Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.25.21.108 (talk) at 18:23, 9 February 2013 (→Richard Ian Kimball: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The old part of my talk page was moved to User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 1 , User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2 and User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3

Category:Steampunk music

Category:Steampunk music was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD October 4, and the discusison was closed by me as "delete".

Following further discussion with interested editors, I have re-listed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Steampunk_music, where your comments will be welcome.

This notice is being sent to all the editors who participated in the original discussion, and also to those who posted on my talk page aboutr the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruptive edits

Your continued disruptive edits of articles and categories has no excuse. You continue to try to change things to fit your notions of what should be so, prior to obtaining category change approvals is not inaccordance with acceptable editing behavior in WP. You should stop and revert your edits. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of clue as to what this is about, and you do, too. Indeed Your recent editing history at pages such as Dragging Canoe, Old Tassel and Oconostota shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. As you know, being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You have more-than-ample opportunity to make your point at the myriad WP:CFD discussions you have started, including New York colonial people and Tennessee colonial people; if your point is valid, you should be able to convince the rest of us there. Edit warring -- and risking a block -- to enforce your views is not a path to consensus. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Validness of points does not require to convince everybody. What are Colonial people? ChemTerm (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is the edit warring. Not to subjectively assess certain edits. Your question is better placed on that article's talk page to start a discussion on it. - jc37 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's unfair to only accuse one side and not User_talk:Orlady, User:Hmains, the latter inviting the former to the "war". [1] ChemTerm (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I had already reverted one of JPL's removals of the "Tennessee colonial people" category and commented on several of the associated CFDs before Hmains commented on my talk page. The effect of Hmains' comment on my talk page was to alert me to the fact that JPL had also removed a number of other articles from the "Tennessee colonial people" category. I had intended to look for other removals on JPL's contribution history, but at the time of Hmains' message, I hadn't done that because I was busy reading and reacting to the profusion of CFDs.
Further to that comment, the revert that I did was at Henry Timberlake. Timberlake produced an early map of part of Tennessee and wrote accounts of the Overhill Cherokee villages that are important ethnographically and were useful in modern archaeology. JPL was asserting that the article about him does not belong in historical categories for Tennessee because the area he visited wasn't legally identified as Tennessee at the time of his visit. If his ideas about category structure necessarily mean that somebody who made one of the earliest map of a place can't be listed in a category for that place, that is a strong indication that his ideas are not supportive of the well-being of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I hope a good solution can be found for these "colonial people" categories. ChemTerm (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline

In looking over all of the above, it seems to me that there has been little to no talk page usage to discuss these changes to try to find consensus.

At this point, I strongly suggest that you all avail yourselves of the talk pages and CFD discussions in question and stop with the edit warring.

Please consider this warning: If it continues, sanction, such as blocks, may result. - jc37 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cait London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German-Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German West Africa

Withdrawn: [2] ChemTerm (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related is Talk:Berlin_Conference#Requested_move ChemTerm (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of African-American descent

Category:American people of African-American descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 21:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Girl authors

I think you're misunderstanding the category's intent. "American Girl" in this case refers to the American Girl franchise, not authors that write girls' books. Still, we don't categorize authors by franchise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors by nationality

Category:Male actors by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012_November_15#Category:New_York_colonial_people

At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_15#Category:New_York_colonial_people if you change to lower case "colonial" there would be a majority for you original proposal. At least then there is a clear "People of/from someterritorialentity"-form. ChemTerm (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category Ownership

I am a bit disturbed at the level of commenting you've made in various CfDs lately. In a number of them, you've commented a great number of times (oftentimes using the bold Comment form when indenting a response would be more appropriate), often saying the same point over and over. I did some checking and discovered you've made over 500 comments to CfD discussions just this month, and the month isn't over yet. I also did some checking and notice several talk page threads that indicate that you've added or removed categories based on your own personal opinion. This seems to smack of an attempt at OWNership of the category space. I would strongly advise you to voluntarily lay off categorizing articles and participating in CfD discussions for awhile. If not, you might find yourself unable to edit pbp 01:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

people of mixed race category issue

hi i just wanted to let you know that a user named purplebackpack has removed 2 contributions i just made for people of mixed ethnicity. can you help out or let me know what to do on this as i am new to wikipedia and this person seems to have an agenda. thanks. Xvon (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the CfD has played out, consider past consensuses and category diffusions, and not ask another person to help you edit war would be a start pbp 02:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just responded, get back to me thanks Xvon (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really think there is a good reason to not descibe many of these people as "African-American" but of Afrcian-American descent. I still think the examples of Category:French Armenians and Category:French people of Armenian descent give us a precedent for this. However, it is not clear anyone else is going to accept this. I would agree that there has been a lot of attempts to empty the category before bothering to nominate it. I am not sure the best way to deal with this, because it seems some people take exception to people trying to discuss things at "categories for discussion".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another user just removed alicia keys from the proper descent cat. can you please help out on this since i'm fairly new to wikipedia and i feel like i'm under attack or something here. i keep gettimng threatened wih a "block" even though i'm doing nothing wrong. thanks again Xvon (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


another question for you, when exactly will the presence of this category be justified so that the proper people can remain/be added to it? Xvon (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The question will largely depend on the outcome of the CfD. CfDs run at least 7 days, and some run much longer. I cannot tell you what the outcome of the CfD will be. There is a chance that it will determine to merge the category elsewhere. There is a possibility that a new name will be adopted. There is also a possibility that it will remain as is. I can not give a firmer answer than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just want to ask how the ultimate decision will be made regarding this issue? does it depend solely on the "votes" on the CFD page, or are there other factors that are used to decide whether the category stays, goes, or gets modified? also wanted to ask you since this category currently exists is it proper to still place people into it? please get back to me, thanks. Xvon (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • i don't mean to badger you but how exactly is the concensus reached? also can you please answer my question about placing people into the category while it is still CFD? Xvon (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
could you please answer the above 2 questions so i can understand what's going on a little bit better? also just responded to your recent comment on the alicia keys talkpage re the disputed cat. Xvon (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be systematically removing "African American" category tags from people for whom there is no clear supporting evidence in the article that that they are African Americans, even when it is in fact easy to find sources that they are and the category is clearly important to the person. Surely they should stay in the category unless you have good reason to believe they are not African Americans? cwmacdougall 07:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent

Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Country subdivisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2012_November_14&diff=524742516&oldid=524694723

There is a reason why the tree is called "Category:Country subdivisions". ChemTerm (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican saints

Please note that according to the text in Category:Anglican saints, one needn't be an Anglican to be included. I've therefore removed this category from Category:Anglicans.--JFHutson (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think Calvin was included in Anglican Saints just because they wanted to revere him. And the Calvin article should reflect that.Markewilliams (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Testament saints

I am reverting a whole bunch of your changes where you removed the proper denominational categories from saints. Please do not make mass changes without consensus. A discussion on the proper WikiProject talk page would be in order for these. Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent CfD comment

Hi, could you please review my latest comment at the CfD discussion here. I rather think that either those who are commenting are missing the point of my nomination or I am massively misunderstanding what they mean when they say "Rename". Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_28#Category:Republic_of_the_Congo_people.
Message added 20:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

Regarding the proposed renaming of all these "people" categories, I do not understand why you are making proposals that contradict the relevant naming conventions. Are you trying to revise the naming conventions? If so, why are you going about it via piecemeal nominations? If you want to change the convention, I think it would make sense to have a discussion about changing the convention, but that's not how you're approaching it. Don't the naming conventions count for anything in your book? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey—if you want to bring up issues of rudeness, how about responding to my question here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD note

I'm not sure if you're ignoring my posts here (see section above), so apologies if this doesn't register with you by posting it here, but note that I have closed this discussion, for the reasons stated. The previous discussion was just barely closed hours ago. Typically users wait a few months before proposing the identical thing again after it has been rejected in a discussion. The time may generally be shorted if the result is "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not making the same proposal. The last one had colonies captalized, this one does not. That is a major difference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is different enough. Obviously, the category would not have been renamed to Category:People of Colonies had the proposal been accepted. The closer would have noted the change in your nomination to fix the capitalization, and even if you had not made that statement, the closer probably would have caught it. The discussion did not focus on the capitalization issue and from my reading that is not the reason those opposed to the rename rejected the suggestion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could ask another admin to review my administrative closure, if you wish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole thing seems heavy handed to me. Lots of people seem to like the colonies without capitalization and object very heavily to the capitalization. You have no evidence it would not pass without capitalization. The fact that as I pointed out most of the contents use people of x colonies should hold some value in the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's just that I don't think the capitalization issue was even on the commenters' radars one way or the other. No one mentioned it. Any good admin would have changed it to Category:People of colonies if it was implemented. The discussion was about the substance of the proposal, not this detail of the typography. I have asked User:Vegaswikian to review what I did, and I will accept his opinion on it either way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have obviously not read enough of the similar discussions of other colony related articles. Some of the people, including one involved in this discussion, have vehemently opposed the capitalized Colony and supported the lowercase "x people of colonial Y" form. It is very clear that the capitalization is on people's radar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, of course the "colonies" would have been de-capitalized if the proposal was implemented. That's a naming convention and a no-brainer issue. As I said, any good admin would have fixed that if it were implemented, whether or not it was raised in the discussion. The point is that it was not the focus of the discussion: ie, the users opposed your proposal on substantive grounds, not the grounds that the proposal was mis-capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That may be so, but that has not kept one of the editors involved from denouncing vehemently a proposal and then a little latter supporting it when the capitalization has changed. Anyway, there were only three editors involved in the whole discussion, and then another totally different editor came along and supported the revised proposal before you closed it, so I do not think you can claim there is any consensus against the proposed change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec)As requested here I looked at the close and while it was well intended, I have reopened this since it is clear, that there are issues with the name. I don't see any harm in continuing the discussion focused on a different target name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New nom

As merely a fellow Wikipedian, GO, would you be opposed to a new nom on this? I think that there is more that could be discussed on this, though not necessarily the points JPL is making above. If neither of you oppose, I'll start a new nomination. - jc37 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose a new nomination for the category per se; it's just that I do not think the same proposal should be immediately made. I don't see a consensus for the current name in the previous discussion; but I do see a consensus that the proposed name should not be implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian has re-opened the discussion, essentially agreeing that there was consensus that a rename is in order, just not as was proposed. So if you had intended on making an alternative proposal, you might want to jump in with it early on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thank you : )
Happy to continue discussion there. - jc37 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American people of African-American descent

JPL just have 2 questions regarding this cat. first, when will the category be gone for good 'cuz right now it is still up. second, what exactly is the difference between "merge" and "delete" when it comes to categories on wikipedia? e.g. if this category had been deleted instead of merged what would happen? thanks so much and please get back to me. Xvon (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can not answer the first question, but it will be soon. On the second point, the difference is that a delete just removes the category, while a merge moves the category to new contents. So when we merge something the things in that category end up in the target category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey i just wanted to ask you how i can create a new category for wikipedia, can't seem to figure it out myself. the category i want to create is "People of African American descent", which is a re-worded category to better place american people of mixed ethnicity. please get back to me, thanks so much.

PS - if you want to create the new category yourself that would be okay. Xvon (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp is saying this category already exists but it's used for something different than what i was thinking, can you confirm this? please get back to me. Xvon (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bhandara district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gond, Deogarh and Rajaram
Faisalabad District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lyallpur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly chat

Hello Johnpacklambert, I believe that I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before. I have noticed your edits in the articles related to Puerto Ricans and people of Puerto Rican descent. I command you in doing a great job. As you may know, people such as myself, who are Americans of Puerto Rican descent, proudly consider themselves "Puerto Rican". I guess that it is because the media has always tagged us as such instead of "Puerto Rican-Americans" as they have done with the "Irish-Americans", "Afro-Americans" and so on. But, your corrections are justified and I congraulate you on them. There is one thing that I must request of you while you do your editing. When you come across a person of Puerto Rican descent, such as "Ray Barretto", please do not remove the Puerto Rican military categories. These categories state that "This category contains the names of notable Puerto Rican men and women or people of Puerto Rican descent who have served in the military of Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, England, United States or of that of any other country". I appreciate your work and I know that you are a reasonable editor. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We cannot mix people of Puerto Rican descent into Puerto Rican categories. People of x descent can not be put in such categories. The wording of the military category needs to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to use the categories for people who never lived in Puerto Rico at all, you will have to rename them through CfD. "Puerto Rican" is limited to people who spent at least some of their lives in Puerto Rico, since it is treated as a nationality but Puerto Rico does not grant citizenship, they are US citizens, and therefore the only way they can have a connection is living there. On the other hand the schema you are porposing would exclude people who are not of Puerto Rican descent who lived most of their lives in Puerto Rico, which also makes no sense at all.
  • Your plans will not work because they would miscategorize someone like Linda Garcia Cubero. She no more belongs in a Puerto Rican category than she would in a Mexican category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Point taken and understood. By the way, there is a Puerto Rican citizenship, the American citizenship granted or imposed (Puerto Ricans didn't ask for it nor had any say in the matter) on the people of Puerto Rico is not permanent and can be revoked by the U.S.. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD closed and needs further attention

Hi, I have closed this discussion, for which you were the nominator. I have moved it to WP:CFDWM, which is a page where we queue up the CFD work that can't be done by a bot and therefore has to be done manually. If it stays there for long enough, eventually someone will do the work needed to split the contents out. But I wanted to let you know that the discussion is closed in case you would like to be the one to do the work needed for the split. In other words, what I'm saying is you don't have to be the one to do it, but you are more than welcome to do it if it's something you want to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Russia

Hello,

could you tell me what is the point in creating "Imperial Russian foo" categories? I mean Imperial Russia was still Russia and was just called like that. Soviet Union, for example, would be something different as it was an union of several countries. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • He thinks Imperial Russia and the Russian Federation are two countries. I think people from either country call themselves Russians, and many of the Imperial Russian categories are poorly populated, so they should be deleted. I started a series of CfDs last night pbp 14:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course they are two countries. They have different boundareis, different extents, different everything. By your logic we should just merge Category:Byzantine people into ;Category:People of the Roman Empire because the people in Constantinople in 13000 thought they were still in the Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reverted my edits. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your Byzantium example is patently ridiculous. What is also concerning is the amount of commenting you've done consecutively, and your adding of articles to categories (and telling Xvon he could) that are under discussion in an attempt to sway consensus. I still remain very concerned about OWNership issues in category space (500 edits in November, at or near the contributions) and strongly urge you to step away from Category space for awhile before I report you for OWNership pbp 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not ridiculous. The people of Constantinople in 1300 insisted they were in the Roman Empire and just because you want to laugh at them for this belief does not change the fact that that is how they viewed the world. I have every right to participate in discussion about categories, and do not appreciate your attacking me for doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not sure about the category debate, but I think you were mistaken about changing "Russian" to "Imperial Russian" for Alexander Chuhaldin, as he was both an Imperial Russian and a Soviet Russian before going into exile, surely best just to write "Russian" (as do the sources)? It appears that to make some obscure point you are needlessly complicating things. See also discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia‎. cwmacdougall19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at User talk:Purplebackpack89 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You don't get to edit-war in other peoples' userspaces, no matter how right you think you are. I have reported you to AIV for that. pbp 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • How can you revoke edit war for someone trestoring their own comments so they can at least respond in context to your continued harrssment. Especially When they then let you have your way of removing such comments. Your constant attacks on me for trying to bring about thoughtful and reasoned discussions on categories are just beyond the pale. You are being rude, inconsiderate and engaging in uncalled for thretening. It does not matter what I do, people always atack me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling this behavior vandalism is just part of the rudeness inherent in your actions. Attempts to add more discussion is clearly not vandalism. Trying to post comments on a user talk page is not vandalism. Your seem to want to brand people with as negative of markers as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is ludicrous that I am attacked and told to act of a talk page for things I did on a talk page. If I can't have my comments stand on a talk page, how can I make comments on a talk page. The notice is internally ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) We can have this discussion right here; it's where it started. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but I am very concerned about your level of participation with regard to categories. Since November 1, you've commented in almost every CfD discussion; in many of them you've commented a dozen or more times, often repeating information and trying to shout down your detractors. You've also edit-warred to put in categories that were contentious. You might not like that I'm bringing it up; I don't like that you did it and you think that bringing it up is harrassment. And any number of reverts with the owner of a talk page is edit-warring, sorry. You seem to have a history of edit-warring, so I suggest also reading the policies with regards to that pbp 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no rule against participating in all CfDs. Your edit warring claims mostly amount to empty rhetoric. The only examples that were actually cited, I went through and made statements of the issues involved. If you have other issues with my editing, you should mention them specifically, not engage in empty generalized threats. Anyway, to call my actions "vandalism" is uncalled for attacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's something slightly hilarious about pbp saying that someone else is "comment[ing] a dozen or more times, often repeating information and trying to shout down detractors". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Danjel, it's even more hilarious than you HOUNDing me. How did you get here anyway? Been monitoring my edits much? pbp 00:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Just don't do it again pbp 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Russian people by occupation

Actress abominations

Hi JPL

I just spotted this comment of yours. Can you point me to where the closing admin had referred to such categories as "an abomination"?

I want to take that closure to DRV, and it would be helpful to link to that remark. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African-American people

If the article does not state that someone is African-American, we cannot so categorize them. Editors do not have the obligation to hunt through all possible sources before removing a categorization that is not supported by the text of the article. People putting in categorizations have an obligation to make sure it is supported by the text of the article. This is basically linked to verifiablity. If we cannot verrify something from the article we should remove the categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to post this at my page? pbp 20:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I was responding to someone else's statements somewhere on this page that I could not find, because they put them way back somewhere. This is the basic notion of verifiablitity, combined with only categorizing things that are at least significant to the person involved. It is a basic principal so that inaccurate categorization does not occur, and also a basic protection against over categorization. Well, it probably does not prevent all overcategorization, but as long as to be mentioned in a category the fact has to appear in the article it does to some extent limit the amount of tivial categorization involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were replying to me, and your principle is silly and borders on vandalism. Yes statements that someone (such as Bertice Berry) is African American should be supported by sources, but you don't remove something true just because it's unsourced. Where that someone might indeed be African American editors should not remove that category. Either find the source, or note that a source is required, or do nothing. cwmacdougall 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bertice Berry case is a good example of why some of your edits are vandalism. Her being African American should of course have been sourced, but it took me about a minute to find the source to that fact, and that it is important to her, and a couple more to add that to the article. Why did you waste your time, and mine, removing the category, making the article worse in the process? Stop being so hyperactive, especially on subjects about which you know little. cwmacdougall 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are way too fast to accuse others of vandalism. It is better that people not be in categories that they fit than that they be in categories that they do not fit in. The article has been inproved because of my edit, because it motivated you to go and find more information and include the information in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I could prompt the improvement of lots of articles by vandalising them, but I don't think it is the right way to proceed. In less time than we have spent discussing this, you could have done what I did and looked her up and found a good source that she is African American, and that that is important. Surely instead of mass robotic edits, that would be a better way for you to proceed? cwmacdougall 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not vandalism to remove a category that is not supported by the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's vandalism to remove info such as the category simply because it's not in the text. I can't figure out what would compel someone to do that in the first place.Donmike10 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Donmike10, what JPL has done is certainly not "vandalism", since that implies "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is clear this is not JPL's intent here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that many of these articles do not have any sources that say the subject is African-American either. Articles should mention in the text a trait of a person before they are so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metatheories of religion

If that category is deleted, I will be replacing it in some form again, for sure. I really would prefer not to have my time and effort wasted, and I would prefer not to be the subject of any further conflict on the matter. The category is part of a greater organizational structure, and it provides a separation between significantly different subject matters based on methodology. I have explained the situation sufficiently, and if you "just don't see" why it is necessary, or believe even with supreme confidence that it is inappropriate, I would suggest that you avoid it, or work around it. I am trying to be forthright and respectful with you, but this proposal is causing serious problems and conflict for no good reason. Please relent. Greg Bard (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page.Greg Bard (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

See WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Number 3, point 2. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These people are all categorized by their ethnicity and profession overlap, something that inherently means there is a claim that their ethnicity is notable. People go ballistic on me for removing this unreferenced categorization in most of these cases, so I see no reason to not include it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason for not including it is shown in the link above. You're making up your own rules now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They specifically state that it can be included if it is notable. The whole reason we allow categories like Category:African-American actors is because the fact that the people are actors who are African-American is notable. If it were not notable, then we would delete the category as a tivial intersection type.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're making an invalid comparison. However, if you wish to discuss this, I can assure you that your talk page is not the place to do it. Start a discussion on a relevant talk page about categories, MOS, leads, or somewhere else. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be complaining a lot about being "attacked". What's the common theme here? Can you figure it out? Why don't you try working with and discussing this with others rather than edit warring? Being bold only goes so far. You've been shown the relevant guideline, yet you are the one continuing on apparently trying to make a point. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common theme is that you want to leave the project with inadequaltely covered categories. Categorization should follow mention in the article. I am trying to bring this about. The relevant guidelines support my actions. The guidelines claerly allow for mention in the lead, and in all cases except maybe Clash the person's notability is clearly tied up with their being an African-American actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, discuss it. Not here. Find a relevant talk page, but please stop your crusade until you can get a consensus on what you're doing. I appreciate that categories should be mentioned in the article, but you are going about this the entirely wrong way and you know it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, would applying this rule mean that we cannot mention a person's ethnicity in a 1 paragrph article? I see no reason to discuss this anywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add the info further down the article? Doesn't have to be in the lead... cwmacdougall 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does when the whole article is the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Whatever point you're trying to make, you are disrupting the encyclopedia with your tedious editing. So please, bring your issues to the appropriate venue and stop your disruption and edit warring. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually as has happened with the edits to Kevin Clash my edits are producing more referenced things. It is clear that categories must follow the existence of mention in the text. I am not going to stop insisting on this basic policy that is supported all over the place just because a few people want to be able to keep categories that have no intext mention. I am not the one who is going around adding categories that have no intext mention. In fact multiple people have pointed out that allowing these unsourced categories to stand is a violtion of BLP polices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization by apparence

cwmacdougall has just admitted that he is willing to categoize someone in some way "because they appear to be African-American". We are supposed to categoreize by ethnicity, not race, and thus not just by what they appear to be. He is also going around and revertying my good faith removals of unmentioned categoziation in articles. I would not mind this even if he at least bothered to include mention in the article that the person in question is African-American. I would not be too worked up even if he provided no sources (although he claims sources are easy to find, so why he is not providing them is beyond me). However his insistence on just reversing my actions without doing anything to make it so the mention exists in the text of the article is really annoying. Is there anything I can do about this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss it. the main way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia is discussion. You have that opportunity now. GO seems to be trying to help mediate the discussion. I would suggest accepting that, and taking this opportunity to resolve the issues. A good way forward would be to read the policies/guidelines involved and express your perspective with those in mind. Mere opinion tends to have less weight except perhaps in WP:MoS issues. And this would appear to be a substantive content discussion, rather than merely about how to present an article.
I hope this helps. - jc37 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting me out of context. My point was simply that the dozen or so people you removed from the category pretty obviously should be there. They just need someone to find the sources and add the appropriate text, or just put in "source required"; why don't you spend your energy doing that rather than making the category less useful? cwmacdougall 05:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to articles on people we do not have as much leeway as the rest of the encyclopedia. I haven't looked over this specific situation, but just from reading the talk pages: a.)Sofixit is of course better than templating, but at least templating to note the needed info is likely a good idea b.) If you don't like part of WP:CAT, then, I suggest you start an RfC to change it. but in the meantime, specifically due to policies like WP:V, and WP:NPOV, categorisation is not to replace content. Content is required to be in an article before categorisation. And without such content in the article, the categorisation should be removed. Simple. straight-forward. c.) if the applicability of a reference for said content is in dispute, discuss it on the article's talk page. Follow WP:CON, and if need be, WP:RFC. In the special case of WP:BLP articles, the category should probably be removed in the meantime. - jc37 08:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really should look at these cases before intervening. cwmacdougall 11:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have only attempted to help you all by clarifying current policy, guidelines, and best practices. I have not "intervened" as yet, though I suppose I can, should it prove necessary. - jc37 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Pack Lambert (and jc37). A category is intended to capture a defining characteristic, and something not even mentioned in the article is hardly defining. The fault lies with the editor who added the unsupported category in the first place. Oculi (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the original "fault lies with the editor who added the unsupported category", but the issue under dispute is what to do about that fault, especially when the category appears correct and supportable: should the category be removed, support added, or lack of support noted? I think normally only the latter two. cwmacdougall 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material". If you think that the category should not have been removed, then you are welcome to add it once a ref is provided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but read the next paragraph: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". I so object. cwmacdougall 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about body text, you would have a point. But there is no mechanism for tagging a category as unsourced, so the only option is to remove the category. This should be done with an edit summary which clearly explains why the category is being removed. That way anyone watching the page can see what has happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is; see: User_talk:Good_Olfactory who suggested using Template:Category unsourced. cwmacdougall 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enderûnlu Fâzıl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Patricia T. Holland

The article Patricia T. Holland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN. Doesn't appear to be anything non-LDS about her; and her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. pbp 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Patricia T. Holland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia T. Holland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia T. Holland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. pbp 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia T. Holland

FYI, GoodReads (or any other social media site) isn't a reliable or verifiable source, and Deseret News and other LDS websites or publications are too closely tied to the subject (whose notability is "staked" on being an official of the LDS church) to be reliable sources in this case. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:V pbp 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would respond, but you have a very compative style so I will not bother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll respond to your comment you had up a few minutes ago. Yeah, it probably privileges antagonistic sources over favorable ones, but the point of WP:V is that is privileges neutral ones over either. I don't consider it "overly broad" to say that if somebody's notability is associated with an institution, any and all websites of that institution are off-limits as reliable sources, as are any "old media" outlets owned by said institution. If this person was truly notable, you should have no problems finding sources for here in something that isn't a website of a Mormon church or the Deseret News or a social media site pbp 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deseret News is a reliable source. Your massive attempt to exclude all sorts of sources is not justifiable. It is also not supported in general practice. We routinely allow all sorts of articles, such as those on Catholic Bishops, almost exclusievely based on Catholic publications. If your ideas were regularly applied we would delete most articles on federal judges because most of them in their current form are directly taken from a US government website. Your attempts at massivbe disallowance will not stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marcos A. Aidukaitis

The article Marcos A. Aidukaitis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient non-LDS-related sourcing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. pbp 17:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marcos A. Aidukaitis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcos A. Aidukaitis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos A. Aidukaitis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. pbp 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael John U. Teh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael John U. Teh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John U. Teh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. pbp 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining about me to other editors

Why do you feel the need to complain to other editors about an RfC/U? Why not just wait until the RfC/U has started and comment then? Starting an RfC/U is perfectly acceptable, as is corresponding with other editors about it. Complaining about said RfC to other editors before the RfC has even started, eh, not so much. And I must reiterate that if another user and I are chatting about your editing style (I.e. commenting time and time again; over 800 edits to CfD in a month), it means we have some genuine concerns. And a lot of editors have concerns about your edit style. Look at your talk page and archives, they are full of complaints about edit-warring, miscategorization, and CfD domination pbp 18:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE

You and PurpleBackpack need to get over this WP:GRUDGE you two are holding. WP:CANVASSING is not appropriate either. It's not a personal attack to start an RFC/U. I strongly suggest you two avoid each other. I'll be glad to block both of you for WP:HOUND if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

I don't work categories; heck, I don't use them or even understand them. What's more, I don't care about them. Yet you piqued my curiosity with this edit: I'm truly curious--is it standard practice to add non-existent categories to articles? HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it makes even less sense to create a category that does not yet have any articles. Sometimes if you only have one article that fits and you are working on other things it does not really feel worthwhile to go and create the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to reply. However, I remain confused. The category you removed was blue, the category you added was red. Doesn't this mean that you added a category with zero articles? HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It now has one article because I moved the article into that category. At some point someone has to be the one to put the first article in a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I get it. I'll just get in my Nash Rambler and get on home, then. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Grant Hardy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grant Hardy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Hardy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD tagging

I've noticed that where you make a group nomination at CfD, you (at least sometimes) do not link to the section heading of the discussion, e.g. at Category:Place names of Native American origin in Alabama.

When you nominate a category into a group discussion on the same day that the discussion starts, this is quite easy; you just add the section heading as a further parameter, e.g.

{{subst:cfd|Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States}}

or

{{subst:cfr|Speeches by writer|Authors}} (that one was not yours; see Category:Speeches by author)

If you've been doing that and it's not working, let me know as perhaps that could be the unspecified problem referred to at WT:CFD.

If you happen to tag a CfD page to add it into a group nomination after the start date, you have to make a second edit, changing the date in order to link to the relevant page.

Hope this helps! – Fayenatic London 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD of Category:American musicians of Hungarian descent

Hello. I have been cleaning up old deletion candidates and I have come across one which you have nominated for deletion but it appears you didn't add it to the CfD log. I am letting you know so you can either re nominate it/add it to the log if you feel it is still appropriate, or remove the deletion tag. -- Patchy1 10:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U notice

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Johnpacklambert)

Hello, Johnpacklambert. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert, where you may want to participate. pbp 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) pbp 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Greetings

Nightscream]] (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting]] (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merge

This merge request is a "non sense: 1) There's not Catgeory:Italian track and field athletes to merge; 2) There are 225 Categories to merge before "Italian athletes". --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing keeping you from complaining about the nomination at CfD. I see no purpose in complaining at my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xhosa Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Griqua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American actresses

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 Category:American actresses, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Nymf wabbit! 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia

You may want to look at the targets on this nomination. Also, leaving a space before a signature helps readability. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Category:American actresses

A tag has been placed on Category:American actresses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Alrofficial (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American actresses

Category:American actresses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Bronstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frownland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esma Sultan

I got this source, also in the Turkish Wikipedia she had four sons and one daughter...

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/turkey/i396.html#I396


She died giving birth to her fifth child, a son: Sultanzade Abdullah Bey Efendi (1899 - 1899) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.99.69 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Women

Thanks, I was about to revert my revert as I noticed it was my mistake - I was looking at the change and accidentally hit "undo". =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Supposedly they go on for a month, and since it was moved to projectspace on 24 December, I think we can say that it started then, so you have ten days left. Don't worry about it. Except for the two editors who certified the RFCU, all participants have said that you've done nothing wrong, so I'd advise you just to ignore it unless someone comes here to say "hey I left you a question; could you answer it". Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using edit summaries, especially at CfD

I saw a whole wave of your recent CfD votes, none of which had an edit summary, forcing me to look at each edit to see your vote and comment. Above and beyond the suggestions of WP:EDITSUMMARY, adding your vote (in full or shorthand) to the edit summary of your CfD edits will make it far easier for all CfD participants to be able to get a high-level overview by looking at the edit history or their watchlist. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I always though edit summaries were not needed at CfD. Most people do not provide them. Maybe I should have on my edits to a try make it work on a very complexed named category, but instructions seem to suggest they are unneeded when voting at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn is not alone here—I know that there are a number of editors that really appreciate users using edit summaries at CFD; it makes their experience at CFD easier to manage. Given that it's considered good practice to use them in general per WP:EDITSUMMARY, if users ask you to use them, you probably should consider doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • JPL, thanks for taking up this suggestion. I agree that other editors also need to be contacted, but it seemed to make the most sense to approach you first given your participation level. I see that many people who do use edit summaries use shorthand codes ("k" for keep, "d" for delete, "r" for rename, etc.), which only demonstrates that even the briefest summaries can be exceedingly helpful to get a grasp of where individual editors and the community stand on a particular discussion. Your use of edit summaries will also help push other editors to do the same across CfD. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ned Wertimer

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American male actors

Category:American male actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Tisch School of the Arts alumni

Hello. Regarding your recent addition of Category:Tisch School of the Arts alumni to articles, I just wanted to point out that Ethan Peck did not graduate, Harmony Korine only attended "one semester before dropping out" (and that is unsourced), and Joseph Kahn also "dropped out after one year". In addition, for articles such as Karen O, Bradford Anderson and Charles Olivier, the claims are unsourced and do not specify a graduation/degree. Please be a little more careful about adding the category to articles. If the page does not specifically state a graduation--just that the person attended, and there is no source--the category should not be added until further research is done for verification. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish female actors

Category:Swedish female actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Farrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Utica High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List

Hi Johnpacklambert. As a participant in this recent category deletion discussion, your input on this related list deletion discussion would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Just a word of support. While looking for something else I stumbled across the conversation about your conduct, a surprise, because I've been aware of your diligent and constructive editing for some time. All best to you and keep up the good work. --Lockley (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Plan (disambiguation)#geo parameter

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Talk:Plan (disambiguation).
Message added 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAA shenanigans

As you are clearly a hugely productive editor I hesitate to distract you, but as you recently commented on this I thought you might be interested in this proposal to ban me, and my counter-proposal re a topic ban on Laurel Lodged for multiple moves of GAA articles and categories. A related discussion, in which you might want to state a view, is here. Brocach (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language. Because you participated in the original discussion, you might be interested in the deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheheke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kirk Richards

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 Kirk Richards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. GregJackP Boomer! 13:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athlete category discussion

Hi. You recently commented on the discussion about athlete categorisation but I believe my nomination was not fully understood. Could you please revisit your comments based upon my explanation? Thanks. SFB 18:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actress cats

Any time. I'm going to start going through the broader category with AWB and refine what I find there, too. Not tonight; maybe this weekend, if I have a moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minnow for you, because of the dragons

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Hi JPL

I have just revised my closure of the CFD discussion of Category:Films about dragons to "procedural keep", because the category was not tagged.

Since you were the nominator, I will award a minnow (as a small trouting) for the oversight. You may also want to note my closing comments about an RFC on the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of French Mauritius

Hello, you should not have move Governor of French Mauritius to Governor of Isle de France according to WP:COMMONNAME, Mauritius was officially and widely known as Isle de France indeed if you look at at history book or other publications you will see that Mauritius is referred as Isle de France and Ile de France, whether in English or French, see [3].Kingroyos (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert it to Governor of Isle de France, it is not good as it is right now.Kingroyos (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses

I'm afraid you've opened a can of worms with your actress recategorizations. Sadly it's no longer politically correct to call actresses "actresses", it's female actors now officially, apparently. We had this discussion a few years back when I proposed splitting actors by gender and the consensus was strongly against splitting by gender and creating separate categories for actresses. Some actresses are offended by the term which they think puts them at an inferior status to men. I'm pretty sure they'll hit the CFD soon and all be reverted. I think it's ridiculous, but apparently that's what the status is nowadays.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I study of the Corpus of Contemporary American English clearly shows that actress is a currently used term and that no matter how much some people may dislike the term, it is the common and prevailing term that is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually not only did we have multiple CfDs on the issue, we had an RFC which clearly indicated a decision to split the categories by gender. If you look at the articles you will see that over 99% perfent of articles on females involved in acting describe them as "actresses". There is no where a strong move against the term, it is used in awards, and it is clearly used in speech. Claims to the contrary ignore reality. Bringing these categories up at CfD makes no sense when the clear consensus is to keep the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I argued the same point, we still say "American actress" not "female actor", but I'll be very surprised if you don't face a CFD and a force. I've alerted the film and actors project, as this is going against what was decided long ago. I'm not going to stop you but I'm sure somebody else will, just warning you. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American actresses was very recently at a CfD, with the close to keep. Slightly earlier there was a CfD on Category:Actresses by nationality and its subcats. I would advise you look at the history involved in the categories before attacking people for adding to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking you, I'm warning you that there was a strong consensus against splitting and naming the categories actresses about 2 years ago when I proposed a split. I agree, I think it makes sense and is easier for browsing but the force which I encountered no longer seems to be apparent if the categories were kept.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a forum discussion here about it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A goodle search will show mainstream publications using the term "actress" in the last few months. The term is still used, no matter what a few language-revisionist radicals try to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. Screen Guild is one of the most important institutions in the acting world.. I agree on actress but "male actor" is ridiculous. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to populate Category:Male kings and Category:Female queens too?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question to Alansohn, 26 times the actress categories got deleted.... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. I wouldn't set anything in stone in regard to them being here to stay permanently; your time would probably better spent writing articles..

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.

Cristy Coors Beasley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Producer
Dania Ramirez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, Johnpacklambert.

You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a CFD

I just moved the CFD for the assassinations categories that you started from February 6 listings to February 7 listings, since you posted it on February 7 (UTC). It is here now. I fixed the dates on the category tags so they point to the right place now. The transfer from one day to the other is an annoying thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

If people cannot have a repurposed valid category, then under the WP:OCAT; it ought to go. Sanskrit being one of the older languages that is studied well after its use in daily affairs has ended is one of the more likely to have articles on its words, rather than the meanings they translate into (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are also likely candidates, for similar reasons). Some of these are of interest to Biblical scholars as they appear as hapax legomenon or infrequently in the Bible and therefore may be susceptible to interpretation and nuance (like what is gopher wood?, where we have an article on the term and its various suggested meanings, rather than taking one of the meanings and giving a life cycle and ecology/botany article.). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Actress cats

Not a problem. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you are making a huge movement for these categories, not everyone agrees, TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) recently undid two of my edits: [4], [5]. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knutson

"Anyway, it is not clear people have to be notable to group their songs together. We only need reliable sources that show all these songs were written by the same person." So I can categorize "Now and Then There's Such a Fool as I" as "Songs written by Bill Trader" even though it's his only entry on BMI? "Gonna Take a Lot of River" as "Songs written by John Kurhajetz" even though, among the handful of songs he has on BMI, that was the only one that anyone recorded?

Furthermore, I scoured the web for Dennis Knutson and found bupkis. He is not notable, plain and simple. No one EVER wrote about him. Again, this makes no sense. Why categorize by what isn't there? We might as well categorize as "Songs where the session bassist played left-handed even though he's right handed" or "Songs that played on WATZ in Alpena, Michigan on February 6, 2013". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, we need to draw the line somewhere. Yes, every song has a songwriter. No, not every song is notable. Should we categorize every song by songwriter? Some people just write one or two songs here and there, then fall off the face of the earth. And that seems to be the case with him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there are five songs. 5 is generally accepted to be enough for a category. Your red herrings of one song or two songs are not the issue here. Anyway we do not have artilces on every song. I am not sure if the notability requirements for songs are the best, but I see no reason to not group these 5 songs. I also have no clue why you are carrying this argument to my talk page instead of just running it at CfD. The writer of a song is a notable trait of the song, thus it is worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying every song must have a "Category:Songs written by X" category? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_8#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War.
Message added 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ian Kimball

Proposed deletion of Richard Ian Kimball

The article Richard Ian Kimball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a biography article that fails to meet any of the WP:BIO notability criteria particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=537416483"