Moonraker, Karl is relatively new to wiki (active since 1 month only) so can make such mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. I rollbacked a CSD tag 2 weeks ago. Karl is a good editor and use rollback quit well, so how can you say that they abused the rights with only one edit which can also be a mistake. Directly accusing someone for abuse is discouraged
Calling such mistake an abuse of userright is not at all a good thing to say to anyone. Abuse is a serious allegation.
Dear Karl, remember; Rollback is used only to undo vandalism or any unconstructive edit
Regards, Yasht101 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yasht101. Thanks for accepting the apology Moonraker. --KarlB (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement in the Republic of Ireland

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

Cheers thanks for the kind words. I do think that moving Law enforcement in Northern Ireland to its own section makes sense; it doesn't really make sense to have a single page for the whole island, which is why I separated it in the first place. I think going forward, the Law enforcement in Ireland page should contain a section on the history of law enforcement in Ireland, short stub links out to the main pages for each country, and then perhaps a section that talks about cooperation between the two.--KarlB (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Dublin Harbour Police have found this on rté [1] The Dublin Port Harbour Police force has ceased after having been in existence since 1870. 21 staff left on a retirement scheme. It's understood that three of the force remain in the port, but port access duties will be undertaken by private security companies, will try to find more later and probably find out if it still going in any form. Murry1975 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, its a start, and worth adding the rte source. its strange there wasn't more reporting about it. KarlB (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Security

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

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

health cats

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

That's not quite fair. I've agreed, several times, that health and healthcare are *not* the same. That's not my point. However, I'm afraid the evidence is not there that 'health law' and 'healthcare law' or 'healthcare legislation' and 'health legislation' are not the same. In fact, I've provided overwhelming evidence that they are used interchangeably by people in the field. Can you please please please explain why that does not sway you? Is there something wrong with the sources I've copiously quoted? Do you not agree with them? I'm not making this stuff up.
Take a look at this guide - and see how healthcare is used interchangably with health: [2] - or look here [3]; which is how different states classify their health laws - here are a examples:

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

So let me ask again - given that I am not claiming health=healthcare, but rather that the world does not differentiate between these terms when they are used as adjectives for law, legislature, film, or software - how much evidence of real world use would it take to change your mind? Or alternatively, since you say your position is supported by ample sources, could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation vs health legislation, or health films vs healthcare films? I'm willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. Are you? --KarlB (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because more of these in law may be correctly classified as health does not mean that none of these are correctly labeled as healthcare. Your arguments and the contents of that category do not support the elimination of health care in this case. Your arguments support that in almost the entire tree we need to add heath categories where needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"could you please provide sources that show that health law does not mean the same thing as healthcare law, or healthcare legislation does not mean the same thing as health legislation, or health films is not used interchangably to describe healthcare films?" If you cannot provide sources, please just admit it.--KarlB (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic as an offical language for Afghanistan

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

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


Germans

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Conflict Resolution (album)

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

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

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

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

Re: Conflict Resolution (album)

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

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

It's my understanding that the existence of a band's article is often the key notability stepping-stone for other inclusions throughout the project. I don't like to be a bad guy in this case, but I truly believe the decision should be left up to the patrolling admin. I hope you understand.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per Wp:nalbums, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline." CSD A9 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist " but I believe the additional links I added provide evidence of why its subject is importance; thus the A9 should be removed. --KarlB (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's also the first album by a band with no article, which doesn't appear to make claims in the way of charting, sales, awards, etc. Trust me, I do not believe in wholesale deletion, and I think this one is best left to the decision of the patrolling admin.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewing administrator, I am prepared to give this a chance; but I am unconvinced that the references you have supplied are enough for the GNG, so I plan to take it to AfD. In view of your "underconstruction" tag, I will give you a couple of days to see if you can improve it (and, of course, the AfD discussion would provide seven more). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a reply and comments at Talk:Conflict Resolution (album). Regards. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest

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

I see you've gone back to the article and removed a bunch of other appropriate categories. [5] Can you please explain what you've doing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; however it doesn't make sense to classify every organization into every issue they are involved with; it makes the categories cluttered so you can't find articles about that issue (instead of wading through articles about every organization involved with that issue). For example, there is Category:Disability law and Category:Disability rights organizations - you don't want to put this firm in both. For the same reason, this firm is not a healthcare policy, they may be interested in healthcare policy, and even work on it, but that doesn't mean they should go in the category. Can you imagine if every organization that worked on healthcare policy was in this section? Category:Healthcare policy in the United States? That is why the organizational categories exist.--KarlB (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
some of the other cats I removed were b/c you don't need to put something in the parent and child cat. For example, it is already a law firm in new york. It doesn't also need to be an organization in new york, since law firms are underneath organizations. see this for example:

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

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

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

Cite PMC

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

Category:Politics of the British Isles

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

Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland

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

WP:GS/BI

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

Yes, I read about that the other night. Are you still on probation? --KarlB (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but it'll be reviewed soon hopefully. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit drastic of a measure to take. But I guess there were problems back in the day... I hope the review is favorable... --KarlB (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles

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

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I do hope those opposed will see the value of the article rather than just judging based on the name. It's a topic I find quite interesting in general. I suppose if we called it 'Multilateral and bilateral relations of Ireland, UK, Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey" they might allow it to be kept... --KarlB (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that title makes more sense. As would "Multilateral and bilateral relations between the countries within the British Isles". If you can grasp why, you'll fully understand the objections. --HighKing (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing. Yes, that title for the article might also work also. Unfortunately, the whole article has been nominated for deletion, rather than just having a regular discussion about its title. --KarlB (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the title might work, but the content is still a fork and questionably WP:OR. Perhaps if you'd search Google for titles involving "Politics in the UK and Ireland" or similar, you'd see that the common name for the politics in questions correctly refers to the political states. --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would certainly welcome a rename discussion about the article. I'm not sure which parts of it are OR or a fork; most of the content is new, and doesn't overlap with the remit of other pages. For example, RA has claimed it is a fork of Ireland-UK relations, but the crown dependencies are *not* part the UK, so that page wouldn't be a good place to discuss these multilateral issues. I think Ireland-UK relations should remain as focused on bilateral relations between the two sovereign governments, and then the multilateral and devolved relationships could go here (for example, joint irish/scottish/Isle of man projects where Westminster isn't even involved.)--KarlB (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And you are right, if British Isles didn't appear in the name of this article there would be no debate whatsoever. There is an unhealthy dislike of the term in Wikipedia. Van Speijk (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look forward to the DRV you'll be starting, I assume, for the article. Please inform me of it if you do do so. Oh, and I would advise that you make sure to focus on why the AfD close was incorrect (ie there was no true consensus, the votes were pretty much equal, the closer's statement sounds like a vote itself and is thus inappropriate, ect.) and not on the for or against argument itself, as those don't work at DRV and are irrelevant. SilverserenC 19:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Hi Karl, thanks for the note on my Talk page. However, you may have noticed that I've been blown out on anything to do with B.... I... and I can't even talk about it. I'm considering my position at the moment. It's pointless appealing against such decisions, given that the bums who now run Wikipedia all stick together. I'm maybe going to retire. I'm unhappy with lots of things about Wikipedia, especially the way that obvious POV pushers continue to prevail. Anyway, good luck with your attempts to restore that article. I hope it all works out. Cheers, Van Speijk (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obiwankenobi&oldid=495193346"