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

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

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

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

• • I have no clue what this is about. It is just a baseless accusation that makes no sense at all and has no explanation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have only seen attempts of JPL to improve organization. Accusations w/o providing diffs and references to policies do not help to understand possible mistakes. ChemTerm (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Validness of points does not require to convince everybody. What are Colonial people? ChemTerm (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My concern is the edit warring. Not to subjectively assess certain edits. Your question is better placed on that article's talk page to start a discussion on it. - jc37 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, it's unfair to only accuse one side and not User_talk:Orlady, User:Hmains, the latter inviting the former to the "war". [1] ChemTerm (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  FWIW, I had already reverted one of JPL's removals of the "Tennessee colonial people" category and commented on several of the associated CFDs before Hmains commented on my talk page. The effect of Hmains' comment on my talk page was to alert me to the fact that JPL had also removed a number of other articles from the "Tennessee colonial people" category. I had intended to look for other removals on JPL's contribution history, but at the time of Hmains' message, I hadn't done that because I was busy reading and reacting to the profusion of CFDs.

Further to that comment, the revert that I did was at Henry Timberlake. Timberlake produced an early map of part of Tennessee and wrote accounts of the Overhill Cherokee villages that are important ethnographically and were useful in modern archaeology. JPL was asserting that the article about him does not belong in historical categories for Tennessee because the area he visited wasn't legally identified as Tennessee at the time of his visit. If his ideas about category structure necessarily mean that somebody who made one of the earliest map of a place can't be listed in a category for that place, that is a strong indication that his ideas are not supportive of the well-being of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, OK. I hope a good solution can be found for these "colonial people" categories. ChemTerm (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no deadline

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

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

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

• If you see problematic edits, name them, i.e. provide diffs. And relate them to policies they violate. ChemTerm (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  One merely need to look at the edit histories of the pages linked to above. And remember, one need not revert 3 times to be blocked for 3RR or edit warring. 3 is just a handy benchmark, as is noted on that page..

  That said, this is not a battleground. As I said, there is no deadline. It's time to discuss and stop the edit warring. - jc37 22:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, see Talk:Dragging Canoe. What are colonial people? ChemTerm (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cait London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German-Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• CFD is not supposed to be about votes, but reaching a concensus. It is definately not a case of counting votes and going with the majority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• i don't mean to badger you but how exactly is the concensus reached? also can you please answer my question about placing people into the category while it is still CFD? Xvon (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

could you please answer the above 2 questions so i can understand what's going on a little bit better? also just responded to your recent comment on the alicia keys talkpage re the disputed cat. Xvon (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You appear to be systematically removing "African American" category tags from people for whom there is no clear supporting evidence in the article that that they are African Americans, even when it is in fact easy to find sources that they are and the category is clearly important to the person. Surely they should stay in the category unless you have good reason to believe they are not African Americans? cwmacdougall 07:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I am not making the same proposal. The last one had colonies captalized, this one does not. That is a major difference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think it is different enough. Obviously, the category would not have been renamed to Category:People of Colonies had the proposal been accepted. The closer would have noted the change in your nomination to fix the capitalization, and even if you had not made that statement, the closer probably would have caught it. The discussion did not focus on the capitalization issue and from my reading that is not the reason those opposed to the rename rejected the suggestion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We could ask another admin to review my administrative closure, if you wish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The whole thing seems heavy handed to me. Lots of people seem to like the colonies without capitalization and object very heavily to the capitalization. You have no evidence it would not pass without capitalization. The fact that as I pointed out most of the contents use people of x colonies should hold some value in the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's just that I don't think the capitalization issue was even on the commenters' radars one way or the other. No one mentioned it. Any good admin would have changed it to Category:People of colonies if it was implemented. The discussion was about the substance of the proposal, not this detail of the typography. I have asked User:Vegaswikian to review what I did, and I will accept his opinion on it either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You have obviously not read enough of the similar discussions of other colony related articles. Some of the people, including one involved in this discussion, have vehemently opposed the capitalized Colony and supported the lowercase "x people of colonial Y" form. It is very clear that the capitalization is on people's radar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Yes, of course the "colonies" would have been de-capitalized if the proposal was implemented. That's a naming convention and a no-brainer issue. As I said, any good admin would have fixed that if it were implemented, whether or not it was raised in the discussion. The point is that it was not the focus of the discussion: ie, the users opposed your proposal on substantive grounds, not the grounds that the proposal was mis-capitalized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • That may be so, but that has not kept one of the editors involved from denouncing vehemently a proposal and then a little latter supporting it when the capitalization has changed. Anyway, there were only three editors involved in the whole discussion, and then another totally different editor came along and supported the revised proposal before you closed it, so I do not think you can claim there is any consensus against the proposed change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • See Vegaswikian's review here. He has re-opened it, and it sounds like it might go in the direction of what jc37 (below) has in mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • (ec)As requested here I looked at the close and while it was well intended, I have reopened this since it is clear, that there are issues with the name. I don't see any harm in continuing the discussion focused on a different target name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Thanks, Vegaswikian. And no hard feelings, Johnpacklambert. I'm glad it could be resolved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New nom

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

I do not oppose a new nomination for the category per se; it's just that I do not think the same proposal should be immediately made. I don't see a consensus for the current name in the previous discussion; but I do see a consensus that the proposed name should not be implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vegaswikian has re-opened the discussion, essentially agreeing that there was consensus that a rename is in order, just not as was proposed. So if you had intended on making an alternative proposal, you might want to jump in with it early on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did, thank you : )

Happy to continue discussion there. - jc37 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• It has to be mentioned in the text. If it is not significant enough to be mentioned in the text of the article, it is not significant enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bhandara district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gond, Deogarh and Rajaram

Faisalabad District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyallpur

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

• He thinks Imperial Russia and the Russian Federation are two countries. I think people from either country call themselves Russians, and many of the Imperial Russian categories are poorly populated, so they should be deleted. I started a series of CfDs last night pbp 14:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course they are two countries. They have different boundareis, different extents, different everything. By your logic we should just merge Category:Byzantine people into ;Category:People of the Roman Empire because the people in Constantinople in 13000 thought they were still in the Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have reverted my edits. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Your Byzantium example is patently ridiculous. What is also concerning is the amount of commenting you've done consecutively, and your adding of articles to categories (and telling Xvon he could) that are under discussion in an attempt to sway consensus. I still remain very concerned about OWNership issues in category space (500 edits in November, at or near the contributions) and strongly urge you to step away from Category space for awhile before I report you for OWNership pbp 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is not ridiculous. The people of Constantinople in 1300 insisted they were in the Roman Empire and just because you want to laugh at them for this belief does not change the fact that that is how they viewed the world. I have every right to participate in discussion about categories, and do not appreciate your attacking me for doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

• • • • Please read WP:OWN before accusing me of harrassment pbp 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• You are being rude, plain and simple, and I stand by my harrasment complaint.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pointing out fault where there is some isn't "rude". I can back it up with diffs; lots of them. I stand by my OWNership allegations 100% and you accusing me of harrassment inaccurately will not get me to back away from them pbp 22:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are just plain rude. You word statements in the form of threats. You attack me for trying to make wikipedia more consistent. It is harrasment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • For what it is worth, going to people's talk pages and then insulting their reasoning while there is a CfD discussion does not make any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about the category debate, but I think you were mistaken about changing "Russian" to "Imperial Russian" for Alexander Chuhaldin, as he was both an Imperial Russian and a Soviet Russian before going into exile, surely best just to write "Russian" (as do the sources)? It appears that to make some obscure point you are needlessly complicating things. See also discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia‎. cwmacdougall19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

There's something slightly hilarious about pbp saying that someone else is "comment[ing] a dozen or more times, often repeating information and trying to shout down detractors". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Danjel, it's even more hilarious than you HOUNDing me. How did you get here anyway? Been monitoring my edits much? pbp 00:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is nice to know that someone agrees with me. I wish I had not reacted so much to this though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it. Just don't do it again pbp 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I figured I might as well leave a connection to the page mentioned above, Category:Imperial Russian people by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JPL

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

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

• It is in the discussion of Category:Male actors by nationality, but I may have made the statement sound a bit harsher than it was in its original context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Did you mean to post this at my page? pbp 20:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

• Yes you do. That is the very center of the notion of verifiablity. Wikipedia is not about things being "true". We do not include things just because they are true. We only include things that can be verified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • No you don't. Of course you should not ADD something without a source. But if it is already there and likely to be true then removing it is vandalism. Just note it requires a source, and don't be so hyperactive. cwmacdougall 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC
    • Things that exist do not have some sort of innate right to exist. If a categorization is not supported in the article, it is not vandalism to remove it, it is the basic logic of followi ng the rules of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wikipedia:CAT#Articles makes it cleat categorization needs to be based on the fact being mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• You are way too fast to accuse others of vandalism. It is better that people not be in categories that they fit than that they be in categories that they do not fit in. The article has been inproved because of my edit, because it motivated you to go and find more information and include the information in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure I could prompt the improvement of lots of articles by vandalising them, but I don't think it is the right way to proceed. In less time than we have spent discussing this, you could have done what I did and looked her up and found a good source that she is African American, and that that is important. Surely instead of mass robotic edits, that would be a better way for you to proceed? cwmacdougall 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not vandalism to remove a category that is not supported by the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. It's vandalism to remove info such as the category simply because it's not in the text. I can't figure out what would compel someone to do that in the first place.Donmike10 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You are wrong. If the article never mentions that the person is x, then they should not be categorized as x. This is one of the basic ideas behind categorize. It is not vandalism to apply the rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donmike10, what JPL has done is certainly not "vandalism", since that implies "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is clear this is not JPL's intent here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact of the matter is that many of these articles do not have any sources that say the subject is African-American either. Articles should mention in the text a trait of a person before they are so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is no pleasing people. Below I have been attacked for trying to add this information into an article. People seem to want to keep up the practise of hidden categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• These people are all categorized by their ethnicity and profession overlap, something that inherently means there is a claim that their ethnicity is notable. People go ballistic on me for removing this unreferenced categorization in most of these cases, so I see no reason to not include it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the reason for not including it is shown in the link above. You're making up your own rules now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They specifically state that it can be included if it is notable. The whole reason we allow categories like Category:African-American actors is because the fact that the people are actors who are African-American is notable. If it were not notable, then we would delete the category as a tivial intersection type.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you're making an invalid comparison. However, if you wish to discuss this, I can assure you that your talk page is not the place to do it. Start a discussion on a relevant talk page about categories, MOS, leads, or somewhere else. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am trying to make articles mention things that they are categorized by. This is the minimum requirement of categorization. I am now getting attacked from both sides.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be complaining a lot about being "attacked". What's the common theme here? Can you figure it out? Why don't you try working with and discussing this with others rather than edit warring? Being bold only goes so far. You've been shown the relevant guideline, yet you are the one continuing on apparently trying to make a point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • The common theme is that you want to leave the project with inadequaltely covered categories. Categorization should follow mention in the article. I am trying to bring this about. The relevant guidelines support my actions. The guidelines claerly allow for mention in the lead, and in all cases except maybe Clash the person's notability is clearly tied up with their being an African-American actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I said, discuss it. Not here. Find a relevant talk page, but please stop your crusade until you can get a consensus on what you're doing. I appreciate that categories should be mentioned in the article, but you are going about this the entirely wrong way and you know it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Why not add the info further down the article? Doesn't have to be in the lead... cwmacdougall 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does when the whole article is the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps. - jc37 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

When it comes to articles on people we do not have as much leeway as the rest of the encyclopedia. I haven't looked over this specific situation, but just from reading the talk pages: a.)Sofixit is of course better than templating, but at least templating to note the needed info is likely a good idea b.) If you don't like part of WP:CAT, then, I suggest you start an RfC to change it. but in the meantime, specifically due to policies like WP:V, and WP:NPOV, categorisation is not to replace content. Content is required to be in an article before categorisation. And without such content in the article, the categorisation should be removed. Simple. straight-forward. c.) if the applicability of a reference for said content is in dispute, discuss it on the article's talk page. Follow WP:CON, and if need be, WP:RFC. In the special case of WP:BLP articles, the category should probably be removed in the meantime. - jc37 08:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really should look at these cases before intervening. cwmacdougall 11:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far, I have only attempted to help you all by clarifying current policy, guidelines, and best practices. I have not "intervened" as yet, though I suppose I can, should it prove necessary. - jc37 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with John Pack Lambert (and jc37). A category is intended to capture a defining characteristic, and something not even mentioned in the article is hardly defining. The fault lies with the editor who added the unsupported category in the first place. Oculi (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course the original "fault lies with the editor who added the unsupported category", but the issue under dispute is what to do about that fault, especially when the category appears correct and supportable: should the category be removed, support added, or lack of support noted? I think normally only the latter two. cwmacdougall 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material". If you think that the category should not have been removed, then you are welcome to add it once a ref is provided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but read the next paragraph: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". I so object. cwmacdougall 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we were talking about body text, you would have a point. But there is no mechanism for tagging a category as unsourced, so the only option is to remove the category. This should be done with an edit summary which clearly explains why the category is being removed. That way anyone watching the page can see what has happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But there is; see: User_talk:Good_Olfactory who suggested using Template:Category unsourced. cwmacdougall 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enderûnlu Fâzıl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient non-LDS-related sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Your consistent responses to my comments are both rude and combative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hello John. Not sure why pbp feels the need to start a RFC/U against you. I've found you to be a courteous contributor to catspace for quite some time. Anyways, keep me posted should this arise, I would like to comment in support of the good work you are doing for the project. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• • I will try to avoid interactions with the person in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Well it makes even less sense to create a category that does not yet have any articles. Sometimes if you only have one article that fits and you are working on other things it does not really feel worthwhile to go and create the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. However, I remain confused. The category you removed was blue, the category you added was red. Doesn't this mean that you added a category with zero articles? HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It now has one article because I moved the article into that category. At some point someone has to be the one to put the first article in a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, now I get it. I'll just get in my Nash Rambler and get on home, then. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

((subst:cfd|Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States))

or

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

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

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

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

Hi John, I hope you won't mind a friendly reminder about this. Other editors sometimes fix it for you (e.g. [3]), but it would be less work to get it right in the first place. Cheers!

Please acknowledge this, otherwise I'll leave you another note below in case you miss this one. – Fayenatic London 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Category:Australian athletes‎ (20 C)
• Category:Australian athletes‎ (20 C)
• Category:Austrian athletes‎ (21 C)
• Category:Afghan athletes‎ (3 C)
• Category:Albanian athletes‎ (6 C, 1 P)
• Category:Algerian athletes‎ (16 C)
• Category:American track and field athletes‎ (22 C)
• Category:American Samoan athletes‎ (5 C, 1 P)
• Category:Andorran athletes‎ (3 C)
• Category:Angolan athletes‎ (4 C, 1 P)
• Category:Anguillan athletes‎ (2 P)
• Category:Antigua and Barbuda athletes‎ (7 C)
• Category:Argentine athletes‎ (18 C)
• Category:Armenian athletes‎ (5 C, 1 P)
• Category:Aruban athletes‎ (1 C, 2 P)
• Category:Azerbaijani athletes
• Category:‎Austrian athletes‎ (21 C)
• Category:Afghan athletes‎ (3 C)
• Category:Albanian athletes‎ (6 C, 1 P)
• Category:Algerian athletes‎ (16 C)
• Category:American track and field athletes‎ (22 C)
• Category:American Samoan athletes‎ (5 C, 1 P)
• Category:Andorran athletes‎ (3 C)
• Category:Angolan athletes‎ (4 C, 1 P)
• Category:Anguillan athletes‎ (2 P)
• Category:Antigua and Barbuda athletes‎ (7 C)
• Category:Argentine athletes‎ (18 C)
• Category:Armenian athletes‎ (5 C, 1 P)
• Category:Aruban athletes‎ (1 C, 2 P)
• Category:Azerbaijani athletes‎ an others 200 from Category:Athletes by nationality --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xhosa Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Griqua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nymf _wabbit! 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Bronstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frownland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • I always though edit summaries were not needed at CfD. Most people do not provide them. Maybe I should have on my edits to a try make it work on a very complexed named category, but instructions seem to suggest they are unneeded when voting at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alansohn is not alone here—I know that there are a number of editors that really appreciate users using edit summaries at CFD; it makes their experience at CFD easier to manage. Given that it's considered good practice to use them in general per WP:EDITSUMMARY, if users ask you to use them, you probably should consider doing so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • JPL, thanks for taking up this suggestion. I agree that other editors also need to be contacted, but it seemed to make the most sense to approach you first given your participation level. I see that many people who do use edit summaries use shorthand codes ("k" for keep, "d" for delete, "r" for rename, etc.), which only demonstrates that even the briefest summaries can be exceedingly helpful to get a grasp of where individual editors and the community stand on a particular discussion. Your use of edit summaries will also help push other editors to do the same across CfD. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

• • Alumni does not mean graduates. Anyone who has attended an institution counts as alumni of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Farrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Utica High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

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

• 8Thankyou for your support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheheke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GregJackP Boomer! 13:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi JPL

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

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

Hello, you should not have move Governor of French Mauritius to Governor of Isle de France according to WP:COMMONNAME, Mauritius was officially and widely known as Isle de France indeed if you look at at history book or other publications you will see that Mauritius is referred as Isle de France and Ile de France, whether in English or French, see [4].Kingroyos (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is confusing, the article is about Mauritius, Ile de France is confusing, and anyway this mkes the articles better in parrallel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Talk on the page shows that this name is clear, the other is too easily confused with a section of France itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

FYI, Kingroyos (talk · contribs) has renamed "Governor of French Mauritius" to Governor of Île-de-France, which is not about Île-de-France -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• The term "actress" is not about inferiority. Automatically assigning a lesser meaning to anything specifically female is incredibly negative and offensive. Some simply prefer the term 'actor.' Some don't appreciate gender separation in terms, nor designations like 'female actor,' 'female doctor,' 'male nurse.' It assumes there should be separation and attention drawn to gender. Some people don't mind that, others do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccount2311 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The categories have been through multiple CfDs in the last few months and have survied all of them. In fact Category:Swedish actresses was created through a CfD move from Category:Swedish female actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I study of the Corpus of Contemporary American English clearly shows that actress is a currently used term and that no matter how much some people may dislike the term, it is the common and prevailing term that is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually not only did we have multiple CfDs on the issue, we had an RFC which clearly indicated a decision to split the categories by gender. If you look at the articles you will see that over 99% perfent of articles on females involved in acting describe them as "actresses". There is no where a strong move against the term, it is used in awards, and it is clearly used in speech. Claims to the contrary ignore reality. Bringing these categories up at CfD makes no sense when the clear consensus is to keep the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, I argued the same point, we still say "American actress" not "female actor", but I'll be very surprised if you don't face a CFD and a force. I've alerted the film and actors project, as this is going against what was decided long ago. I'm not going to stop you but I'm sure somebody else will, just warning you. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American actresses was very recently at a CfD, with the close to keep. Slightly earlier there was a CfD on Category:Actresses by nationality and its subcats. I would advise you look at the history involved in the categories before attacking people for adding to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not attacking you, I'm warning you that there was a strong consensus against splitting and naming the categories actresses about 2 years ago when I proposed a split. I agree, I think it makes sense and is easier for browsing but the force which I encountered no longer seems to be apparent if the categories were kept.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The consensus has changed. The current consensus is very clearly to split by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• An actually study of language usage still shows that Actress is overwhelmingly more common than "female actor".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A goodle search will show mainstream publications using the term "actress" in the last few months. The term is still used, no matter what a few language-revisionist radicals try to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. Screen Guild is one of the most important institutions in the acting world.. I agree on actress but "male actor" is ridiculous. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The fact that one organization uses the term does not negate general usage. You are free to make your views known at the CfD on Category:American male actors. That would be much more effective than expressing them on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Cristy Coors Beasley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Producer

Dania Ramirez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to American

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

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

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

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

• Except goperwood is not in any words categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, we need to draw the line somewhere. Yes, every song has a songwriter. No, not every song is notable. Should we categorize every song by songwriter? Some people just write one or two songs here and there, then fall off the face of the earth. And that seems to be the case with him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case there are five songs. 5 is generally accepted to be enough for a category. Your red herrings of one song or two songs are not the issue here. Anyway we do not have artilces on every song. I am not sure if the notability requirements for songs are the best, but I see no reason to not group these 5 songs. I also have no clue why you are carrying this argument to my talk page instead of just running it at CfD. The writer of a song is a notable trait of the song, thus it is worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So are you saying every song must have a "Category:Songs written by X" category? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please comment on this issue at the CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article Edward L. Kimball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a biography article of a living person that fails to meet any of the WP:BIO notability criteria particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The subjects only purported claim to notability appears to be that he wrote a biography of his father, a Mormon leader

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Stanley B. Kimball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this biography article fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in that, although he is said to have published various books and articles and won a Best Book Award from the Mormon History Association, there are no sources cited to demonstrate that he has made any significant impact in his scholarly discipline or that he satisfies the high level required for any of the other relevant criteria.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Victor L. Ludlow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The living subject of this biography article fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in that, although he is said to be the “author of several books on the Book of Isaiah”, there is no suggestion that he has made any significant impact in his scholarly discipline or that he satisfies the high level required for any of the other relevant criteria, let alone any sources cited for the same.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Daniel H. Ludlow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this biography article fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in that, although he is said to have been the one-time “chief editor of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism”, there is no suggestion that he has made any significant impact in his scholarly discipline or that he satisfies the high level required for any of the other relevant criteria, let alone any sources cited for the same.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Although it could possibly be argued that the subject of this biography article satisfies the bare minimum notability criteria for a WP:POLITICIAN in a very technical sense (assuming it can be verified that he was a member of the pre-state Arizona Territorial Legislature), there is no suggestion that he is worthy of any encyclopedic notice and the article focuses on mundane details of his life and family.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have just left a message for me saying: "There is no rule against mentioning someones parents in a biography. In fact, most biographies provide information on the parents of the subject." Answer: Regrettably, many biographies here on WP do indeed name spouses, parents, children, and other relatives when an article in some other reputable encyclopedia would not. That, sadly, is because many biographical articles here are of fairly poor quality - not to mention that many of them relate to persons of no encylopedic interest whatsoever. Obviously, if the parent is famous in him- or herself, you should obviously name them. Thus, for instance, the articles on various kings and queens will normally name the parents. But that does not normally apply to, say, some BYU professor. There are many other websites where you can create the kind of family-oriented genealogical entries that you seem to be interested in. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed CFD 2013 January 18#Category:Welfare and poverty as "delete after some recategorisation".

Since you had identified the work that needed to be done, please may I leave it to you to implement this?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I posted this on the wrong talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 8#Category:Puerto_Rican_nuns.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heber C. Kimball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lapwai, Idaho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Craig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Sofffie7's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Sofffie7 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helo and thanks for creating this article. It's been tagged for notability for 4 years now, can you please see if you can help improve it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, you took part in another World of Darkness AfD so I wondered if you might want to get involved in this one. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clinch Township, Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waverly Township, Michigan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Since you're very familiar with categories, I thought I'd leave you a note to ask you a question :) I don't know if there has been a discussion on that matter before but I noticed "21st-century actors" has new subcategories which are, aside from "21st-century actresses, "21st-century American actors‎" and "21st-century British actors‎", and it's also the case for the 20th-century actors and the 19th-century actors. I thought sorting actors out by centuries and genders is good, but adding subcategories by nationalities is overcategorization, isn't it? It also means extra work lol... What's your thought on this?

update:oh I see you created those new subcategories for the 20th-century actors so I guess you won't question their utility :/ --Sofffie7 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Gtwfan52. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Crystal Falls, Michigan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Helena Township, Michigan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Michigan

Kashif (1983 album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kashif

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 25, you note that categories such as Category:Finnish loanwords have been converted to lists. What are the lists? The French category from this CFD hasn't yet been listified, so I'd like to start working on that. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you point me to the lists for Finnish or other languages that you've said are already done? Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Current national leaders for undeletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6#Category:Current national leaders you may be interested in taking part. Ryan Vesey 23:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a first pass over the general Category:American actresses category with AWB; now the real in-depth work begins. Would you mind combing through the various sub-categories of Category:American actors and slapping Category:American actresses on the requisite ones? I can then go through the expanded category and use AWB to make the necessary changes. I think it'll be much easier and less time-consuming this way, if'n ye don't mind. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't see that as being much faster of a way of doing things than how I am right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, by using AWB I can replace, say, five instances of the word "actresses" in a category at once, automatically, rather than manually. You're probably right, though; I'm not the most technically-minded individual. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That might be helpful, but I am not always convinved that leaving the categories as is works. I have been moving a lot of people from being in a by state actors cat and a by city people cat to a by city actresses cat for example, so the edits are at times slightly complexed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THere I agree with you. I'm making alterations/improvements as I go along. Oh, well. Long as it all gets done in the end. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me out- what is a building?

I am confused? If it was not a building- why did Manchester City Council spend 8 million pounds replacing it- after the fire? If it is not a building why did the Department of Education publish Building Bulletin 49 describing it? True there is shared use but it was middle and lower school that were fired. No, I haven't yet got sufficient info on the 2012 reconstruction, or photos to be able to write a description. The cat seems surprising- but while it still exists- there is not a better example of arson in the UK. Still if you are in M8- we do need extra photos. --ClemRutter (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping. ---- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that a recent CfD agreed to delete the category "Irish loanwords". Fair enough, but I see you're also deleting articles listed in "Category:Irish words and phrases" which hasn't been nominated for deletion. If you intend to subsequently delete this category, can you be sure to post a notice at Wikiproject Ireland please? --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

List of English words of Dutch origin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bundle

List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations in the 2000 census (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sweetwater, Florida

Silas Marcus MacVane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John de Witt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Responding to your bot request of March 7)

It's possible to do that (except for adding the categories to the CfD page) using WP:AWB. I could do it, but it's been 5 days since the nomination, and we would want to make sure the nominations on each of the individual categories remained open for 7 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your input at this article. I am merely wondering, nothing more, why the categories such as [Category:African-American female singers] etc., have a hyphen, whilst African American does not ? It is hardly of your, or mine disposition (somewhat archaic usage meaning manner of placing or arranging), but it does seem inequitable.

Speaking as an English Anglo Saxon (without the hyphen) white type person, and as a direct descendent of both Bill the Bastard and Harald Hardrada, these American peculiarities have me somewhat baffled.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 28#Category:Diving ducks.
Message added 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_13#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Chaco_War.
Message added 06:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Talk:Pope Francis in the "On homosexuality" section, you rightly said "This is not the place to discuss views." And yet by writing "The fact of the matter is there are lots of married couples who greatly desire to adopt children, and letting other than married man/women couples participate in adoption lessens the chances of children having the most positive set of rearing going on", this is exactly what you are doing. Any chance you could adhere to WP:NOTAFORUM when enforcing it? Would you mind removing your personal views from the talk page? I have asked Amandajm to do likewise. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. Thank you for pointing out to me the inappropriateness of making such comments on that page. Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you raise it again as an inconsistency, please note that I have set up Category:Wyandot as a head category for Category:Wyandot people following your comments at a CfD. This seems to be consistent with its sibling categories.

As you have referred to Category:Potowatomi in a couple of discussions as if it existed, I created it as a redirect. (Only one shows up in "what links here" because the other time I changed the spelling to match the target.) – Fayenatic London 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in case you missed my note, please see #CFD_tagging above. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I do not think I yet understand what is going on with this. It is the type of needlessly difficult thing that makes it likely that bad categories remain, because it is very simple to create a category, but takes huge amounts of technical precision to properly nominate them for deletion. This is why some people chose to do single category nominations, although those have lately been attacked as well. I have tried to understand this, but it seems to be that at every turn there is more complexed and confusing material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it is I nomiate things for CfD by finding an existing CfD nomination with the same general goal and tweak it to fit the new information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once you start a discussion, then yes you do have to edit the list within that discussion to add other categories into it.

Where you seem to need help is tagging the pages of existing categories. Having started a discussion, use the section heading as an extra parameter when nominating other categories.

For example, following your solution for Category:Aircraft manufactured by Algeria, you could follow up by nominating Category:Aircraft manufactured by Argentina. If you used the standard template to start the discussion, then the section heading would be the existing name, "Category:Aircraft manufactured by Argentina".

Then, to tag e.g. the Belgian category and link to the same discussion, you would tag the Belgian category page with ((subst:cfr|Aircraft manufactured in Belgium|Category:Aircraft manufactured by Argentina)).

Hope this helps! By the way, I don't think the above example needs a full discussion, as it can go to speedy following the precedent; it was just an example. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations in the 2010 census, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to try to help you with the page about African American percentage in counties, but after searching around census.gov for the map interface I used to like I found it's been replaced with something a lot less user-friendly. It literally takes 5 minutes to load a map, click on a county, and see the data I'm looking for. I don't know why they've taken such a step down. Unless you are using some other tool on the same site which is a lot easier to use I'd say you must be putting in a whole lot of work. —Soap— 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that you improved the category section of the Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt article. Thank you very much for your help, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your edit to Baruch Agadati, removing the Russian occupational categories. But why did you also remove Category:Jewish painters? Debresser (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no point in putting Israeli people in Jewish categories as well. They have to high a level of overlap to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, why is one not a sub-category of the other? What about Category:Arab citizens of Israel? Are you re-categorising on the basis of a personal view, or on the basis of established consensus which is documented somewhere? – Fayenatic London 17:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we don't categorize Spanish singers and Category:Spanish-language singers even though the one is not a subcategory of the other because the overlap is not perfect. The same principal applies here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept the point for languages; I closed a CfD accordingly last year. It says that at Category:Spanish-language singers. However, ethnicity is not the same as language, and nor is religion. What if someone starts removing Mormons from the American categories on the grounds that that they have too high a level of overlap to be useful? – Fayenatic London 17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I give up, we will put Baruch Agadati is even more categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also think that "Jewish" and "Israeli" are distinct categories. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related point, what point did you mean by "There are also some English language singers who are not of any of the above nationalities" at Category:English-language singers? It seems to be a statement of the obvious without giving any guidance as to whether such people should be categorised there. Perhaps it should state "This category should only be used for English language singers who are not of any of the above nationalities". – Fayenatic London 17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have changed this now to the above. – Fayenatic London 18:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a highly random note, I've seen sensible comment from yourself on various threads but have no idea whether you'd be remotely interested in this. Looking for input re a possible addition of "foreigner" under NPA text. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Page seems to get almost no traffic, which I hope means because it is so widely accepted. Not sure it justifies sending out a big note for something one hopes straightforward. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem mate! It ended up in that category because I cut-paste the templates from an unrelated AFD to make it quick. It should have had those when you started the AFD - not sure why they disappeared on you. It can go in whatever category you like and the one you picked seems like a good one. To ensure all the right stuff gets included in an AFD, you could add the twinkle tools pack. It has a great XFD function. Stalwart111 10:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Kathryn Doby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to All That Jazz

List of English words of Manx origin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skeet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your hard work trying to make List of Once Upon a Time characters an encyclopedic article without copyvio! Randykitty (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you seem to specialise in cats, I wonder what your opinion might be of using categories such as Category:Indo-Aryan peoples and Category:Indo-Hunnic peoples. Specifically, on many occasions when cats such as these are used it seems to be the case that the ethnicity is uncertain and that a case could be made for categorising under various ethnicities or as none at all. A recent example is at Rajput, where I reverted an addition on the grounds that the ethnic origin being categorised was only one of several possibilities. My revert may have been wrong but it seemed to be the most conservative option in the circumstances.

My gut feeling is that it would be better not to have these categories at all but since they do exist, would there be any mileage either in renaming them or creating a parallel set along the lines of Category:Claimed Indo-Hunnic peoples. Or something like that, anyway: category discussions often become too pedantic for my taste and so I've tended to keep out of them! Of all those that exist, the ones related to Aryan origin seem to be the most problematic, primarily because of the discredited Aryan invasion theory that still has currency among the religious nationalists (Hindutva) of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day John, could you re-visit [7] just so anyone closing knows where you stand? I know I have modified the proposal several times... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Deomar De Guedes Vaz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. War (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there Johnpacklambert, I disagree with your recent reversions on First Vision article, in your edit summary, you clearly pointed out to the fact that the statement on which Smith claims there was no revival is untrue, which the source proves the contrary [8], before I undo your revert I thought it would be unapologetic and awkward if I was wrong in this rationale. Thanks Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smith never used the word "revivial". He also never explicitly stated there was a revival in 1820. The section has set up a strawman and then attacked it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the source says the contrary. Well, I'm not familiar with the subject, but the part of the sections which you removed contains information of denial regarding the revival, if not from Smith point of view, clearly someone else one's. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that removed section contains relevant information that should not be deleted wholesale. It's research/writings that are directly on point. Whether a user agrees with it or can find fault with it is a separate issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He removed yet again part of the content about Taylor's general statements, please refrain from these disruptive edits, do not blank previous editors contributions, especially when they are well written and well sourced, I won't intervene in the article as of yet, but if you keep the denial of denial position on the article I'm going to start an RfC on the case. 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed as delete the CFD for Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority population. Since some people wanted a list, I've created it at User:Johnpacklambert/Hispanic lists and am about to link this notification from the CFD closing statement. It's purely a copy/paste of each category's contents as of when I closed the discussion; I made no attempt to verify that the categories reflected reality, and I know that there's at least one example of a place that was wrongly in the parent when it should have been in one of the state-level child categories. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss your removal of the Muslim Communities category and seek sound consensus for this before continuing further. THere is no reason to remove the category. Just because not all are Muslims, does not mean it's not a Muslim community. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to comment here.Formerip (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I get in touch with you about this? I'm writing something for the New York Review blog, and I see that you're involved. What would be the best way for me to reach you? Thanks. JGleick (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop. You did your thing, it threw the media and parts of Wikipedia into an uproar, people went through and reverted back to the way things were, and now we're waiting for a resolution on the future of the categories--but you seem to be going back in and re-making all the changes that you made that have been causing all this fuss. Please just stop editing this category until a resolution is decided on. --Elysdir (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I followed the directives that in general we should not place articles in both a child cat and its parent cat. The fact that the New York Times tried to turn this into some sort of cause celebre, in part by ignoring the fact that Amy Tan was not in the general novelist category prior to her being placed in the American women novelist category, or that men such as Raymond Andrews were not in the general American novelist category, is not reason that we should let misrepresentation of the facts dictate our actions. Another example of a novelist not in the general novelist category was Charles W. Bailey who is in the thriller writers sub-cat. The total ignoring of these genre-specific sub-cats and how their contents are not normally in the parent cat has lead to a lot of rhetoric on this subject that ignores how categories really work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which does not change the sensibleness of Elysdir's request: That you temporarily stop your edits until the uproar dies down and consensus arises. What's the harm in that? If your perspective turns out to be the consensus, you have lost nothing except a little time. If not, a whole bunch of churn has been avoided. Win/win. So why not give it a rest for a bit?Dougom (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that what was involved was a removal of categories that exist. That is out-of-process deletion, which is clearly against the rules. Plus, in reality it is not just Category:American women novelists involved. An editor went through an unilaterally reverted my edits, including to such uncontroversial categories as Category:19th-century American writers. There is no reason I should go along with pre-deletion removal of categories, there is even less to go along with removal of categories that no one has even bothered nominating for consideration of deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To repeat: You're not being asked to stop entirely; you're merely being asked to wait a bit. That's all. I am a bit baffled as to why this appears to be such a big deal that waiting a bit is an insupportable option. Allow the coffee poured into the saucer to cool.Dougom (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not wait? Because already one person has moved to delete Category:American men novelists because the category is empty, but it was only empty because Avt tor deleted its contents while the category was up for discussion. That is not an allowed move. Not is removal of people from Category:American women novelists while the category is up for discussion because people think that it should not exist. If you think someone in that category is either not a woman, not an American, or their being a novelists is not a significant enough part of their life to categorize by, you are free to remove them. However there is no justification for removing people who clearly fit the criteria while the category exists. In fact, since sometimes categorize are removed because they are deemed too small, it is however always acceptable to add additional applicable articles to a category that has been nominated for deletion. There is no reason why I should not add articles to Category:American women novelists, and even less reason why I should not remove those in Category:American fantasy writers from Category:American novelists. In fact there is still a note on Category:American novelists that the contents should be moved to sub pages, so in fact there still is a directive that we should be taking Category:Amerocan fantasy writers out at least in cases where they are pimarily fantasy writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the heavens will fall, the Earth crack open, and the biosphere experience a mass extinction event if this doesn't wait a day or two? Come now. Let it sit. Let things cool down and resolve. You will do as you will, of course, but all I can say is: I see absolutely no harm whatsoever--and quite a bit of potential good--in letting things be for a bit. Truly. Dougom (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When people motion to delete categories because they are empty and the only reason they are empty is because a user has removed all of their content, with the claim that the category should be deleted, there is harm in not acting. It facilitates out of process deletion of categories. Categories should be deleted by consensus with respect to rules, not by bakchanded manipulation of the process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To repeat (again): I see absolutely no harm, none, in waiting a few days for tempers to cool and things to settle down. Truly. The alternative, if you simply cannot wait despite there being no immediate reason to do so, is an edit war. If you prefer to engage in an edit war, feel free, but it seems totally avoidable to me. Dougom (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After seeing people call for me being banned without even dealing with the fact that Category:Women novelists was very large and needed sub-dividing by nationality, and at the same time it makes no sense to create extremely small cateogries so I had to make sure its potential daughter cats would be sufficiently large, I really think "assume good faith" has gone out the window. Or are bully words like "sexism" so effective that people feel they must threten and change in the face of them, even if this means threatening editors who have done nothing wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your reaction very well. As a woman, I never assumed that this category had been created for sexist motives, and reading the explanation from the user who actually created the category (not you) made it very clear that the intention was rather the complete opposite of sexism. I was upset when I read Jimmy Wales's page yesterday where he stated people "who do things like this" (paraphrasing) should be banned. It can be tough to suddenly see one's actions and maybe name be subjected to media attention. In such situations the community ought to offer a bit of moral support rather than throw people under the bus (unless it is a situation of vandalism or similar). By moral support, I don't mean support for the action (which will differ from case to case), but some basic respect and appreciation for those who volunteer time and effort to aid this project when they make an honest mistake or suddenly find themselves in a controversy they did't expected. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure why my comment which was here was deleted. I'm not sure if it was on purpose or accidentally. If on purpose, I'm sorry I must have written something to upset you, but I did think that the other users were giving sensible advice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong with large categories?

Hello, JPL. A lot of this seems to be based on the notion that large categories need subdividing. Why is this true? What's wrong with large categories? Are they harmful? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The general view is that once you get over 1,000 entries a category is too large to be useful. Generally there are more specific ways to categorize people once a category is that large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You didn't answer my question at all. I asked why is this the general view, and your response is that it's the general view? Why? Why are large categories less useful? What if I find them useful? Does that make me wrong? I'm challenging this general view, and I'm asking if you know the reasoning behind it. Do you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The theory is categories should be such that they should be easily navigable. The longer they are the harder it is to find specific people in the category. Some think we should start splitting categories once they gtet over 200 entries, since that is how long one page in the category is, and that is, and the assumption is that having to click a second page makes navigation difficult. I think this is an unrealistically low level of cutting. I would suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:Categorization to see if there is a better explantion. I mainly operate on the assumption that 1-nationality is notable, and 2-generally it is acceptable to split categories by nationality as long as the resultant nationality categories would be reasonably sized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I would tend to agree about nationality, and would generally support such sub-categories. Whether the parent categories should be diffused into them is another question. I've encountered some readers who want to be able to browse parent categories with 4000+ members, so I don't see why we should deprive them of the opportunity to browse according to their preferences. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • My general response is that it would really, really have helped if User:Rebrane had made a better inital nomination of Category:American women novelists. It is unclear what people really want. Do they want to send all its contents to Category:Women novelists by nationality, or do they want to delete that category? So are you saying we should have Category:Women novelists contain all women novelists, and not diffuse to the subcats, or do you just not want to diffuse Category:American novelists and are perfectly happy diffusing Category:Women novelists?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Yeah, it's nice when it's clear. Thanks for your replies here, and for starting the discussion at the categorization talk page. I'm really finding myself most drawn to the suggestion that we fix all these problems by implementing tags instead of categories, but that's probably a technical nightmare. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Size can't always be the determining factor. For example, even if you split off "American Novelists" into "male" and "female" categories, those sub-categories are still going to have more than 1000 entries each. What then? "American Female Novelists from Washington State", etc.? Dougom (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ah, finally i see some reasoning for why categories are deemed "too large", which didn't make any sense to me before -- thanks. who came up with this reasoning, if i may ask? because i want to make a strong argument against it where it will do the most good; would that be Wikipedia talk:Categorization? deciding categorization based on screen navigation is ... surprising to me at best, and i am not sure what term to use to get across how wrong i find this without being insulting, because i do not mean to be insulting look, screen sizes differ, vastly, especially now that so many people use mobiles. navigation should really not affect categorization at all, because categorization is a part of content; it should instead be handled by the browser/script/theme. you seem to be putting a lot of effort into categorizing things (thank you), and it pains me to see that you might be doing work that's counter-productive. i am also sorry you seem to be ending up as the scapegoat for this latest "wikipedia is sexist" uproar, and since i was mildly critical of you in the CfD i wanted to express my general support for you here, since sexist editing is clearly not your intent, and you're just doing what oodles of other people do to clean up the place behind the scenes. piranha ^(talk) 00:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These problems have, of course, been faced and solved before. One good solution is to make sub-categories based on date of birth of the novelist. Born 1901-1910, etc. If these get too large, shrink the time interval. The obvious problems with sub-categorization into female novelists ought to have been foreseen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.135.236 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]