User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 6

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flint East, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Champion. 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) 10:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo requests and Hmong editors

Hi!

1. Do you do photo requests in the Detroit area? Which parts of the metro area are most convenient for you?

2. Do you know some Hmong people? The Hmong Wikipedia needs some guys to write articles so it can be taken from the incubator into regular article status.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16th Pennsylvania Cavalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoneman's Raid. 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) 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Albanians vs Ethnic Albanians

Hi Johnpacklambert,

Since we have been involved in an interesting topic, I'd like to jump ahead and avoid any unnecessary edit warring.
The relations between ethnicity/national identity/and citizenship in the Balkans are far more complicated than let's say Switzerland or US where citizenship and nationality is the same thing, and ethnicity is not a base for building a national identity.
Albanians are a nation, more than just an ethnicity. It happens that almost half of them live in the country called Republic of Albania, but that doesn't mean that "Albanian" is defined by "citizen of Albania". The national identity is larger. You can't be an ethnic-Albanian mathematician, you are Albanian or you're not.

In case of Eshref Ademaj, we could say "...a Kosovar Albanian mathematician...", or "...a Kosovar mathematician..." and describe the ethnicity down below. But you can't tag him as "Ethnic Albanian mathematician". Who would be the non-ethnic Albanians in that case?

Regards --Mondiad (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ethnic Albanian is a designation for those who are not nationals of Albania. The categories like Category:Albanian mathematicians are meant to be limited to those who are nationals of Albania. They are not meant to capture everyone who is ethnically Albanian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC
  • Define "nationals of Albania" ? --15:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Nationals of Albania are those who reside in Albania and have standing connected to that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If I care to friendly intrude:

1. Ethnic Albanian is not "a designation for those who are not nationals of Albania". Nationals of Albania can also be stemming from the Albanian ethnicity.
2. Nationals of Albania are not "those who reside in Albania and have standing connected to that country". A national of a country is someone holding the citizenship of that country, wherever they reside.

Therefore, I think that adding the word ethnic in articles introduction and categories is not the right way to do it, as was explained to you (Johnpacklambert) here. Wikipedia has plenty of categories regarding ethnicity which you are invited to use, such as Kosovar Albanians and People of Albanian descent and their subcategories. Also, assigning someone (especially a BLP) to an ethnicity, or even a citizenship, must always be supported by a source and mentioned in the body of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Natinal isnot the same thing as citizenship. At times tgere are nationals who are not citizens. Beyound that ethnic Albanians in Kosovo are neither nationals or citizens of Albania. They are people who are by Ethnicity Albania but not part of the nation of Albania, any more then Armenians in Lebanon are part of the citizenship of Armenia. In both cases their identification with the ethnicity predates the modern natiin state. Also in both cases it is not related to migration out of a given area but a complex process of ethnic identity. A person of Albanian ethnicity living in Kosovo is by nationality only Kosovoan. A person of Armenian ethnicity living in Lebanon is by nationality only Lebenese. The factors that make an Armenian in Lebanon Armenian are the same that make a Jew in Britain a Jew. So in the case of the Armenian we have ambiguous meanings. We have chosen to use Aarmenian to designate a nationality not an ethno-linguistic group. This means we need some disambiguated term for those not such by nationality. The same applies for Greeks and Albanians. Terms that are ambiguos need to be made not so. People need to stop empying these categories out of process and bring them to a real discussion if they disagree with them. However The fact is that by nationality categories have long incorporated all permanent residents of a place without regard to citizenship. On the other hand they need to avoid merging unlike things that have the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Let me explain this another way if in 1 week Kurdistan became independent that would not change a writer who was Kurdish who died 10 years ago into a Kurdish writer by nationality. We would have to split the Kurdish writers category into one by ethnicity and one by nationality.

James Arena-DeRosa

How can I revive this deleted article? Mr. Arena is now the CEO of Foodshare. (see http://www.courant.com/hartford-magazine/features/hc-hm-james-arena-derosa-foodshare-20151201-story.html). Stagophile (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 8th Virginia Cavalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Jenkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Nancy K. Barto

An article that you have been involved in editing—Nancy K. Barto —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeat AfD

You participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (2nd nomination) earlier this year, an AfD that closed as keep. The article is now up for deletion again by the same editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (3rd nomination). Your input as to whether or not consensus has changed will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in the District of Columbia by year

Category:Establishments in the District of Columbia 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) 09:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abraham Sternhartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. 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) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Methye Portage

I don't think that you can claim the portage was established in 1778. In the history section it says that Aboriginal peoples were using it and guided Peter Pond to it in 1778 and that is sourced. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurley, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esopus. 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, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:1815 establishments in the District of Columbia

Category:1815 establishments in the District of Columbia, 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) 22:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposals re British, English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century

Please see my two proposals to create categories for English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century Discussion of 8 January 2016. Hugo999 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

In regard to Joseph M. Acaba, you added "American expatriates in the Dominican Republic". I am curious, what justifies the addition of this category on his article? Do you have any sources to back-up the justification of the addition of this category? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The article itself states that Acaba was in the Domincan Republic for two years with the peace corps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Never mind, you are right! Take care and I hope that you have a great New Year. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Khartoum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nubian. 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) 09:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:1605 establishments in Acadia

Category:1605 establishments in Acadia, 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) 04:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hanover

Hi Johnpacklambert, I just noticed you created Category:Establishments in Hanover by year and I created Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Hanover by year and I wondered which one you think was better. Tim! (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I'll combine them together. Tim! (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [1]. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello I'm the Head of Library at Mercedes College Perth, Western Australia and I'm wanting to edit our page with updates and new information on the history of the College. Could you please advise how I can get access to edit this page as a new Wikipedia editor. Thank you Joanna Kagi Head Of Library Mercedes College Perth Western Australia Joanna Kagi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenia Deli

Hello. I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenia Deli (2nd nomination). I would appreciate it if you could come back to the discussion. --Odysses (○) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Expatriates in Great Britain has been nominated for discussion

Category:Expatriates in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:American expatriates in Great Britain has been nominated for discussion

Category:American expatriates in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Dutch expatriates in Great Britain has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dutch expatriates in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:French expatriates in Great Britain has been nominated for discussion

Category:French expatriates in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User page concerns

I am concerned about a statement on your user page, namely "This user supports man/woman marriage as the definition needed to protect the integrity of the family, preserve the true meaning of marriage, and keep it as a child-focused institution". I believe this violates WP:UPNOT and also WP:SOAP. For example, WP:UPNOT states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence". WP:UP#POLEMIC says "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive". Could you tell me whether you think it is appropriate to include such divisive and offensive statements on your userpage? AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It is in no way an attack on anyone to stad for the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout history. Considering that peoe can proclaim radical support for the LGBT movement I see nothing wrong with my statements. Your attempts at political correctness would destroy the effectiveness of Wikipedia. My statements are far less soapboxing than your one sided characterization of the Kim Davis issue which ignores conscince rights. Unlike you I have not engaged in personalized attacks on others on my accout page. There is nothing wrong with proclaiming a consistent understanding of marriage based on well reasoned philosophy and unless you have read What is marriage: Man, Woman a defense I question if you have ever grappled with the philosophy involved.20thJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering your assumltion that those accused of racism, sexism and related frowned upon behaviors are probably guilty I see no reason to give head to anything you say especially your attempts to attack my attempt to clearly articulate my views as a polemic when it is clearly not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Political correctness" is irrelevant here. Wikipedia user pages are not the place to fight "political correctness". I did not criticise Kim Davis as a person. I criticised the ludicrous over-coverage on Wikipedia. My statements on the matter are related to my views on Wikipedia process and acceptable per WP:UPYES which states "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humour, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters" is acceptable and also "thoughts on Wikipedia articles or policies and how they should be changed, etc." I am not soapboxing. Your comments have nothing to do with Wikipedia. What personal attacks have I made? I encourage you to remove the statement as it is clearly divisive, brings Wikipedia into disrepute and attacks groups of editors and persons. AusLondonder (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My statement attacks no one. If speaking the truth is divisive so be it. If having editors that support man/woman marriage brings Wikipedia into disrepute than no wonder there is under coverage of the global south. Beyond that you did attack Kim Davis. Your characterization of her actions is extremely one sided. Your brand of assuming guilt is what we do not need on Wikipedia.

I will not back down from my support of man/woman marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You have now added more divisive and polemical comments and are refusing to address legitimate concerns about your failure to follow widely-accepted policy. Furthermore, several countries in the Global South, namely Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, New Caledonia, French Guyana and South Africa allow same-sex marriage so your characterisation is wrong. Vietnam also allows same-sex marriage ceremonies. Thailand's former government intended to legalise same-sex marriage prior to the military coup. So to suggest opposition to same-sex marriage is a greater issue in the Global South in comparison with Utah or Alabama is plainly false. Your statement clearly attacks LGB+ editors. Again, I did not attack Kim Davis. I attacked the over-coverage of the so-called religious freedom "crisis" AusLondonder (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My statement makes no attack on LGBT editors. My statement is grounded in fundamental understanding of what marriage is about and the importance of outward forms. Broad forms do not have to do with individual people and their goals. It is about the purpose and goals of marriage and redefining marriage changes those purposes and goals and thus the social goods the institution imparts and the docial goals it advances. Stating such is an attack on no one.John Pack Lambert (talk)

• Yet another example of User:AusLondonder's uncollegial WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• In the hope that this editor will learn how to WP:AGF and be collegial, I am now posting examples of his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits and behavior on his talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bloom's Arcade listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bloom's Arcade. Since you had some involvement with the Bloom's Arcade redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Burial sites by family

After this category discussion has been closed, you might want to have a further look at Category:Burial sites by family. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent CFD outcome

Hello, I've reverted a bunch of your edits that reversed the results of this CFD. I'm not sure if you're confused about the outcome or if you are deliberately trying to subvert it. I'm assuming the former. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page, the discussion I linked was one about renaming the category tree; there was no consensus to rename it then, and there wasn't in the discussion I closed. There was a compelling argument that the categories should be named consistently, and no objection was raised to that; pretty much every argument against merging rehashed an argument from the discussion I linked instead. (Essentially, while there may be a lack of consensus as to which name should be used for the category tree, as you said, I did not see a lack of consensus that we should use a single name for the whole tree.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:1868 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg has been nominated for discussion

Category:1868 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Beck (professor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middletown, Pennsylvania. 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) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician)

As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Category

You previously voted in a discussion to delete Category:Characters that appear within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A new discussion is underway if you'd like to contribute. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Replying at CFD

Hi John, I invited you to clarify your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_17#Category:Provincial_and_state_governors_by_country, but you haven't replied. I think you are on to a good idea, but I can't close and implement it while your words taken literally seem to mean something different.

This has happened before – I have pinged you at least twice at CFD for clarification, in previous months, but you didn't reply at all. Do you not get notifications when someone leaves a {{ping}} for you? – Fayenatic London 06:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying there. I'll ping the other participants and see if there is support for that. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mattabesset

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 Mattabesset 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 "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. Yuchitown (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Drop the stick

When you nominate a category for deletion, and there is no consensus, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Editors who are experienced participants at CFD should know better than to return and empty the category out of process.

This is in reference to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#1899_establishments_in_Albania and [2]. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• The ahistorical advocacy of two editors is clearly opposed by the majority of editors who have participated in CfD discusions. The problems is those two editors are more participating than the 5-6 or more editors who advocate for the reform. It is very frustrating that two editors who consistently ignore historical fact can stand as road blocks to the type of system that clearly a majority of editors who care at all for the issue feel we should have, in large part because of low notification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On your own website, you can rule the roost. However, Wikipedia is a collaboration, and neither personal disagreement nor your superior view of your own judgment entitle you to make your own process.

If you feel that the outcome of the above discussion was an aberration, then re-nominate, citing precedents that you feel are applicable. However, remember that consensus can change, and that there have always been some cases where categories covering certain periods/locations were judged by many to be useful, even though they went against the general pattern. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

John C. McAdams

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Joasaph listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joasaph. Since you had some involvement with the Joasaph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of George Kennedy (rancher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Kennedy (rancher) 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/George Kennedy (rancher) 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. Coltsfan (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Denmark, Norway and Denmark-Norway

Hi. Please note that while the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway was united in a personal union later called Denmark-Norway at the time of the creation of Altenhus, this does not mean that Norway was part of Denmark. The king of the union was the Danish king, but this does not mean that Norway was Denmark, nor for that matter Denmark was Norway. The union king was referred to as ""King of Denmark and Norway...", not just Denmark. Separate kingdoms under a single king. Separate armies, laws etc. For future reference, instead of reverting me, you should have discussed the matter, per Wikipedia:BRD. Manxruler (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

categories
... you were recipient no. 502 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)

The article Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable religious group/organisation. No citations... Did a good faith search, and no RS could be found to establish notability, including even passing mentions.

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. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Thought I'd stop by and elaborate on the PROD as a courtesy. I did actually do a good faith search and most everything I found were forum discussions, and self-published materials (as well as pro-Shuckardt material). Which is pretty par for the course regarding many of these organisations. Nothing that would pass muster on WP:RS/N, let alone a couple in-depth reliable source that were more than passing mentions. It's unfortunate, but I don't think the church meets the org notability requirement, hence the PROD over AfD. On the other hand, I think Chicoine is notable, and it's definitely possible to incorporate some of the self-pub material (for non-controversial claims) in his article. Honestly, the article is long overdue for some NPOV cleanup, which I plan on starting tomorrow- feel free to pitch in if you feel so inclined. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Valid ref. links to undelete 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' page

Dear Johnpacklambert,

This is the reference to the wikipedia page of Anandmurti gurumaa" which has recently been deleted following the deletion debate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anandmurti_Gurumaa . I had requested to resume this page,in response to which I have been directed to contact you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#anandmurti_gurumaa). I would like to bring to your kind notice that the reason mentioned in the debate is lack of independent resources and dead links, whereas lot of sources and independent links exist featuring work of Anandmurti gurumaa as a renowned Indian spiritual master. Moreover these reliable links belong to national newspapers like Times of India, DNA, The Hindu, India today, Amar Ujala etc.

Below are the sources for your reference Tedx talk: (Times of India) Speaking tree: DNA Newspaper: The Hindu Newspaper: The Hindu: Amar Ujala Newspaper: Wikiquote: Verified Facebook page: Youtube channel: Wikipedia other pages reference: BBC News: Interview: BBC Interview: Interview: Red Fm Vancouver ( Canada) Interview: Interview: Gurumaa with swami ramdev in an event: MTV: Life positive: Life positive: "" Life positive: Life positive: Life positive: Life positive: Life positive: Official Website: Life positive: Life positive: Life positive: Life positive: Hungama: Life positive: Karmapa: Karmapa: Karmapa: "" Karmapa: Wikipedia page references: Wikipedia page references: Wikipedia page references: Wikipedia page references: Wikipedia page references: India Today Newspaper: PS: This information has also been posted to other admins of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.111.135.192 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

John Amaechi

I'm sure there's a good reason why you removed a dozen categories from the article. Would you care to share it? Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Amaechi was born in the US, but he is by no definition American. He was raised in the UK, and neither of his parents were American. He did spend later times in the US, but this does not make him American either. So he should not be in categories related to being American because he isn't, nor should he be in categories for being from Massachusetts, since he left there too soon after his birth to be categorized by such an association.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That makes sense. Do you mind if I put him back in LGBT basketball players, which you seem to have removed in error? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I did not notice I did that, so I have no objection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic has been nominated for discussion

Category:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. ~ Rob^Talk 05:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bosworth

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bosworth. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Colleen Later

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

Could not establish notability. Tagged for notability since January 2009. Could not deorphan.

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. ~Kvng (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Article On Ishraq Khan

Why is my article on ishraq khan not notable. please elaborate. JasonTGriffith (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1759, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. 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) 10:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art Rascon

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

Article lacks third-party sources; fails WP:GNG.

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. Aoidh (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

What's your percentage of !voting "keep" at AfD? Just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I vote based on the situation at hand. I have no idea what my percentage is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I've not seen you vote "keep" on anything, but I might have missed something. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • FYI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Art Rascon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Art Rascon 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/Art Rascon 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. Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of F. Enzio Busche

The article F. Enzio Busche has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Needs something non-LDS IMO

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. pbp 13:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Octaviano Tenorio

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

Needs something non-LDS IMO

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. pbp 13:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Octaviano Tenorio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Octaviano Tenorio 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/Octaviano Tenorio 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. pbp 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Carry on

		The Purple Barnstar
		For putting up with basically being attacked for just doing normal Wikipedian things like writing articles and making reasonable and cogent proposals. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cree-L Kofford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cree-L Kofford 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/Cree-L Kofford 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. pbp 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

River categories

I'm startubg a new discussion at WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Rivers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cornelius Johnson

You recently added the portrait painter Cornelius Johnson to the category "Dutch emigrants to England". I'm not sure how he qualifies for this category since he was born in England and is usually considered to be an English painter. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misquamicut, Rhode Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquian. 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) 10:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation.
Message added 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Slashme (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Establishments for buildings

Hallo, please see discussion at Talk:Leighton_Hall,_Lancashire#.22Establishment.22_category. PamD 07:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mattituck, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquian. 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) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

General inquiry

Per the current drama, do you know of non-sectarian sources that routinely cover the general news of the LDS church? Or, for that matter, the Catholic church (at levels below Pope)? Or the Southern Baptists? And, by the way, you know we disagree often on other matters, particularly as regard articles about notable women, so I hope you will remember my support on this one in the future. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• At least in the US the appointment of Catholic Bishops will generally be covered in the secular press of the city where they are appointed. Archbishops will in some cases get coverage far beyond their location. Finding sorces on Catholic bishops in Vietnam or India may be harder.

Categories

When you're removing {{uncategorised}} from an article because it's got Category:Living people (and even if it has a birth &/or death date cat and/or a "Alumni of xyz college" etc), please consider adding {{catimprove}} to replace it, until the article has some category which actually indicates something about the person which might indicate their field of notability. Thanks. PamD 16:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• The uncategorized tag automatically removes from the article when I add a category. I do not proactively do anything to that tag at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, so I'll grumble on the Hotcat talk page - but you're responsible for your edits, so please consider this nonetheless. PamD 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

On further thoughts: why do you bother adding Category:Living people if that's the only category you're going to add? Given Hotcat's current behaviour, wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off if you left it with the "Uncategorised" tag until someone more interested in categories came along to categorise it? It's a bit like adding a {{bio-stub}} which removes the article from Category:Stubs with the result that it doesn't get found by the stub-sorterwho'd have given it a much more specific stub tag. PamD 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:California military personnel etc Hugo999 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material without explanation

In this edit, you removed material and a reference without explanation. Perhaps you could give one? DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC) I'd also like an explanation of both your edits to John Rowe Moyle, which removed valid categories supported by the content of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1707, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahom. 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) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lew W. Cramer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman. 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) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Florin Hilbay

Thanks for removing the speedy tag. This is the second time that this article is subjected to mass removal of info and subjected to csd/afd. Both times by anon users. I'm sorry if I had to revert your added references as well. If this goes on then I'll be asking for semi-protection --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review

I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pageant navboxes

Hmmm. I'm seeing a movement to document state-level pageant winners in general. What do you think of this: [3]? Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I really do not think we have the type of sources to justify that state-level pageant winners are notable. The fact that these people live sometimes 60 or more years outside the public eye, makes it hard to justify one-event articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at the wikiproject and they clearly are moving to a consensus that state level pageants are notable, and so I started an RfC: here. You may want to comment. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Descent" categories

I noticed you've been removing categories that are of the form "Category:American people of Scottish descent" (and variations as to nationalities). Was there a discussion somewhere about doing this? — Gorthian (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I remove these categories when they are not supported by text in the article, which happens a lot. No category should exist if it is never mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What alerted me was when you removed that category from John Muir. He is described in the very first sentence as "Scottish-American", and the article talks about his birth and childhood in Scotland. Even the hatnote calls him "Scottish". Perhaps you should take a little more time with each article before removing categories. — Gorthian (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

John Muir is in the category Category:Scottish emigrants to the United States this is a sub-category of Category:American people of Scottish descent and so people should not be in both. It is not I who need to familiarize myself with things better, but you who need to better understand the rules of how category hierarchies work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right, I hadn't looked at the category hierarchies. I usually do, especially when I run across something as specific as Ronda peridotite in a overly general category like Geology. I did wonder if I'd missed a discussion, though. Not my best day, sorry. — Gorthian (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• There are those who think we should scrap these Category:American people of Scottish descent etc. I think we should keep them, but limit their application. We have people in these categories whose last ancestors left the identified ancestry country 400 or more years before they were born. Also, there are people who are in 10 or more such categories. On the other hand, there are people who were born to two Scottish immigrants just a few years after they left Scotland. So there are places where it makes sense, but I think it has been overused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The beauty queens

You know, instead of AfD drama, if you just redirected most of those clearly not-notable articles to the appropriate pageant, that might be easier. Montanabw^(talk) 07:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestion. I concur. Just do a quick Google and Google News search first to ensure that significant coverage is lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I'd just like to let you know that while I do agree with you that many of the Miss USA titleholders' articles are non-notable, not all of them are (such as Deshauna Barber and Chelsea Hardin). However, please stop just redirecting them because you want to and discuss it with other editors before you do so. While I'm sure most of them will go through as a redirect, it's just generally a good idea to discuss it first. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Two people above you both said that I should unilaterally create redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh didn't even see that. Well Barber and Hardin both have clearly established notability. Barber is a national titleholder who will compete in one of the biggest pageants in the world, while Hardin placed highly in the pageant and also received significant media coverage. The others should be redirected 100% and I don't know why they have articles. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Luis Garza for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luis Garza 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/Luis Garza 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. ansh666 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Assalum-u-Alikum New Request

assalum u alikum dear, I am article writer not in wiki on other sides I write article almost 500 but I tried to write article of person Rauf Chandio with different names but it was unsuccess I see your profile on wiki so I think you will help me so for contact use my email abdulshakoorart@gmail.com

I request to write article for this person Rauf Chandio (Journalist) or any name the material which you have to use or write in Wikipedia page is through link you can take meterail of this person and create it this is my request to you I Hope that you will do it! the link which you have to take bio and other information for this person is

www.hubpages.com/entertainment/Rauf-Chandio

www.hubpages.com/politics/Abdul-Rauf-Chandio-Journalist

www.articledunia.com/rauf-chandio/

www.thearticlesbase.com/rauf-chandio/

www.mediapersonalitys.blogspot.com/

websites and sources are these links You have to take and manage article from this link which is provided below

Thanks I am sure you will do it! 45.116.233.24 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

ANYBIO1

It looks like you have your hands full with AfDs of state-level Miss USA winners. :-) Pageant contestant AfDs is not the area I normally participate in, but I was amazed to see that ANYBIO1 was being used as an argument for keeping a related article. I've seen ANYBIO1 misapplied in other areas; it's making me wonder if it needs to be reformed (rewritten, abolished, etc). Do you have any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• It might help if you could give me a workable link to that policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I also opened a RfC at the pageant wikiprojects -- they had a local consensus developing that state pageant winners were notable, and a bunch of navboxes have been created. I am not quite sure how to handle all this, frankly. My personal opinion is most will be non-notable, absent additional accomplishments or something similar. But OTOH, otherw are sure going to a ton of work to do all they do. I think a dialogue does need to be opened. Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANYBIO

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

There's no equivalence between #1 (if applied to "state-level pageant winner") and #2 described as "part of enduring historical record". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I believe most would have "List notability" (if at all) rather than "Individual notability". I.e. it may be appropriate to include the state level winners on Miss Utah USA, for example, rather than individual articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The pageant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard. I actually agree with you, K.e.coffman, but they are creating navboxes for every state's pageant winners, and so on. There is a significant disconnect between the project participants and AfD. I see nothing but rough weather ahead. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Misjudged AFD nominations

Hi, how are you?

I'd recommend you to please take a closer look at WP:FPL. All of those leagues are considered fully professional according to our guidelines, and so are the players who appeared in them. You created wrong AFDs at Javier Álamo Cruz, Artyom Antipov, Nícolas Andrade, Sergei Aleksandrovich Andreyev and so on.

I'm not sure if you're just some troll or if you didn't read FPL before, but I'd recommend you to stop creating these kinds of AFDs before you get yourself a WP:BLOCK. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 04:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

MYS77. I have had some serious disagreements with Johnpacklambert, while on other occasions, we have agreed. One thing that is certain is that he is not a troll and another thing that is certain is that no good faith editor will ever be blocked for a handful of incorrect AfD nominations. Please avoid needlessly accusatory comments like those and instead limit yourself to pointing out the established consensus. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen,, these are disruptive nominations, just a misreading of WP:NFOOTY. I have closed the relevant AfDs as Speedy Keeps, given that the players noted all met the subject-specific guideline and that these nominations appear to have been made in error. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Fenix down, can you have a look at the most recent AFDs listed at WP:FOOTYDEL. Most were nominated by this user and many easily pass WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I thnk I have closed all of the ones which were obvious NFOOTY passes, there were a couple which seemed to be valid AfDs though. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, don't really know the guy. However, what will you think when you see an astonishing bunch of incorrect AFDs in a single day, Cullen328? Anyways, thanks for fixing it, both you and Fenix down. MYS77 ^✉ 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

MYS77, I would have sent the first paragraph of your original post, and left out the second paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• This unilateral speedy closing of AfDs on football players will 1 line articles is the type of action that causes people to loose faith that Wikipedia will ever be a chavanistic, male-dominated site with over coverage of things in general of interest to males and chronic sidelining of other issues. I also do not appreciate when people attack me for removing comments from a guy who was told in no uncertain terms that he should refrain from making comments on my talk page. Too many editors on Wikipedia engage in only rude behavior. In fact this is another thing that makes Wikipedia have more male editors. Males and females have different reactions to rude and combative behavior, and the existence of the rude, combative, accusatory behavior, as has been shown by several editors in comments in this section, is the type of behavior that causes many people who could make valued contributions to Wikipedia to not do so. I still see no reason that single line articles on minor sports players should be kept because they meet some sort of arbitrary guideline dreamed up by single-minded fans of that sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mass conversions of articles to re-directs

On August 14, you converted approximately 100 articles on pageant titleholders into re-directs, doing so without explanation and without discussion. This was in addition to several dozen more that you have recently nominated for deletion. On August 16, you converted a few dozen more into re-directs.

Some of these conversions have been undone by myself and by USer:Jjj1238. However, many more still need to be restored. I call on you to spare other editors the burden of restoring these articles by undoing the remainder of these conversions yourself.

Will you do so? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was explicitly told earlier that this conversion to redirects was justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • We might want to let the RfC play out. Seems there is a rough consensus at AfD that the state winners are not inherently notable, but an older, and even more rough, consensus at the Beauty Pageant WikiProject that they are. My personal take is that if we can't get TED Fellows deemed inherently notable, I'm in no rush to add Miss Whomever. But that's JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Alan Bleviss AfD

Hello Johnpacklambert,

I have expanded and referenced the article. Will you be so kind as to take another look? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Louisiana floods

Hello. Do you know if the LDS has sent volunteers to the 2016 Louisiana floods?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Per this article [4] in the Deseret News, the LDS Church has sent relief supplies. It appears there have not yet been local or regional help outreaches as there were after Katrina as of yet. In the Katrina case I know LDS Church groups (I think at the ward level) from as far away as Atlanta, Georgia traveled to Louisiana to provide help. However the group I know of I only know of because someone from my ward here in Michigan was visiting his son in the Atlanta area and then traveled with his son and ward members to help in Lousiana. They did this the first weekend in October, while Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans on August 29th. The article here suggests that more help will be given when local needs are assessed. I would expect more aid to be given, and more reports on the matter in the next week or so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• This link [5] is about Mormon volunteers going to help in Louisiana. By September 2nd, there had been about 6,500 volunteers come to help with an anticipation that 5,000 more would come. The article here does not provide any indication of where these volunteers came from. My guess is primarily from Texas and the south-east US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

An example of Global South under-representation

All members of national parliaments are default notable. In theory Wikipedia should have articles on every person ever elected to a national parliament. This is probably not doable. However in the case of the US we have articles on every person ever elected to congress. On the other hand in Ghana they have a national parliament with 275 seats. Just of those elected in 2012 we only have articles on 30 of the 275. There are resources to create articles on all 275, it is just no one has bothered to as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wish people could put the time into this that goes into Miss Congeniality! Montanabw^(talk) 07:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Accra Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ewe. 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) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Henry of Bremen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry of Bremen 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/Henry of Bremen 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. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

AFDs

Sorry, I probably should have assumed good faith with the AFDs. I was not aware of Wikipedia having a terrible reputation with the public however, with academics and teachers perhaps. Have a good day! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination failing to refer to talk page

I see (too late, and while I am away from home) that you nominated Category:Christians of Jewish descent for deletion. Although you took the time to set out a very long rational for deletion, followed by an even longer comment, you omitted to mention the reasons originally given for creating the category, as stated specifically on the category talk page and endorsed by a second editor, and as referred to in the category page history.

It was rather hard to trace the former contents of the category, but for reference they are here.[6]

Had you considered the rationale, you might have considered the option of making the category into a container category, so that it would have been purged leaving only the three sub-categories in it, instead of full deletion.

You also chose not to notify the category creator, which is considered good manners.

Worse, your omitting to refer to the original rationale either means that you did not look at it, which IMHO was careless, or chose to conceal it from the CfD, which would have been intentionally disingenuous.

Please check page history and talk pages before nominating categories that appear unjustifiable. – Fayenatic London 04:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• No one has ever notified me when they nominated a category I created for deletion, so to call it "good manners" is just rubbish. The category was built on an unworkable mix of unlike things, further flawed by false understandings of religious history, and deserved its fate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so you were just being devious, then, imposing your superior understanding, rather than demonstrating how it would override the original rationale for creating the category. Pardon me for assuming that you might care. – Fayenatic London 05:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a good understanding that anyone who thinks this category is anything but rubbish does not understand religious history, because they assume that people like me who had a grandmother who converted to Judaism and then later converted to Christianity do not exist. The fact of the matter is that multiple editors were convinced by the logical falicies and failures of this flawed category, and no one spoke in its favor. It is not "devious", an unjustified attack word, to realize that such racist categories should not exist. In Wikipedia we do not categorize by race, and there is no way to speak of people as being "Christians of Jewish descent" unless we are categorizing people by race. Anyway in my explanation I cited facts like the continued disconnected between those in the US who have Jewish ancestry and those who in a meaningful way practice Judaism as a religion. This was based on reliable sources from works published in the Jewish-related press. The sources show that this is just as much an unworkable category as Category:People who found out later in life that they were of Jewish descent. Which is only a bit better than my all time favorite Category:People who learned at age 11 that they had Cherokee ancestry, but learned at age 31 that in reality this ancestry was not Cherokee but African-American which would properly continue with "and at age 43 learned that it was specifically Melungeon, who in turn at age 47 they learned are the same as the Atlantic Creole, a people who claimed mixed Senagambian and Portuguese parenthood, but may not have had any biological connections to Portugal, this question has not yet been determined, but since the people in this category are only 55 new advances in DNA studies may allow us to pinpoint which villages in Portugal and the Gambia all the subjects ancesters were living in in 1457 by the time the subject is 93 and a half" but apparently there is a top limit of either words, characters or maybe punctution marks in category names. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to categorize by race, and there is no other way that we can categoize most grandchildren of converts to Christianity as in any way Jewish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your extended comments above do not rule out that the category might have been useful as a container category for the sub-cats alone.

Nevertheless I have not disputed the fate of the category. However, you could have made the effort to demonstrate that your understanding would override the original rationale for creating the category. Instead of that, it remains that you have made yourself appear devious, imposing your view without reference to others that were on record and easily accessible. – Fayenatic London 05:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Devious is an extemely strong attack word. Behis you continue to ignore that I am one of very few people who has ever cited reliable sources in a CfD nomination. This was not just about my view, it was about the reality of the meaning of Judaism in a time when in the US over half of all Jews marry non-Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is up to the creators of a category to argue for the rational behind a category in CfD. The D stands for discussion. No where is it said that editors should feel compelled to try to understand categories that to them have no good or workable rationale. Categories exist to organize the contents of Wikipedia in a way that is helpful to the user of the encyclopedia. Those making nominations related to categories are no where told they need to do the before searches that are expected of those making nominations related to articles. The presence of absence of reliable sources only has a bearing of whether or not a category is kept in some specific cases. This is the first time anyone has ever complained about either A-nominating a category for deletion without giving the category creator notice or B-not reading arcane talk page arguments for the category, especially since category talk pages say explicitly that few people ever pay attention to them. If people care about a category they are free to place it on their watch list, and the failure to either do so or to respond during the 8 days the category was under discussion is not at all my fault. Beyond that, I did not make the decision to close the category. Of course the fact that I was able to 1-cite a reliable source, 2-cite various examples that showed this was not a workable cateogry and 3-show why this did not fit in any larger category shema may well have helped persuade others that the category was unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why the revisionist category was a horrible idea

I was reading the discussion of the recently deleted category Category:Revisionist and have come to think that the issue is even worse than presented. One problem is that There are too broad types of historical revisionists. One is those who work within the established historical profession, the other is those who work at its fringes. However sometimes "revisionist historian" is an insult thrown by people who do not understand how the historical profession works at its practitioners. However even people who put on the air of understanding the nature of the historical profession often get this issue wrong. A Historical revisionist is one who revises the understood framework of the coverage of an era. I once saw someone argue "In the context of Mormon history, a revisionist is one who takes the anti-Mormon view". This is just plain a show of ignorance. A historical revisionist is one who changes our perception of the past. This can come in lots of ways, from Kathleen Flake arguing that Reed Smoot should not be pegged as primarily a secular, non-religious Mormon figure as some before him had argued, to the works of Patrick Q. Mason and J. Spencer Fluhman contextualizing the situation of Mormons in the 19th-century in a much wider context than had previously been done. To make things even more fun, yesterday's revisionist historian may well be revised again by today's revisionist historian. So historical revising is not based on ideological or methodological issues. It is at times helped by the rise of cultural history, the rise of post-modernist approaches to documents, and especially Said's arguments in "Orientalism" on approaches to various cultures. However at other times revisionism can occur because new documents surface, or in a few cases because documents are shown to be forgeries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There were other issues not well discussed. One was that the whole category grouped people by shared name, not by shared characteristic. Revisionist Zionist, historical revisionists, literary revisionists and Marxist revisionists have nothing in common except having the name revisionist applied to them. To make things more fun, not only is historical revisionism a complex term with no clear definition, too often used either to claim one historian was deeply impactful in a particular field or to disparge a particular persons work, but Marxist revisionism is equally non-coherent. It is essentially an attack by some Marxists on others. Two men who saw the term applied to them were Tito and Stalin. However not only did Tito and Stalin persue different policies on many fronts, but the states they forged came to be arch enemies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some tried to suggest a broad meaning of revisionsit, and draw Martin Luther as well as 4th century Jewish leaders into the term. To my knowledge Revisionist is not generally used for 4th century Jewish leaders, but I could be wrong. What I do know is that the accepted term for Martin Luther is "Reformer" not "revisionist".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The Revisionist Zionists may be a manifestation of more broad territorial revisionism, which is a term at times used for either those who want to create new indepdent countries, or those who want to expand their current country or restore it to past borders. However there is not much talk of Adolf Hitler as a "German revisionist", seeking to resore pre-World War I and earlier boundaries of Germany. There is talk of him having these goals, but not often describing him as a revisionist. Likewise Mussolini's dreams at times bordered on restoring the Roman Empire, while in 19th-century Greece there was the "Large Idea", which sought to bring all majority Greek areas into a Greek state, especially key zones in western Anatolia. Yet these and other similar movements most often have their proponants descibed as "nationalist", "expansionist" or "imperialist". The broad, undisciplined use of "revisionist" to describe people with these ideas is not consistent with relialbe sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did come across an article by Charles Krauthamer from last month that in the headlined seemed to use revisionist as a term to apply to Vladimir Putin and those who have supported his annexation of Crimea. However the term does not seem to have been used in the body of the article, and lacks a clear indication of exactly who it is meant to apply to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Mormons

Thanks. I'm taking a break from Wikipedia due to continued harassment, so I've archived your comment.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Linda Hunter Adams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Hunter Adams 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/Linda Hunter Adams 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) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in

I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kwadwo Akyampon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wasa. 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) 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Edward "Chiripula" Stephenson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ngoni and Robert Codrington. 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) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Establishments

Need to keep an eye on Good Olfactory who is sneakliy making edits like this [7]. Tim! (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) This one is even worse as the current country is Croatia not Italy [8]. Tim! (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD request

You commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt King (producer) on September 5 with a delete vote. However, there were two people batched in the nomination, but fully half the commenters (including you) only addressed one of the two — with the result that while one of the two articles has been deleted, the other one is still open and has been relisted another two times because nobody else has participated in the discussion since September 18. Could you please return to express an opinion one way or the other about the remaining article? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected Rob Galluzzo

I expanded the filmography and fixed links including Variety and The SMH entertainment pieces as well as the patents.

Do you mind having a look now Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Galluzzo.

Thanks!

Warbler21 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Just a note to say hello. We edit a lot of the same articles, and you seem to have a very common sense approach. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton L. Cutler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton L. Cutler 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/Clinton L. Cutler 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd nomination of Sofia Richie

Once again, a discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sofia Richie 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/Sofia Richie (2nd 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU 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 law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Johnpacklambert. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Jen Richards AfD

Hi, I'm writing to follow up on the Jen Richards AfD. The Wikipedia Manual of Style instructs us to refer to subjects using the pronouns that "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" MOS:GENDERID. Would you please update your comment to conform to policy? Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1842 establishments in South Carolina

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Category:1842 establishments in South Carolina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Association for Mormon Letters

Hi John--I know that you're active in AfD and well-versed in LDS topics, so I figured I'd run this one by you. I'm trying to figure out whether Association for Mormon Letters and the associated AML Awards are actually notable or not. I see some occasional mentions in Deseret News, but it doesn't look like anything substantial. What gives me pause is that BYU seems to have a collection related to its papers. If this is a more prominent organization than it seems (or if it used to be and maybe isn't anymore), I don't want to nominate too hastily. agtx 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 Mormon Studies Review has an essay entitled "the brief history and perpetually exciting future of Mormon Literary Studies" which has stuff to say on the Association for Mormon Letters. That is as far as I ever got in that the one volume of the journal I have. I will see if I can add information from that source the next time I'm at a computer instead of just using my phone.

Idea to run by you

I see that you nominate a number of articles for deletion - and are involved in a lot of AfD discussions - and it would be really helpful to have your input on an idea. I am wondering if it would help streamline decision-making about articles nominated for deletion by using a checklist, kind of like what is used for {{DYK checklist}}. That seems to be pretty effective, but I'm not sure how well the concept translates.

Here's a potential draft, based upon WP:DEL-REASON

{{AfD checklist
|One or more CSD criteria  = 
|plagiarismfree = 
|vandalism =
|SPAM =
|content forks=
|sourced      = 
|fail to find sources =
|notability=
|meet notability for type of topic= 
|eligibilityother = 
|breach BLP (if applicable) =
|neutral      = 
|policyother  = 
}}

It seems like the quality of the conversations are based on who weighs in and how much they know about applicable policies. I am wondering if this might streamline the discussions - make it more objective - and make it easier to judge what should be deleted.

I'm thinking about running this by Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or one of the other WP:Village pump tabs (not sure which would be right. Or, maybe it's better to bring to one of the talk pages about article deletion. I have no idea where's the best place to take the idea.

What do you think about the idea?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• I like this template. Although I have to admit that failure to find sources and notability are often intertwinned. I think I often intend to state one of both as reasons to delete, but not explicitly. I have to admit right now I am frustrated that administrators can unilaterally close AfD debates when all votes are delete by claiming a lack of "community consensus" to delete the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Lee (3rd nomination) is an especially egregious case of this, since it had never even been relisted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input! Yep, it is so weird how the process is working/not working for people who clearly don't have notability. When I think of the protracted conversation about Allen B. Reed, who I would personally like to have stay but don't think it meets the criteria, when the articles like Alana Lee remain, it's frustrating.

retracting previous post
I agree about your point about the failure to find sources and notability being wrapped up together. Aren't there circumstances, though, where sources can be found but they are still not notable? For instance, for some people I think that the rationale is whether they are in newspapers - and particular national newspapers carry more weight - and then there's the extent to which they are covered. What about a reordered template weighted at the top for what should result in a deletion. This is just a stab, I don't know if this would be the right order: {{AfD checklist	One or more CSD criteria = < delete if meets one more more criteria >	plagiarismfree = < delete if plagiarism, unless someone will rewrite >	sourced =	fail to find sources = < delete if fail to find sources >	notability=	meet notability for type of topic=	eligibilityother =	breach BLP (if applicable) =	policyother =	neutral =	vandalism =	SPAM =	content forks= }} Or, do you see another order of importance? Who do you think that the idea should be broached with, if you have an opinion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I just realized I'm probably putting you on the spot on this - and the conversation could clutter up your talk page. I've started drafting a page about this at User:CaroleHenson/Afd checklist. If you'd like to comment, make changes, etc. feel free. It would be wonderful to have your input. If not, that's fine, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, I submitted it to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Check for SP

Hi John, I have nominated the article, Mrs Globe Australia 2016 for [AfD HERE] and the discussion is currently ongoing. Do you know how to check the users for sockpuppet? I’d like to find out if Duckgo111 is a sockpuppet of Australianblackbelt. They have the same editing patterns. They both have interest with Mrs Globe Australia 2016 article. CheckUser is necessary to determine if they try to influence the outcome of the AfD. Duckgo111 is a newly created user name while the discussion for the article is on-going. I will check your response here. Thanks.--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)