User talk:Bulldog123/Archive2

Welcome!

Hello, Bulldog123/Archive2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr (tɔk) 13:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bulldog123/Archive1

List of X-Americans

I've warned the editors in question that if I see them adding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living people again to the List of X-Americans articles, I will block them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started some talk on WP:Lists that you might want to give input on. Frankly there are just some groups on wikipedia that seem incessant on holding on to things in the face of all policy, logic, and good sense. See OS-Tan as an example. 3 attempts, not a reliable source to be found and we can't get the article deleted, because apparently they're just too cute so everyone thinks we should keep them.--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you eliminated most of the people listed on the List of Laotian Americans. You left a bunch of non Lao such as Vang Pao and deleted all of the famous and successful Lao Americans. Why did you do this? I reviewed the old list myself and almost all of those deleted where legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona lao (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your idea on my talk page

Of course, what you did with List of Austrian Americans or List of Brazilian Americans is very acceptable and you will notice I had no problem with them. I do the same thing with other lists what I watch. I do not have the time/resources to do generally do this work, but if you do, good. It was the blanking of articles and asserting that categories could replace articles that I had a problem with. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-American_lists

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian actors

Um, do you mind explaining why you transcluded the AfD page here? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changes to list of Hungarian Americans

Your changes of List of Hungarian Americans to List of Americans of Hungarian descent is not discussed or agreed to by anyone; is disruptive; makes this article different from all the others in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin and serves no useful WP purpose. You may be confused, but you offer no evidence that anyone else is. 'Hungarian Americans', like all other 'Booian Americans' includes the people who just arrived from Hungary and any of their descentants Your changes are just a repeat of your previous disruptive edits in this general subject area and of no help to WP. Hmains (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish philanthropists

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 20 [1] Your comments that this Category which I created "Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors" is inappropriate and unacceptable at Wikipedia. Disagreeing with any edit is fine, but personal attacks are not. I strongly suggest you refrain from any further such statements about anyone at Wikipedia. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello. Is there a reason you have disabled the link to your user and talk page in your signature? They are provided as a default for a reason. It is important for editors who are working on collaboration and engaging in discussion to be able to contact other editors. By removing these links, you are making this process difficult. In order to contact you, I had to look through the page history for your actual user name. My understanding is that the community frowns upon this type of signature and it could be perceived as "disruptive". Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Please restore the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brownhairedgirl, try to focus on the argument on cfds and not fall back on trivialities in an attempt to "win" something. Bulldog 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not affect the outcome of the CFD. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Internal_links, which says "It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log.". Note that phrase "at least one of those pages must be linked from your signature": is any of it unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly feel the need to annoy your fellow editors by not providing a link to your user or talk page, you must at least sign with your actual full username, i.e. "Bulldog123". Please govern yourself accordingly. See also Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:Bulldog123.23Signature. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why make it harder for people to communicate with you? How is that helpful? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog123's stated reason is "it saves people from leaving me passive-aggressive messages". Disliking the messages received is no reason for disrupting communication in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above indicated that it was OK to not have a user or user talk page link in your signature; I then read the addition by BrownHairedGirl above. Is there a particular reason you are ignoring the generally well-regarded signature guideline? Please consider putting at least one of these links in your signature. –xeno (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the whole thing was brought up by two users who have a grudge against me because of content dispute. Nobody seemed to care before then. Then BrownHairedGirl jumped on the bandwagon, most likely because she's peeved I was questioning her rationale on a recent CfD. Which, frankly, is immature. And had somebody else mentioned it first, perhaps in a less passive-aggressive way (wow - another example), I would have added back the link. But now it just seems like BrownHairedGirl is having a bit of an "authority-complex" issue. The I'm an admin, how dare you not listen to me-type of thing. So, it's sort of gnawing on me to ignore her. Bulldog123 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

had I come across you before, all content disputes aside, I would've asked you to add a link. There's no good reason not to have one. –xeno (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh* Fine. I'll put it in when I get a chance. Bulldog123 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (I wonder if perhaps you removed the link because you couldn't get the colours right? you can colour links by putting the color code inside the pipe... in case you didn't know) –xeno (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for the record, there are 339 other users called Bulldog who need diffrentiation! Thanks for agreeing to put the link in, therefore! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other complaints. Failing to provide a link is irritating, and (whatever the actual intention) it comes across as some gittish passive-aggressive agenda to disrupt the ethos of communication between users here. Enough people have told you this. Consider. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've already agreed to add the link back hours ago, who the hell is this^ ? Bulldog123 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So do it. Now. It's not an issue of "when you have a chance". As I'm sure you know, you just switch to signing with four tildes, thus ~~~~. You can elaborate it later. Treat it logically: ignoring emotive issues, a lot of people have told you that providing no link is disruptive to the communication that's a central part of collaboration here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to know who you are. You're not an admin, I've never spoken to you before, yet for some reason you've decided to pop in and give your unnecessary two cents - sorry if that makes me suspicious. Bulldog123 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for adding in the three numbers. But as per our policy on signatures, it's ideal to have a link included. There's no reason not to. I know you've said you'll do it "when you have time," but you can do it now, very quickly. If you go to Special:Preferences, and paste the code below into the "signature" box, check the "raw signature" box, and click save. Then it'll look exa ctly the same, colourful, it'll just link too. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]]

All right. Done. Jesus, never seen so much fuss over a talk page link. Bulldog123 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani RFC

Hello, Bulldog123. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for a long time, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

Could you please stop removing images that people have spent much time and effort searching, uploading, and aligning, such as you have done on French-Americans, Dutch-Americans, Swedish-Americans, etc. It is very time-consuming to replace what you have arbitrarily deleted without consensus. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would make a lot more sense if you discuss BEFORE random replacement of images we can't even verify. I also don't think a reader would benefit in any way just by looking at a few pictures of people who are maybe the 3rd generation from a mix of cultures. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think one image-of pirate Jean Lafitte sums up the entire representation of French-Americans, ditto for Dutch, Swedes, etc. I pointed out that the editors who had added the images went to a lot of trouble, and Bulldog deleted them sans comment. End of justification.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please include edit summaries

Just a simple and friendly suggestion - I've looked through your edits for the past few months, and I've noticed that very few of them provide an edit summary. Edit summaries are extremely important on Wikipedia, and it would be helpful to the overall Wikipedia project if you could please remember to provide one with each edit, even if it is only a simple explanatory word or two. Thanks, and happy editing. --Wassermann (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Susan118's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to leave this last night when I replied to your message, so maybe you already saw it by now. Thanks for coming by to discuss it. --Susan118 ^talk 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report

Hello, Bulldog123. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive_editor_back. Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Americans?

You realize you removed the entire template and not the image? If you have a problem with the image, why not take it on on the Template:Polish Americans talk page? Horvat Den (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Coach K? How is he not a Polish American? Dan Marino, okay, I can't find a good source for that. But Coach K? What about [2]? Horvat Den (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on WP:AN/I. They formed a virtual shooting squad against you. By the way, why'd you remove Martha Stewart from before? She has dozens of sources calling her Polish American. I'm not even gonna to bother listing them, just google it. Horvat Den (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute?

It's not a content dispute when you harass everyone who contributes to ethnic articles and try to force them to adhere to your views. Read the talk page of the German American article and its archives. The issue of who constitutes a German American was resolved by consensus long ago. --Sift&Winnow 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. this is not a constructive use of editing privileges. Please refrain from such remarks that may be considered trolling by other editors. — Ched : ? 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I sent you email last night to the address you have at your user page. Did you get it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, edit-warring

There was a robust talk page conversation at the Andre Geim page. It concerned both the concept and the actual text that you have now -- twice -- deleted. Kindly desist. That is edit warring, and editing against consensus. Please take this as a warning, in lieu of a template warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to edit against consensus with unsupported deletions at the same page. Please take this as a final warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have know extended your edit warring to List of Jewish Nobel laureates, deleting Geim despite robust supporting citations, against consensus. Please note the wikipedia rules against such deletions without an appropriate rationale, and the attendant sanctions, and consider this a final warning as to edit warring and inappropriate unwarranted deletions of sourced material.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy notification that your (Bulldog's) recent edits are under discussion at WQA. Feel free to remove this notice once you have read it. betsythedevine (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog, I want to apologize to you for my testiness about your edits. I have been editing Wikipedia quite a few years, in areas I thought were often full of controversy (political pages especially) but a longer exposure to debate at List of Jewish Nobel laureates has caused me to realize that my dream of consensus to be reached there by unswerving civility was a pipe dream. betsythedevine (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment at Talk:List_of_Jewish_actors

I largely agree with your recent comments. You want to nominate this list for deletion? I'll support you. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably do it, but I gotta prep myself for it first. You can't imagine the (for lack of a better word) sh*tstorm that ensues when these lists are nominated. Bulldog123 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I understand. Well keep in touch. I hate hate hate these kind of shinanigans and would be happy to help in anyway I can. NickCT (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick. If I start seeing more supporters than detractors, I'll go ahead and nominate it -- which may be soon. Bulldog123 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For your information, there is a larger discussion going on at BLP. I am not canvassing you in any way, and since we have discussed the issue at Andre Geim I just wanted to notify you that your efforts may be redundant, as there is a proposal to remove all ethnic/religious/orientation categories in Wiki. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like wishful thinking. I really doubt it will be possible to remove all ethnic-related lists given nationality/ethnicity overlap so often. Bulldog123 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd view

You've expressed the rather unique view that there is no such thing as a Romanian who is Jewish. And used that to make mass deletions. That view is not correct. Also, you are edit warring. Please take this as a kindly suggestion, of the final sort, to desist in making untrue statemetns, in using them as a basis for revisions, and in edit warring. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Divine intervention on Ashkenazi intelligence

Meh. I just don't care about it that much. But you're absolutely right of course. And the tag on the section - "This section is factually" disputed" is completely ridiculous. No one is disputing that the guy said what he's quoted is saying, so any dispute is over whether or not it's true. OK. So we are saying that it might be true, I guess.

Hoo-boy. I suppose next our article on the construction of the Hoover Dam will be rewritten to say "Another possibility is that the Hoover Dam appeared instantly one night, by magic, and the same magic altered the records and everyone's memories, and this cannot be disproven" or whatever.

Maybe the section should be rewritten thus:

Magic
Some analysts have suggested that Ashkenazi intelligence is due to the intervention of magical, supernatural, or alien entities.[ref]

Maybe I'll suggest this if I ever get back over there... Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting text in Ashkenazi Jews

You've deleted text with the reason "Link no longer active". That's no reason to delete and the thing to do in those cases is to tag as a dead link, which allows others to find a live source. A quick look on the Internet Archive would find archived copies, but I'm guessing you didn't look. This is all besides the fact that the material wasn't controversial at all. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Categories

Hi,

I just stumbled upon something that can, and should be mentioned in any related ethnic/religious discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EGRS

Specifically:

"General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations: 4) Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)"

In relation to the Andre Geim issue, and the more broad Jewish/Chinese/Etc scientist categories I think this pretty much settles it. Basically, unless the person's activities have something to do with the ethnicity/religion, they shouldn't be used. Regards,--Therexbanner (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea for you

Why don't you nominate for deletion this one? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this comment in response to Mbz1, the only reason it's a "relatively well kept article by comparison to others" is because I've been adamant in insisting it be properly sourced. On the other hand, for those who insist "Jewish" must also be "self-identification", and "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity", I doubt any of the sources used support that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that was Mbz1's intent; I think Mbz1 truly thinks that one should be deleted. And I think it's pretty clear to Mbz1 and anyone else that I'd be happy to have it deleted too; my efforts have merely been the "second best option". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One only should have taken a look at the article's discussion page to see that I'd rather had it deleted, but Bulldog123 came up with conspiracy theories and assumed bad faith. BTW, if you are to respond, could you please respond here. There is no need to have the same discussion in 3 different places. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where on that discussion page did you say you want the list deleted? The only thing you did on that talk page is complain about listing criminals as businesspeople. Bulldog123 03:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of the 5 current AfDs. Based on that, it should be more clear whether or not other lists should be nominated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, yes, but it is seen behind my comments. Because the article got the way it did, I strongly believe it should be better off deleted, and it is my own personal opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jayig. The thing is that when I commented on the article's discussion page I had no idea it could be nominated on deletion. Although I was contributing to wikipedia since 2007, I was mostly contributing images, and only in 2010 I started writing lots of articles, and even now there are still many policies that I do not know.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Outing

Hello bulldog. Could you please revert outing ASAP?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Why? Surreptitious canvassing is not allowed. Bulldog123 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, specifying that IP address belongs to particular editor is outing. It does not really matter who, and if was canvasing who. If you are to respond, please do respond here. There's no reason to have discussion in 2 different places.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can remove it if you want. It doesn't really matter. Bulldog123 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you removed it. It is your comment after all.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the relevant outed editor, I would prefer to have it removed, regardless of who does it, and I wouldn't mind an admin cleaning up the original post from my IP while we're at it. Also, Bulldog, I've answered your "five notable Jews" challenge at the laureates AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog, was there actually evidence of off-wiki canvassing in this case? I can't tell because of the revdeletes. If there is, can you please post that evidence at WP:ANI#Canvassing_by_User:Epeefleche? Thanks. SnottyWong ^gab 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog123 was referring to an email I received from Epeefleche, which was in neutral terms itself but may constitute canvassing depending on who else received it. The text of the email is: "Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors Best". I post the text for your reference, but I do not wish to participate in the ANI case and do not believe that any of the Jewish list AfDs have been improperly influenced by Epeefleche's actions such as to require intervention. My argument in the AfD he was referring to was a Keep, and after receiving this email I declined to vote on any further Jewish list AfDs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the honest assessment and for coming forward, DFW. SnottyWong ^prattle 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

duck

It is better if you report it at the correct noticeboard than speculate about it on the users talkpage when he is blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent CfD, following procedure

Hi Bulldog: As you may have noted I have actually been in agreement with some of your recent nominations of Jews' lists and categories. But, in your recent spate of nominating various lists and categories of Jews for deletion, in your haste and zeal, you have evidently overlooked an important WP:COURTESY of informing those users who have created categories etc that you are nominating their hard work for deletion, as advised on all deletion instruction pages, if you had cared to look. I have now recently done so on your behalf at User talk:Trident13#Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism and User talk:Wulf Isebrand#Categories for discussion nomination of Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism. You can find more information about how to go about doing so at pages such as Template:Cfd-notify, Template:Cfdnotice/doc and others like that. In addition, it is standard practice to ALSO notify the relevant WP deletion project pages, such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism at a minimum, as well as notifying users at WP:TALKJUDAISM about your concerns and nominations relating to many lists and categories that are of great interest and important to the Judaic editors there. Looking forward to your full cooperation in this regard, and hoping that no one has to run around and clean up after you in the future (because it's time consuming but unavoidable when you sincerely care about those subjects and are not just on a deletionistic rampage). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but IZAK needs to not accuse you of deletionistic rampage. As well, while it is courteous to notify other edits of a deletion nomination it is by no means policy. IZAK sometimes can say come across a little overzealous. Keep up the good work. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WP:CANVASS

Hi Bulldog123. As you were a chief complainant in the recent discussion of canvassing at list AfDs, I am sure you are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. You would therefore know that selectively inviting other users to AfDs on the basis that you believe they will support your position (as you appear to have done here) is very strongly against Wikipedia policy. Would you care to explain that diff? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)==[reply]

"Meatpuppet"

Regarding this diff, I'm pretty convinced from the editor's contributions that they're not a sock but rather a novice editor with an interest in Jewish faith and culture, but there's no harm in the attention you've drawn to their editing history. "Meatpuppet", though, is an unnecessarily offensive term, both to the editor in question and to others supporting the editor's position who might be implied to be "operating" the sock (see WP:MEAT). Would you care to perhaps withdraw the comment, or alternatively change it to read "Editors' attention is drawn to Wikipedia's policy on operating multiple accounts," or something similar? That would comply with the requirement to assume good faith and have the added advantage of linking to the relevant policy. It's generally regarded as bad form to alter another user's comment on a talk page, or I'd just edit it myself to reflect your presumed intention and allow you to revert if you disagreed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your advice, only because it's probably unwise to draw attention to it right now. Let the "editor" edit some more and we'll see if it was a single purpose account or not. However, novice editors don't "stumble upon" AfDs. Bulldog123 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List AfDs

Hey Bulldog, looking at some of your recent List AfD arguments, it seems like at least PART of your argument is saying, "Look, these lists are in bad shape, and I don't know how to fix them short of AfD." While that's still not a valid argument for deletion, would you be interested in getting my help cleaning them up and arguing at their talk pages after the AfD closes? I'm not hugely keen to work on them but it seems like it might be a more productive use of my time to improve them rather than just fight AfDs over them. - DustFormsWords (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Latest AfDs & Discussions

Hi, I just read something that I think describes the whole partisan situation pretty accurately: http://newskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-joke.html

In general, I think this applies to all encyclopedias (they are edited by people, and all people have biases), but in the case of Wikipedia, I think it is especially true.

Looking at the stats and seeing a few thousand admins, and a hundred thousand users, I can't help but wonder why important discussions gather no more than 50 people. I can understand that those others might not be interested in those topics (although they are very important), but doesn't that mean that only biased (opinionated) people would participate in the discussions?

Anyways, sorry about the rant, hopefully the editors who voted "keep" meant what they said about their desire to review, and improve the lists. We shall see.--Therexbanner (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Life is sad. We tried to persuade, we failed. In about two or so years, that list - with all the same problems it has now - will be put back up for AfD by someone. I'm pretty much certain of that. In any case, there's this movement to try to get Wikipedia programmers to build a feature where individuals can search by intersecting categories (it has a specific name but I can't seem to remember what it was called). If someone was interested in "Bulgarian Jewish actors with dwarfism" they could search the encyclopedia by intersecting the categories Bulgarian, Jewish, actor, and people with dwarfism and get a list returned to them. If that were to be implemented, all the lists under AfD recently would become obsolete and be deleted in a flash... essentially saving wikipedia's credibility. I'm really praying/hoping/yearning that that will happen one day. I'll probably see you at the eventual DRV for List of Jewish American entertainers. Though... given there's now precedent... I'm not going to participate much. Bulldog123 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish actors

Darn..... well. Might be wise to sit on this and re approach later...... NickCT (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or get to work on improving the article to deal with your content concerns, perhaps using Postdlf's proposed template for these lists. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... we're not the ones who wanted to keep it. I've already made my position very clear about the impossibility of an OR-free inclusion criteria. It's now your job to make the improvements you wanted. Get to work. Bulldog123 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want any improvements. I like the lists just fine the way they are. I've said this at each and every occasion you've suggested it. The problems were suggested by you, and for all I know may exist entirely in your mind. My offer to help address your concerns via your talk page above was ignored; I've thus moved onto a new article-improvement project. If you've got the energy to take these to AfD, and fight so strenuously for their deletion, but not to thereafter address the problems that you say exist in the article, then probably you're not really motivated by the desire to create a high-quality encyclopaedia. Or at least, that maybe those problems aren't quite so worldshaking as you'd have us believe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My !votes were not Keep and let's fix. My !votes were Delete. It's unfixable and here's why. Your !votes were the former, though, as entirely expected, you are denying the let's fix part, despite diligently researching the contents of several books on these topics, which would have been totally unnecessary if you believed the lists to be notable intersections merely because the words "Irish American actor" or "Jewish American actor" return google hits. Your point was that the topic was notable, and so the content (right now) doesn't matter. However, now you're saying the content is also notable and it totally 100% reflects the topic, even though your conversations with me frequently responded with remarks like - that can be changed by editing - instead of - No, you're wrong. It doesn't need to be changed. Here's why. A lot of passive argumentation going on there. So... that's what I'm saying... get to work. Find all those sources establishing the universal link between an actor's Jewishness/Irishness/Italian-ness and their acting... like you think did for Gene Kelly. Otherwise, they are just indiscriminate lists of smurfs sitting under an unrelated topic. Using your standards, most of the list entries are direct violations of WP:SYNTHESIS: Source 1: Will Ferrell described as Irish American actor. Source 2: Irish American actors is a notable topic because certain actors were pigeonholed into Irish American roles early in their careers. Source 1 + Source 2 = Source 3: Will Ferrell must be notable as an Irish-American actor just like the others. Also, if you believe the problems for the Jewish actors list existed entirely in my mind, you might want to go and contact User:All Hallow's Wraith, User:Yworo, User:Snottywong, User:Townlake, User:NickCT, User:Therexbanner, User:Spanglej, and User:East of Borschov and let them know their same concerns are fabrications of some DustFormsWords-diagnosed mental disorder I have. The other !delete voters were terse, so I don't really know their positions and won't speak for them. Unlike you, however, we've all since realized there is no way to make this list a notable (and non-SYNTH) intersection without supplying a contentious, potentially misleading, original research-derived criteria (which is disallowed anyway as the title of the article needs to reflect the contents 100%). Yet, not a single source was provided even defining exactly what is a "Jewish actor" or "British Jewish actor" and how, thereby, all the list's entries fall into that category - most of the information dug-up was laughable word matches on Google Book search. But the !keep voters were clear. These lists are notable because of tangentially-related source #1, tangentially-related source #2, and barely-related source #3. Literally 90% of the sources used to verify "Jewish-hood" on the Jewish actors article are from culture or ethnicity-promoting magazines/publications (Jewishjournal, Jweekly, JVibe, clevelandjewishnews, JewishTribune, TheJewishWeek, etc...), whose only statement-of-purpose is to make individuals proud of their (externally-imposed) ethnic heritage and thereby have Grandmother Muriel be happy that her favorite soap star is Jewish like her (by whatever criteria they see fit). User:Johnuniq did a pretty good job summarizing that last point in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD: [3]. If I was Epeefleche, I would have canvassed him to give his two cents in these debates, regardless of whether he !voted keep or delete (and either way, it would have been inappropriate). The point being: the sources in the Jewish actors article do nothing to establish the notability between being Jewish and being an actor - so go find the ones that do. By voting !keep it's fixable, that's now your prerogative. With that, we'll go about our different wiki-paths. I'd also appreciate if you'd abstain from talk page stalking unless you want to leave me a message directly. Bulldog123 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. (Oh, except I just spotted the end bit. Sure, if you don't want help or good advice, that's your prerogative. I'll confine interacting with you to AfDs.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian Americans

There is a long standing consensus written into WP articles that fooian Americans are based on the country the people came from. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. You seem to want articles based on ethnic background. Fine, create them. You can make articles named 'Ethnic fooian American' and 'List of ethnic fooian Americans' very easily by starting with the name, copying and pasting content from the existing country articles, then editing to remove all non-ethnic entries. In this way, you will not have conflict with the country-article maintainers, which is surely unpleasant for everyone, non-productive, and not helpful to WP. Think about it; try it and see. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US census treats Fooian Americans as an ethnic group. Most external sources treat Fooian Americans as distinct ancestral and ethnic groups. The numbers on the infoboxes treat Fooian Americans as ethnic groups. If Wikipedians formed some long-standing consensus (I'd like to see where that discussion was) that Fooian Americans should be treated as "based on the country the people came from" then we've engaged in original research and need to reform that immediately. Bulldog123 12:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to trace history in WP. What I know is that each 'fooian American' article states that the people involved are 'by country'. The consensus is that this is what WP editors have agreed to (by not agreeing to change this) for a long time. This is found in the first sentences of these articles--and they do not cite US census categories as justifications for these first sentences. The census does not dicta what WP does. It is every editor who has read or edited these articles, not just me, who consents to this. It is also previous attempts to change the articles or their categories which have failed every time--as you well know as virtually all your attempts to make such changes have failed and continue to fail. As I said, you and WP would be better served it you created articles that specifically say 'ethnic' in their name and purpose so there is no question about what they contain, instead of engaging in ongoing attempts to re-purpose the existing articles by deleting content and changing purposes one article at a time-- without discussion or agreement from anyone else involved with the articles, whether considered individually or collectively. Hmains (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, your position (as I understand it) against these ethnicity lists/categories has my full support (for reasons close to yours). Please keep me informed. Feketekave (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

You refuse to obtain consensus. Unilateral blanking of established content is vandalism. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Blanking" unsourced material is not considered vandalism per WP:V. Bulldog123 05:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:BLPCAT

The discussion doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, and looks more or less dead. To be honest, I'm not convinced that altering BLPCAT itself will really solve the problem, as BLP policy in general is ignored far too often. I'm inclined to think that it will be more productive for now to argue for stricter enforcement of existing policy than try to change it, when such change will have little real effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X-American-list-entry

Does this template have an option to provide a link to a disambiguated title? The list List of Irish Americans contains about 30 links that go to dab pages and not the correct article. Tassedethe (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Hi Bulldog123, may I please ask to stop using the words "garbage", when you are are talking about my work. Also I'd like to use an opportunity and ask you to stop trolling and spreading lies about me like you did here, when you said about me: "Fact is, user has 10 blocks in her block log and appears to regularly hound more than 5 users". I have never hounded anyone, but have been hounded myself. I am not looking forward for your response, but, if you are to respond please do it here.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bulldog, Mbz1 also responded to my Delete !vote on her AfD with even more outrage, following that up with a message on my talk page, again claiming my statement (that this was her third self-nominated DYK in a month on the theme of stupid/murderous Muslims) was false. I tried to find out what part of my statement was incorrect, but all I discovered was even more evidence that since returning from her latest block she has been misusing the DYK system to plant links to POV content on the front page.

Mbz's talk page and yours are on my watchlist because I once posted there, btw, which is how I knew about her other recent DYK articles in the first place. betsythedevine (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not hard to promote a DYK when all you need to do is get one crony to call it interesting and another crony to verify it as DYK-ready. I wonder on what speed-dial settings she has brewcrewer, Jalapenos_do_exist, and Broccolo. 1, 2, and 3? Ready to vote-stack whenever an agenda-threatening AfD shows up? Still not sure which one's Shuki... maybe one I'm overlooking. Bulldog123 07:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog123, this really isn't helpful. Sean.Hoyland, for example, is not a "crony" of Mbz1's; quite the opposite, if anything. I've never seen Mbz1 do or write anything that was deceptive or dishonest; if she said she didn't contact people regarding that AfD, then she didn't. Please stop making the accusation here and on the AfD; it's not fair to her, it's not good for you, and it's not making it more likely that article will be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I respect you as an editor and agree with most of your positions, I'm going to have to say this is an instance where your assumption of good faith borders on naive. Here's another example of that naivety. We need to set aside politics for a second and acknowledge when people are obviously using this encyclopedia for propagandist purposes... which is the case with Mbz1's use of DYK. Bulldog123 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people use Wikipedia for propagandist purposes – in fact, many articles on both sides of this topical area exist for no other purpose – and, regarding "politics", I count at least four editors who have !voted on this AfD who consistently edit Wikipedia from the opposite political POV of Mbz1. Politics are endemic in Wikipedia in general, and certainly in this topical area. It's naive to imagine they will somehow disappear for this specific AfD. However, that's all irrelevant to the issue I've raised, which are these personal comments and accusations. If Mbz1 says she did not ask these people to !vote on this AfD then I believe her, and in any event these accusations do no-one any good. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Jayjg , I have to concur with Bulldog123 here. I'm surprised you could see this and not be at least suspect a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from this user. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 is obviously distressed because of these accusations, and no doubt because of other recent events affecting her on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, even if she expresses her distress in an inappropriate way, that's no cause for continuing to make claims that she explicitly denies. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(restart indents) If we cut Mbz1 some slack for being distressed by Bulldog's arguments, I think we should give Bulldog similar slack for being distressed by her attacks and taunts at him, first on the AfD and now here on his talk page. I look forward to seeing Jayjg address Mbz1 on her talk page to ask her to stop insulting people who disagree with her, it doesn't help her cause either. betsythedevine (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I told Mbz1 I'd stop talking about her unless an RFC pops up, so I'm just gonna stick with that right now. Self-imposed interaction ban. Bulldog123 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling!

That poor bulldog

Got lost in socks,

Cannot get out of the fog

To file complains, ask for blocks...

I feel so sorry for bulldog!

He does not sleep, he does not eat,

He's only searching for my meat

He lost the last of self-controlling,

And only trolling, trolling, trolling. :-)

It is scary to think that such users as you are could make such contributes as I am blocked. Poor wikipedia!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The level of defensiveness that you feel about all this only substantiates what I believe as true. If you actually believed I was trolling you (for what reason, I don't know), you'd ignore it completely. Bulldog123 20:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The level of defensiveness"? Not at all. I'm simply having a great time, and I do thank you for your posts that I cannot stop laughing about. :-) BTW did you like my poem? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was okay, I guess. Bulldog123 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, this is getting a little disturbing now. Your poems aren't good, and I don't think they're appreciated. If you and Bull have been having trouble, perhaps a voluntary interaction ban might be in order. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to make it (the poem that is) funny, and I believe it is funny. About the interaction ban, sure,I will vote for this with both hands, if it means that bulldog will stop commenting on me in almost each and every of his post. Bulldog, are you OK with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. I changed my !vote to express a merge compromise on the AfD (which likely won't be accepted, but whatever). I won't comment on you any more unless an RFC comes up regarding your shady DYK contributions. That's all. Bulldog123 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that RFC... I guess one day I will be banned as many content contributes have been, poor, poor wikipedia.

BTW I have to admit that my opinion about you became just a little bit better, when you did not get angry with me because of my poem. I simply tried to be funny, and not offensive in any way. Of course I realize that the culture I came from, and my sense of humor could be very different from yours, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogons had a different culture, too, as was realised when experiencing their poetry. Any similarities are purely coincidental. Mbz1, although you happily ignored my advice, I am glad that your latest article is something that (as I read it in the current version) tries to appeal to all sides. I hope it is well received! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting fond of my friends here

How many accounts do I need to list in my newest addition to SPI from this AFD you've got going on? LOL Dusti^*poke* 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for Bulldog

		Civility Award
		to Bulldog, for recent forbearance when provoked, including your recent responses to Mbz1, your kind message on my talkpage even though I had criticized you, and above all your refusal to be trolled by people who just love to watch a good fight. betsythedevine (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, another barnstar?

They're starting to pile up here.

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For clearing up every single dablink in List of Irish Americans

Thanks! --JaGa^talk 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White people

Hi, saw your comment in Talk:Non-Hispanic Whites, and I wondered what your opinion of Template:White people (at the bottom of the article) was? I've amended it slightly ;-) but frankly I think it needs to be deleted with rapidity. Where would be the best place to inform interested parties of this monstrosity, with regard to removing it from sight? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would consider that edit to be vandalism.—Soap— 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider it vandalism, report it as such. I consider the template racist, and as such a violation of policy in any article referring to living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images RfC

Hi. I just wanted to check whether you still plan to start an RfC about the use of images in ethnic group article infoboxes, as discussed here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Declined PROD, now at AfD: Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva

Sorry for the extra loop around the administrative track, details of my declining the PROD and AfD nomination are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva. Your input it welcome. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing...

Yet another AfD on a jewish BLP in which Epee is heavily involved that ends in no consensus, due to a chorus of too many voices contributing to the discussion. Curious. SnottyWong ^gab 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny. More depressing. And totally expected. Bulldog123 08:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, totally predictable. "Ooh, look at all those sources! How can you possibly delete that?" Also doesn't impress me much that AfDs like this get closed without any rationale explaining how the closer evaluated the discussion in making their judgement. Just looks like avoiding the issue to me. _wjemather ^bigissue

I'm still reeling from the shock that you were given a 48-hour block for supposedly "harassing" Epee. It's like opposite-day over here. Bulldog123 23:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who was blocked? SnottyWong ^chat 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather. See his block log. Sorry, I meant to say "from a few weeks ago." Bulldog123 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I checked wjemather's block log before and it was empty. I must have checked the wrong log. Anyway, I found the block and the unblock requests. That block seems like it was clearly uncalled for. I can't believe that it was upheld by two other admins. I didn't know you could get blocked for telling someone you think their opinion is worthless. I've been called an asshat before and there were no blocks handed out. SnottyWong ^comment 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tb

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Joe Decker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"no proof of notability"

Could you explain exactly what that means, here, for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a "see also" section. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence this person is notable for being a Jewish tennis player as opposed to "a tennis player" or "Jewish" -- as would be needed to legitimize the intersection. Of course that's too long of an explanation to put in the edit summary. Adding the "See Also" link is just a way to avoid adding categories (in some cases, not the one you linked to though). Sly little technique. If you find more articles that to do, please remove them on sight -- perhaps with a more targeted edit summary than the one I have. Bulldog123 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but where consensus is that such people's cultural identity should be noted, exactly what is the problem with the link? A category would be perfectly appropriate given that such a category exists; please try to assume good faith in the original article writers. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's questionable whether that category is appropriate to begin with. It simply hasn't been reviewed yet. But that's for another discussion. Consensus is that the person's cultural identity is notable - sure - that's why they have cultural identity categories. No consensus exists to suggest the mishmash of their profession and cultural identity is notable... especially not for living people. No evidence to suggest that person in particular would consider himself a "Jewish tennis player" or that "Jewish tennis play[ing]" defines this person enough to add it to a "Related Links" page. That's just the assumption of the editor adding it. It would be like adding the link List of Catholic authors to Cormac McCarthy's page. Bulldog123 08:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note three AfDs, one keep, two no consensus, on that article. Clearly there's at least no consensus that the concept isn't notable. If you wish to establish consensus that this is not the case, perhaps by MfDing that category, fine - but until then, I'm following WP:BRD and reverting your edits. Please do not restore them until you can establish some sort of consensus that this kind of action is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ironholds, but I'm going to have to WP:BEBOLD as well and revert you back. Whether List of Jews in sports is deletion-worthy on not isn't part of the discussion at all, because the list (and its criteria) can and probably will change. This is an individual article-by-article discussion and it appears you're ignoring any notability requirement here (especially for some of the BLP articles this is happening to). Also, I've never seen consensus that this "spamming a link to the See Also section with peacocky words like select" has ever been supported before (or used for that matter). Finally, requiring that I need "community consensus" to remove unnecessary spam is a little farfetched because the "default" of an article is not Jewish, the default is nothing, especially for BLP articles (which I've just gone through and removed as well). If you can provide sources that call these people "Jewish wrestlers" (I think there might be one for Bill Horowitz) then add the categories. Right now, the main concern is getting the stuff off of the body of the article and the categories will be dealt with later. Much like if the header of the biography wrote "BLAH BLAH is an Jewish American swimmer" instead of "BLAH BLAH is an American swimmer." That would be removed on sight and you wouldn't even question it. There has to be some evidence somewhere that these people are notable for being Jewish swimmers... or in the very least Jewish people (not even that is present in most of these articles). Not just that they happen to be both at once... which is how it is now. I've also opened up a broader discussion about this Tag-a-Jew hobby-editing here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_Jews_in_sports. Bulldog123 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish cricketers

Hi Bulldog123. I note this edit. While I don't have a problem with removing the "See also" it is not the done thing to empty out categories that you oppose. Rather you should seek the deletion of the category. If you think the categorisation is inappropriate, take it to WP:Categories for discussion. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the category there was an accident. I had done it on a page previously that used a blog as a source and accidentally did it there too. Bulldog123 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian American

Why have you removed some of the celebrities?! They all have Russian roots!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.85.216 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article isn't titled "People with Russian roots." Also because you can't seem to prove it. Bulldog123 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category Russian Americans implies that these people are or were born in Russia or have Russian ancestry! I dont know, check Italian Americans or Dutch Americans or others, there write: "A Dutch American is an American of Dutch descent. American of Italian ancestry." Russian Americans too! Or you do not believe that Dicaprio, Jovovich of Russian ancestry? So check their profiles. I dont understand you. This is some nit-picking, i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.85.244 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating they may have Russian ancestors... I'm debating they are poster-children for "Russian Americans" - especially since we can't prove they identify as such and have slim-to-no sources claiming they are. In fact, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russian American turns up almost no references. He's clearly not a good example. Bulldog123 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice re use of "Yellow badger" as a slur

Please refrain from referring to other editors with any kinds of disparaging or pejorative terms, especially terms that evoke some kind of connections to historical atrocities or that are connected to notions genocide - that kind of communication is not going to foster anything but trouble. If you keep finding it too hard to interact civilly with other editors regarding the labelling of people by ethnicity/religion I suggest that you find a different area of the encyclopedia that you can edit with more peace of mind. Otherwise if the pattern of incivil interactions persist you may face sanctions. Happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for using that term and won't do it again, but if anything, can we get User:Alansohn to stop filing AN/I reports on me every opportunity he can? It's a clear attempt to "shop for a block" because of a content dispute we're in. He felt no need to report the user who had used the exact same term earlier, and didn't even mention it in his rationale. Bulldog123 02:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to do that would be to stop giving him opportunities. I happen to sympathise with your view regarding the apparent compulsion of some editors to label anyone who might be Jewish as such - and to make long lists of those such labelled - but that discussion can and should be conducted in a collegial spirit or not at all. If you do this and he still brings it up at ANI the boomerang will hit him and not you.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Roman Catholic writers

I've closed this discussion with a "rename and prune" result. Could you do the pruning?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do it. Bulldog123 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American sportspeople of German descent

Just an FYI, but this category wasn't tagged during your mass "American sportspeople of European descent" categories nom, so I didn't feel comfortable deleting it. I won't have a problem with deleting it per C1 once it is empty for 4 days, however (although if someone were to recreate it, it wouldn't qualify for a G4 deletion as recreation). You may wish to do a new nom for this category if you want G4 deletion precedent to apply to this particular category. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I must have accidentally missed tagging it. Bulldog123 08:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Bearian

Each of you asked for my comment. I'm posting the identical answer on each talk p. Bearian, I've learned not to use the word vandal or vandalism with respect to any established Wikipedian, no matter how unconstructive their editing. (But it does occur fro time to time in my edit summaries when I use a so called "Friendly" template, and if there's a complaint I apologize.) Even when they are actually doing the sort of thing that we would call vandalism if done by a outsider, it tends to evoke hostility. On the underlying dispute, Bulldog, the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many warnings? I see NO warnings aside from questions about why I do it (and a reference to me marking an edit as minor by accident). Would you honestly support blocking me for content-related disputes? Are you being serious? I can't even tell. I have a legitimate policy-based reason for every edit I made -- including the removal of the SPAMing of "See Also" links that is used in an improper way. Where in WP:BLOCK does it say I can be blocked for disagreeing with your opinion on the use of ethnicity-related category/lists? Bulldog123 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood several points. First, many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second, it is not wrong to take a different position of XfD; it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content, just as it is wrong to subvert a delete by reconstituting it slightly differently under a different title. But even that we were opposed is enough for me to explain that just this is the reason why it is not I who will block you; I learned very early on in my service as an admin never to block my opponents. That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to, but I never even do that. If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them. I remind you that you asked me on my talk page to comment on the issue. When people ask, they get the best answer I can give them, which is not always the one that they wanted. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content, just as it is wrong to subvert a delete by reconstituting it slightly differently under a different title. As I've stated before and I'll state again --- this is the misrepresentation that is being flailed about by Greg L and Epeefleche. I've never made an edit that was not supported by a policy or guideline interpretation. Therefore it is wrong to treat my edits or contribs like vandalism. Bulldog123 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG points out, a "warning" need not be a template message to be characterized as such. Even an extremely cursory review of your talk page reveals a large number of warnings: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (re [12]), [13], [14] (re [15]), and [16].

~~These are all clearly warnings, some explicitly so and some implicitly so.~~ ^Bongo_matic 03:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that last comment feels like "Let's bash Bulldog with stuff from the past." With the exception of a few, almost all of those "warnings" are from users who I've had ongoing content disputes with (nearly half from Epeefleche and Badagnani). I didn't mean I've never had warnings. Although I have had few formal legitimate warnings. I meant I was not given numerous warnings for removing Epeefleche's spam of See Also links on African American pages -- which is what was implied and is absolutely false. How are warnings from the past relevant and is it fair to judge them without knowing the context? Bulldog123 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your last edit on my p. was a good idea, In its spirit, feel free to remove this comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't understand what you intended and (despite the ambiguous language) I'll take you at your word and refactor. Feel free to delete. ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]