User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 5

Letting you know

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Categorization by place

Well, I don't agree that for most cases, a person is notable for where they are born, it is not defining and should not be done. However I also believe that there are a large number of editors who would not support that as a position and would fight the removal of these categories from people articles. Add to this mess the fact that for some places, the qualify sources don't actually provide the actual place and cases where their mother lived in one place and they came home there from the hospital but since that place did not have a hospital, they are born someplace all. It is all a mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is clear some editors fight the removals. Maybe we should try and get a compromise that says if it is clear that the person either never lived in that place or moved away when they were very young, that we will not categorize by it. I think a big issue is, should by place categories try to capture everyone who ever lived in the place, or be limited to those who have a defining connection to the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for info I've closed the withdrawn CfD's as requested but noted in each case that closure is pending an RfC (so no prejudice against renomination post-RFC or if RFC doesn't happen in a reasonable time). Have also posted a pointlessly tortured explanation of my rationale here. - Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce Bennett may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[{Category:20th-century American male actors]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kelly Junge, Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Howard (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| ''Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232]'' (TV movie)
[{Category:20th-century American male actors]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

I've removed the categories from the Tunechi user page as they shouldn't have been there in user space anyway. Apart from which, I'm still trying to work out if it is a he or a she. Kate Robyn suggests she, but 'he' is mostly used. Confusing. I'm contacting them to see what's going on with the page. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Incredible Hulk (TV series)

Hi, please see Category talk:The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series) and/or User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars#Category:The Incredible Hulk .28TV series.29 about using year. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Carl Levin is a native of Detroit. He was born in Detroit. He served on Detroit's city council. So he is from Detroit. I should know and I am a Michigan resident. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levin is in Category:Detroit City Council members. That is a sub-cat of Category:People from Detroit, Michigan. People in general should not be in both a category and a parent category, only in the most specific category that applies to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laurence Lieberman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Willie Jae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to come out of retirement, and since signed a publishing deal with [[Jay-Z]]'s [[StarRoc]].<ref name="robertjrgraham.com"/<ref name="jamsphere.com"/><ref>http://voices.yahoo.com/from-
[{Category:American male singer-wongwriters]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand/Siam

I am thinking all the years of Thailand before 1939 should be renamed to Siam, but I just wondered your opinion first as it will have to be a big nomination. Thanks. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Del Arco

There is a close paraphrase issue at Jonathan Del Arco. There appears to be no single editor who might be likely to undertake fixing this; I identified the editor with the most edits in 2012, and 2013; only the four of you, with two edits each met that low hurdle.

I outlined the issue at the talk page, my hope is that one or more of you will undertake to salvage the article.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1960 establishments in the Federation of Malaya

Category:1960 establishments in the Federation of Malaya, 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. Tim! (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Pangalila, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch and Javanese (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) 10:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Not-notable for" category removals

Hi. Can you point to some actual guideline that supports your removal of people from categories they are "not notable" for, such as Category:Jeopardy! contestants? The category system traditionally does not work that way. If you grew up in a place, you are put in the "People from" category for it, regardless of whether you are famous for having grown up there. Same for what university you go to, and so forth. If we go down this route, many many category removals will have to be made. Take John McCain, for instance, which I am the main editor of. I can tell you that besides not being "notable" for being a Jeopardy contestant, he's also not notable for being a Baptists from the United States (he's not very religious) or for being a Commanders of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite (whatever that is) or for having attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria (he moved around a lot) or for his association with the International Republican Institute or for being a National Heroes of Georgia or for being a Recipients of the Air Medal (he's only famous for being shot down, not for the missions before that) or for Recipients of the Legion of Merit or Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 1st Class or Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 2nd Class or Sons of the American Revolution, among others.

Now some of the categories he really is "notable" for, including the political ones and Naval aviator and Vietnam War prisoners of war. But do you really propose to delete all the others? If so, where is the guideline telling all of us to start this big purge? If not, why pick on just Jeopardy? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my impression is that the WP:defining criteria is applied more strictly in practice to jobs vs other things. It's the same reason we don't have hundreds of actors in the waiters category even tho they once did that job.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gendered categories for actors

Why are you re-categorizing "actor" pages into "male actors" and "actresses"? Actor is an established and accepted gender-neutral term for that profession. Even the Wikipedia page for "actress" redirects to "actor". I don't see the need for explicitly creating new categories based on gender in this case. Funcrunch (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had read some of the background before you posted it on my talk page. But it is really necessary to have categories as specific and sparsely-populated as Category:Male actors from Fresno, California?? Funcrunch (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors in Tamil cinema

Category:Male actors in Tamil cinema, 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. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm sorry I jumped on you so hard at my talk page. I was frustrated by what I see as the glaring flaws in categorization, and I jumped to conclusions based on slanted media accounts. It won't happen again. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your apology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims. You are being notified since you participated in the last discussion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actors, male, Shakespearean

Hi; in the past month or so, you've created Category:Shakespearean male actors and Category:Male Shakespearean actors. I assume that these are the same thing? If so, which one should be deleted and which one do you want kept? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied the one I didn't think we needed, but I lack a strong view on either form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will delete Category:Shakespearean male actors for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actors

FYI, I feel that gendering all actors cats below national level is excessive. I don't have time right now to start a nomination but wanted your thoughts - what is the limit of actors-gendered categories? Can't we have male/female at national level, then keep the rest ungendered?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see that working. The categories have developed in too large a way, and too few of them exist. Anyway, acting is a profession where everyone, in all ways in controlled by gender. Roles are by gender, awards are by gender, and we have consistently seen having the gender split upheld at all levels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to be done, Obi-Wan Kenobi, it would involve thousands and thousands of articles covering male actors and actresses around the world. I think it would need to be a decision based on a RFC. At the least, it should involve an active discussion with regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Those categories are most relevant to Editors who work on creating and maintaining actor bios and shouldn't be drastically changed without consultation from the Editors most impacted (or a deleted category will just continually be recreated). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'll start the discussion there. I think the whole thing smacks of overcategorization. Yes, gender is important for acting, but it doesn't mean that every single actor category should thus be gendered. We can easily set up simple category intersection at the top of any relevant pages to capture "nationality + actor + specific actor cat" + "nationality + actor + gender". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians

Uh-oh: Category:Men in politics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations

Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations, 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) 08:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing women by occupation

Hi, John. You've written: "In the past I have mistakenly categorized people into only gender categories. I have tried to remedy this situation recently, such as by making sure that all the people in Category:American female film directors were also in Category:American film directors."

Was there any discussion about this? If this is to be done in this way, then I'm willing to recategorise all the Slovene women in the similar way. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tp stalker - yes, it was a massive forest fire that consumed at least a month of wiki-time - see American women novelists and associated cfds but it spread all over the wiki. In general women (or anyone) should never be ghettoized - to avoid this you can use the algorithm I developed which is linked on my user page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Franchi

Hi John. Have you gotten a bee in your bonnet about recategorizing people? You have edited several categories on the Sergio Franchi page (including one which does not exist) from American to Italian. Because Sergio Franchi became a naturalized American in 1972, I believe that his initial categories were more correct. He became an AMERICAN 1972. I am reverting your edits. Thanks, Catherine.Cathlec (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actresses from the Bronx

Category:Actresses from the Bronx, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors from the Bronx

Category:Male actors from the Bronx, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

I noticed that you made some previous edits to the 1800 Vending Wikipedia page. I'm working with this company to fix some misinformations that are still on the page as well as add some clarification to some items. Would you be willing to help me with this?

23.30.60.249 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reality television shows of Nigeria

Category:Reality television shows of Nigeria, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 4#Category:African people of Arab descent

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Category:African_people_of_Arab_descent. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on a similar theme Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeff Sutherland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeff Sutherland 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/Jeff Sutherland 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 notice from the top of the article. cherkash (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Inspirational Quote for You

"Love, love me do

You know I love you
I'll always be true
So please, love me do
Whoa, love me do"

Winston Churchill

the artist formerly known as eric pickles (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Russell M. Nelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

her [[M.Sc.]] from BYU in 1975, and her [[Ph.D.]] from the [[University of Calgary]] in 1984.<ref>[http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635197769/Elder-Nelson-marries-BYU-professor.html Carrie A.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osborn, Detroit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Start (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) 09:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Eyring may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

there. She met Eyring while pursuing a doctorate at the [[University of Wisconsin]].<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/09/elder-henry-b-eyring-molded-by-defining-influences?lang=eng [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:British migrants to Mandatory Palestine to Category:British emigrants to Mandatory Palestine and Category:Lebanese emigrants Mandatory Palestine to Category:Lebanese emigrants to Mandatory Palestine Hugo999 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw

Category:Alumni of St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw, 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Descent, Expatriates, and Emigrants

As you seem to be an active user when it comes to categorization, I have a question regarding these diaspora categories. I was wondering if you could guide me how to categorise the right people into such categories. For example, there are three categories for Pakistani Americans: Category:American people of Pakistani descent, Category:Pakistani emigrants to the United States and Category:Pakistani expatriates in the United States. As I tend to spend a lot of time categoring, could you briefly explain to me the difference between these three categories and which person goes where? For example, which category does a US-born American citizen of Pakistani ancestry go? In which category does a Pakistani-born naturalised American citizen go? And in which category does a Pakistani citizen living in the U.S. go (I would say the expatriate category, but just to get the record right..)?.. Mar4d (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mar4d (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film companies established in 1978

Category:Film companies established in 1978, 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. Tim! (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Anglican priests: RFC as followup to CFD

You contributed to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 2#Category:English_Anglican_priests, which I have closed today as "no consensus". (This notice is being sent all participants in that debate.)

Apart from the disagreement in that particular case, there seemed to be no broader agreement on how to categorise of Anglican priests. So I have opened a Requests for Comments discussion about it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RFC:_Categorisation_of_Anglican_priests, where your contribution would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category you created

Hello, have you decided what to do with this category: Category:American men's basketball players? It's just been sitting there.Hoops gza (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be expanded. Unless people want to eliminate the women's category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a gigantic category project here, thousands of articles. Perhaps it would be wise to do men's basketball players by state instead?Hoops gza (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entirely separate category tree for the various colleges at which both men (and women) played basketball. Jabari Parker is not a basketball player from North Carolina, he is from Illinois. He is also in Category:Duke Blue Devils men's basketball players. Michael Jordan is not from New York nor from Illinois, he is from North Carolina. By state would be pretty manageable, as we already have a "Basketball players by state" category tree.Hoops gza (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where someone is from is more complex than you seem to think. Also, if we are going to mix basketball players and location, why not where they actually play?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still have to say that I think by state is the way to go with this one. I don't think there is an ideal way with this one.Hoops gza (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dail Jones

Just another question on how to categorise someone who is born in a different country and lives there for a long time, but never actually becomes a citizen of the host country. Any clue on how to categorise Dail Jones? He was born in 1944 in Karachi, British India and lived there till 1959 (well after Karachi became part of Pakistan) before leaving for New Zealand. Is the Category:New Zealand expatriates in Pakistan fine or should he be in Category:New Zealand emigrants to Pakistan? I am a bit confused as long-term residents are meant to go into the emigrants cat, but technically, he never really migrated to Pakistan, instead was just born there and spent childhood there. Mar4d (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African American majority population categories being recreated

Hi, I was wondering if you were aware of the creation of these categories, despite this and other Cfd's with listify and delete results. Altairisfar (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations

Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the United States with Middle Eastern plurality populations

Category:Populated places in the United States with Middle Eastern plurality populations, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Lambton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Wellesley (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) 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

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.

Area code 313 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inkster

Languages of Chitral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalasha language

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City

The article Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable elementary school.

While all constructive 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. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador categories

A quick question on categorisation of ambassadors/diplomats. Should non-resident ambassadors (i.e. accredited ambassadors) have their own category? For example, the Afghan ambassador to U.S. also serves as the accredited ambassador to Colombia and for that reason, the Category:Ambassadors of Afghanistan to Colombia exists. I have seen dozens of more categories like this one on non-resident ambassadors. I am just wondering if such categories should exist or not, because technically, accredited ambassadors/diplomats are not like resident ambassadors. Mar4d (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real estate companies established in 1988

Category:Real estate companies established in 1988, 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. Tim! (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camilla Cobb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John W. Young (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) 09:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re The Great Grape Ape Show

Hi Johnpacklambert. So what's the deal here? Isn't he a fictional gorilla etc? --Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bathsheba W. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winter Quarters (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) 09:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

Please be careful about allegations, I removed your latest addition to WP:ANI and used revdelete to hide your edit. Whether true or not, we don't disclose private information that a person has not volunteered themselves, and often people can be blocked for doing so. -- Atama頭 00:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Blackman help

Thanks for your Neutral vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Blackman. I still don't understand why it was deleted, but was wondering if you could help me edit it so that it addresses your concern: "we really need to cut the fluff about all the profiles she has received in various magazines". I thought that would be important for notability. I placed an archive at User:Artfog/Stacy_Blackman. Thanks —Artfog (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees category...

Hi there. I saw your suggestion about deleting the American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees category (instead of changing the spelling of "theatre" to T-H-E-A-T-E-R). Do you propose creating a list of Theater Hall of Fame inductees page? Let me know what you think, and maybe I can help. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Love

See her talk page. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mia Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee (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) 09:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John M. Madsen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

In 1968 Madsen was sent to England as the first seminary teacher to work there.<ref>[http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598690/LDS-Church-History-Symposium-presenter-tells-of-Global-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFD nomination for Margret Bird

Hello JPL. I think something has gone wonky with this AFD. The individual page for the AFD looks just fine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Bird. But when I was looking at the March 15 recap page I noticed it just below this entry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 15#Helen Marie Grant all on its lonesome without a section header or any of the info that is on the separate AFD. I refreshed my cache in case it was my computer then I poked around a little but I could not find any way to fix it. I thought I would let you know so that you can try a straighten things out. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1811, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahom (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) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please...

Since you weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Hameeduddin I felt the nominator lapsed from compliance with WP:BEFORE, and I considerably expanded Mohammed_Hameeduddin.

I know a lot of AFD regulars don't revisit articles, or discussions, after they first left an opinion. If you noticed the expansion, and it didn't alter your delete opinion, I'd be grateful for a brief note, saying so.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_25#Category:Rapists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_25#Category:Rapists. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule

Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Bryce

Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the above discussion, you may or may not wish to comment on the following discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Hunter_Bryce which concerns a redirect created immediately after the discussion. I am leaving the same neutral note to everyone who edited the above AFD. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 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.

Albany Movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Ware

Charles "Charlie" Ware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Woodruff

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also my nomination of another Syrian category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 6#Category:1920s in Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd closure

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21#Category:African slaves in the Americas

The above discussion is closed. I'm not placing it for automatic depopulation in order to give time for manual depopulation, if wanted. - jc37 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate discourse

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_1#4th_and_6th_centuries_in_Israel

I'm not writing this a warning, just a hopefully friendly note at this point. Strong, policy-supported and reference-supported debate is of course welcome at CfD, like any discussion page.

As you've been around for awhile, I'll merely leave it to you to consider whether such comments as were on that page (not merely that discussion) were appropriate collegiate discourse.

As such, no need for a response.

I wish you well. - jc37 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4th-century Israel

I been accused enough of being an anti-Semite for trying to enforce even normal policies on Israel and Jewish sections, that I do not think I was out of line. The people out of line were those who ignored the clear consensus, decided in multiple discussions, that Israel was founded in 1948 and using the term for anything before that is anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The discussion still strikes me as radical pro-Israel factions forcing their will be majority rule with no regard for existing policies or historical reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The people who were out-of-line were those who claimed we were "trying to make Wikipedia into a PLO encyclopedia", when in fact we were seeking to recognize the fact that there was no state of Israel in the 4th-century. We did not propose a Palestine name at all, so that was the unjustified attack, and they never backed down or apologized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but try to comment on the content, not the contributor, and if you find you need to comment concerning a contributor, try to avoid applying labels to a person.

Which I think you understand, as you did decide to strike some of your comments. - jc37 00:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. The fact that you gave weight to the junk opposition built on that is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate thing. and I'll happily clarify my close.

In this case my point was that both sides were using the OTHERSTUFF argeuement. "otherstuff is being cleaned up" vs. "otherstuff is not". - jc37 00:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we weren't. We were using the argument that there is no Israel in the 4th or 6th century, and cited previous precedents of discussions to show this was the agreed consensus. The other side refused to consider actual discussion of category policy. They also made false claims, that were refuted, but they never bothered to admit they were making un-true claims. Lastly, they ignored the fact that Israel is a special case, a country that embraces a clear ethnic group as its founding group, that was clearly not in the majority in the area at the time of these categories. Of course, saying that truth somehow makes me a stooge of the PLO. Which is just plain rubbish claims. I will speak just as loudly in favor of Israel to refuse the right of return as long as Czech can, as anyone else, and would say that Ukraines main problem is they did not learn the lesson of Sudentenland and ethnically cleans the Crimea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outing accusation

I've replied on my talk page. I assume you are referring to User:Schlafly who is Roger Schafly, as he makes clear there - also see his talk page and its archives. Throwing around accusations like that without checking is never a good idea, nor is making personal attacks as you did. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I commented on his page. Roger (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles T. Rubin

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 Charles T. Rubin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brian Vala Nahed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Vala Nahed 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 Vala Nahed 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 notice from the top of the article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lino Alvarez

The article Lino Alvarez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of sources independent of the subject. Noted primarily for being a high-ranking Mormon and all the sources are church publications

While all constructive 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. p b p 05:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lino Alvarez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lino Alvarez 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/Lino Alvarez 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your Amanda Filipacchi comments.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of H. Smith Broadbent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article H. Smith Broadbent 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/H. Smith Broadbent 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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Armenian boxers

Category:Ethnic Armenian boxers, 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. SFB 11:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

categories
Thank you for articles on people, studies and universities, for taking care of ancestries, and for tirelessly helping with categories, people and orchestras, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 502nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George B. Handley

The article George B. Handley has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. p b p 15:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LDS General Authority articles

First off, get over yourself: this isn't about you. I nominate LDS-related articles because of their quality, not on their authorship. I don't even bother looking to see who wrote them when I delete them. If Jimbo had written them in that quality, I would still want them deleted.

Secondly, it's perfectly acceptable to nominate articles for deletion one or two at a time. And there IS a consensus that articles like this should be deleted. The consensus is GNG, which requires independent source. In each discussion, a majority agreed with my interpretation of GNG, you and Stokes essentially argued that GNG should be ignored and LDS sources be used to establish notability of an LDS official. Both in the particular discussions, and in the abstract, there is consensus that GNG should be upheld. So it's counterproductive to refight the battle.

Thirdly, complaining about me to third-parties is unproductive. If you're going to complain about me, complain to me. Or do it on a general noticeboard. And please don't use words like vexatious because they are inaccurate. p b p 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kevin S. Hamilton discussion, which I did not even particpate in, 4 people opposed deletion, and counting you, 3 supported it. That is not a majority in favor of deletion by any means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, no admin is going to count a keep vote that ignores policy as a keep vote. You and Stokes are arguing that GNG should be ignored, and that general authorities should be kept even if no reliable sources are found. That is something I cannot abide by. I cannot abide by it regardless of who created the article: you, Stokes, or anyone else. p b p 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We disagree with your overly narrow interpretation of "reliable source" which has a tendency to favor cetain views and sideline others. Your constant antagonistic voice, calling for the ignoring of "Latter-day Saint sources" is also highly objectionable, and suggests that Latter-day Saints should be treated as a marginzalized and non-noticable people. It is the type of privaleging of certain forms of sources that many people have said prevents Wikipedia from being what it truly seeks to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're going too far if you call me "antagonistic" just because I call the rules as written. ("Vexatious" was also too far). The general principle behind GNG requiring independent sources is that there are biases in the other direction too; people have felt articles sourced mostly from the organizations people belong too tend to exaggerate those peoples' achievements and downplay their failures. I never said you can't use LDS sources, just that you can't use them to meet the GNG bar. But there are reasons for not using LDS sources; there's I believe a whole article, a well-sourced one, on the dubiousness of LDS sources. Articles are always better if they include sources not associated with the topic to support their primary claims. p b p 21:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The calling of LDS sources as "dubious" is another example of the bigotry that is at the heart of PBP attacks on LDS articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another misused loaded word bordering on a personal attack. p b p 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you focusing on LDS articles, PBP? Given your hostility to John, it would be hard not to see this whole deletion process as personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to PBP, I am clearly not the only Wikipedia editor he hates and wants to drive off the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I the only person who dislikes you, JPL. @Liz:, the reason I've nominated a number of LDS general authorities for deletion is because I believe them to not be adequately sourced enough to pass GNG. I have nominated articles and categories for deletion that have not been created by him, so to say it's personal is a stretch. If JPL considers all LDS articles, including those he did not create, to be his domain, we've got some serious OWNership issues on his part. p b p 01:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is an attack is to claim that all of "x-religion sources" are "dubious". No one has quesitoned any of the statments about the biographical details of Vinson, or the other slew of General Authroties you have nominated for deletion. Even if they had, that would not support your attempts to dismiss a whole set of sources out of hand. To make things worse, this in many ways seems like fighting a poxy war. The real goal of the "Dubious" claim is to slant aritcles of unquesitoned notability in a certain way. I have seen far too much of that slanting in wikipedia, to have anything but revulsion to the "dubious" claim in any location. Beyond this, the mention of "LDS sources" is undefined enough to make it useable as a bait and switch. We are never sure what you mean, so we can never be sure when a source moves beyond that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that PBP claims "Being LDS and being black are not analogous" shows that he recognizes the bigrotry in his attacks, but thinks anti-LDS bigotry is OK. The fact of the matter is, that both race and religion are protected by the Civil Right Act, so in fact the analogy works. Attempts to exclude sources on racial, religious or other similar grounds are all equally objectionable. In this case it may at times be more an issue of tone than content, but the tone chosen has clearly been objectioanble and bigoted. I am not the one who has gone around claiming that a whole set of potential sources should be excluded on a grounds that is discriminatory based on the Civil Rights Act. I have also not been the one making flase claims of no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, JPL, is by your logic, we could have an article on a basketball player based solely on quotes from his agent and coach. And I am fully comfortable saying that LDS sources do not pass muster as much as those of other religions; other scholars agree with me on that, out of concerns of transparency of the sources. Even the sources from other religions are not in and of themselves enough in today's day and age to create articles that pass GNG. p b p 01:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To lump all sources from a given religion together is to show your continued bigotry. I am glad you are finally admitting your deep seated hate for the Latter-day Saints and the materials they produce. Your tone continues to be combative and cdondescending, and to show no respect for anyone else. To compare Church produced sources to those of an agent does not work. The Ensign and Church News are not under the control of the people involved in these articles. The people are highlighted in articles in these sources because in the view of the editors all general authorities are important and notable. Considering that there are lots and lots of articles on Catholic bishops that have only a website that focuses solely on covering the Catholic hierachy as their souirces, and in fact they lack anything approaching the indepth biographical articles we have in the case of LDS General Autorities, your claims about the current state of religious articles do not stand up to any amount of scrutiny.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since PBP has openly admitted to disliking me, he should probably give up on his crusade against me. Also, contrary to what he believes, people do not have to be popular to edit wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, for the fourth time, this is about the articles, not about you! And stop throwing around weasel words p b p 23:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your clearly bigoted attacks on sources created by Latter-day Saints do not mesh with these claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're hyperbolizing at this point, and using a lot of weasel words. Why are you ONLY complaining about me? Other editors agree with my position. Why aren't you complaining to THEM. I'm done talking to you. I'm off to find more poorly sourced articles and nominate them for deletion. p b p 00:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Larry Y. Wilson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Y. Wilson 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/Larry Y. Wilson 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Prod Deletion

I still am of the opinion the creation of the Prod deletion method was unwise. It allows deletion to occur without enough discussion of the merits of the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Given that any removal of at least WP:PROD results in it not applying, I don't see fault in that. What I do see fault in is it's WP:BITEY and maybe that's why it works. Create what you think is a good article, get it PROD'd, just leave Wikipedia because of it, and you're long gone to contest the PROD and it gets deleted. However, that's the nature of CSD as well. Tutelary (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of things on Wikipedia have a tendency to scare off all except the truly thick skinned. Either that, or people who are especially good at lobbing complaints about the behavior of others. I really think that Wikipedia editors would be most helped by in-person advice from live people on how to start. I remember my first article creation got shot down almost immediately (although more because I had not developed enough sources than because the person was not notable). My second article also was put to AfD, but that one survived, because people who have served as a president of a significant academic institution generally do. The fact that Bruce C. Hafen might not even be most notable for being president of Ricks College, made the article even more likely to survive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Hafen never did get nominated for deletion. I thought the article had, but I did not see it in there. I may also be misremembering it as the second article I created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're talking about is the IRC chat, which I actively lurk in. Tutelary (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the IRC chat is. I looked again, and I was right that immediately after creation, the article on Bruce C. Hafen faced a speedy deletion nomination. Of course, the fact that it lacked sources did not help. Although to be fair I had a history professor who I remember explicitly telling us that Encyclopedia Articles do not have sources in them. When I started with Wikipedia I didn't realize the same rules that apply to other encyclopedia's don't apply here. We lack respected editors, for the most part, so we need to show sources, especially after all the hoaxes. The first article I created was on Phoebe Woodruff, who still lacks a seperate article, but I later figured out a way to provide more indepth coverage of her in the article on her husband, Wilford Woodruff. In fact, I am 90% sure what it says of her there is more than was ever said in the seperate article I created on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD note

Hi there. It would probably be helpful to the closers of AfD debates if you indicate Keep or Delete rather than "Oppose," which is ambiguous. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

missing past general authorities

You asked at my talk page for me to get back to you about past general authority persons of the L.D.S. I have access to news lit search that I'll use to make a list for you, when i have time. Follow up with me in a few weeks if i don't get back to you. --do ncr am 13:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running lit search again, this time on "Morman" and ("general authority" or "general authorities"), yielding 3,422 hits in major U.S. newspapers. Found a good general article about emeritus general authorities, listing them, will email you a PDF file of this. Also about hits:

Henry D. Taylor has LA Times obit
Marion G. Romney has LA Times obit and Chicago Tribune obit
Ted E. Brewerton
Paul H. Dunn covered in Chicago Tribune, for admitting fabrications involving baseball and war service(??)
B. H. Roberts, "Wikipedia's Mormon Wars" Deseret News covers Wikipedia editing about Roberts' article in Wikipedia
Gordon B. Hinckley, longish NYTimes article about him, with photo of him, July 4, 1994
Bruce R. McConkie or Bruce McConkie, Chicago Tribune obit

too many to go through all.

Limiting search further to "Morman" and "obituary" and ("general authority" or "general authorities") yields 102 hits

N. Eldon Tanner, Boston Globe obit
H. Verlan Anderson
Legrand Richards, then the oldest general authority died,
William Bangerter, Deseret News obit, 2010
Charles Gibbs, Deseret News obit, 2005
"Congressman Del Clawson Dies at 78", Washington Post, was an LDS bishop
Pittsburgh Post - Gazette [Pittsburgh, Pa] 29 July 1998: B-6. ...Dixon Oaks, 65, the wife of Mormon general authority Dallin H. Oaks, July 14 in...
Victor Lee Brown, in St. Petersburg Times: "VICTOR LEE BROWN, 81, the Mormon Church's 10th presiding bishop and an emeritus general authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, died Tuesday in Salt Lake City of cancer. Bishop Brown served more than four years as a member of the faith's First Quorum of the Seventy after earlier having been in the Presiding Bishopric of the church for 24 years - 13 as presiding bishop. He stepped down from duties in church administration in 1989." [St. Petersburg, Fla] 28 Mar 1996: 4.A.

Some hits were on persons already listed here, and some hits not relevant at all. Stopping for now to see which of the above are bluelinks vs. redlinks. --do ncr am 01:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I see only the William Bangerter is a redlink, others are bluelinks. But the Boston Globe obit would be a good source to add to the N. Eldon Tanner article, i note. --do ncr am 01:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton L. Cutler: CLINTON L. CUTLER: Mormon Official

Clinton L. Cutler, 64, a member of the Mormon Church's Second Quorum of the Seventy, died of cancer April 9 at his home in Salt Lake City. He was named to the quorum, one of the church's tiers of authority, in 1990. He was first counselor in the General Presidency of the Sunday School and an assistant executive director of the Family History Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The Washington Post Company Apr 11, 1994

Sterling W. Sill, Wash Post obit
Neal Maxwell, 78, a member of one of the highest ranking bodies of the Mormon Church: the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; July 21, in Salt Lake City, of leukemia. --Chicago Tribune
Samuel Woolley Taylor SAMUEL WOOLLEY TAYLOR, 90, author of Flubber and The Absent-Minded Professor and known by some as the "Mark Twain of Mormondom," died Friday in Provo, Utah. He was known for Family Kingdom, the story of his father, John W. Taylor, father to three dozen children and husband to six wives who was dropped from the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles for having plural wives after the church had abandoned the practice. Other Mormon works included Nightfall at Nauvoo, The Rocky Mountain Empire and Heaven Knows Why! -- St. Petersburg Times
D. Arthur Haycock Washington Post: D. ARTHUR HAYCOCK: Church Official. D. Arthur Haycock, 77, former secretary to five presidents of the Mormon Church, died Feb. 25 in Salt Lake City after surgery for a heart ailment. He was a temple and mission president for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was elected secretary-treasurer of the church-owned Deseret News Publishing Co. in 1958 and retired in 1986.

Maybe not so easy to find articles to create. --do ncr am 01:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the Haycock article is tagged for notability and sources, while adding the Washington Post reference would help address. That article was "DEATHS: [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Washington, D.C] 28 Feb 1994: d04. ". --do ncr am 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly,

Hello, Johnpacklambert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--do ncr am 01:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John M. Madsen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John M. Madsen 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/John M. Madsen 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Ashanda's talk page.
Message added 07:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ashanda (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal descendants of John William Friso.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Group of 88

I see that you have re-added "Category:Group of 88" to some biographies. You also added to some new members to that category. Based on your comments here, you seem to be pursuing some kind of political agenda rather than working to improve categorization. I don't wish to get into an edit war over this, so can I ask that you remove the category until the deletion discussion is finished? Thank you. Nigel Pap (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion on ANI. This is obviously about more than just categories for you. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Group of 88

I removed The categories from a number of articles. All of those which don't actually mention that group. It presents to me a BLP issue. A Scarlet Letter is exactly what your language has suggested that it is meant to be. I understand and respect your position. But that isn't relevant. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Perhaps you could create a blog to advocate for this as you personally feel appropriate.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The membership is sourced and supported by the text of the Group of 88 article. What should be done is adding relavant text to the other articles, not removing applicable categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

serialjoe, you should not empty categories under discussion for deletion - please read CFD guidelines. Better to let the category be filled with valid members - if it's deleted which seems likely, then it will be removed by a bot. If it's kept, then it wouldn't make sense to only have on some articles. Being a member of that group is not itself a BLP violation and they willingly joined it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually missed the part of the banner that said not to remove anything before I did it. It was certainly unintentional. I came here to explain the removal. In the unlikely event that this doesn't get deleted I would have removed them none the less. Lee D. Baker that information was removed per BLP. I agree with that logic. Again judging by what you've said your primary reasoning is Advocacy. If it's not in the article because of BLP it shouldn't be hanging below the article. If you wish add the categories back, please do. I do apologize for missing the policy but it was a good faith mistake.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, potentially you could be a very valuable contributor to this important topic and thanks for your efforts. Your passion is a great thing but it seems you're letting it get the better of you occasionally (no doubt not helped by others deleting notable material not to mention your legitimate concern about COI editors). Can I suggest you maybe strike/amend some of your more emotive comments in the category discussion in order to prove to everyone that you understand what and what isn't useful? (such as part of your first sentence there). Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, no need to go overboard though! 90% of what you said was excellent and you came across as much better informed than most people are on the subject.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, please furnish an an actual quotation from the original newspaper ad that justifies your repeated charges that the so-called Group of 88 prejudged the guilt of the accused. The follow-up letter signed by most of them said, ""We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you posted a link to a copy of the original ad at ANI. Reading that ad, I find no statement that prejudges the guilt of the lacrosse players. Do you? I am hoping that you will withdraw all such claims you've made. Mischaracterizing the contents of that ad seems to be a cottage industry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole spirit of the ad prejudices the guilt of the Lacrosse players, and encourages those that have called for punishment, including castration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the attempts to call "ultra conservative" those who have attacked the Group of 88 ignores that KC Johnson, the main force behind both the Durham-in-Wonderland blog and a co-author of Until Proven Innocent, one of the main books on the subject, is an admitted two-time supported of Obama. This in no way makes him sound ultra-conservative. As in most cases, this one does not easily fall within a simplistic conservative/liberal division of thought.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eve Shelnutt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[{Category:American women poets]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Based on the WP:discretionary sanctions in force on all WP:BLP content, and in light of the recent complaints about you violating the rules of neutrality on biographies of living persons, as for example with these edits: [1][2], I am topic-banning you from all edits and discussions regarding the so-called Duke lacrosse case, the so-called Group of 88, and persons related to these, for an indefinite period of time. This sanction will be logged at WP:Editing restrictions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In his infinite wisdom, User:John has closed the discussion without further sanction. To clarify here, I agree with Fut. Perf.'s actions and I would strongly advise you to avoid topic areas (typically BLP areas) where you have strong personal feelings. In all honesty, it is the same advice I give everyone and follow myself. I don't want to see you end up with a BLP topic ban, but that is where it is headed if this kind of thing is repeated. I recommend working on articles that have zero BLP content whatsoever for a couple of months, let the fury die down, and just get back into building the encyclopedia in that way for a while. There is plenty to work on, plenty of good to be done outside of BLP. You don't need temptation, and some in the community don't need more ammunition. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon sources

If you know any good older sources, preferably PD of course relating to "Mormonism," let me know. Over at wikisource both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are already there although not yet proofread/verified, and I've nominated A dictionary of the Book of Mormon as a possible proofread of the month. Any other PD sources which could be used for article development here I should be able to get to by next month, when I finish the book I'm working on. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think the Doctrine and Covenants is a valuable source. The current version is at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng . Old versions presumably are PD. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine and Covenants is a good source. That is the best link. This is the scripture most altered by the 2013 revisions, although they are with few exceptions alterations in the introductory material and additions of explanatory notes to the Official Declarations. They do not have much doctrinal impact, but they give the passages more full and at times more accurate historical context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the older PD versions still be worthwhile additions to commons and wikisource? John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN/I complaint

JPL, you may have missed my advice to you here. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David B. Honey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David B. Honey 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/David B. Honey 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 notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dean Allemang

The article Dean Allemang has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive 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. Deb (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

in AfD discussion: Category:Advocates of good provision of education for both sexes you stated We avoid "advocates" categories in almost all cases. I just wondered whether you would care to comment on terminologies that you would not avoid or whether you could help by sourcing this claim. Gregkaye (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD heads up

Thanks for posting the note on the People's Choice AFD. Clearly it was the right thing to do. – S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help me bring back the article of Brianne Siddall

Hey, i know that you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianne Siddall discussion, and you said that: but find better sources, and if that is not done in 6 months or so, reopen the debate. In almost all cases better sources exist for people who have had notable roles in multiple shows, we just need to find them and i feel the same thing, which is why i'm here for that reason to ask you for your help on bringing the article back, so that it won't end up being deleted again, here's a link to the draft that i started, so take a look and see how you think the process is going so far: Draft:Brianne Siddall. I hope you help me with this article, so will you help me? :-) Norozco1 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, still waiting for you to reply back, and if you want to part on the Brianne Siddall talk page and tell the editors what you're reasons why the viewers want the Brianne Siddall artcle back, ok! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to Joan Juliet Buck's category

Thanks for the intro to the gender-specific category, but you didn't need to remove it from the general. It smacks of sexism. Please read this article. thanks--Aichik (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your reply:

Not really. You yourself on your talk page admit "In the past I have mistakenly categorized people into only gender categories. I have tried to remedy this situation recently, such as by making sure that all the people in Category:American female film directors were also in Category:American film directors." So being cautious, and I'm sorry you believe the Salon article is knee-jerk and horribly researched. That's your opinion.--Aichik (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single article on the matter was knee-jerk, horribly written, and created by people who had never spent the time to figure out how Wikipedia categories really worked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A notice for you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Aichik (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy

You are something else. I've been watching all the pages you wish to delete. My page including T.R. Threston are verifiable and notable. I am asking for page protection or some type of blocking. --WJRockford (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a proposed deletion/dated tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. Which I have done. You are trying to delete out of spite. T.R. Threston meets all criteria for verifiable sources and notability. --WJRockford (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Threston is solid with verifiable souces. Take your ego trip somewhere else. {{Deprod} --AustralianThreston (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how someone with verifiable, credible THIRD party references and sources be deleted when they meet all other notability criteria. Re: John J. Threston and T.R. Threston These parties are listed in newspapers, books, annual reports and even in a Congressional report! --AustralianThreston (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update (I thought you'd like to know:
"T.R. Threston" is a HOAX! All right already, she does have an elaborate facebook-page, Twitter account, mentioning in annual report of whatever club of travel writers, all uploaded from somewhere, non-valid ISBN and very dodgy, but now finally there is proof that "T.R. Threston" is completely made up! Not even her photoes ar real! That photo from her facebook-"fan" page? Fake! The one from her wordpress page? Fake! Her Twitter? All are fake! You are asking for proof? Well ... lets take the pic from her facebook-fan page for a minute and compare it to this photo of Jessica Alba at Toronto Film Festival 2007. Please not the people in the background ... of course she COULD have asked those who were in the background of Jessica Alba back then, to come join her at exactly the same place to take that photo with exactly the same clothings she might have borrowed them froom Jessica Alba, since she knows all the celebs!), and damn: the same figure, - theoretically, - but ... naaah ... that one is photoshopped! (^_^) LagondaDK (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelita Little Turtle‎, it is getting difficult to confirm whether this person passes WP:GNG or not, given that we had far better articles than this one and they had more than just 1 or 2 'mention'. Have a view? Debate was relisted yesterday. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuq historians

Just now I saw your comment on CfD Seljuq historians. According to the rules you're right with your comment, of course. Question out of curiosity: what is the rationale behind this rule, with this exception for larger established trees? After all, the problem that small categories require (unnecessary) extra navigation to find related articles isn't any different in larger established trees as compared to any other trees. (Btw the problem of small categories in a larger tree is even much bigger in the Category:Proposed public transport tree where most categories only contain one or two childcats and no single articles at all. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more categories than articles in this tree and I really find it strange that this must stay as is.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi John. Just wanted to say thanks for this edit. Some time ago I went through the relevant categories and tried to ensure that any immigrant from the USSR was in the Soviet category, but one or two editors have insisted on labelling them as Ukrainian/Molodovan etc. I believe there is quite a problem with original research in this area, as anyone who was born in, say, Baku, during the Soviet era is labelled as an Azeri Jew or immigrant, when the reality is that they were probably Russian Jews who had moved there. But anyway, your edits to try and clean this up are much appreciated. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Jenkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameron Brown. 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) 09:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Koichi Aoyagi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koichi Aoyagi 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/Koichi Aoyagi 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi. Your comments in Tarik Shah seem to me to be equally valid for the singer Rojda. I would like to see your input also there. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

JPL, I need a second opinion: do you think this category is appropriate: Category:Gator Football Ring of Honor? There are only five recipients of the honor to date, the award is mentioned in all five bio articles, and it is described at length in the Florida Gators football article -- which includes a list of the recipients. There are no similar categories for team-level (e.g., University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame) or conference-level (e.g., All-Southeastern Conference) honors or awards. Without being able to put my finger on a specific category guideline, this category strikes me as the odd man out. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Espionage Act of 1917

I ran into a funny category issue, and I thought, In the spirit of collegiality, I'd ask what your take on it would be.

We have two categories, a parent cat for all people charged, Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and a sub-cat for those who were both charged and convicted, Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917.

I tried to tidy, but another editor said that articles should be doubled-up in every category, parent and sub-cat, so that readers can find them no matter where they look. What do you think? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta

I'm seeking to move Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta back from the August 2013 discussion by you. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adrián Ochoa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adrián Ochoa 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/Adrián Ochoa 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Nomination of Carlos H. Amado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlos H. Amado 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/Carlos H. Amado 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 03:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint actors

Category:Latter Day Saint actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. p b p 04:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gordon Wagner (economist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gordon Wagner (economist) 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/Gordon Wagner (economist) 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 notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alielahi

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

Not notable.

While all constructive 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. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Per G. Malm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Per G. Malm 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/Per G. Malm 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 00:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Purplebackpack89. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per G. Malm that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. p b p 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters, 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. Courcelles 17:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American female pop singer-songwriters

Category:American female pop singer-songwriters, 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. Courcelles 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters

Category:American female rock singer-songwriters, 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robert A. Rees

The article Robert A. Rees has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject lacks notability

While all constructive 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. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert A. Rees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert A. Rees 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/Robert A. Rees 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 notice from the top of the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Johnpacklambert!

Happy New Year!

Johnpacklambert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

American colonial women

Hello, you recently qualified the above category, and then removed this category label for a person therein, Herodias Gardiner. This is a valid category, and should not be altered. It is of the same ilk as "Women political leaders" who are still relatively rare among all of the world's political leaders. In the same regard, the number of colonial women who have reached prominence is very small, and these women need to be identified and categorized. As you can see by the list of only a few dozen, prominent colonial women compose a small group, and certainly stand out as such compared to their male counterparts. Please return the category to its original status. Thanks. Sarnold17 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armstrong Atlantic State University alumni

Category:Armstrong Atlantic State University 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. ...William 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dee Allsop

The article Dee Allsop has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable business man.

While all constructive 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. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dee Allsop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dee Allsop 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/Dee Allsop 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Nathan (politician)

The article David Nathan (politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 02:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Armenian philanthropists

I've tagged this as empty and eligible for speedy deletion in 4 days. As I don't know who was in the category, or when it became empty, it's a bit difficult for me to say if someone's been emptying it out of process, whether all the eligible articles have been deleted or something else - perhaps you, as the creator of the original category, will remember something about it? Yours, Bencherlite ^Talk 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It actually appears the opposite is true, and we have no articles on people who can be fit into Category:Amenian philanthropists. Since we use Armenian as a nationality designation, and not one of the people so designated was ever a resident of the current boundaries of Armenia, let alone a resident of anything approaching an independent Armenian nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vanna Bonta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vanna Bonta 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/Vanna Bonta (3rd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film actresses from Shanghai

Category:Film actresses from Shanghai, 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. ...William 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sacha Scott

The article Sacha Scott has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paul E. Kerry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul E. Kerry 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/Paul E. Kerry 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 notice from the top of the article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Johnpacklambert. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (49th to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you have any thoughts on the second set of questions - whether issues such as SOPA vote are well advertised to the community? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for taking part in my survey!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazen Kimball.
Message added 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred M. Barbe High School

Per WP:Categorization, 'An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist'. In your edit here[3], you created a link to a nonexistent category. Please don't do this in the future. I have since created the category....William 15:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of James B. Martino for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James B. Martino 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/James B. Martino 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Martino. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You need to stop going around calling me a bigot. That needs to stop immediately. p b p 13:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a third-party observer, I would second this message, JPL. You should not call other editors bigots or their actions as being bigoted. Focus on the substance of the nomination, not on what you might perceive as a motivation or intent behind them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MC Primo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian. 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) 08:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arnold H. Green for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arnold H. Green 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/Arnold H. Green 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 notice from the top of the article.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Slover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A More Perfect Union. 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) 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on WP:Articles for deletion/Ajay Marshal

I'm not sure if you're aware of the weird typo that showed up. I'm assuming it was just a copy-paste into the wrong window, but just in case something is wrong with your editing setup I thought I'd let you know. Jerodlycett (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the post, and did not see any typos. I am not sure what I am supposed to find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the typo fixed here: [4] as I said, just wanted to make sure that it wasn't some bad javascript inserting that. Jerodlycett (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Improving article on Kate Campbell

Hi- I have incorporated several of the references identified during the AfD. I hope these additions begin to address the concerns regarding the article's lack of sourcing. Cheers, Gongshow talk 07:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cormac McCarthy (musician).
Message added 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

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.

Janice Biala

added a link pointing to Kingdom of Poland

List of state leaders in 1860

added a link pointing to Wadai

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help in voting please

Could you please have a look at voting for a keep or delete here? I only ask you because i noticed you voted on a similar Islam-related issue. Thanks.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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.

Mardek Chabarian

added a link pointing to Lebanese

Markar Aghajanyan

added a link pointing to Iranian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Partners Harvard Medical International

Category:Partners Harvard Medical International, 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. DexDor^(talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Polyaki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polyaki 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/Polyaki 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 notice from the top of the article. Liam987 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assamese people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamrup. 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) 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Craven (hymnwriter) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Craven (hymnwriter) 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/John Craven (hymnwriter) 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 notice from the top of the article. --- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. C. Christensen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On Our Own. 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) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Linda Hunter Adams

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 Linda Hunter Adams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Al Fox Carraway

The article Al Fox Carraway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Basically an unsourced BLP about an obscure Latter-day Saint blogger. Fails WP:GNG requirements and other suitable SNGs. Lacks coverage outside LDS Church sources.

While all constructive 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. Cavarrone 06:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Michigan Wolverines swimmers

A tag has been placed on Category:Michigan Wolverines swimmers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, JPL, that's the required boilerplate notice. The short explanation is that I have split the original Category:Michigan Wolverines swimmers into Category:Michigan Wolverines men's swimmers and Category:Michigan Wolverines women's swimmers, and it will not be re-populated. This parallels the gender split for the other larger NCAA swimming programs -- Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Stanford, Texas and USC. I assume this is unobjectionable to you. If so, I will also gender-split the existing swimmer categories for Arizona, Cal, Texas A&M and UCLA in the near future, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh

Hi, way back in 2012 you expanded Ajit Singh of Marwar with some info that you referenced to John Richards' The Mughals. I am not aware that John F. Richards ever wrote a book by that title and your citations were pretty poor (no publisher, isbn etc). Worse, a fair amount of what was said seems not to be in Richards' The Mughal Empire (1995 edition, Cambridge University Press).

There is a very remote possibility that you were citing a different John Richards, although the similarity of page numbering makes that unlikely. I know it is ages ago but can you remember the full details of the source? Perhaps you have the book at home somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

You are quite right, your edit is fine. Please accept my apologies. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lis Anna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lis Anna 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/Lis Anna 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 notice from the top of the article. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 4th Class

Hi! Please have a look here and compare this. Morel (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the French Empire by year

Category:Establishments in the French Empire by year, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1843 in the United Provinces of Central America

Category:1843 in the United Provinces of Central America, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question on categorization

What do you think is the way to go about with categorizing ambassadors with dual accreditation? For example, the ambassador of Luxembourg to the United States is the non-resident ambassador to Canada and Mexico. Would categories be required for the latter two even though the ambassador is non-resident? I've seen numerous of these 'non-resident' cats and not sure if they should be created. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1815 establishments in Ceylon

Category:1815 establishments in Ceylon, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion 997 in Germany

Hey Johnpacklambert, I'm re-reading this CfD discussion and I've started wondering if we (= including myself) haven't been too insistent on categorizing by contemporary polity. In retrospect I am still strongly in favor of categorizing political history by contemporary polities, but in this case it concerns the establishment of an abbey, which doesn't seem to be related to politics of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, if the abbey would have been 40 km to the west, probably nobody would have objected that it would be in Category:10th century in Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Prehistoric Belgium, or in Germany for that matter? They're also anachronisms of course, but what about them as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basis for year of establishment

Your edit to the article for Cherryville, New Jersey added a category for a 1736 establishment date. This date relies on this source, which states in a footnote that "In 1736 a tavern was built at Cherryville, which last year yielded to the elements and fell." Is this source sufficient to merit the addition of the category? Was the tavern built some indeterminate period of time after Cherryville was established or is there anything in this source indicating that the construction of the tavern marks the establishment of the community? Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-US annexation establishments in Texas

Hi JPL, please follow up Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_8#Pre-US_annexation_establishments_in_Texas by nominating the year categories. Category:1830s in Texas is a good starting point.

If no-one has done this by the end of the month then I would reverse the close. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have been active at the moment. Do you want more time to make these nominations? If so, how much? In the absence of a reply I would reverse the close as stated. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon again – thanks for doing this promptly. (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_19#Years_in_the_Republic_of_Texas) – Fayenatic London 07:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rothwell Hick and Rothwell

Hi there, wondered why you added Category:1830 establishments in the United Kingdom as the company dates are 1822 and 1832?80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1905 establishments in the German Empire

Category:1905 establishments in the German Empire, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1906 establishments in the German Empire

Category:1906 establishments in the German Empire, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati before it was

Hi again John, following consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_23#Kiribati_before_it_was, there are several more in Category:20th century in Kiribati that you could now nominate for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1915 establishments in Formosa

Category:1915 establishments in Formosa, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the Italian colonial empire by year

Category:Establishments in the Italian colonial empire by year, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Al Fox Carraway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al Fox Carraway 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/Al Fox Carraway 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joseph I. Bentley

The article Joseph I. Bentley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. No secondary sources.

While all constructive 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. Agtx (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anthony Bradley

The article Anthony Bradley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable associate professor. Does not meet WP:PROF.

While all constructive 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. Agtx (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hannah Smith (lawyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert George. 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) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lizeth Mahecha

The article Lizeth Mahecha has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 10:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1824 establishments in British Burma

Category:1824 establishments in British Burma, 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. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1063 establishments in the County of Flanders

Category:1063 establishments in the County of Flanders, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1497 establishments in the Kingdom of Valencia

Category:1497 establishments in the Kingdom of Valencia, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anthony Bradley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Bradley 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/Anthony Bradley 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 notice from the top of the article. agtx 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the template message. Would appreciate your thoughts at the AfD page. agtx 18:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:#### establishments in Michigan (Territory)

These categories just don't work very well for highway articles. Take for example, M-1 (Woodward Avenue). Do we use 1805 for when Woodward Avenue was first platted in the Town of Detroit? Do we use 1913 when the State Trunkline Highway System was created and the first "divisions" were numbered within the system? Do we use the unknown date in the 1910s when Trunkline 10 was assigned to run over Woodward Avenue? Do we use 1919 when the M-10 number was placed on signs alongside the roadway and used on maps? How about 1926 when Woodward became part of US 10 or 1970 when US 10 was moved and Woodward was given its current number? These sorts of categories have been attempted before, and it's been shown that they just don't work, so that's why we don't use them. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., You might want to look into archiving your talk page as well. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2001 establishments in Iraqi Kurdistan

Category:2001 establishments in Iraqi Kurdistan, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1892 establishments in the American colonial empire

Category:1892 establishments in the American colonial empire, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anne G. Osborn

The article Anne G. Osborn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention

Your recent edit at Astral Media obscured (and reinforced!) a large amount of vandalism by an anonymous editor. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George N. Fuller

The article George N. Fuller has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Wrote one book and edited another, but that appears to be it as far as I can tell. Being Secretary of the Michigan Historical Commission is likewise not notable.

While all constructive 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. agtx 21:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrew George, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday. 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) 08:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1900 establishments in Hawaii Territory

Category:1900 establishments in Hawaii Territory, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point

There really does seem to be an animus among some editors at AFD against individuals and institutions notable for Christian commitment. I'm just not cure what to do about it. Ah, well. WP needs more good editors, but good workers are scarce in so many vineyards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miao people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xong. 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) 10:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lambert of Cremona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lambert of Cremona 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/Lambert of Cremona 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 notice from the top of the article. TheGGoose (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batang County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mushi. 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) 09:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language writers of India

Category:English-language writers of India, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Young Men's Buddhist Association (Burma) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Young Men's Buddhist Association (Burma) 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/Young Men's Buddhist Association (Burma) 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 notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental edit?

Please see here You removed some categories which should have stayed (e.g. Category:1790s establishments in Maine). I think this is an accident. You may want to review some of your edits if you think that you may have made similar goofs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic journals published in Australia

Category:Academic journals published in Australia, 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. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic journals published in France

Category:Academic journals published in France, 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. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Anderson and Partido Laborista. 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) 10:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chief Comcomly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Gray. 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) 09:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1807 establishments in the French colonial empire

A tag has been placed on Category:1807 establishments in the French colonial empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Hawaii Territory by year

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Hawaii Territory by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 22:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prohibition Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frances Willard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dry places in New Jersey

Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople DRV

Hello; I recently closed a discussion for the above category CFD here. A deletion review of the decision has been opened DRV here. I'm notifying you because you participated in the CFD. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of bridges?

Hi, I'm wondering how can bridges get established.[5] I have always thought that they're built. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges have formal inauguration ceremonies, which is an act of establishing them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building on this I would say that I disagree with that interpretation. Looking through some of the establishments categories they seem intended for businesses or places, not transportation infrastructure. Bridges have the "Bridges completed in X year" category to indicate when they were finished. Things like the Golden Gate Bridge are not in an "establishments" category. I would suggest that if you want to expand the meaning of the category in that manner that you first obtain consensus to do so on its talk page or in some kind of forum. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one "expanding" the definition of establishment. Look at this 2013 edit on a bridge in Oregon [6]. I could find similar edits for virtually all bridges in Oregon. It is clear I did not come up with the idea that bridges are established, because they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under that definition such categories would contain virtually anything created in a given year, including people, and as such most other categories would lose their meaning. As I stated, we already have "Bridges completed in X year" categories for when bridges are finished with construction. Bridges are constructed, not established, like a business or organization. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get additional comment I have started an RFC at Category talk:Establishments since that seems to be the mother category of all this. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks Transit Center

I'm interested in making a seperate page on the Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit, since I have some information on it, and since there are even smaller transit centers with their own detailed articles. But, I see that the name leads to redirect you created which takes one to the article on DDOT. Not knowing how to delete a redirect, I thought maybe you could help me and we could discuss this. Thanks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Rasband's middle name

John,

I would like to know your source for Elder Ronald A. Rasband's middle name. You were the one that created his article in the first place and in one of your early edits you listed his middle name as Anderson. However, I fail to see any evidence to show this to be the case. The Deseret News use to publish a Church Almanac annually and they would usually list a general authority by their full name in the historical listings of the general authorities. I checked every edition I had and Ronald was only listed with the middle initial of A which led me to believe that the A doesn't stand for anything. There has been a lot of interest in Elder Rasband due to his new high calling in the LDS church and I'm currently in a disagreement with one wikipedia editor who keeps adding Anderson back as his middle name with no reliable evidence to support it. Therefore, I would appreciate your help on this issue. Tnmbrown (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh George de Willmott Newman

Have you abandoned this? Seems pretty iffy now, poorly sourced, etc - and who is "Bisho Persson"? Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1841 establishments in the United Province of Canada

Category:1841 establishments in the United Province of Canada, 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. Tim! (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Martinez Article

Dear editor

My name is Luis Alfaro. I read your article about Maximiliano Martinez, and it's pretty much of my interest to contact with you regarding this Wikipedia page, I am a directly family member from Maximiliano ( he was my grand uncle and I would like to know more if you may be interested in the comments in order to update the article you have written. Could you please contact and we can talk more about it.

Thank again and good day. Luislaaglobal (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st Mountain Artillery Regiment (Italy)

Hello, you added 2 different categories to the above - 1887 establishments in Italy and 1991 establishments in Italy - why? Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The regiment was formed first in 1887, but was later totally disbanded for decades, and then recreated in 1991. Both categories apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Italian Wikipedia, the regiment was formed in 1877 and reconstituted after World War II in 1952. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.

A page whose deletion discussion you participated in was re-added and nominated for deletion again. See: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Franklin_(2nd_nomination) Barcaboy2 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bill Shaheen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Shaheen 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/Bill Shaheen 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 notice from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. You may only add controversial material about living people if it is reliably sourced, and even then, it may be deemed inappropriate. "Her non-notable husband's non-notable sister's non-notable husband was convicted of a crime" won't cut it. You're not a n00b and you should know this by now. Complaining about how persecuted you are will get you nowhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum T|C 05:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Calidum T|C 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johnpacklambert reported by User:Calidum (Result: ). Thank you. Calidum T|C 06:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jeanne Shaheen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended this block to indefinite. You've engaged in very serious and, frankly, inexcusable violations of WP:BLP on Jeanne Shaheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Specifically, you repeatedly edit-warred to insert material accusing her of dishonesty and involvement in a crime, using an extraordinarily low-quality source which any reasonable, experienced editor would know is nowhere near strong enough to meet policy requirements. More troubling, you also inserted additional material accusing Shaheen of dishonesty, citing a Boston Globe source but completely misrepresenting its content. These violations of a fundamental site policy are severe enough that I think it is best (and safest for Wikipedia) that you do not edit any more until you give a clear indication that you understand the requirements of site policy and the basic ethical responsibilities we have when editing biographical material in particular. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, you have made so many contributions to Wikipedia over the year. We haven't always agreed at times but I knew you were thinking of what was best for the project. I hope you can listen to the critique that people are offering to you, consider its merits, adjust your approach when working with biographies and appeal your block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that I over reacted in this case. I am willing to make no further edits to the article on Jeanne Shaheen and related articles. I am not sure what else to say. I will admit my appraoch to the whole issue was over reactive and not within the proper uses of Wikipedia. I know that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs. I very, very, very much value editing Wikipedia and have tried to contribute to the project in multiple ways. I know at times I over reacted and rush into things without thinking. I really feel that the 24 hour block was a resonable one and designed to address the issues at hand. An indefinite block of this kind I do not think is wise. I fully and completely admit that what I did was wrong. I should not have edit warred. I should not have persisted in trying to insert material but should have made comments on the talk page of the article. I am not sure what other statements or things could help my position. I was going to apologize for my behavior prior to the implementation of the block. I probably should have posted an apology once the block was first put in place. However I read up on blocks and noticed that they are not about punishment, so I figured I would just let it run its course and move on and avoid edit warring in the future. However with the decision to make the block indefinite, I have decided I need to post this. I am not sure what else to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine MastCell will want you to address the WP:BLP issue specifically. The guide linked in the template above might also be of use. ~Awilley (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I had thought about the differences between indefinete and permanent I might not have posted the unblock request below. Still I think it is in the spirit of the material MastCell was hoping for. I guess I need to be more patient. Part of me would like to point out articles I have created on Mia Love, Joseph W. Sitati, Alex Boyé, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, Dale G. Renlund, Marie Cornwall and Tory Rocca just to name a few. Gathering enough information to put together a new article that is likely to stand in Wikipedia is fairly difficult. I will probably do so in the future if the indefinte block is caused to end, but probably not as much as I have in the past. Just before I made the wrong-headed decisions and mistakes and violations of policy that lead to this block I was going through the contents of the category Category:Publications established in 1991. In the articles on academic journals established that year I was creating links to articles on editors-in-chief mentioned in the articles. In one case I established a link back from the article on the editor, since the article had an off-site link with the journal name and not one to our article. However I had not bothered to follow through on any red links I had created and create the articles. This is partly because I was more focused on other matters and creating articles on academics can take quite a bit of leg worked to develop a workable section of sources. However it is partly because I am pretty sure that while being editor-in-chief of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion as Marie Cornwall was from 2008 until July 2012, makes someone notable. the guideline that influenced me to create the links is #8 on the notability of academics "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Which journals meet that criteria is hard to say. Even in the case of Marie Cornwall and the JFSS the edit to the article on the JFSS updating the listing of the current editor was made in 2012. However that editor did not bother to change the article on Marie Cornwall to reflect that she is no longer the editor-in-chief. Making this update to the Cornwall article would be one of the first things I would do on the end of the block, unless someone else does it first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnpacklambert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for my actions last night. I should have after my first attempts to edit were rebuffed turned to the talk page of the article. However, to be fully honest I knew before I even started my edit that I was too emotionally invested in the topic to make wise decisions in editing and should refrain from doing so. I see now that I should have recognize that, and not made the edits in the first place. I was wrong to make the first edit when my motivating feeling was anger. I needed to step back and calm down and fully wish I had done so. I have been trying to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, and have so much I wish to accomplish in the field of completing out the categorization of places not just by year established but by place and year. My work over the last few months has seen the grown of subcategories of Category:1861 establishments by country and for many other such categories. I would hate to see this incident permanently end my contributions to Wikipedia. I will fully admit my course of action was wrong. It involved violations of multiple policies. I should not have made an edit involving extraordinary claims without multiple sources. Nor should I have tried to twist a source to imply things other than it did. Nor should I have tried to synthesize multiple sources to work out a time-line of the past that no individual source posited. All these actions were wrong and I should not have done them on a biography of a living person. I am sorry for doing this. I will use all my effort to avoid such situations in the future. I was wrong to make an edit motivated by a desire to right perceived wrongs instead of motivated by a desire to accurately convey the information contained in sources, I was wrong to start edit warring to continue it, and I was wrong to double-down as people continued to say I was wrong. I would hope that any further review gives primary consideration to the language here and recognizes that any language that has been removed shows an acceptance that such language was a mischaracterization of the issues at hand. I feely admit I was wrong. I have now been blocked for on the order of 48-hours. The purposes of blocks are not meant as punishments but as protections. I have made below specific promises of what I will not do, as well as more generalized pledges to seek a better course in the future. I have come to realize my actions were wrong, have had lots of time to reflect on them, and do not see that continuation of the block at this time is serving any purpose. My first actions if the block is lifted will be to return to agmenting categories like Category:1874 establishments in the United States by placing the contents of Category:Populated places in 1874 is subcats of Category:1874 establishments by country as appropriate. I fully admit my actions were wrong and disruptive. I fully admit this. I will seek to never be disruptive again. I have a specific plan that hopefully will help me a lot in the future, but do not feel like shring such personal details. I just want to say I have come up with things to do to help in the future that will make anything approaching this never happen again. I recognize I need to alter some things, and I have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Righting wrongs by smearing in lies is anything but righting. The very way how you describe it, even though you're trying to be apologetic, is deeply problematic. Max Semenik (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block is meant to be indefinite, not permanent. That said, I see zero evidence that you understand the underlying issue here. If it were simply a matter of edit-warring, then the 24-hour block would have been sufficient. I'd like to hear, in your own words, your understanding of the issues your edits raised with regard to WP:BLP and basic honesty in citing and representing the content of sources. Those are much more serious than garden-variety edit-warring, and they're the basis for changing the block to indefinite-length. Everyone gets angry sometimes, but if you handle anger by inserting defamatory falsehoods into the biographies of living people, then it's not safe to have you editing Wikipedia until this issue is addressed. As far as I can tell, your understanding of the issue is limited to an admission that you were attempting to "right a wrong", as if inserting such falsehoods or misrepresenting sources were somehow righteous acts, and as if your only fault was excessive zeal in pursuing a laudable goal. Under those circumstances I am not willing to unblock you, because I see a very high likelihood that we'll be dealing with a similar situation the next time you get angry about something. That said, I am willing to listen to anything else you have to say on the subject, and if another uninvolved admin wishes to reverse my block and take responsibility for your future policy compliance, then I am OK with that. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MastCell I have sought to better address the issues you pointed out. I am not sure this will meet your expectations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MaxSem: I think the bit about "righting perceived wrongs" may have been a reference to WP:Righting great wrongs, and in any case they admit several times that they were wrong. I skimmed the news article JPL was using as a source, and I can see how it would create the perception of there being a wrong to right. (A political candidate claiming to have experience running small businesses when the small business in question had been buying and selling stolen jewelry, if I understood it correctly) ~Awilley (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - One should be very careful when making those kinds of accusations, since neither the WFB article nor the Boston Globe article made any such claims about the US Senator, and in fact pointed out several times that she had absolutely no connection to anything illegal. Dave Dial (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also point out that I have abandoned that language entirely. I am prepared to go so far as to promise I will never again use the Washington Free Beacon as a source for any edit to any article. I will never again try to edit the article on Jeanne Shaheen. In the future when I come across extraordinary claims related to BLP articles that I feel for whatever reason should be included in that article, I will bring up the issue on the talk page and not on the article, and I will seek to not even do that until I have given it more thought and decided it really is an issue worth pursuing. I am sorry for my actions. I was wrong to add in edits with such shaky attacks, especially added with unsure original research caused by synthesizing multiple sources. There is one point I feel to make here, because it is a true improvement to the Shaheen article. Shaheen met and married her husband while living in Maine, and they lived in either Maine or New Hampshire at the very start of their marriage. The article as it stands goes straight from her getting her bachelors degree at a univeristy of Pennsylvania to getting a masters degree at the University of Mississippi. Initial readings indicated her husband, who was US Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, appointed by Jimmy Carter and the youngest holder of that position, got his law degree from the University of Mississippi. Until I found an indepth profile of Bill Shaheen from when he was made Hillary Clinton's campaign co-chair for New Hampshire back in 2007 I had the impression that the Shaheens met at the University of Mississippi, partly because nothing in the article mentioned Jeanne even being in New England until after she got her masters. I feel that at least some mention that Jeanne Shaheen met her husband and Maine just after getting her bachelors would make the article better. Still, I will not pursue any edits on that matter. Nor will I try to recreate the article on Bill Shaheen, even though I think his key role in Jimmy Carter winning the Democrat Primary in New Hampshire in 1976 is alone enough to make him notable. I am not sure what else I can say to convince people I recognize my actions were wrong and that I will not do them again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I think this is quite sufficient as an explanation; I think this is the only violation of the sort ever, and would support reducing the unblock to time served (Personally, I would not have extended the block to indefinite in the first place, but that was within discretion.) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so, see the section below that this editor tried to remove. Max Semenik (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that since JPL stated he will:

..."never again use the Washington Free Beacon as a source for any edit to any article"..."never again try to edit the article on Jeanne Shaheen. In the future when I come across extraordinary claims related to BLP articles that I feel for whatever reason should be included in that article, I will bring up the issue on the talk page and not on the article"

that is sufficient grounds to unblock and shows that JPL does understand Wikipedia's BLP policies. Dave Dial (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with User:DGG, and I'm having a hard time understanding User:MaxSem's decline. We block editors based on their actions, not their thoughts (or what we think their thoughts/motivations are), and with a block length proportional to the likelihood of repeat violations. Considering JPL has been here since 2006, has as many edits as the rest of us combined, has apologized, acknowledged the problem, committed not to do it again, promised not to use anything from the crappy news source again, and topic-banned himself from the articles where the BLP vio occurred, I'd say that likelihood is rather low. ~Awilley (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, feel free to unblock then - my decline is not a magic seal that prevents anyone else from unblocking. Also, I explicitly deny that anybody has to consult me about undoing my admin actions. Max Semenik (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem I'm at that awkward point of "involvement" where I've worked alongside JPL long enough that while I'm still comfortable commenting about them in an administrative role, I'm not wanting to use the block/unblock tools. It's not that I think I'm involved; I just don't want to be the type of admin that goes around unblocking wiki-friends. (I feel the same way about User:Roscelese.) Perhaps it's better if you treat me as any other editor here, and in the future I'll try to be more clear about which hat I'm wearing. ~Awilley (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing past history makes it clear that the BLP violations here, motivated by anger, are part of a recurring pattern. In May 2014, this editor used Wikipedia to attack a living person/article subject with whom he was angry. He was let off after apologizing and promising not to do it again. Later in 2014, this editor was topic-banned from editing any and all BLPs after a second episode of serious, anger-driven abuse (see ANI thread). In this latest instance, he is again using Wikipedia biographies to attack and (in this case) falsely defame living people, out of anger. I think it is extremely unwise for Wikipedia to allow someone with this history to continue editing. The next time he gets angry and acts out by defaming a living person on Wikipedia, we may be looking at serious consequences, and it would be impossible to argue with a straight face that we had no way to see it coming. This pattern should be a huge red flag, in my view.
Given the history of promising not to do this sort of thing, and then doing it again and again, I am unwilling to lift the indefinite block, barring some sort of novel supervisory arrangement. Simply promising not to do it again isn't enough, per the fool-me-once principle. At the same time, I am willing to have the block lifted by any uninvolved admin who sees this situation differently than I do, because I don't want to be the sole voice here. DGG opined, above, that he would consider commuting the block to time served, although he was also under the (badly mistaken) assumption that this was an isolated incident. @DGG: Does the prior history change your opinion on handling this block? I mean, he was previously topic-banned from all BLPs, which seems relevant to this latest issue. Either way, feel free to act as you see fit. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic ban was specifically on articles related to the Group of 88. If it had been broader than my edits on articles like Ronald A. Rasband and Hugo Montoya just to name a few since then would have been objected to. I am seeking reconciliation and to show that I understand what I did was wrong and am serious about not going down this same course again. I will agree to not edit any BLPs on elected officials or candidates owho are part of the Democrat Party or people who are employees of or prominent for being columnists with the New York Times or who are faculty or otherwise employed by Duke University past or present. This is in addition to my other statements of what I will do. The elected officials rule seems very broad to me since no one has ever objected to my input on the article on Virgil Smith, just to name one Democrat I know I created an article on that I can remember off the top of my head. However it has become clear to me that I need to show real intent to make clear commitments. The elected officials and candidats includes both those who hold government office and those who hold party office, both current holders as well as past holders where the articles are BLPs. I have a sincere and real desire to do better and not repeat my mistakes of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, wow indef block? This user had just two 31 and 24 hour blocks prior. The case even wasn't a clear BLP violation. The information is verifiable (Boston Globe), neutral (it is a fact just not that relevant to her - she was connected but not legally) and not OR because the information was already in a newspaper article about the politician detailing the claims. Should it be in the article? Likely not because her brother is WP:UNDUE not because of BLP. --Pudeo ' 23:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was previously topic-banned from BLPs for abusive editing, so pointing to his block log in isolation gives a very incomplete picture of the basis for concern. I also think you need to review the edits in question and compare them to the cited sources, because you seem quite misinformed about them. I don't think you're doing this editor any favors by trying to minimize what he's done or by pretending that it wasn't a serious BLP violation. I am not willing to unblock at this point, given the severity of these BLP violations and the previous pattern of abusive BLP editing, and because I would feel responsible the next time he does something like this. As I said, I am open to another admin undoing my block if they are convinced that it would be wise to do so. I'm going to leave it there, and the block can be appealed via the usual means and reviewed by uninvolved admins going forward. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo:, if you think this is not an egregious BLP violation, then you should not be editing any BLPs either. It not only makes innuendos, it makes outright allegations of criminal activity. Neither of which are sourced in the sources given, and one of the 'sources' given isn't even a RS. If JPL begins making the same claims as you have, I would immediately withdraw any support I have given for an unblock. Dave Dial (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to claim the violations were not egregious. I have stridently sought to avoid defending my conduct. I am not going to start doing so. I just want to be able to go back to adding to categories like Category:1863 establishments in New York and not have to be involved in any more discussions on this issue on Wikipedia. I have pointed out that my editing was wrong in multiple ways, violating multiple points of policy especially as they relate to biographies of living people. I am not sure how to proceed now. If I just leave the appeal in place is someone likely to review it, or should I create a new appeal? I abandoned some of the language used to justify the first refusal of my appeal before that refusal was even put in place. It is frustrating to see a decision made by holding me to descriptions of my actions that I have changed. I have a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. I have demonstrated in the past a willingness to seek to correct problems I had contributed to, especially in my work to realign categorizations so it held to the rules on non-diffusion by religion, sex and ethnicity categories. I would offer to undo any detrimental edits I had made related to the articles that sparked this discussion, except all my edits here have already been undone. The one exception is creating the listing of William C. Shaheen as United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire as a link instead of a non-link. If people want me to make it so that there is no link there, I will do it. However unless people proactively say they want me to do something there, I will not, and will leave it up to others to either try to recreate the article on Shaheen, or make the link go to the article on Jeanne Shaheen and possibly provide more information on William C. Shaheen in the article on his wife. As it stands I think currently he is only referred to as Bill Shaheen in the article on Jeanne, making the fact that he is the same William C. Shaheen who was the New Hampshire US Attorney less than clear. I am not even sure how someone would see making these connections clear would be seen as negative or detrimental. However I will leave it to others, and this will be the only place I will state that Bill Shaheen's full name is William C. Shaheen. Well, probably not full name but that is the one he is referred to by in the Wikipedia page on the United States District Attorney for the District of New Hampshire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above may have been too on the wordy side. Short summary, I make no defense of my actions related to the Shaheen article, and admit that my edits were out of line. I should not have gone to stronger accusations than the sources did, nor should I have used such a weak source alone, especially for an extraordinary statement. Beyond this, I should have not tried to resist the edit, but sought calmly to discuss the issue on the talk page in a way that avoided any attacks on either editors or the subject of the article. I am not sure what else I can say to demonstrate I recognize that what I did was wrong and that I will not do it again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban 2015

I have read through the statements about appealing blocks. However they seem to be written for those under blocks with clear lengths of duration, and give little good advice about how to act with and interact with an indefinite block.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- John, you need to be shorter and more succinct in your statements. I understand that it's sometimes hard to state all that you want to say into succinct comments, but many of your statements are of the TLDNR variety. You seem to have many other interests that do not include politics, politicians and controversial political articles. I think if you word your unblock request stating your willingness to have a topic ban on those types of articles, you could be unblocked. Dave Dial (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So does this mean you think I should create a new unblock request?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you should talk to the blocking admin, state that you will adhere to a broad topic ban concerning political BLPs(perhaps more topics if admin suggests), and then work something out. I don't know if you would need a block request if you were succinct and sincere. In any case, I'm off to bed. Dave Dial (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, you should set up an archive for your page. Dave Dial (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although I am not an administrator, I would support an unblock of Johnpacklambert under a topic ban preventing editing of any BLPs involving politicians or college professors, or any people who are politically or culturally controversial, broadly construed. I believe that this editor has made useful contributions regarding notable Mormon religious figures, and I want to make it clear that I do not in any way consider Mormons in general as "controversial". However, I believe that Johnpacklambert has shown that he cannot be trusted to edit biographies of people that he does not like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnpacklambert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I accept that I was wrong to use questionable sources to edit a biography of a living person. I agree to a ban on any editing of articles on living holders of elected or appointed office. I will also refrain from editing articles related to anyone who held office in the last 10 years, whether or not they are still alive. I also agree to not use as a source for any edit a political blog or editorial. Any edit that I believe might be controversial to any article I will submit to the talk page first, and avoid even doing that unless I have multiple sources. I will also specifically not use the Washington Free Beacon which was the main source objected to above. I recognize that what I did was in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, including policies against adding material to biographies of living people without adequate sourcing and policies against edit warring. I will strive to avoid anything that even approaches either of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It looks like the blocking admin is inactive for the time being. Given that, and given that these seem like reasonable restrictions that should hopefully help avoid this happening in the future, I feel it's probably safe to just go ahead and unblock. You appear to be an otherwise productive editor, so, taken in concert, I don't think a block from the rest of the encyclopedia is warranted for the time being. You've been given {{Alert}}s below, so if further issues arise, you will likely be sanctioned or blocked as an arbitration enforcement remedy. --slakr^\ talk / 19:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the BLP issues are problematic, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s below for BLPs and American politics. Personally, I don't think they should have been needed for BLPs, considering it appears you have already been topic-banned on a subset of BLPs over a year ago and you should have known to tread lightly, but as far as the discretionary sanctions policy goes, I think technically these should be re-added yearly. Similarly, I would suggest that @MastCell: possibly consider trading the indef for something reduced and/or topic bans. --slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slakr and User:Mastcell it has now been almost a fortnight since this block was first imposed, a week since this second unblock request was made, and 5 days since Slakr put it on hold seeking comment from Mastcell. It seems to me that it might be time to take action on the substance. Especially since Mastcell previously said he would not over turn the block but had no objection to someone else overturning it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slakr: are you discussing this anywhere? Are you intending to make a decision on this? Perhaps we should raise the issue at WP:AN to gauge community consensus and try to work out some appropriate editing restrictions? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely my fault; I could have sworn I dropped a note on MastCell's talk page, but I think I got him confused with another unblock request I had patrolled around the same time. :( Sorry about that, Johnpacklambert. I've made absolutely certain I did it right this time. :P That said, it does look like he's been inactive for the last day or two, so @MSGJ: it might be an idea to do that if there's no response. To be honest, I, personally, think time-served is sufficient at this point, considering discretionary sanctions can be quickly levied in the future now that the user has been {{Alert}}ed. That would more appropriately target the area(s) of concern, whereas a block seems a bit broad when it comes to an otherwise productive editor. --slakr^\ talk / 15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth it has now been over a fortnight since the block was impose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Filipacchi

Back in 2013, this editor was involved in a major mass media controversy regarding categorizing of American women novelists, which brought enormous negative attention to Wikipedia. There were valid arguments in favor of the editor's approach to categorizing and valid arguments opposed. The truly problematic aspect is that this editor then began attacking Amanda Filipacchi, the novelist who brought the matter to public attention, in a retaliatory fashion here on Wikipedia. That made matters dramatically worse. It is very problematic to have an editor who loses their temper from time to time, based on what they have read on extremist websites, and then goes on a rampage of BLP violations. I think we need rock solid assurances that nothing like this will ever happen again. I remain very concerned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this whole paragraph is an unfair characterization. The edits I made to the article on Filipacchi were in no way of the nature of attacks. They were built around attempts to better develop categorization. Some of the comments I made about Filipacchi in discussion were unduly rude, and I would like to apologize for them. However I would like to point out other facts. A- I did not create the category in question, Category:American women novelists, that was done by another person. B- I did not place Amy Tan in that category and remove her from the parent category. Nor in fact were other of the removals of high profile novelists from the category that Filipacchi particularly objected to my work. c- I have on multiple occasions admitted that my actions in massively increasing the size of Category:American women novelists as I did were based on having not fully come to understand the categories involved. D- This is the first time anyone has suggests I came anywhere close to a BLP violation. All the edits I made to the Filipacchi article were centered around category revision. None of the categories were ever argued to be attack categories. This is a totally unfair characterization of events from 2 and a half years ago that are not at all relevant to the current discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you did any of the above. Yes, you were "unduly rude" in your comments about Filipacchi in 2013. In 2014, you engaged in serious BLP violations regarding the Group of 88 that led to a topic ban. You promised not to repeat that behavior. And here we are in 2015, and you engage in this anti-Shaheen rampage. I pleaded with you to stop and you refused. Are your promises of any value? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced yet that what John did this week is most properly characterized as a "rampage". He broke the 3RR on Jeanne Shaheen (four edits labeled "undid", plus the initial one and a few others updating his own edits), but he had good, obvious commit comments about his rationale as he was doing so, and each new edit was a sincere effort to improve the wording. The edits to that page and the creation of her husband's page with its initial content broke BLP, but those should be considered as one violation, since they relate to the same fact and he transparently linked them together. As far as I can see, his angriest comments were on your talk page, after the AfD was already in progress or perhaps a done deal. And I don't see that John made any edits to Group of 88, but maybe I'm not using search tools properly... was that actually edits to pages for related living people? Or imprudent, POV-disclosing discussion outside mainspace? The BLP policy is very strict, and rightly so; but by the same token it's quite possible for each violation of it to be a unique situation, and something that the editor can learn from even though he previously violated some other rule or even a different part of that rule. I would encourage the administrators to apply an additional ban as John pretty much asks for and lift the block, when he formally requests that again. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DavidLeeLambert, I believe Jim is talking about edits like this along with this ANI discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Liz. In both the Filipacci situation and the Group of 88 situation, this editor offered sincerely worded apologies and fervent pledges to refrain from future BLP violations. In the ANI discussion last year, Dennis Brown warned him that another such event might lead to severe consequences. In the latest incident, he not only used a poor source to defame the Shaheens but misrepresented what that source said. You administrators can decide to unblock if you want, but I fear that the day may well come when Johnpacklambert again loses control of himself and again uses Wikipedia to defame one of his ideological opponents. I hope that I am wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, I don't think anyone will read this wall-of-text, mammoth paragraph you have written explaining yourself and your situation.

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Specifically, admins are looking for concise statements convincing them

that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.

You don't need to post a personal biography, especially such a lengthy statements. An admin who is considering unblocking you wants to see that you know what kind of conduct lead to the block and you know how you will avoid it in the future. No excuses, not explanations, just taking responsibility and providing solid reassurances that it won't happen again (and how you will deal with temptation in the future). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had done both those things in the section above. I will reiterate I will avoid editing articles on people I have frustrations with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, if you try removing this section again, your talk page access will be revoked. It is related to discussion of your current block and as such you must not remove it while your block is in place. Max Semenik (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for informing me of the special rules that exist in the case of blocks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zions Hospitality

The article Zions Hospitality has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP, American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donald L. Hallstrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald L. Hallstrom 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/Donald L. Hallstrom 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 notice from the top of the article. p b p 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Bayındir page deleted?

He is a very famous scholar and theology rofessor (as nearly as Yaşar Nuri Öztürk) in Turkey. And he's the only scholar to claim the prayer times are calculated in error. His work appeared in 2-3 webpages in Norway. One Wikipedian guy who's against Quranism, claimed Bayındir's a "Quranist", so he was biased against the page. Norwegian page: http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/dognville-muslimer-far-eksperthjelp-for-a-handtere-morketida/s/1-79-6440700 - No one in WP helped me in translating it.) Sources for Bayindir in English websites in Turkey (His project about prayer times) http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/twilight-debate-stirred-over-length-of-fasting.aspx?pageID=238&nID=26445&NewsCatID=393) http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-top-religious-body-slams-jedi-religion.aspx?PageID=238&NID=87432 http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-top-religious-body-says-exposing-privacy-with-online-photos-improper-in-islam-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74484&NewsCatID=393 This is in Italian http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2014/11/19/news/turchia_vietato_condividere_foto_sui_social_media_e_contrario_all_islam-100911782/?refresh_ce http://www.dailysabah.com/cinema/2014/04/09/flood-of-complaints-for-noah ) Kavas (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Brigham Young University residence halls for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Brigham Young University residence halls 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/List of Brigham Young University residence halls 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 notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposal for deletion

FYI, I proposed for deletion the article "Evagrius of Edessa", which you created back in 2007. You can see my reasons on the talk page for that article. Horatio325 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]