User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3

Category:Pre-Contact Hawaiian royalty

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_14#Category:Pre-Contact_Hawaiian_royalty. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Karbi people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burmese (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) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gondola lifts subcategory proposal

Hello, you recently participated in a CFD relating to Gondola lifts in Hong Kong. The close rationale at that discussion suggested there may be consensus to merge each country subcategory into Category:Gondola lifts, however that outcome was outside the scope of that CFD and would require a new discussion. As such, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 7#Subcategories of Category:Gondola lifts by country has been created. Since you participated in the previous CFD, you're invited to leave your comments at the new CFD. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of categories

Some of these removals may be legitimate, but we have no way of knowing that because you did not provide an edit summary. Please explain on the article's talk page. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catergories

Hi John, I know what a pain unreferenced catergories are but I have noticed you have deleted referenced catergories in some BLP's. Just a heads up to check the article for a mention of such. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of a "referenced category" I have deleted. I am thinking that the deletion may be based on a view that the category is being misused. The two main views I have operated on that have caused this is the view that people should only be in x people of y descent categories for their place of birth and that people should not be in both x emigrants to y and x exparttriates in y places (though x expatriest in y and x emigrants to z categories can both apply to the same person). At some level I am less than convinced the expatriate/emmigrant category divide even makes sense. I wish we could move everything to emigrants, but I can see how that term would not work in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2] and [3]. All referenced within the articles as being of x descent or decents. Quite clearly that is what the catergory is for. Murry1975 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "people should only be in x people of y descent categories for their place of birth" is incorrect thats not descent. Thats either nationality, citizenship or most commonly place of birth. Descent is of where their ancestry is from. Murry1975 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed those. sometimes the identifications are buried in the article. The categories are clearly over taxed. What I meant is that if a person is born in Colombia, their parents were from Lebanon and they immigrate to the US, they should be in Category:Colombian people of Lebanese descent and Category:Colombian emigrants to the United States but not Category:American people of Lebanese descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens to everyone. Thats the way I read it to. Take care. Murry1975 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we do not do place of birth categories. The directive is that "place of birth is rarely notable for the individual". We do place raised categories which often are the same thing, and there is no clear consensus on how long a person has to be in London to be filed under Category:People from London. The same goes for all the sister cats of that. In the US there is no clear consensus on if Category:People from Detroit, Michigan should be for the city proper or the metro area, and no one seems to be sure at what point a city gets a Category:People from Troy, Michigan category, and when it is like Clarkston, Michigan and we put people there in Category:People from Oakland County, Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Alfred Arteaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Monte Vista High School

Anthony Bonvisi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Devonshire

William Swain (Marshalese Ambassador) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marshallese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

country categories

Hi John - I'd like to request whether you would agree to talk about ethnicity/nationality/etc in a different forum - I'm hoping the discussion I started can lead to consensus on some simple things (like immovable objects), and while your points on ethnicity are very good, I'm afraid in the context of this particular discussion they may make it hard to reach consensus if we try to address that now. What do you think? --KarlB (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where should I discuss the issues of ethnicity verses nationality?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is such a complex topic, I would suggest an RfC, or perhaps a different discussion on the same board. Another suggestion would be, wait to see if we can get consensus on something simple like immovable objects, then once that is achieved, then move on to talk about history/culture, and then move to come to a general consensus on nationality/ethnicity/etc - which goes way beyond categorization IMHO. but I don't really know the best place to have those discussions. --KarlB (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 13#Bridges completed by decade

I fixed a typo is your response to point to the actual category name in the example you used. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rees's Cyclopaedia - Contributor John Duncan

Thanks for your comment. No, this John Duncan was a practical weaver, patentee and writer, but his biography is a mystery. I am, in the middle of writing a WP page about him which I will post shortly. Kind regards, Apwoolrich (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Duncan, (weaver) is now posted. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your approach on today's CfDs

You seem to want to make BrownHairedGirl the enemy, which seems unfair to her. She's done a ton of work to get the debate this far, logically and dispassionately. While you don't have to agree with her, I really hope you'll moderate your tone somewhat. Okay?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your justification, your tone comes across as accusatory, mean-spirited, and misplaced. BHG is an Irishwoman; she has no interest in fluffing up the British upper crust. Please aim toward civility.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to tolerate such inconsistency in application of rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravians are university alumni, not high school ones. As far as I know this is the only example in the entire tree Category:Alumni by university or college which does not use 'Alumni'. (Oxonian would be a British equivalent.) Oculi (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This just goes to show even more that there is some failed logic in defending any denonym for an educational institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it ok for other people to go around calling my nominatiobns that were built around trying to apply actual existant rules "absurd". This type of ad hominem attack is frustrating, but I am willing to risk it to try to get the Republic of Ireland categories organized correctly. It is frustrating though that people claim nominations made with the goal of improving the situation are "absurd" and "disruptive".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's okay. But even though that's true, it's much worse to use the words "racist" and "elitist" to describe the actions of another editor.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To follow this up, I just closed this nomination where you also used the term "racist" to describe yet another editor's actions. This is just not acceptable terminology for debates like this. Please don't do it again, or I'll explore actions that I really would rather avoid. You seem a solid contributor to CfD; it would be a shame if that contribution was overshadowed by careless accusations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Racist means to base things on race. How else am I supposed to describe the attempt to lump together the Chamorro and Native Hawaiian ethnic groups. This is clearly a classification of people by race, which at heart is what racist means. You are attacking me for using in a non-pejorative and accurate way a term that at heart is a description of how one views others, not how one values others. You are assuming that in that context "racist" meant "x-supremacist" but that is an unwarrented assumption in the context of what I was really trying to point out. Maybe i should have said the person was engaging in "racilizing dialogue". However, I am unconvinced that that would actually please people. The basic fact is people are trying to create categories by race and pretend that they are by "ethnic group", but now you are trying to make it even harder to point out what they are doing without getting attacked for it. I am trying to get people to pay attention to the fact that we do not classify people by race, a fact that people seem to ignore way to much. You are probably right that my exact choice of words was not the best, but my point that it is, I guess maybe "racializing" would be a better choice of terms, to merge together people from totally different ethnic groups into one large and afactual group I think is valid. The idea that there is a shared ethnic group of Pacific Islanders is false, and the more I think about it the more it seems racist, as in it is based on the assumption that race has real value in the real world and is a real thing. I am sure that is within the standard defi9nition of racism, although it is not the average definition of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not calling a person racist. I was calling the scheme of treating all people whose ancestors lived for long periods of time in the Pacific Islands as a single ethnic group racist. I think that is a distinction worth making. I am not sure it will change your view on the matter, but it was meant to be a substantive criticism of the whole proposed scheme for classifying people. Anyway, I would argue that the under-lying logic of it in the context of people involved in pornographic production would lead next to having a category for quadroons in which we have people put entertainers in that category based on their physical skin color without regard to any evidence of the person ethnic or cultural heritage. I have already seen that done with the fortunantly no longer extant category Category:Saudi Arabian people of black African descent where the placement of 95% or more of the articles was as far as I could tell based on looking at a photo of the subject and saying "a person that dark must be of African descent". That was actually an argument put forward in favor of keeping the category "we can tell these people belong in the category because they are dark". We say we do not allow categorization by race, but a real assesment of many of our categories shows they are being used as "by race" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will agree I went too far. However too many people are trying to use ethnicity as a standin for race. It is not. Ethnicity must reflect actual cultural affiliation. The very heavily by background Catholic Chomorros are clearly a different group by ethnicity than the Hawaiians. Lamping them together is an action of classifying people by race. We do not classify people by race if we follow the rules. Maybe I should not get so worked up over this, but not classifying people by race means more than figuring out how to word categories so they sound like ethnic groups and not races. It means reflecting real ethnic groups in categories, and there is no real ethnic group that includes both Hawaiians and Chomorros.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic is sound. Just please tone down the invective before somebody really loses it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: Emigrating does not imply naturalization

But of course we do. A person who has merely settled in Peru but is a Romanian national is just that: a Romanian in Peru. Otherwise, Hemingway would be a Cuban writer, Rimbaud a Somali poet, and Sun Yat Sen a Malay politician. Dahn (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited John Tanner (Mormon), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lake George, New York and Cottonwood, Utah (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, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the Cottonwood we actually wanted to go for the vaguely defined area, not onew of the more specific subjects of disambiguation. When John Tanner died Cottonwood was just the vague area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking across many articles

Could you explain why you're blanking categories and images from several articles all having to do with the adult entertainment industry? Dismas|^(talk) 05:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering too what's going on ... you gave no edit summary for the removal of the photos on multiple articles. What is the reason for removing them? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm still interested in a response to this question. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring these inquiries is probably not the best strategy. I know it was awhile ago now, and it hasn't been repeated, but some sort of explanation could put minds at ease. If there is an explanation, it should be stated. Or if doing so was a mistake and you regret it, you could simply acknowledge that as well and we could all move on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say most of the revisions were unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a diplomatic—or at least non-self-incriminating statement—that the finest legal tradition could be proud of! Hopefully, this can satisfy Dismas and we can put this behind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfy, no. But I guess it's the best I'm going to get. John, please see WP:POINT. If you have a problem with those articles or images, make your issue clear on the appropriate stage. Dismas|^(talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heavenly Principle‎

The article Heavenly Principle‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian novelists

Please note that I'm reverting this edit you did to Category:Armenian novelists. Please note that the category Category:Novelists by nationality exists, and he category Category:Novelists by ethnicity doesn't; and that Category:Armenian novelists is underneath the category Category:People by nationality and occupation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the category are there based on ethnicity, not nationality. If we limited the category to connection with a specific nation we would have to remove many of the people in the category since they are not Armenian by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John M. Moody

Since you're still active, thought I'd give this to you: his current burial appears to be here, with an original burial here. Note Template:Find a Grave is available for use. Dru of Id (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inscrutable category removal

Please explain this edit on my talk if you don't mind. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah That makes sense in its own way--can you provide me with some evidence that this is consensus? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it was clearly the policy stated on writers long before I tried to make sure it was actually followed. The explicit directive to not put writers from majority-English writing nationalities in the English-language writers cat was added as a heading note to the category by the user Mowsbury on 15 May 2007. Mowsbury has not made a contribution to wikipedia since early April 2011, so I am not sure it is worth asking them what the thought process was involved there. I did just post a question related to this subject on the category naming talk page, and I thought I had placed another question about it elsewhere in the past, but I am not sure where. At some level I am not sure singers-by-language sung in is a worthwhile category. In some key ways this is closer to "People who have read works in English" than "English-language writers". True, most singers are at least somewhat familiar with the languages they sing in, but when people get in 5 or more singer by language categories you begin to wonder, especially since in some of those cases it is because they were opera singers. On the other hand, most people only fall into one singer-by-language cat, or two if you count the dominant language of their country of origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have explained what you did and why you did it. It looks rather weird, like on Sean Og.. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

race and ethnicity

Hi per this [4]; you've stated several times that african-american is an ethnicity (which i agree with), but these films are currently categorized under Category:Films about race. Even the title of the category says "Race-related films are films wherein the race or ethnicity of the actors plays a significant role during the events of the film." Here is a source that talks about race and ethnicity in films as a group: [5]. overall my feeling is, as currently titled the categories suggest that films about native americans are films about "race", when in fact they are much more about ethnicity. Is there any evidence I can bring to bear to help convince you to change your mind? I'm afraid that creating a separate category Category:Films about ethnicity would be even more fraught with difficulty - how would we decide what goes where? Especially in america this line is too fuzzy, and sources use the terms often interchangably. --KarlB (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fleischman

Please use the edit summary (or better yet the Talk page) to explain your attempts to remove RF from the category "English language singers." He is an English-language singer. By the way, how do you like Wayne State? I was there for the first time for a conference in October--and will be back next October for the same annual conference. Dave Golland (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s

You commented at Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s. I have found sources for most of the articles involved and updated them. So if you are interested, you may want to read my comments about what I found and see if that impacts your opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian studies books

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 4#Category:Books about Christianity. Please comment on a revised proposal there. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College cheerleaders in the United States

Thank you so much for all your help with the category! --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your support. I wonder if it might be good to create an article on the National College Cheerleading championships.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good idea. We just have to make sure we write about the correct national competition, since there tend to be quite a few competitions called 'Nationals'. Are you referring to the NCA College Nationals in Daytona Beach, FL? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, I just know I have seen references to it and listings of it among some colleges' national championships.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The University Barnstar
		For diligently improving university articles. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brian C. Hales for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian C. Hales 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/Brian C. Hales 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel Street (pastor)

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 Samuel Street (pastor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tullio

What is the idea behind the new category on Paolo Tullio? Are there enough Italian emigrants in Ireland to fill the cat? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know for sure, but since this is clearly part of a larger scheme, there is not a very high minimum number requirement. What I do know is that the vast majority of people who have emigrated are not yet categorized. There are also lots of articles on people who emigrated that currently neglect to provide this information, and lots of notable people who have emigrated who currently lack articles. I so no reason to doubt that it will be possible at some point to add additional people to this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a larger scheme. Hmmm, but I still don't like the category. Maybe I'm itchy at that point, but that category looks vulnerable for discrimination to me. Why should you categorize people on that? But I have the same questions with categorizing people on faith, sexual preference and the like. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Romney

Hi Johnpacklambert. I happen to have a picture of Miles Romney's gravestone and wondered if it might be of use to the article? I have a shot of the original stone and the modern version which sits at its back, and I'd be happy to upload them if you would like. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took them myself in 2009, so the licensing shouldn't be a problem. I just didn't want to overwhelm the article with potentially unwanted images. I thought I'd ask you, since you created the article. I'll upload them then and let you decide. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are now. Perhaps they might work best in a gallery, if suitable? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD June 6

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_6#Category:Early_Islam_era_poets.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please also see the following section on Irish abortion providers. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of article "Thomas L. Short"

Proposed deletion of Thomas L. Short‎

The article Thomas L. Short‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.

- - -

Sorry if this is a bother. I'm the creator of the article. Nobody else has worked on it much, but I figure I should notify at least a few people, and you did the most recent tweak. - The Tetrast (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Collin Raye

Please do not change his date of birth. There are conflicting sources as to whether it's 1959 or 1960, and it should not be changed until we find something official. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eborn Books for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eborn Books 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/Eborn Books 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. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Chand Sultan (Ahmadnagar) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Berar

Raja Bir Bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mugal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa representatives

Hi John, I see you've been busy creating these, good work but can I ask that you add the text that X is "a Republican party member of the Iowa House of Representatives." in the first line? This is important info and will save other editors doing it subsequently. Also, they should contain the Category:Iowa Republicans. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rostron

Hi, do you have any details the death of Thomas Rostron? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've changed a category in the Reg Parker (rugby league) article from "Living people" to "Possibly living people", if alive he would likley be about 75 years old, is there a Wikipedia MOS that specifies the age at which a person becomes a possibly living person? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be 75 he would have had to been born in 1937, and have been 18 when playing Rugby in 1955. Is this a reasonable assumption, that he was 18 during the one year his Rugby career was noticable?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 is not that unusual for a début for a back, but as a forward he would have likley been slighly older, making him about 77…79 now. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Reg Parker (rugby league) was still alive circa-13 April 2011, as he is quoted on the Tributes paid to true gent Dennis Goodwin webpage, but this highlights an issue, although he was alive circa-13 April 2011, that doesn't mean he's alive today, and without a daily update, which is unlikley to be achieved, there will always be a degree of uncertainty. Checking on Category:Living people, it appears that "Individuals of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer, may be removed from this category and transferred to Category:Possibly living people." Unfortunately, we do not have Reg Parker's date of birth, but assuming 1955 was a mid-career age of 25, this would indicate a 1930 birth making him 82 ± 5-years. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

★★★Breaking News★★★ I've found a webpage dated 28 July 2006 giving Reg Parker's age as 79, making him 85 now (if alive). DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if we have evidence he was alive in the last 5 years, we can assume he is still alive unless we have evidence to the contrary. I would even go for a longer period of time, unless we have reason to believe he was over 95.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence O'Donnell

you added
born c. 146
I would try to correct that, but I wouldn't know where to start
Roseohioresident (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting

A reminder that DEFAULTSORT is a magic word, not a template, and uses a colon, not a pipe. For example: {{DEFAULTSORT:Moffett, Nadia}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Moffett, Nadia}} — Paul A (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Abdikadir Hussein Mohamed, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. ^SUwanja _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any new information to the article. The date of his death was in persondata before I ever edited the article. I only rearranged the order of the article and edited it so that the statements made in the article were done so with proper capitalization and proper tenses. I am not the one who asserted his death, his education at Harvard Law School (law degrees are always from the law school) the name or occupation of his widow or his number of children.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Stephenwanjau's talk page.
Message added 09:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

^SUwanja _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 09:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McKinnon

I've removed your year of birth as unreferenced - if you have a source, please provide one. Regards, Giant Snowman 19:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the German-language article also doesn't have a reference for the date of birth... Giant Snowman 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What article has a reference for the date of birth. People generally do not put references for that specifically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Anthony Marwood, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the German wikipedia. Considering that there are places where we are encoaged very strongly to insert translated material from other language wikipedias, this war against my doing so seems very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the article talk page, the German-language article also doesn't have a reference for DOB - you are becoming disruptive by adding unreferenced information about a BLP. Giant Snowman 08:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same again with Jan Mak - do you have a RELIABLE SOURCE fir the date of birth? Other language Wikipedias DO NOT count. Giant Snowman 07:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seeing as you don't wish to respond - I have reverted your addition to Jan Mak as unreferenced. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Antonio de Hornedo Correa

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 Antonio de Hornedo Correa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Receptie123 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Leo College Preparatory School alumni

Category:Saint Leo College Preparatory School alumni, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cobb Divinity School alumni

Category:Cobb Divinity School alumni, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Francis College (Maine) alumni

Category:St. Francis College (Maine) alumni, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian and Romanian

Masterfully expressed. I tip my hat to you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Mary of the Lake Seminary alumni

Category:St. Mary of the Lake Seminary alumni, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your extensive work on Wikipedia, including contributions to many Mormon studies-related articles. KHearts (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Mary's Seminary (Ohio) alumni

Category:St. Mary's Seminary (Ohio) alumni, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_29#Category:Jammu_and_Kashmir_freedom_struggle.
Message added 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xray 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French

I saw your edit to Serge Gainsbourg and then noticed that you removed the category French-language singers from many articles with the edit summary "do not classify as both French and French-language with singers". Can you please point to a Wikipedia guideline or discussion making this point? Debresser (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Proposed deletion of Anthony Bradley

The article Anthony Bradley has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

No reliable sources since 2011

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan

The content of the article regarding Paul Ryan's early life is actively being discussed on the talk page. Can you join the discussion, rather than remove the content? Thanks. Regards, — Moe ε 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of include the information on the page (which is what the liberals want) how about not include it on the page until a consensus can be reached right? My thought is this, if we need to know useless high school antics, why then can't we know Obama's college records? It makes no sense!! I've been banned from the page, please change it back and delete the information again. User talk: DaleJ78 20:29 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DaleJ78, trying to get other editors to revert for you can get you in just as much trouble as the revert warring you were causing, I suggest again that you just go to the article talk page to discuss it. Regards, — Moe ε 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Grant Romney Clawson

A tag has been placed on Grant Romney Clawson, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. SajjadF (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Jovanovich

Thanks for adding the see also and creating a page for Kozloski. I have reinserted the paragraph on McCulloch as I think it is still relevant to Jovanovich. NealeFamily (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth years

I like very much that you are adding birth years to people, often there are in other Wikipedias already correct data given. But be carefully for the German WP, if there is written um it means around, so no precise year is known. On the other hand you will find probably a lot more precise birth dates of badminton players in the German WP, there are around 7000 badminton articles, the English version counts much less. --Florentyna (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kenneth Hutchins

The article Kenneth Hutchins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A case of WP:ONEEVENT. He was not notable before the convention and is not notable for giving a prayer at the convention either. The Deseret News is not an independent ref in this case as it is owned by the LDS Church.

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. Bgwhite (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fiona Hefti

The article Fiona Hefti has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hanna Ek

The article Hanna Ek has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Helen Lindes

The article Helen Lindes has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Juncal Rivero

The article Juncal Rivero has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Margit Nünke

The article Margit Nünke has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margit Nünke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Alexander (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) 11:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Love

Your quotes on the talk page aren't helpful and can be considered a BLP violation. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nina Carita Bjornstrom

The article Nina Carita Bjornstrom has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi John, please do use edit summaries. They are super helpful to understand the rationale of changes. Thanks Span (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

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.

Ed Dorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Myers

Kent Gaffney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David McSweeney

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian names

Since I know you look at the categories of a lot of articles (and your work on this is much appreciated!), I thought you might appreciate a heads-up that I reverted the DEFAULTSORT part of your edit here: [6]. As unusual as it looks to a Western eye, my understanding is that the first name is actually the key to sorting Indonesian names. Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missing middle or first names

Please read the relies at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 8#Category:Missing middle or first names and decide whether you still wish to !vote 'delete'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

You have recently removed valid categories from several articles here [7] for which you reason was: "This is a Church and should be put in categories based on its proactive beliefs and organization"

and here [8] for which your reason was: "Churches should not be categorized by political opinions"

The articles were appropriately tagged based on the article content backed by reliable sources. Churches and hate groups masquerading as churches do not receive special treatment on Wikipedia and we must at all times make editorial decisions from a neutral point of view. If you feel that this is an invalid interpretation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, can I please ask you to discuss it on the talk pages for the articles in question? Thank you and have a great day! – MrX 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category says it is for political organizations. Churches are not politcal organizations. Your claim about "Not receieving special treatment" is undermined by your failure to object to my removal of this category from The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an organization is involved in politics, it could be considered a political organization. By that criteria, the two articles that you tagged fall well within that definition. Have you read the articles?

With regard to the other two articles that you think undermine my reasoning: those article were not on my watch list and I'm not following you around Wikipedia monitoring you deletions. That said, I'm only one editor and I may be incorrect in my assessment, which is why I again recommend raising your objections on the article talk pages so other editors can be involved. Cheers – MrX 18:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that I went overboarrd in removing the categories. Still, there is no evidence in the article on Westboro Baptist Church that it has ever opposed same gender marriage in a political arena. The closest to this is mention of its opposition to a same-sex commitment ceremony by Wake Forest Baptsit Church. The problem is that commitment ceremonies are non-governmental and only have religious power. Whatever other limits there may be on the opposition to same-gender marriage category, it is clearly about political opposition to proactive government recognizion of things other than man/woman marriage under the heading of marriage. There are enough people who favor government recognition of things other than man/woman marriage but view all sexual relations other than those between a man and a woman within marriage as sinful for it to be clear that we should not conflate opposition to religious rites with opposition to government recognition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably also true that those in Westboro have no desire to see government recognition of same gender marriage. However the opposition category must reflect something more than just opposition in the abstract, those so categorized must have done something so that they can be so categorized. Westboro may have contributed in some way to campaigns on the same gender marriage issue, but until this fact is reflected in the article it should not be categorized based on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will help taken directly from the article:

On January 25, 2004, Phelps picketed five churches (three Catholic and two Episcopalian) and the Federal Courthouse for what he said was their part in legitimizing same-sex marriages in Iowa. A community response was to hold counter-protests and a multifaith service in the municipal auditorium.(ref)"Gay marriage case looms over chief justice's speech". Sioux City Journal. January 16, 2008.(/ref)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to restore the category that you removed. Thanks – MrX 18:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A- that is not opposition to same sex marriage. B- I still stand by the view it does not apply to Churches. I am not going to put it in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some helpful information

Hi

I've noticed that when you contribute on talk pages, you tend to use bullets (*), which is helpful, but then your subsequent entries appear at the same indent level, making threads very difficult to follow. It's kind of like cutting in line.

Could you please use colons (:) for each level of indent. So for example, if the editor before you has three colons (:::) in front of their comments, then you would use four colons (::::) for your next comment. You can learn more about this here: WP:INDENT, here: WP:TALK and here. Thanks and happy editing! – MrX 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example (look at the edit page to see what the markup looks like):

1st Comment

2nd Comment

3rd Comment

4th Comment

5th Comment

6th Comment

7th Comment

8th Comment

9th Comment

10th Comment

11th Comment

Guy Aoki

Hi. I know you're a long-tenured editor and all, but if you're going to add material to articles, as you did with this edit to Guy Aoki, please include a citation with it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent addition of uncited material

Please stop adding uncited material to articles, as you did with your edits to Chuck Austen, Özalp Babaoğlu, Joan Azrack, Iriya Azuma, Zach Azzanni, Zafrul Aziz, Nazan Azeri, Lubna Azabal, Vardan Ayvazyan, Lale Aytaman, Marvin Ayres, Chris Ayres, Sherry Ayitey, Josefina Ayerza, Trezza Azzopardi, Anna-Lena Axelsson, Marcin Awiżeń, Baruch Awerbuch, Ray Avery (scientist), Trevor Averre-Beeson, Richard G. Austin, Penny Bacchiochi, Dao Bac, Max B, B-complex, Aurelio Pastor, and countless others. I don't know why an editor who has accumulated over 123,000 edits since 2006 is adding all this uncited material, but you should know by now that Wikipedia requires material in its articles to be supported by citations of reliable sources, especially in its biographical articles, all of which are policies that you've violated with these edits. Please do not add any more uncited material. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are based on the in-text statements of wikipedia articles in other languages or from statements in text, or from existing cited sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is more complexed than that. In the case of Nazam Azeri the article in its opening line already stated she was born in 1953. I did not add that, I only altered categorization to reflect that fact. It is very frustrating to be accused of adding unsourced information when I am not even the person who put the information in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To call my edit on Ray Avery (scientist) "unsourced" has no justification at all. There is a source on his birth year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-text statements of Wikipedia articles in other languages, or from other statements in the article do not constitute sources. In the former case, other Wikipedia articles cannot be sources, as that is circular sourcing. Material must be sourced by inline citations of reliable sources, and not other Wikipedia articles, and you should know this by now. If you don't believe me, please read WP:CIRCULAR, along with WP:V, WP:CS, WP:BLP, et al. How can a German version of an article be a source when that article itself has no citation for a given piece of an information? How is a person supposed to even know where the information in the English article came from? Don't you even understand the entire point of the Verifiability policy?

In the latter case, repeating uncited information located in one part of an article in another part of it is inappropriate. Just because someone else was the first to add uncited material does give carte blanche to throw out WP:V and WP:CS out the window throughout the rest of it. If you come across uncited material, you should source it or remove it, not repeat it, either with categories, or with any other type of edit.

And how do you explain edits like these ones: [9], [10], [11], in which the date of birth is not merely repeating info elsewhere in the article, and there are no foreign Wikipedia versions of the article, nor any sources cited in the Ref or EL sections that support it?

I apologize for my error with Ray Avery, but most of the examples I cited above were indeed uncited.

In addition, sites with user-generated content, such as blogs on WordPress, cannot be used as sources under Wikipedia:USERG. In your recent edit to Dale Baer, you not only cited WordPress, but you provided no citation for the passage you added on his education. Citations go at the end of supported passages, not at the beginning of them. All information needs to be cited, and two consecutive passages are supported by the same source, then the citation of that source should be placed at the end of the final one, and not in between them. It's amazing to mee that an editor who's been around as long as you doesn't know this.

Please do not add any more uncited information to articles. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Nightscream? Do you want an inline citation for every date of birth on Wikipedia? You have no policy backing your removal of year of birth in these cases, and you should stop reverting Johnpacklambert. I wouldn't call year of birth "contentious". Mentoz86 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth need to be sourced, just as any other biographical information, and yes, that means inline citations. Do you think the reader doesn't care to know where birth information in an article comes from, any less than any other type of information? Why do you seem to believe that birth info is somehow exempt from WP:V? Isn't birth info the first thing that biographies of any sort tend to give about a subject?

As for whether dates of births are "contentious", why don't you accompany me to a book signing, book festival, comic book convention, or some other public event, and speak to some of the notables that I've sought to photograph for the Commons. You might be shocked to discover that notables have this nasty habit of having their own opinion on this point that differs from yours. They tend to dislike false information in their articles, in part because actors in general, and actresses in particular, have to worry about whether their careers are affected by such information. So yeah, dates of birth are contentious, in the sense that this and other material has been challenged, and I have the experience to prove it. Nightscream (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have talked to some "celebrities" that think that date of birth are contentious, doesn't mean that you can do as you like without any policy backing your view, even though you have tried to adjust the policies to mirror your opininon: [12] [13]. If a date of birth is challenged in one article, doesn't mean that any other article should have an inline citation for the DoB if it's not challenged. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your policy violations. You again added uncited material to articles, this time to Leanne Baird and Alberto Baillères, and created the George Eichhorn article with an uncited passage. You also added uncited material to Glenda Bailey, claiming that the information came from the Russian Wikipedia article.

For the last time: WP:Verifiability requires that readers be informed of where material comes from, and that means that material be supported by inline citations. Readers cannot verify material without them, nor can they do so if you claim your source in an edit summary.

Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing. Common sense should tell anyone with a modicum of intelligence that a source cannot cite itself, and even if one is unable to intuit this himself or herself, WP:CIRCULAR explicitly prohibits it. Wikipedia must cite other sources, usually secondary sources, and not itself. If material is duplicate in another article, and is supported by a reliable source in that other article, then you can copy that citation, but you cannot just use the appearance of that material in the other article as an excuse to duplicate it. Many articles include uncited material, and some foreign language Wikipedias do not even have the Verifiability policy that the English Wikipedia has, as demonstrated by the fact that the Russian Wikipedia article on Glenda Bailey does not provide a source for her birth date. While there is a citation at the end of the opening sentence (an English language source, incidentally), that source makes no mention of her birth date. If you dispute that WP:CIRCULAR states what I just said it does, then present an argument for this. Otherwise, please adhere to that policy.

You also need to look over WP:Notability, and stop creating articles without sufficient sources that establish notability. If you like creating articles, then you should commit to doing the legwork in finding adequate sources that establish notability. You should also stop compounding uncited material i articles by adding categories reflecting that material. If you find uncited material, you should source it, remove it, or fact tag it (depending on the type of material).

The next time you violate Wikipedia's policies by adding unsourced material to articles, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the notability of articles I have created, you can complain about those specifically. However, since you have not alleged that Eichhorn is not notable, this seems more to be a general decision to complain on your part. I am still not convinced that it makes sense to ban the importation of information from wikipedia articles in other languages. I would at least like to see someone else support this claim on your part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, I was thinking of the ones you created with little or no sources. I did not record specific examples, and your statement to User:Mentoz86 that I claimed you created "lots" of them is a lie, as I never said any such thing. But if so many of the articles you have recently created were put up for deletion--even if most of them survived it--that should tell you something. Articles you create won't be put up for deletion in the first place if you do the necessary work by including within them sufficient sources that establish notability. Creating useless stub articles with one or no citations for WP:NOTE that often are so nominated does not help the project. Think quality, not quantity.

George Eichhorn was mentioned for reasons explained above.

I never said an in-line citation is required for every single fact. In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on WP:V, he once opined that some things, like "Christmas Day is December 25th" or "France is a country in Europe" are simply common knowledge to the point that inline citations for them is unnecessary. I agree, and anything not in that narrow range of material that is not so universally established needs to be supported by citations. Otherwise, the question comes up, "Where is this information coming from?" "Where did this editor get this info?", which is illustrate by the fact that you added quite a bit of information in articles that did not either duplicate it from elsewhere in the article, nor from a foreign language version of the article, as a number of the articles you did this with didn't even have foreign versions. But birth info of BLPs is not "common knowledge", and because many BLP subjects consider that info contentious, for reasons I explained above, that info does not fall into that narrow range of material not requiring sites.

Lastly, I have not "attacked" you. I have warned you for violating policy, and have cited the policies in question. For your part, you've chosen to completely ignore me, even in regards to aspects of my warnings that are unambiguously reflective of policies I've cited, such as WP:CIRCULAR. Do you deny what that policy says? Do you deny that you violated it even after I first notified you of it? If you can falsify this or any other argument I've made here, then I welcome a discussion with you and others, and will be more than happy to listen to your counterarguments. As it stands, I'm perplexed as to why you asked Mentoz86 whose heading asks about that, without ever answering my point about it, even though I linked you to that policy. There have been many times during the course of the past seven and a half years when people have pointed out policies or guidelines tome that I didn't realize I had been violating. You know what I did in those instances? I STOPPED VIOLATING THEM. I didn't accuse those other editors of "attacking" me. Quite the contrary, I was grateful for helping me to learn more and improve my editing habits. I certainly did not pretend that criticism, in and of itself, constitutes an "attack", since unlike you, I don't react with a knee-jerk sense of victimization when criticized in good faith. Nightscream (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of articles for deletion, if they are not deleted, is not evidence that I create articles on those who lack notability. I still stand by the view that your actions are combative and needlessly confrontational.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that their nomination was "evidence" of that. I merely said that their frequent nomination "should tell you something". I assume that you are intelligent enough to understand what this meant: that the frequency with which your new articles are nominated for deletion raised the possibility that your article creation does not adhere to the best spirit of WP:NOTE. I hardly put as fine a point on it as you insist, which leads me to wonder if you are being pedantic, or genuinely have trouble communicating with others. It is certainly possible that subjects merit articles, but placing sources that support this is not only required, it helps to illustrate the subjects' notability to other editors. When that transparency is lacking, editors not familiar with those topics are more likely to nominate them for deletion. Since this may result in a search for sources for the articles with genuinely notable topics, why not add the sources yourself instead of lazily making others do that work for you? Wouldn't avoiding deletion discussions by putting at least two or three secondary sources in a new article save a lot of time and work for the rest of the editing community? Or do you not care about that?

You say my actions are combative and needlessly confrontational. Fine. What would do you think I should have done after I noticed an editor deliberately violating WP:CIRCULAR even after I pointed out that policy to him? Again, do or do you not dispute that what the policy says? Do you or do you not dispute that you violated that policy even after I pointed it out to you? Do you or do you not dispute that you have refused to even answer this point when I asked you about more than once above? Can you explain to me why this is?

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

"Nightscream, it's really simple. The reason I added uncited material to articles based on material from other Wikipedia article that was even uncited in those articles, and continued to do so even after you told me about WP:CIRCULAR is............."

If you finish that sentence, I can assure you, I'll read it. But if you're going to continue to stonewall as you have, and continue to violate that policy, then issuing warnings is not "combative". It's the prescribed procedure for administrators when they see policies or guidelines being violated. Either falsify this, or stop playing the part of the victim, accept what I've told you, and let's move on to improving this project together. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert reached out to me, and left a message on my talk-page, and even though it took me a week to answer it, I think this is an extreme case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and you should stop immediately if you haven't already, Nightscream. --Mentoz86 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policies I have cited repeatedly during this discussion are clear. You have not offered a single argument why birth information, or any other type of personal information, does not require sources, or should just be added to an article without any explanation to the reader of where that information comes from. This doesn't even come close to "hounding", but your false accusation violates WP:AGF, and you're doing no favors to the project by attempting to enable violations of WP:V and other policies. Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book publishing companies of Massachusetts

Category:Book publishing companies of Massachusetts, 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book publishing companies of Virginia

Category:Book publishing companies of Virginia, 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Holt Giles Reversion

I wanted to explain why I reverted your deletion of the History of women in Kentucky category from the Janice Holt Giles article. The category is appropriate for Giles, not because she was an important woman in Kentucky history (she wasn't, but I'll accept your argument that bios shouldn't be included just for this reason anyway), but because she was a writer about Kentucky history. She wrote several well-regarded novels with historical settings in Kentucky. John M Baker (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles should never be put in history cats. That just does not work. Giles might belong in Category:Women writers from Kentucky if there was such a category, but she should not be put in the general history cat as you have done. Anyway your argument in no way connects Giles with the History of women in Kentucky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I put Giles in Category:American historical novelists which is the proper way to categorize someone known for writing historical novels. I guess you could also create Category:Historical novelists of works set in Kentucky, but I do not think such a category is needed and would advise you to seek widespread support for such a category before creating it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also placed Giles in Category:Writers from Kentucky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your violent opposition to any bios in history cats, but I don't have a problem with these changes. John M Baker (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general bios should only go in biographical categories. There is no easy way to decide what bios belong in history cats and which do not. Considering how many bios have been thrown in some history cats, it is clear that once you allow any in, some people will just keep adding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

As I believe you know, mass depopulating a category while it's under discussion is frowned upon, and could be considered disruptive. There is no deadline, and we can wait til the discussion is closed to take whatever action is deemed necessary. Thank you for understanding. - jc37 01:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What category are you accusing me of mass depopulating? If it is the category I think you are refering to, I left 15 articles in there, and it is clear from its sister categories that people feel that bio articles do not belong. Plus, this action has lead to people realizing there are much better ways to create bio categories to fulfill the general purpose. In fact many of the bio articles in that category were already in a much better category for them. Anyway the general trend of the discussion was to purge the categoryJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "general trend" is immaterial. The consensus of the discussion will be determined by the closer. As you discovered, the action was contentious. Which is part of why we have discussions concerning categories at CfD (categories for discussion). - jc37 18:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Want to nuke a few more cats?

JPL, can you please add: Category:American models of German descent and Category: American mobsters of German descent, and Category:Murdered American mobsters of German descent to your nomination? Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually going to do a nomination to wipe out the whole "American models of European descent" tree. With the mobsters I am not sure how big a nomination I will do, but more than just German.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I look forward to it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you create this category? American people of African-American decent is a redundant loop. African-American is, by definition, Americans of African decent, by reduction your new category is American people of American people of African Decent. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not a redundant loop any more than Category:American people of Native American descent. African-Americans are people who self-identify as beuing African-American. If you study the contents of this category you will see it consists of people who proactively refuse the African-American label, such as Ward Connerly, and people who have so little African-American heritage, and so much Mexican and other ethnic background, that to classify them as African-American goes beyond the pale. Others in the category proactively identify as multi-racial, which means by default they can not be classed as African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being African American means being part of a particular ethnic group. In general immigrants from Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia and Kenya should not be classed as Afrcian-Americans, unless they have proactively taken upon themselves the African-american ethnic mantal. We classify people by ethnicity, not by race. The line is fuzzy at times, but it means that we should not conflate being African-American with being a citizen or national of the US with African ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are misunderstanding the issue. The defintion of African-American is : an American of African and especially of black African descent . Now it may be that the examples you listed above are simply ignorant of what the word means, however it does not change the fact that you have created a category which is meaningless at best and redundant at the least. Arzel (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not "ignorant" you are ignoring the fact that in wikipedia we classify people by ethnicity not race. For the purposes of African-American as an ethnic designation the Webster's definition is just plain wrong. What next, are we going to start putting immigrants from Algeria and Libya in the African American category? Ward Connerly would rightly point out that you are denying his right of self-identification by trying to force him to be classed as African-American. This category follows the well developed precedents of Category:American people of Native American descent and Category:American people of Jewish descent. I at least will not support use of the one-drop rule in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24#Native American Latter Day Saints

You need to pick which one of these you want to do, as you have two different nomination outcomes for the same category. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, as far as I can tell my nomination is to merge this category to Category:American Latter Day Saints. I am not sure why you think I have two outcomes suggested. I did nominate another category for a seemingly different thing, but that is because it is a different category, and the issues are different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, because I didn't notice the slight difference in the two nominations. My apologies. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why

you removed the two categories from Caspar Buberl that you did? Or did I read something wrong? I appears to me on a quick look that both fit him. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Czech descent should only be used for people who were born Americans, not emigrants. Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States is largely an unncessary extra sub-cat of emigration cats. I can see it with people who spent large amounts of their careers elsewhere, and so their naturalization was late in their career, but Buberl seems best treated with just the emigration category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'm not much of a category guy, but learning every day. This is also why I talk first, then, if needed, undo. Carptrash (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I put George Brumder back in the "German descent" category, since while his homeland was French by jurisdiction at the time of his birth and he was very technically a French emigrant to the U.S., he himself was about as German as it is possible to get: presiding over what was the single largest German-language publishing firm in the world, called "Germania"; building the Germania Building to house it; etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of countries VS by country

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_24#Category:Lists_of_former_subdivisions_of_countries ChemTerm (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_24#Native_Hawaiian_Latter_Day_Saints - I support your goal, but suggest a variation. ChemTerm (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Hi John;

I just wanted you to know I undid you're most recent edit because it appeared to be unconstructive, and the reason for the edit seemed to be incomprehensible. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my Talkpage. Thank you.

KazLabz (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Kevin12xd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop removing categories about people's ancestry. now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ancestry categories should not overlap with emigration categories. There is no reason to have double categories. On the other hand, the vast majority of my edits are in cases not supported by mention in the text. People should only be in categories that the article text mentions something to suggest that the category is correct. I see no reason I should leave people in categories that are not supported by the article text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes - American people of Polish descent category

John- just a quick note. I reverted a couple of your category removals (Tom Gola, Mike Gminski) and added external links to their entries In the Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame. Instead of removing this category out of hand for athletes, might I suggest you first check to see if they are enshrined there at the HOF website - http://polishsportshof.com/organization/mission/ ? Maybe add the link to their profile instead of deleting. Otherwise, you are just removing a valid category that is easily sourced. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the duty of the person who adds a category to make sure that it is supporter by mention in the text of the article. This duty has been massively shirked. It is better to remove some positve categorization than to leave in false categorization. Anyway, the external links can not stand alone. When adding these external links you should also add somewherwe in the text of the article a statement that the person is of Polish descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's dumb. It's important that the category be accurate and too many of these are added on assumption. But if this is confirmed by an EL (which is part of the article after all), then I don't see what the issue is. Is this actually spelled out as a requirement? Because I'd like contest this as a rule. In any case, this smacks of enforcing policy without taking into account WP:COMMONSENSE. Is there really a question that Mike Gminski is of Polish descent is there is a link to his profile at the Polish American Sports HOF? Rikster2 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense says that if you can add an external link you can also at least add a senstance somewhere in the article that mentions the reflected fact in the article. The underlying reason for this is because at heart we do not categorize by what is, but what is notable to the person. If it is notable that the person had Polish ancestry, than it should be something mentioned in the text of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense also says you can verify whether or not a category is accurate for a page rather than delete it out of hand. If a person legitimately qualifies for a category, and that category exists, then you'd have to do a lot more to convince me that it shouldn't be applied where appopriate. Rikster2 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Region, Ontario

I am contacting all opposing parties to see my extension. [14] ChemTerm (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Angell Young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Utah Central Railroad (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) 11:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_24#Category:Political_divisions_of_Taiwan, I now favor keeping Taiwan since that is (currently) the name of the main article. I am not a fan of the solution for the main article, but I prefer consistency, therefor now suggesting Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan. ChemTerm (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cfdh

Hi John!

You said something about discussion working towards consensus but you did not address the idea of renaming the category in a NPOV and constructive way. Please do so. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created to demean and attack people. It is an attack category pure and simple. It has no useful or postive purpose and needs to be deleted as the disruption to wikipedia it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD discussion of Category:Hawaiian players of American football

The CfD 2012 October 24 discussion of Category:Hawaiian players of American football, in which you participated, has been relisted at CfD November 1 to allow a clearer consensus to be formed.

You may wish to make a further contribution to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese politicians by province

Hi JPL

I am notifying all those who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#Category:Gansu_politicians that I have relisted most of the categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 2#Chinese_politicians_by_province.

You may wish to make a further contribution to the relisted discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Amy Adams, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please see WP:Cat/gender. Actress category is not needed. Elizium23 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Amy Adams, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Once again. See WP:Cat/gender for this unnecessary category you have just created - I expect it to be deleted shortly. Next stop: ANI or RFC/U Elizium23 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category has not even been nominated from deletion. Category:Portuguese actresses has been under discussion for several days, and there is no clear consensus to delete that category. If you want to delete this category you should nominate it for deletion, not go around thretening those who put people in the category. It is especially excessive when the article in question is in Category:American female singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that it is unnecessary and also sexist to be a subcat of Category:American actors so please take it out of that parent immediately. Also, please use ::: for indenting in discussions, as you have been told before. You are becoming more noticeably disruptive lately, is there a personal problem that you are working through right now? I can understand if so, I am having some myself. I apologize for the stern warnings above, but I'm letting them stand as I believe this category is improper for Wikipedia usage. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my comments, and I sincerely apologise. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Rescue list

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list#Star Wars Episode VII.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

Hi JPL

Just a brief headsup to say that there has been a discussion about you on my talk page.

Another editor asked me to review some of your edits, and I did. You can see my assessment there, FWIW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changing categories

Many of your category changes are helpful but some appear to be in error. Please see Hilary Bok, Chris Bohjalian and Irma S. Rombauer for example. The text indicates the ethnic origin of the person or their parents (which the children, of course, inherit). Please review. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing categories

Please check your removal of two Swedish categories from Nicholas Gustafson. Your removals do not appear to match the meaning and purpose of the categories and the content of the article. There is no indication in the article that he was a US citizen, having been in the US for only 3 months; he was Swedish. Much care must be taken with category changes. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article opens by saying that he was a Swedish emigrant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Emigration is a fact of movement with intent to settle. It says nothing about citizenship. To be an American requires naturalization. Until then, the person remains a citizen of the country from which he departed. This is always true, no matter what the countries involved. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing more categories

Please check your removal of 2 categories from Kristi Noem. The article has text indicating her ethnic background. Your deletion message said it had none. Please be more careful about changing categories; speed is not the goal here; correctness should be. Hmains (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you admit and fix your errors. Can you do that? Hmains (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin

The long time purpose of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and thus its subcategories is as follows: "This category page lists sub-category pages that categorize citizens of the United States by any ethnicity they are of or descendent of, or previous nationality that they held or are descendent of. The categories lists as one those both of full and partial origin or descent." Although tough to read, the means that it includes both the person who immigrated to the US and their descendents are to be in this category tree. I notice you have been removing articles on Americans (US citizens) from this category who were the original immigrants, leaving or putting them solely in an 'immigrant' (non-citizen) category. Can you see how this is not right? This whole matter was extensively discussed years ago and is a settled matter both for the US and every other country. Hmains (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, this whole category structure is more messed up than I imagined as no one seems to be looking out for the structure, as such. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more messed up. Back on 10 March 2010 categories like Canadian Americans were moved to American people of Cnadian descent. The problem is that Canadian Americans had been a mish-mash of American people of Canadian descent and Canadian people of American descent. Hagood Hardy was a person caught up in that move who was clearly the later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The immigrant categories in question are sub-cats of the descent categories. For example Category:German emigrants to the United States is a subcat of Category:American people of German descent. As such people should not be in both the category and the subcat. If you paid super close attention, you would notice that I have created a situation where some people are in both Category:German emigrants to the United States and Category:American people of Polish descent. This is because they are ethnic Poles who immigrated from what was then Germany to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains you assumption that immigrant=non-citizen is false. First off we should use the term "nationals" and not citizens. However the most clear non-citizen cats are ones like Category:German expatriates in the United States. Personally I think we should go to assuming emigration is movement, and if it is notable enough to categorize it is emigration. However as the categories stand, there is an assumption that some going to another country is not permanent enough to count as emigration and thus we have all sorts of expatriate categories. We even have specific expatriate categories for people who played professional sports who were from one country in another country. The emigrant categories are for those who became nationals of their new country. Considering that in 199th century Norway they refered to people as Americans who intended to head to the United States but had not left the country yet, I think it is safe to classify lots of people as emigrants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going beyond what is found to what should be to make good sense for navigation and follows the definitions of the terms being used. There is no distincation between 'nationals' and 'citizens', by the way; they are one and the same. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this you need to read more law. That United States nationality act of 1940 makes it `100% clear that some people are American nationals but not American citizens. There is a dinstinction, since some people are one and not the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are the people who are nationals and not US citizens? Who are the people who are US citizens and not nationals? I see the words 'US citizens and nationals' used together. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One gorup that is nationals but not citizens are people born in certain non-continental US possessions, I believe Guam and American Samoa. Those born in Puerto Rico are US citizens though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. I checked at United States nationality law#Nationals who are not citizens. This is American Somoa, basically. Anyway, too few people to be talking about in American citizen categories. Thanks

John, you should try to reach some sort of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorization before blanking categories on hundreds of pages in clear contention with several other editors as evidenced by this talk page. You claim that all these other editors are mistaken but you are not providing edit summaries which justify your blanking. Take the category for American people of German descent. You are claiming that such categories are only for people born in America, but the actual instructions on this particular category instructions include "citizens of the United States of German ethnic or national origin or descent". National origin would include Americans born in the nation of. I am taking this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Categorization, please respond there. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits have involved removing categories where there is no mention in the text that the person is in fact of that ancestry, or removing the category where the person is in another category that is a sub category. I do think in most cases it is excessive to have people in ancestry cats for both their country of birth and a country they later immigrated to. However very few of my edits deal with that issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are also blanking people because the article itself doesn't explicitly mention their ethnicity. My dear friend and comrade Frank P. Zeidler, for example, was as pure a Milwaukee German as can be found: sang with Sangvereinen, read and spoke German, belonged to a good German Lutheran congregation: yet you removed him because it's not in the article???? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what he did (I have not checked) then he's absolutely correct to do so. Categories are a navigational tool. And every category is presumed to be referenced in the article in the category. If not, then it shouldn't be in the cat.

This stems from the Wikipedia polices on verifiable reliable sources. Since you can't show individual sources for each entry in a category due to technical limitations, the policy (WP:CAT) is that such sourcing needs to be in each article. - jc37 02:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? We cannot just willy nilly put people in categories. If it is important enough to categorize someone by, it should be in some way mentioned in the article. Are you seriously suggesting we let people be put in categories with no evidence in the article? That is the most ridiculous idea I have ever seen. Expecting some mention of the fact somewhere in the article is about the most minimum rule for categorization I can come up with. Some categories insist the fact in question must be cited to a reliable source. All I am asking is that it be mentioned in the article. I do not think that is much to ask at all. If you are so convinced that Zeidler is of German descent, there is nothing keeping you from editing the article to reflect this fact and so categorizing it. I would point out that being able to read and speak German does not imply someone has any German ancestry at all so some of the arguments that Orangemike puts forth are irrelevant to the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing more categories

You removed 3 categories from Andre Ethier, all of which are supported by statements in the article text. Why does this continue to occur? Also Jim Carrey: people do not lose their ethnic background just becuse they move from country to another. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs because people bury references to ethnicity at hard to find places in the text, and becasue after dealing with hundreds of articles where there is no mention of ethnicity it becomes hard to expect to find it buried somewhere. Considering how many articles I have removed unmentioned references from, you seem to just want to nitpick at mistakes. There is nothing keeping you from restoring the rare case where I miss the reference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting facts correct is not nitpicking; it is expected of every editor and more important than the volumne of changes. This becomes more important as WP has fewer editors. No one is around to check the edits of others. This becomes more important as some editors do sloppy work and don't pay attention to detail. I am sure you do not want to be considered as such by your peers here. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey I am not the one who has added hundreds of categories to articles with no justification for it. I am trying to improve things here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No doubt, just as I do, but I know I make mistakes as we all do. When found, I then analyze what I am doing and how I am doing it to see if I avoid making more of the same mistakes. I don't like others finding my mistakes, especially repeat mistakes in a pattern. Who does? And some of the error finders are mean, threatening and vicious. So good care and improvement in results are in order; that's all. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After all this, you still refuse to fix the mistakes you make. So I fixed it, but I and other editors do not appreciate having to come along after you edit and clean up the errors you make. And your errors are not 'rare'. I see them in about 1 of 20 or 1 of 10 of your edits. I suggest you need to clean up your act or stop editing this type of article. Helping WP does not include making errors because you do not choose to take the necessary time to read the article content. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms in stub category names

Hi John,

I've noticed several times over the last couple of months, you and others make the argument in CfD that we usually use noun forms, or shorter forms, for country names in stub cats, rather than demonyms. Is there any discussion basis of this you can link me to? Because current existing category names tend vastly in the other direction, and the only naming policy guidelines or discussions I can find that apply seem to suggest following the parent category usage as a consensus. (Checking out the contents of Category:Stub categories, in every country I checked big enough to have more than a handful of categories, the demonym was roughly 8 times more common, except 'American' vs 'United States' where the demonym only won 215 to 143. Very small countries tended to have splits like 2-2) Thanks, --Qetuth (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asia Cruise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (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) 11:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Alldridge

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

Fails general notability guideline. I was unable to locate additional sources in order to establish notability.

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. Glorioussandwich (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]