User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2

You're quite welcome
Always happy to be of service. Keep up the good work! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Hutaree. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He does it here too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helen#IE_.2Awel-_doesn.27t_have_anything_to_do_with_.2Asel- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.84.133 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Authorship matters, and when the person is an open supporter of "any means neccesary" to obtain goals, and has openly admited this fact, it needs to be pointed out so that the proper intent of the commentor can be understood. Why am I the one attacked, when I am not the one advocating the breaking of laws and rules to obtain goals?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Secondly, my initial comments were on content, but other commentors engaged in attacks saying things like "your opinion does not matter". It was not opinion, it was statement of facts, and it was unneccessarily combative, especially since the person could not actually provide any reliable source for the alleged connections, and instead just went on an attack against me. The motives of authors matter, there are no neutral and uninterested parties, and until you have read the works of Louis Midgley do not even try to claim you understand otherwise. I was the one trying to maintain order and neutrality and I get attacked. I am not the one who openly admits to favoring the breaking of rules to obtain what I have idependently determined to be "the higher good". If people have issues with their positions being made public, than do not publish them on the user page for all the world to see. If I had tried to make conclusions based on past edits by the person, that might be questionable, but when they openly proclaim that they favor breaking rules under the rubric of "by any means neccessary" this is something that must be considered in evaluating the validity of their edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're writing is self-contradictory. First, you claim that "there are no neutral and uninterested parties", and then later on you go on to state that you were only trying to maintain neutrality. In other words, you say that there is no such thing as a neutral party, and then you claim to be just that.


 * Also, you stated that you are "not the one who openly admits to favoring the breaking of rules to obtain what I have idependently determined to be "the higher good"." Actually, breaking rules in certain exceptional circumstances is part of Wikipedia policy; you may wish to read WP: IAR. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because "that noble dream" of neutrality is unobtainable, does not mean that seeking for it is a worthless process. Anyway, just because no one is fully neutral does not mean that we can not work to seek a greater neutrality. It also does not mean that all people are equally biased.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Userified article
Ariel S. Ballif Jr. was proposed for deletion. Rather than delete, I userfied the article to User:Johnpacklambert/Ariel S. Ballif Jr.. Please work on the content there ant try to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vakram
A tag has been placed on Vakram 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Constantine  ✍  21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Orson Spencer
John, I have noticed your valuable contributions to the Orson Spencer article. As the Prussian mission is of great personal interest to me since a long time, I was blessed to discover in the Prussian State Archives the original police documents mentioning the presence of Orson Spencer and his companion in Berlin in February 1853. I would appreciate your advice if or how to contribute these documents to the article - would you suggest it is content of general interest? It is remarkable for us members in Berlin to see how determined these missionaries were, even as they faced expulsion after only one week in the mission field. Would it be convenient for you to contact me via LinkedIn or my Berlin Stake account? David RuetzBaranka F (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

James Allen
John- Any objection to renaming James Allen (Mormon Battalion) to James Allen (U.S. Army)? His battalion work was only one part of of an important military carreer; most people probably know him from his founding of Des Moines, or his frontier map work, or his Chicago harbor designs. Thoughts? Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Went with James Allen (Army engineer), since there already was a James Allen (Medal of Honor). Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That may explain why James Allen (Mormon Battallion) was used in the first place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joel Campbell
A tag has been placed on Joel Campbell 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark W. Cannon
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark W. Cannon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a rewrite of Susan Ivey article
Hi John, I have a request about the article on Susan Ivey, the CEO of Reynolds American, which you are still the last person to have edited (even though that was almost 9 months ago). As you probably noticed then, the article needs a significant amount of work -- in fact, not only does the article lack sufficient citations, the bulk of it is actually copied from her official corporate bio.

I have done a significant amount of work, and created a proposed alternative entry which contains all of the same information but now the text is completely original and cited primarily to third-party sources. It is currently posted to my user space here. I have not implemented it directly just yet because I work with Reynolds American and I don't want to breach WP:COI, so I want to make sure there is consensus for it. Because you are the most recent editor on the page, I thought I would check with you first. If you agree, please make the change or let me know if you are OK with me doing it instead. --Piedmont NC (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind! Another editor followed up a request for help and all is good. Piedmont NC (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tribe of Ishmael
Hi John, I am a student at Notre Dame and had to edit the Wikipedia page on the Tribe of Ishmael/Ben-Ishmael Tribe for my final project in a History of Science and Race class. Feel free to take a look at it and let me know if you have any suggestions. - Hemington (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of John Hilton III
I have nominated John Hilton III, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/John Hilton III. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alfred W. McCune, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --moreno oso (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I entered in the talk page exactly why I removed the maintenance template. There is zero reason to question McCune's notability. Someone who was the leading candidate for the United States Senate clearly falls within the minimum requirements of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alfred W. McCune, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --moreno oso (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not intentionally removing maintenance tags. I am trying to maintain them. However you destroyed a whole lot of editing work, that was in no way "vandalism" as you claim, and I am trying to restore it, but it is a confusing process. I was on the verge of restoring the maintenance tags when you instead resorted to the earlier version that had not gone though the significant inprovment I later introduced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Per G. Malm
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Per G. Malm. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:University of Detroit Jesuit High School alumni
Category:University of Detroit Jesuit High School alumni, which you created, has been nominated for 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. — ξ xplicit  06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert R. King


The article Robert R. King has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject does not meet notability requirements via WP:DIPLOMAT.

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  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  elektrik SHOOS  07:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William G. Wells
An article that you have been involved in editing, William G. Wells, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Converts
You have added categories relating to religious conversions to many articles. However, this should only be done when it is an important factor in the notability of the peron involved. As the category says: "A category for people whose conversion to the Roman Catholic Church is relevant or significant to their notability." I have already removed it from William Barraud, where it wasn't even mentioned in the article, and will remove it from other articles where the conversion is a minor point of their briography (e.g. child conversions, where the parents are actually the ones converting). Fram (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In Barraud's case it was the clearly indicated in the source list. Beyond this, just because someone converts at a young age does not mean their parents are also converting. The best example of why this is a false assumption is Vicki Matsumori. She is a convert to Mormonism but her parents are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The category description disagrees, and I agree with how that category is set up. We don't make categories for everyone that moved from one state to another or one city to another, we don't make categories for everyone who becomes a widower or a widow, we don't categorize tons of verifiable information about people despite it being included in their articles (cat:people without children, peopel with one child, people with two children, ...). When something is true about a person, but not really something they are known for, then it shouldn't be the basis for their categorization, except for a few agreed upon things (living or not, year of birth and death). From WP:CAT: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people) [...]" For those people where I reverted your addition of the cat, their conversion was not an essential, defining feature of the subject, but something that also happened in their life. Overcategorization is the ruling guideline here. It contains "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Please stop adding religious categories to people where it had no significance in their career (no matter if it was important in their personal life: if it has no significance in their career, it shouldn't be a category. A theologian who converts, or C.S. Lewis, or Muhammad Ali, are obvious people where the cats should be included. In most other cases, it shouldn't. Fram (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And your example of William Barraud should give you pause: the source does not state that William Barraud converted, it states that his two sons converted, and it is used to verify a fact about his grandfather. Even if it had been included in the source, you shouldn't categorize people on something that isn't important enough to mention it in the article. But in this case, it was just plainly wrong... Fram (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahano-ki-Mala&
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hahano-ki-Mala&, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.royalark.net/Tonga/tupou10.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Edwards (editor)
A tag has been placed on Paul Edwards (editor) 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TEK (talk • e-mail) 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul S. Edwards


The article Paul S. Edwards has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable lower-level academic administrator; no substantial assertion of notability

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike  |   Talk  21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Americans born in the Philippines
Category:Americans born in the Philippines, which you created, has been nominated for 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. — ξ xplicit  22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scio College
please see Talk:Scio College for clarification. Roseohioresident (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Heffelfinger Willkie
A tag has been placed on Philip Heffelfinger Willkie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The-Pope (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Johnpacklambert! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Judson Gilbert II -

Fusipala
Hello, my friend! I am just wondering if you are planning to create the two articles which are red-linked in the above page. If you are not, then I propose to once again direct the reader to the main page concerning Princess 'Elisiva Fusipala Vaha'i instead of to a the above Disambiguation page. WP consensus is that DAB pages have to have at least two blue links leading directly to main articles (preferably more). (Fusipala has been marked for cleanup.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The other people are clearly notable members of the Tongan Royal Family. I do not pretend to have either the understnading of Tongan culture or the time to create these articles, but I really think someone should. Even the most basic reading of articles on Tonga's royal family will lead to references to Fusipali that do not refer to the initial one that I created the article on. We need the disambiguation page so us main-landers have a chance of not being totally confused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Noel C. Gardner

 * Perhaps simply tag will doEugene-elgato (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Connecticu Huskies coaches
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pichpich (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This was not a test, this was a misspelling that I did not pick up on when making the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Typo
Don't worry. The above warning was generated automatically and its somewhat accusatory tone is not really in line with the actual problem. But in any case, my goal is just to have the category deleted since the typo makes it useless. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 1339
Hi John,

I want to change the edit on the Ayyubid dynasty. I think that the Muhammad in your link is the same Muhammad of Hama, so it is better to have the Ayubid Dynasty refer to the Ayubid Dynasty article and to put Al-Afdal Muhammad in the place of Muhammad III of Hama.Daanschr (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine by me.

Proposed deletion of Thomas Appiah


The article Thomas Appiah has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable person

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  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John of Durazzo (Greek)


The article John of Durazzo (Greek) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * there was no "John of Durazzo". Several Byzantine governors of the city at the time were named John, and they are never known by this name, but by their family names: e.g. John Doukas.

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  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Constantine  ✍  12:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories previously deleted
Hi John; in your attempts to subcategorize, it seems you are re-creating divisions that were previously deleted in the past as ones that have been deleted before. You created Category:American Latter Day Saint businesspeople, but see here, where the category for Latter Day Saint businesspeople was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, technically these are not the same category. You may be right that the rationale for deleting one would preclude the other from exisiting, but they are not technically the same.  This among other things means that there was no notice that iti had been deleted, because in fact it had not.  However, you have no created about 23 articles that have dead-end categories.  That is a problem that I am tempted to say you should feel obliged to fix.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to "fix" it, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "dead end categories". If you'd rather I nominate the categories for a new discussion, I could. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have said non-existant categoriesJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see—yes, those can easily be changed back. Would you rather I start a fresh discussion about these? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, unless you want to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery
John, I'm not sure why you are acting as you are, but I do think the best course here would be to use the talk page to propose implementing your changes. If you could slow down and explain what you want to do, there is a chance that there will be consensus to make some changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My revisions are in qisdom and order. The talk page is controlled by biased people and I see no reason why I should seek approval from biased people to remove their bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you refuse to even attempt to form consensus, I'm afraid I'll have to turn this over to WP:ANI for a community view of the situation. One editor cannot "control" a talk page, and if you would take the time to make some proposals, you might be surprised what happens. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why then can Foxe unilaterally act against my revisions over and over and over again? He has removed other edits as well and has been essentially trying to unilaterally control the article. I was not the first person to post attempts to point out the problems with the Perusite claims. It is just that I used sources, but the earlier person merely wrote on the internal problems without having sought out sources. It is Foxe and not I who has been acting as the lone person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has tried to set out on the talk page what changes need to be made and why. If this was done, and other users agreed with the proposed changes, John Foxe could not unilaterally stop the changes from being made. But if someone makes substantial changes to a controversial section without discussing it first, it is quite well-accepted that a user may revert and ask for the changes to be proposed and discussed first. It might not be ideal behaviour, though, as there are more positive ways he could act as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: University of L'Aquila
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as University of L'Aquila, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.univaq.it/en/section.php?id=8,http://www.univaq.it/en/section.php?id=13, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:University of L'Aquila and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, University of L'Aquila, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:University of L'Aquila with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:University of L'Aquila. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:University of L'Aquila saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Rich Raddon for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Rich Raddon, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rich Raddon until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 11:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

BYU Buildings edits
I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the BYU buildings list. I contributed most of the photos this summer while unemployed and haven't had the time to continue contributing as much as I had hoped. It is looking good. :) Keep up the good work! —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mount Saint Mary's University faculty
Category:Mount Saint Mary's University faculty, which you created, has been nominated for 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
As the creator of one or more or the article involved in this merge discussion I thought you should be informed about the discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alumni info
Hello. I just made some follow-up edits to some alumni you added here. Please remember to check the Alumni Directory for any missing information (degree, dates). Thanks. —Eustress talk 15:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Seymour Brunson for deletion
The article Seymour Brunson is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Seymour Brunson 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 good 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Category inquiry
Why are you removing Category:American Mormon missionaries from articles about people who were clearly American Mormon missionaries? :,. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually seeing quite a few problems with some of your recent category edits. Eg, . Why was that change made? There are others that are similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason is that I am unconvinced that for these people it is a central enough issue to be noted. The fact is that they either need to be in "American Mormon Missionaries" or "American Latter Day Saints" and which one to put them in is the question.  My general decision is that since Mormon refers to "the Mormon Church" and the Mormon Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if their main claim to fame relates to actions they did that led to their excommunication from the Church of latter that I remove that category.  However even that is not a consistent answer.  At some level I am unconvinced that "American Mormon Missionaries" is a worthwhile category.  Arguably I should either remove all the categorizations or remove "American Latter Day Saint" from all the categories.  There also a few people where I have decided that putting them in the category "American Mormon Missionaries" might be misconstued to consider their current actions reflecting this.  The case where this was most clearly the motivation for my decision was with the current US Ambassador to Jordan.  I decided that putting him in this category might be considered by some to be a statement that his current position or actions are as such.  This might be a case of taking too much precation over a threat that is not really present, but with the violent anti-proselyting actions of many in the Middle East I decided it was better to err on the side of caution and avoid anything that might be construed as such.  I am not all thatparticular about any of these particular edits, so feel free to reverse them.  However if you do you probably should remove those articles from the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ezra Booth edit is based on the assumption that "former Latter Day Saints" and "American Latter Day Saints" are mutually exclusive. I am not sure what other category edits you dislike. I removed the various family categories from the "American Latter Day Saints" category for three reasons. One is that it does not really fit, since the category is for individuals not groups. The second is that some members of the mentioned families are not Latter-day Saints. The biggest reason though was in many of the cases how American some members of the family were was in doubt. The vast majority of my edits have been removing people from "American Latter Day Saints" when they are also in the category "American Mormon missionaries" since the later is a sub-category of the former this is a justified alteration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the Ezra Booth edit. You removed "American Latter Day Saints", but Booth is otherwise categorized in other "Latter Day Saint" categories. He is notable for what he did as a Latter Day Saint, not particularly for what he did afterwards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I did not try to revert the change. You are probably right it did not make sense, but it does go back to the question of including people in both the LDS and former LDS categories.  I guess though we can point out that in general if someone was at one point in a given religion and they are notably connected with it, then they are so categorized, so I guess my thought process was flawed on this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion may arise because sometimes users interpret categories as meaning what currently is true or what was true at the latest point in a dead person's life. Categories are generally not time-sensitive, which means that Booth could be in both "American Latter Day Saints" and "Former Latter Day Saints". Sometimes this is adjusted for living people because of WP:BLP concerns, but for dead people there is generally no problem in having them in both categories. (For the same reason, dead people or former senators who are living can show up in even though they are not currently members of the U.S. Senate.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Others of my edits have been removing people from the category "American Latter Day Saints" when they were in the category "Mormon pioneers". This is also justified since the later is a sub-category of the former. Since being a Mormon pioneer involves having moved to Utah, Arizona, Nevada or Idaho, but primarily Utah, prior to 1869 under the auspices of the Mormon Church, it seems that classifying all these people as in some way American works. If it does not the issue needs to be taken up over the matter of the classification of the category Mormon Pioneers. Another two of my edits have been based on the assumption that since American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters is a subcategory of American Latter Day Saint writers which in turn is a sub-category of American Latter Day Saints. there is no point to having people in it also be in the category American Latter Day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, those types are fine with me, it was just the types of ones that I noted above that I wondered about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad Wilcox
W/ regard to your recent edit of the Dab Brad Wilcox, and older ones of Fusipala and Juan Uceda, please consider viewing Category:Disambiguation, whose members are pages like
 * Template:Alsoknown,
 * Template:Alsoknown/sandbox,
 * Disambiguation,
 * Disambiguation and abbreviations,
 * Disambiguation dos and don'ts, and
 * Hatnote,

but which cannot include any main-namespace pages. Dab pages get into their proper Category:Disambiguation pages via templates -- usually Disambig or Hndis. Thanks for your many diligent contributions! --Jerzy•t 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why there are far too few disambiguations, because they are complexed and not categorizable like normal articles. We need way more of them actually.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so slow in getting back. I have no idea what you mean by "complexed", nor by "disambiguations" (Dab pages? Links to Dab pages? Correctly Dab'd links?), nor in fact by "This". Your Cat'ization of the Dab page was mistaken because you apparently don't understand the purpose of Category:Disambiguation, nor of Disambig (see above), and i hope you'll attend to that separately from your other concern, on which i have nothing to offer. --Jerzy•t 23:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John Dewey
Thanks for your addition to the John Dewey page. It looks quite good to me. The John Dewey page has been quite a mess for some time, but your addition is clearly a very good one. However, because this page has in the past been so contentious, I hope you will not think I am being too focused on stringent following of rules in suggesting that you provide an edit summary in the future. I'd just hate to see your additions lost because someone does not quite get what you are saying and deletes it. Thanks, Mark Dietz Mddietz (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC) By the way anything else you want to add from Menard would be much appreciated. Mddietz (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bagata (town)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Bagata (town), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bagata. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Query about a revert
Could you please elaborate on this revert? I'll leave aside the tone of the edit summary, because I'm more perplexed by the content of your revert. You restored the following material: "This whole argument ignores the fact that much of Coleman's work focuses on the groups that are liekly to suffer post-abortion mental health issues, and that trigger factors are a complexed issue, but if we want to have adequate mental health care we need to recognize that abortion is traumatic." Do you think this material is a) encyclopedic in tone, and b) appropriately sourced (it's sourced to culture-of-life.org, a partisan pro-life website which I would argue is well below the WP:RS threshold)? It sounds like an editorial argument, complete with the use of the first-person plural, and thus clearly at odds with basically every fundamental Wikipedia content policy. I'll leave aside the poor writing, grammar, and spelling of the material as a secondary issue, but since you've restored this material and thus taken responsibility for it, I'd like to understand your reasoning a bit more clearly. MastCell Talk 19:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole article in question has long been an attack article on a researcher who has been willing to do longitudinal studies in a field where most people do not. The decision to remove this section was brought about by a radical feminist who is trying to use the biased attack nature of this article to suppress the truth and have more women commit suicide.  The fact that this article is havily biased has been widely noted by multiple people, and the fact that a lot of these attacks have been built on the "that publication is unreliable" claims are just not the type of things that make me want to tolerate this article.  It is bad enough that the politically operated APA is treated as if it is a legitimate organization in this article.  It tells you something that up until today instead of listing the multiple publications Dr. Coleman has, the article constituted merely an attack article.  That is what is not encyclopedic about the whole thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we treat articles any differently if we believe that their subject does longitudinal studies, so I don't see the relevance of that comment.
 * The article tone can certainly be improved, but your edits have not had that effect, at least in my opinion. If an article is unduly "attacking", then the solution is to find and accurately employ better sources, not to "balance" it by editorially propping up the side you perceive as disadvantaged.
 * Referring to other editors as "radical feminists" and "haters of the unborn" (to use but a sampling of your recent rhetoric) is unproductive, at best, and I'm asking you to make an effort to elevate the tone of your commentary.
 * The idea that another editor is intentionally trying to cause women to commit suicide is so far beyond the pale of reasonable discourse and policy that, if I were not involved in the discussion, I would block you for it right here and now. As is, I'll refer the matter to WP:AN/I for uninvolved administrative input.
 * Your personal opinions about the APA are neither here nor there when it comes to the article. It is the largest and best-known professional organization of psychologists in the US, and I think that any objective reviewer will conclude it is a "legitimate" source despite your belief to the contrary. If reliable sources have described the APA as biased, cite them in the article and represent them according to site policy. This is editing 101.
 * This whole episode is disappointing. MastCell Talk 21:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is easy for radical feminist like you who go around supressing the truth to say. You are the one who openly mocked another editor for seeking to make an article something other than an unending attack piece.  Your mocking of people for not bowing down to the will of a few self-apointed "experts" clearly constituted a personal attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Priscilla K. Coleman. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NW ( Talk ) 21:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Johnpacklambert, this specifically refers to you recent edits at Priscilla K. Coleman. I have seen you edit war on other pages in the past and you have been warned about doing so in the past. That is why I have seen fit to block you in this instance: You don't seem to have heeded the warnings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an unjustified action. I was warned about edit warring, and did absolutely nothing after the warning was published and was then unilaterally blocked. This is patently unfair. If you are going to warn people that continued edit warring will result in their being blocked, than you should give them the chance to follow this directive before they are blocked. This is an unjustified and heavy-handed action that has no justicfication. You warn people against an action, and then punish them for the action without giving them any chance to change. This is just not a logical course of action.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to clarify—I was commenting that you have been warned in the past (days to weeks ago) regarding edit warring on other pages. I was not referring to the warning immediately above this section. Another administrator will consider your appeal above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Before seeing this block notice, I had reported this editor to WP:AN/I. My concern is more the virulent personal attacks than edit-warring, although both behaviors are disruptive. The AN/I discussion is here; I will amend it to mention this block. MastCell Talk 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will admit I did go a overboard in my statements. Still, if you are going to criticize others for rash comments, I think you need to consider that you own mocking of other people's edits is not at all conducive to civility.  It is patently unfair when the provoker is counted innocent and the provoked is treated as if he acted in a vacuum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your actions still constitute what I feel is clearly over-bearing action. I was clearly told that if I continued edit warring I would be blocked. You did not even give me a chance to follow those direction.  This is not a fair response.  If someone has specifically said that if I continue exit warring I will be blocked, I should at least be given the right to respond to that instruction.  To just come in and block someone when they have not even had a chance to show a willingness to respond to directives is clearly unfair.  If someone says "stop doing x or be punished" it is just wrong to come and punish someone when they do no more x.  I had not done any edits at all during the time period in question.  I was given a warning and never given a chance to show any willingness to follow the warning.  This is clearly not a fair situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's fair to expect me to collaborate with someone who thinks other editors are intentionally trying to deceive women into killing themselves . Fairness is a funny thing. Do you see any issue here beyond the technicality you've focused on above? MastCell Talk 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to be civil, but you can engage in such ad hominem attacks. Basically you are saying you will not collaborate with anyone who believes differently than you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that answers my question. MastCell Talk 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Technicality? You clearly do not believe in such American concepts as the rule of law.  If someone is told to desist or they will be punished, you can not punish them before they even have a chance to desist.  That is just plain unfair.  Basically on the other hand you are arguing that you should be able to exclude everyone who believes that abortion causes negative mental health results from the entirety of wikipedcia.  Your comment on fairness makes absolutely no sense.  You started out with your first edit by insulting me, and have since acted as if I was the one out of line.  Why you think that you can insult other people's edits and have them like it is beyond me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnpacklambert, I didn't act to block you as if it occurred in a vacuum. I evaluated the edits of both "sides", but you are the only user among the bunch who was edit warring and was a repeat offender in that regard (at least as far as my own knowledge goes). I've posted a note on MastCell's talk page that he should "keep cool" when dealing with other editors, which is standard advice I would give anyone involved in an edit war if it was the first instance I had seen of them edit warring. My overall point is that you now have racked up a history of edit warring at various times and on various pages, so I don't feel there is any injustice to imposing a short block for this repeated instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You still ignored the fact that I was given a warning and in all fairness if someone is given a warning they should be able to show a willingness to follow the warning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't ignore that. And you have been given several warnings before that, and this incident demonstrates that you didn't have a willingness to change, so I didn't have much confidence that another warning would be effective in stopping the warring. I've asked at ANI that another admin come and hear your appeal, so I suggest the best thing to do would be wait an independent observer to evaluate the block rather than picking a fight with me over it. Of course I will defend my own actions and of course you will be upset by being blocked, so let's just wait for a third party to adjudicate this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your tolerance of MastCell's continued, snyde, unjustified comments is also questionable. I see no reason why you tolerate his denigrating comments towards view of the New York Times. The determination to insult me for not accepting the Times as some sort of greater authority shows a continued willingness to personalize this and to denigrate those who do not agree with his political views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't and don't tolerate it. As I mentioned above, I made a comment on his talk page to keep his cool, which for me is standard practice when I see someone edit warring or being overly aggressive and I have not seen that behavior from that individual before. When I see multiple instances of the same behavior spread over days or weeks and on various pages, then I feel a block is appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think administrators should consider the emotional costs on blocked people. This is especially true when it allows others to continue un-answered their mocking attacks on the page that evidently was suffering from an edit war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do recognize that it takes an emotional toll, which is why I don't block users for edit warring or being overly aggressive if it's the first time I have seen that user behaving that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What about the emotional toll taken on people whom you are accusing of driving people to suicide?  Corvus cornix  talk  00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

De-escalation
John Pack Lambert - Do you feel that the policies against edit warring (WP:EDITWAR) and on civility (WP:CIVIL) and not making personal attacks (WP:NPA) have been explained clearly enough to you now? If you are not clear on these, let's make sure that your questions get answered and expectations are set properly going forwards to prevent further incidents.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that these policies have been adequately explained. Although I have to admit my first response to this whole situation is a desire to just avoid even semi-contentious articles in the future.  The problem is that is not really an adequate solution, and instead patient examination of the issues is required.  I can think of little else to say at the moment.  I am afraid to explain another factor because of the general dislike and stigma attached to mental illness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there is one issue related to edit warring that I would like to get cleared up. Let me point out that I realize that the main complaints relative to me comments relate to civility and no personal attacks.  My question is, can entering comments on an article be used in figuring if edit warring is occuring, or is edit warring limited to actions done on the article itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should further point out that I do not see that this is a direct issue at the present, but I am just asking for future reference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about inserting hidden comments into an article such as  <:!--Do add information about TOPICX without discussing on the Talk page.--> Or are you talking about something else when you say "comments"? Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. It's getting late, but tomorrow let's see about resolving the situation then.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana, when I mention "comments" I am talking about adding material to the talk page itself. Or as it is actually called "discussion". I had not even though of the idea of adding hidden comments, I do not think I have ever done such. I did once do a citation needed edit to an article, but other than that I have not even done a direct query to an article. Most of the time I figure it is better to seek the source than ask others to. However, my question here was about editing the discussion page, I guess it was not clear enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of LeRoy R. Hafen for deletion
The article LeRoy R. Hafen is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/LeRoy R. Hafen 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dustin Harding for deletion
The article Dustin Harding is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dustin Harding 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Henry Augustus Pearson Torrey for deletion
The article Henry Augustus Pearson Torrey is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Henry Augustus Pearson Torrey 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Category removed from Teiko Nishi
Hello, you made this edit with the summary "rdc". WP:RDC is a redirect to Reference desk/Computing, Template:RDC is a list of Persian phrases (who would have guessed?), and File:RdC.jpg is a map, but I can find no expansion of rdc as Wikipedia short-hand. From context I guess you mean "removed category", but I'm left wondering why you removed it. Care to spell it out at Talk:Teiko Nishi? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I figured it was something like that. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alumni of Stow College
Category:Alumni of Stow College, which you created, has been nominated for 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.

Nomination of Amram Musungu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amram Musungu 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 Articles for deletion/Amram Musungu 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 good 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. Dweller (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chancelorrs of the University of Mississippi


A tag has been placed on Category:Chancelorrs of the University of Mississippi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Obvious typo

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals


A tag has been placed on Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathryn Hens-Greco for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathryn Hens-Greco 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 Articles for deletion/Kathryn Hens-Greco 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 good 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.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theoangelo Perkins


The article Theoangelo Perkins has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the elected mayor of a small town

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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 03:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BYU expansion
Hello. I think you and I had similar ideas about expanding Wikipedia's coverage of BYU colleges, as I happened upon BYU Colleges, Departments, Schools and Programs (CDSP). I've moved some information from that article to newly created individual articles about colleges -- lots of cleanup and expansion help needed if you're interested! (By the way, you're initial work made it very easy to create these college-specific articles.) That being said, I don't think CDSP is needed. The Independent Study information could possibly be spun off into a separate article, but there won't be much left after that. Would you be opposed to having it deleted? —Eustress talk 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We still have some small sections besides indepdent study. I think there might be more information on the Neuro-science center.  On the other hand these three things could be shifted over to "BYU Research Institutes".  That would probably make more sense in the long run.  The Research Institutes is not very clear what it has, and Neuroscience could probably be put there.  It might even be possible to define it as its own page.  On the other hand maybe the remnants of the page could be merged up into the BYU page, but I personally find that page too long and hard to navigate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured out how to realign everything else to specific college articles. This means that we are left with the BYU Independent Study section.  That could probably stand on its own, especially if a little more historical information could be found.  So with that seperated off into its own category, this page could probably be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I think I took care of most of the housekeeping. I moved CDSP to BYU Division of Continuing Education, which is a quasi-college that I think will allow for some expansion and will serve as a good home for Independent Study. If I deleted anything critical in the process, please feel free to revert as you see best. Cheers! —Eustress talk 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Newton College faculty
Category:Newton College faculty, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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) 15:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel Campbell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel Campbell 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 Articles for deletion/Joel Campbell 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 good 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. Wuh Wuz  Dat  16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for notices!
Just letting you know that a user has started a thread about you here. Nothing you need to worry about, but you should know about it anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented at the page, but thought I'd say some more here. When you add a Seventy Quorum member, try adding an infobox, such as on the article of Robert E. Wells.  I think Wikipedia is big on infobox lately and it gives a good glance on why/what of the person.
 * For James Arrington, it needs more info on his plays. The article doesn't show how he is notable for being a playwright and actor.  Use Amiri Baraka as an example on how to list plays for Arrington.
 * If you need help on anything, give a yell. I'd be happy to help. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, edit my talk page and look at the top. There is a small script there that will handle the archiving of your talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback
I think Woolley maybe notable. Mention he won a Hertz thesis prize and graduate fellowship, those are on the prestigious side. He has seven patents with other people. Wiki editors like to use the H-index to help determine a scholars prestige. It is vary simplistic, favors older work and can really skew a person's prestige. But, use it to find Woolley's most "prestigious" work. Type, "AT Woolley" here. Bgwhite (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with Arrington's article. Take a look and change/add anything you desire. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

James Arrington
I just reverted the edits you made on Arrington. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Article already mentions he was the son of Leonard Arrington.
 * 2) Shouldn't mention missions unless it is relevant to the article somehow.  For example, Jon Huntsman's mission to Taiwan where he learned Mandarin would be relevant to him being ambassador to China.  A General Authority serving a church mission would be relevant to a church calling.

Wikipedia has far too few redirects
This is a fact that becomes obvious to me all the time. I have quite possibly created more redirects than articles with actual content, but it is quite common to find redirects that are very needed but not present. The most lacking redirects are ones from former names of institutions. The next most pressing is those for names connecting various full and abbroeviated forms of a persons name. I have seen cases where multiple articles existed on the same person because there were not enough redirects created for the person. I doubt this is a very good place to put this, but I can not think where else to put this statement on redirects. I would encorage more people to create redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cfd nominations
Please use the cfd templates on the category pages. This then generates the entry that you can copy and past onto the current days discussion to correctly list the categories for discussion. It also generates the banner on the category that makes editors aware of the discussion. Failing to do so creates extra work to cleanup up your nominations on the discussion page and means that the discussions can not be started since the category page lacks the required notice. The steps to follow are listed here]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note
It is not appropriate and is considered disruptive to manually empty out a category and then to blank the category page, as you did here:,. Nominate a category for deletion if you don't like it, but please don't unilaterally empty and blank. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request Cdf
I saw you commentary on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_1, and would like to ask you to revisit that discussion and give further input. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dick Crest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dick Crest 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 Articles for deletion/Dick Crest 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 good 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. Thisbites (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen M. Jones
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stephen M. Jones, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://history.cfac.byu.edu/index.php/Stephen_M._Jones.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The text in question is subjected to GNU licensing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs to be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. There was a licensing change in 2009, you can find out more here.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lucien D. Gardner
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lucien D. Gardner, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.archives.state.al.us/judicial/gardner.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:COPYPASTE for guidance on copying and pasting text from other websites into Wikipedia. You shouldn't do it unless the website is public domain or licensed CC-BY-SA. It is just best to use your own words. If you have any questions, let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * U.S. federal gov't websites are usually public domain but the copyright of U.S. state websites varies. You should check with the site before using the information.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD
An article you have edited, Jonathan Stephen is under AFD.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbyville, Kansas
The reference that you supplied on your edit today doesn't provide any data to validate your edit. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Census data does back up my statement. The problem is the way the census data tables work.  If you go to the census factfinder page and do a search for Abbeville, Kansas and go to the Race, Hispanic or Latino, Age, and Housing Occupancy: 2010 table which has the ID of QT-PL, you will find all the infomation I listed reported.  I am not sure why copying the www address at the top of my page when I am getting the information does not work, but the information is definately available from the census website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals
As a user who participated in Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Walt Aldridge
When you add a category to an article, make sure the category exists first. The category you added does NOT exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The category I was trying to add did in fact exist. I just misspelled it.  However, you are presenting a catch-22.  If I create a category with no articles that will get deleted as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Palitana (state)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Palitana (state), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikitravel.org/en/Palitana.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was created by copying a section of another wikipedia article. There have been some revisions to it, but I figured material from another wikipedia article could be copied without violating copyright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted this on the article talk page, but in case the article is not on your watchlist... Yes, you can copy, but Wikipedia uses the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike license. Therefore you have to give credit to the authors of the article you copied from. See Copying within Wikipedia on how to give credit. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Scientists of Medieval Islam
Please note, that in connection with the discussion to delete the above category and various subcategories, initiated by you, you omitted to place Cfd banner at the top of the categories in question, which I have now done. Davshul (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Davshul, I did put up Cfd banners. Al-Andulusi came along and unilaterally deleted them claiming there was a consensus to keep the categories.  I made sure to put banners on all the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Unknown birth year
At Gilles de Corbeil, we don't know he was born in 1140. Since the possible range spans multiple decades of the 12th c., I'd left the category vague. Re your edits, I'm just curious whether this is deliberate and systematic -- rough guesses are better than scruples -- or whether you just inadvertently skipped over "c." and "approximately" as you went through. If it's the former, is this a matter of consensus policy? Wareh (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The category says it is for people who died "c. 1209". Thus my categorization is in line with what the category says it is for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me understand this. Category:1140 births, on the other hand, says, "People born in 1140." I wish we had consistency and consensus. Do you have any insight into why "c." is in one category and not the other? Do you know who/where the discussion is about this? Wareh (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an idea of why circa is allowed in one and not the other. It is because anyone who died is not living, and the biggest worries in wikipedia accuracy relate to the living.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, interesting theory. It doesn't make sense to me. One final question for you if you don't mind. So by that theory will you leave your edit at Rigord but revert yourself at Gilles de Corbeil based on the presence/absence of "c." in the two categories? Wareh (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did revert my edit of de Crobeil. In general my theory is if other people have issues with my edits they can alter or revert them.  I have come up with more theories on this matter.  I know enough about geneology to know people have come up with a lot of ways of estimating birth years, but few of estimating death years.  This means that there are a lot of questionable theories used to dedcae when people were born, but few used to come up with deaths.  This means an estimate of when someone died is generally on much sounder ground than birth estimates.  Thus a supposed death date tends to be more accurate than a supposed birth date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your reflections on this, and my apologies if my questions became tedious. On the off chance that I will have occasion to hear or say more about the consistency and rationality of our practices, the perspective you've shared with me will be valuable. (I was also trying to err on the side of assuming my own ignorance and confusion, which is why I didn't just revert you. I'm glad I didn't, because I never would even have noticed how some categories have "c." and some don't.) Cheers, Wareh (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2010 general demographic report for X
Hi Johnpacklambert. I saw some articles in which you added demographic data based on "2010 general demographic report for X". Can you please be more specific on what exactly is this general demographic report? I'm not familiar with the available sources of information, is this part of the census? Is it available online? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the chart that is the first result for a search on the given locality on the census website. In the past I tried linking to them, but it seemed the links were not working.  I think it is actually called the general population and housing report, or maybe even something longer than that.  This report is key to finding things like sub-groupings under the heading "asian".  It also gives sub-groupings of Hispanic and Latino, median age, age distribution tables and a few other things.  The second report is much shorter since it only gives the large race categories, hispanic and latino and not hispanic and latino by race, the number of house holds and the number of housing units.  Both are helpful compared with some of the other reports in giving percentages.  I will see if linking to them will work, but do not make any gaurantees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Linking would be great, but as you say, may not be possible. My issue was mainly that I didn't know what the source was. So even something like "2010 Census general population and housing report for X" would already be better since it says this is census information. See, my problem was that I didn't even know this was Census information from the citation. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes
Hi JPL. The changes you've been making, inserting demographic data, may be having unintended side effects. This morning I visited the article for a town near where I live, Buena Park, California, and noticed the following possible errors, or contradictions:


 * The number of inhabitants in your new Demographics section, 80,530, doesn't agree with the number in the lead paragraph and the infobox to the right, 84,141.


 * The population you give doesn't go with your population density, i.e. 80530 / 10.6 equals 7597.2, but you say it's 7403.1 per square mile. Not even close. (I don't do metric!)


 * The footnote at the beginning of Demographics points to an "American FactFinder" page which was allegedly "Retrieved 2008-01-31." That would be three-year-old data, and I thought you were trying to provide some new information.


 * When I went to that page, it said to go to another page for 2010 census data. But staying there, and entering "Buena Park, CA" in the search box gave me a table entitled 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates which didn't resemble your new Demographics information, either, e.g. a total population of only 78,689, a median family income of $64,444, instead of your $62,327, etc.

Even if the new Demographics data you're entering are all accurate, they seem to disagree with other information in the same article and may not include correct source references.

I was going to try correcting these problems for Buena Park, but then I noticed that you had just made dozens of other, similar, edits and thought it would be better to report the situation to you instead. Perhaps you're able to correct the problems and errors just as fast? I hope so. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As you will see from this link the 80,530 population is the official 2010 census population of Buena Park.  I have not entered population per square mile figures for any place.  I will chekc the Buena Park situation to see if I can make the edits more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Buena Park was a mess to begin with. They were listing figures for 2010 that were clearly not the 2010 figures.  I have seperated off those, and put the note they might be 2000 figures.  As you will see I have generally tried to list the 2010 populations and other matter as an addendum leaving the existing 2000 population figures.  I would reccomend against indiscriminate re-calibrating of population density unless you are sure the area of the place has not changed in the last decade.  I can safely state that my edit makes it clear what is 2010 census data, and what belongs to other things.  In general I would say do not trust non-census data to be as accurate.  Remember since the census estimates of race between dicennial censuses exclude non-household residents they will in some cases produce significantly different results.  In other places were over 98% of the population is in households they probably will be the same, so Buena Park at 99% of the population living in households does not provide such an issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I figures out what the higher population number was. It was the California Department of Finance population estimate.  It also is dated to January 1, 2010; the census is to April 1, 2010.  The census sent agents at least three times to every place they had not gotten forms from.  They were seeking to see if someone was living in residences with no outward signs of habitation that appeared to have been unlived in for years.  I would trust their figures more than the California Department of Finance, and using census figures is the norm.  The figures I have been citing have been universally from the 2010 census.  I have major distrust for the California Department of Finace figures, they had neither the law nor the resource nor the throughness to compete with the census.  Anyway who knows what happened in the four intervening months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through your page links and it leads me to the various 2010 census data tables if you go to the new page. That is where you want to go, to the new fact finder data.  I have not been editing the lead and side-chart population data.  My main goal is getting correct data included in the demographic section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, let me thank you for the hard work; as you can sometimes hard work isn't well thought of around here. Just a suggestion; I have moved a couple of your 2010 demographics to the top of the demographics section. I think that demographics should start with the most recent data first; then historical. If I do a quick check of the demographics section, I'd focus on what first appeared (if it be 2000 data, I'd not have to read through everything to make sure nothing newer was available). Let me know what you think on that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably right that the newest demographic data should go first. I am mainly ambivalent on the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the hard work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is good to get encoragement. I just thought of another possible source of confusion.  Some places have both a city population and a census county division population.  The latter will include the unincorporated areas surrounded by the city.  This would be a factor in several cities in Orange County and may be the source of the misleading figures appearing in some articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only use the city limits figures, otherwise you end up reporting things twice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel
You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Source for census data
I want to thank you for taking the time and effort to update so many New Jersey articles with 2010 Census and other data. The only problem is that the sources you've been using are a general target page from the Census Bureau and don't point to data for a specific community. I'm not sure why the Census Bureau has done that, but for Census 2000 data, the links could be pasted into an article and would reliably point to the community they are related to, allowing other users to review, confirm and update the statistics, but not so for 2010, at least so far. I've been reluctant to make wholesale changes to the 2000 data under the assumption that this would be done in a more organized, bot-like fashion to update all of the fields, not just some. I don't know what the solution is, and I do appreciate your approach, but it would probably be better to just mention that the data is from the 2010 Census rather than use a link that is inaccurate. Please let me know if I can help with anything in your New Jersey-related efforts. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is very odd. I copy the page header from the page I am looking at with the relevant data from the 2010 census.  I am not sure why it does not work as a link.  Due to only using the short form and not the long form, the 2010 census data will not have all the information that the 2000 census data had.  I know for sure it does not repeat the complicated ancesty tables, nor the percentage immigrant figures (they did not enquire about place of birth) nor the language spoken at home figures.  It is true that this information was included only for some places in our reprots about the 2000 census.  For Closter, New Jersey I have included a note part-way through the 2010 census data explaining why the 2010 figure on the percentage of the population that is Korean by race is in theory potentially smaller than the figure that is Korean by ancestry.  I am wondering if it is worth pointing out that there is a possibiity that some people might report their race as Korean and not their ancestroy as such, I am thinking it is vaguely possible that adopted Korean children in white or other non-Korean American families might possibly report their ancestroy based on adoption and their race based on birth, but I am not sure that there is any evidence that such is the case, so I am not sure it is reportable.  There is clear evidence that there are people who report being multiple races including Asian, and good reason to suspect some of the people who report such report being Korean, and no reason to suspect that there are sero cases of people reporting being Korean and some other Asian race and being counted in the other Asian category due to census reporting of Asianess policies, so these seem well justified assumptions.  Due to privacy laws there is unlikely to be evidence to confirm or deny my theory about the possibility that adopted Korean children in non-Korean families might possibly have reported ancestry and race differently until 2072.  Even at that I am not sure I really think very many such reports are likely, and if anything such a total disconnected from Korean ancestry might be even less likely in a heavily Korean place like Closter than in an area with few Koreans.  So I am thinking that I will just leave the note as is.  However, I am just trying to get my head around the concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Census 2010 search tools, they use the same target page for virtually every query, a standard in many search tools. I'm not sure about ancestry data, and there've always been wacky things going on where it becomes more or less fashionable to report a certain ancestry. I hope that this 2010 issue is temporary and that it will be corrected once the 2010 data release is complete. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The ancestroy data is one of the more complexed things in the 2010 census. It is collected seperately from the racial and ethnic (basically Hispanic or not-Hispanic, which I have always thought was an oddity) data.  They allowed people to report up to two ancestries.  This way people could report being German, Arabic, Jewish, Kashubian or Chaldean, all of which if written under "some other race" for race would be re-counted as white.  For the purposes of Koreaness which was the cited figure in Closter because it was exceptionally high (although the Korean population would nearly double in Closter over the next decade, but that is another story) there are a few other exceptions that make this figure only generally comparable.  On race you can mark in theory an almost unlimited number of races.  In practice it gets difficult to mark above 16 and it is unlikely that many people marked above 6.  however there are probably well over 1000 people (if not many more than that) who marked at least three races.  I am pretty sure one of my brothers did this for his children on the supposed theory that his Mexican wife has an ancestor from China.  I have known people many people (most of them from Hawaii) who had well documented ancestries of three races with their grandparents representing three different races.  I have also known people who were self described Italian, Welsh and French-Candiana with thier grand parents clearly representing these three ancestries.  The problem is that the census in 2000 only allowed people to report at most two ancestries.  It was also only allowed at all on the long form, which only about one sixth of the population filled out, so it is obtained by a slightly different method than other figures.  Despite the limit of two ancestries, and the ease of reporting up to 16 races at least if they are the right 16 and the extreme ease of reporting up to four, a much higher percentage of the population reported multiple ancestries than multiple races, of course this is because my Italian, Welsh and French-Candiana friend would be by most rubrics only white in race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Census issues, Part II

 * You misread your data, dude. You publish data for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, then Hispanic-included everything else. The census doesn't selectively include Hispanic for some races and not others. I don't know what your agenda is: that Hispanics cannot be white or black, but may be everything else. Well, whatever your agenda is, using Wikipedia as a place for it is inappropriate and prohibited. Stop entering erroneous data into the WP or you will be blocked from editing here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From your edit to Galt, California I now see your agenda for what it is: racism. STOP OR YOU'LL BE BLOCKED.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My agenda is not racism. It is reporting racial statistics based on how people actually use the term.  That is not racist, that is realism.  Anyway you ignore the fact that the data is complexed.  Non-Hispanic white was the only non-Hispanic figure that was reported for the 2000 census.  The 2010 data allows much more fine tuning of the figures.  I have in some cases even specified the population that is Hispanic black.  What you are ignoring is the extent to which the white figure in census reports has been messed with.  The fact of the matter is that most people do not think of Mexicans as being white, and to report them as such in a general way is just to confuse the data.  If I could I would also report the non-Arab or non-Middle Eastern white figure.  Arabs and Chaldenas know they are not white, are treated as non-whites, and should not be counted as white.  However for reasons that boggle my mind they are counted in the white figure.  Beyond this you are totally ignoring my figure for the "non-Hispanic from some other race".  This is the closest we have to a figure of people who are in a racial group that the census has not adequately considered in their limited racial scheme.  Exactly why it is "racist" for a Native American to want to seperate out these figures is beyond me.  Your yelling of racist because I try to reflect how people really think about race is just off base.  I am trying to make the figures reflect how people think about these things, and that is built around delineating the non-Hispanic white population.  There is a reason this is the only specific non-Hispanic population delineated in the 2000 census.  Anyway, with it being the largest population, seperately delinating it makes it so the race data is more meaningful.  This is also why the Asian racial data works best with the very, very small percentage of Hispanics who are Asian included.  The reality is actually the reverse of what you state.  The three races that I most often report the non-Hispanic percentages for are the ones where the percentages of Hispanicness tend to be the highest.  The non-Hispanic Asian population tends to be very close to the overall Asian population, thus making reporting both figures not worth while.  On the other hand the white population with Hispanics included tends to be quite different than the non-Hispanic white population.  This is best illustrated in parts of south Texas where both the Hispanic and white populations are over 80%.  Yet realistically the vast majority of south Texans think of whites as other than themselves and so the non-Hispanic white figure is the one that most accurately reflects the way people think about racial groupings.  The cry of "racism" for reporting race figures from the census is the type of anti-information call that should be avoided in census figures.  You make no sense at all.  Racism is the belief that one race is inherently better than another.  Even if your accusation of my dark purpose worked, my actions are not racist.  There is no way that doing anything with data is racist.  You have no evidence that I am in any way saying that one race is better than another, because I am not.  Thinking that Hispanics are not white is not racist.  You are misusing the term.  Whether Hispanics are white is a question of racial classification.  It is not racist to classify people by race, especially when it is a system where every person gets to mark what race they are.  If you were to insist that we should only report the total sum of races people marked, then we should be using different figures than the ones you cite.  We should be using the total of each race figure.  Hmm, maybe i should use those and thus avoid being called racist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The simplest reason why I specify non-Hispanic white is because that is the figure that needs to be cited to determine if the place has a Hispanic plurality population or not. There are exceptions to this.  In certain areas it might be non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Native American or so forth.  In parts of Hawaii it might be non-Hispanic Pacific Islander that would alter the balance.  If you are going to go balistic because people try to make the data so it is readable, you might as well criticize me for not including the 0.0% Pacific Islander and other 0.0% figures where they would come up if I slavishly followed the data.  Beyond this, you ignored my whole point which is that you do not know what percentages of Koreans in a given locality reported being Hispanic when 0.3% of the population reported being both Asian and Hispanic (not counting those who may have reported being Asian and white, black, Native American, Pacific Islander or some other race while being Hispanic, since 2.6% of the population of La Palma marked Asian as well as at least one of those other races, while 1.4% of the population reported being Hispanic and reported at least two races, so in theory all (although in practice probably less than all, but from the data the census has given we do nto know) of the 1.4% of Hispanic who marked being more than one race could have marked being Asian, I do not know, but they are not part of the Korean percentage, so I am getting off the point), you can not them break out the non-Hispanic Korean because the only report on the number of Koreans in the population includes both those Koreans who marked themselves as non-Hispanic and those Koreans who marked themselves as Hispanic.  That was the point I made before and for some reason you have chosen to respond to this point with beligerence while ignoring what I am actually saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with JPL regarding the census data: The census does indeed report categories such as "White," "Hispanic", "Non-Hispanic white", "Asian," and "Non-Hispanic Asian" separately. All are valid census statistics. However, you should be describing census groups the way the Census Bureau reports them, without comment statements such as the one I saw that said that the White total includes Iranians. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you study through census figures you will learn that the white total does infact include Iranians. It took a bit of digging but I found the official census report where it explains that if you mark "other" and write in your race as Iranian than the report for your location will have recounted you as white.  This is an important thing to bear in mind to understand what is going on with the populations of palces that are known to have large mideastern populations.  People have written whole books complaining about the fact that the census and some other places treat mid-easterners as white but in general they are not treated as such or thought of as such.  It might be better to include this in a footnote, but the fact of the matter is that if we do not explain this is what is going on people might be confused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so the "white" total includes Iranians, but your decision to highlight that in an article because you have personal knowledge that a particular community includes Iranians is inappropriate editorializing on your part. Your sourced information about how the Census deals with "Iranian" should, however, be included in Race and ethnicity in the United States Census (which is the link destination for terms like African American (U.S. Census), White (U.S. Census), and Latino (U.S. Census)). --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What am I missing?
After your edit to Galt, California, the sentence read:

The racial makeup of Galt was 11,513 (48.7%) non-Hispanic White, 430 (1.8%) African American, 361 (1.5%) Native American, 815 (3.4%) Asian, 108 (0.5%) Pacific Islander, 4,834 (20.4%) from other races, and 1,460 (6.2%) from two or more races If I add up 48.7+1.8+1.5+3.4+0.5+20.4+6.2 I get 82.5. What am I missing?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing the Hispanic white population. That is why it says "non-Hispanic white".  Those figures will only go to close to 100% if the Hispanic white population is included.  The edit I did on La Palma, California would give in theory a further from 100% figure, since it included "non-Hispanic from some other race".  The complicating thing might be that the way it is phrased "some other race" might be thought to include Hispanic whites.  However that is not a term used to gather up the excess in making this specific chart, it is a term used in the census and a line where people mark and then write in their race.  Thus it is a proactively gathered "so,e other race", not a residual of interpreting the figures.  On the other hand if you look at some of the figures given in my most recent edits of New Jersey locations you will come to a figure noticably above 100%.  That is because I used the total by race figure instead of the total by race with those who marked some other race besides that specific race excluded.  In some ways this is the more realistic reflection of what the census actually shows, since people who instead of marking being both black and white, wrote in Mulatto would be counted as 'some other race" and in fact, the census itself claims the main purpose of the "some other race" heading is to allow people who identify with a multi-racial identifier to be able to fill out the census.  I think the main problem is that "some other race" looks like a catchall but is infact a fairly specific term (which the census deliberately under reports by shifting those who write in things like "Arab" in that line to being white before releasing the figures, but that is an issue that we wont be able to counteract until 2072, and only then if they did not do that before compiling the census records themselves).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentance might have been the only needed explanation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally following but if the components do not add to 100%(subject to rounding considerations) we need to rethink how we express the results. It is not acceptable to post a list of components, which is missing one, and not include any explanation.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are to some extent ignoring the fact that the percentage of the population that is Latino or Hispanic is included in the list. You did not include that percentage in your addition.  If you had the result probably would have been closer to 107%, but it would have not been less than 100%.  It would also be possible to include seperately the percentage of Hispanic whites.  Due to the fact my last edit of Galt caused a threat to ban me from editing, I am not going to touch that article with a 10 foot poll, but the percentage of Hispanic whites is listed within the 2010 general profile of population and housing characteristics for Galt provided by the US Census, so if you go to the www.census.gov website it will not be hard for you to find it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on my experience with Census data, if you report the factfinder2 basic results for "race" and don't confound them by looking at "Hispanic" or looking at the specific races claimed by the people who list "two or more races", the numbers will add up to 100% (more or less to account for rounding). If you are adding up numbers and getting 107%, you are combining different kinds of information. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I think Wikipedia should avoid reporting is "Race alone or in combination with one or more other races." That Census data set is inherently confusing, and it does add up to more than 100% because people claiming two or more races get counted two or more times. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above mentioned table will be the first result of the factfinder2 search for Galt city, California. The Hispanic white figure will be about 2/3rds of the way down the chart in the second table that mentions Hispanics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The conventional approach (used in every responsibly-published Census data report I've ever seen, not just Wikipedia) to reporting ethnicity is to report the "white" total. The "non-Hispanic white" value is of separate interest (largely because it identifies the group that is not considered to be a racial or ethnic "minority"), but if it is included in an article it should not be in lieu of reporting the totals for "white," "African American," "Asian," etc. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually if you pay close attention to the data included in some reports at times people give the non-Hispanic white total without explaining that is what they are doing. Beyond this some other methods of data gathering outside the census treat Hispanic as a race and create a non-comparable set of data.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I have found a book that published a report that made it seem every last person in Georgia in 1990 was either white or black, when there were several hundred if not thousand people who reported being Asian, Native American and so forth that year, I would have to say your belief that people accurately report what census data says is misplaced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I said "responsibly-published". (winks) It is enormously easy to get confused while wading through census data, so mistakes get made. Also, some people manipulate and misrepresent information for their own purposes. Responsible publishers ought to avoid those situations through fact-checking. I'm not familiar with the book you refer to, but I don't doubt your description. However, in 1990 the percentages of people in Georgia describing themselves as something other than white or black probably were much smaller than they were in 2010 (due both to changes in the Census questions and changes in the population), so it might have been easier to overlook the other groups... --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The census questions have not changed since 1990, only the rules for answering them have changed. That is in 2000 they statrted allowing people to state multiple races.  The exact wording of the question on being Hispanic or Latino has also changed, but the change actually makes it slightly less likely that a person would answer yes to the question.  There were enough Vietnamese and other Asian in Georgia in 1990 that htey should have not been totalluy ignored.  Also starting no latter than 1970 there has been a significant increase in the number of native Americans in each census which can only be explained by people switching their self identification of their race, and Georgia is one of the states that has been efected by this process.  Of course Georgia is also one of two states that saw the fastest increase in its Hispanic population in the 1990s (the other was North Carolina) and so Georgia much more than most states has definantly had a change away from being a state that can easily be pigeon holded in the binary racial project.  I can say these things without really knowing what has happened in Georgia since 2000, but my very loose sense of the matter is that the processes of the 1990s have continued, although maybe not at such a fast pace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1990, just 2 percent of the population of Georgia was other than "white" or "black": --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that the "two or more" option has increased the number of people who have self-identified as something other than white or black, and of course it is widely reported that "some other race" is being selected by many Hispanics. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "two or more" is not an option per se. The option are white, black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, with lines with both those sub-options to write in the tribe, Asian broken down into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Asian Indian and other Asian with a line to write in what other race, Native Hawaiian or other pacific Islander, with specific delineation of Native Hawaiian, Samoan and Chamorro or Guamanian with a line to write in another Pacific Islander race and other.  A person can mark as many of these race lines as they chose.  There is no question that specifically asks the person whether they identifiy as having more than one race.  Thus at some level it might be more reflective of the data gathering method itself to report the totals marked for each race and thus report numbers that add to more than 1005 because each race will potentially have people in it who also marked a different race.  To me the most frustrating thing is for races that are treated as sub-races the total number who marked that race is not reported.  Personally I view the Asian race as an artificial creation, throwing together East Asian and South Asian, who are viewed as two seperate racial groups (and maybe south east Asians, or at least Filipinos/Indonesians as another distinct racial group) by almost everyone who thinks about this matter.  Of course to make things more interesting in 1990 there was the truly unreflective of reality racial group Asian and Pacific Islander, and some people have not yet realized that this artificial construct racial group has been disbanded.  I believe it is the article List of places in the United States with Asian American majority populations that includes a direct assertion that East Asians and South Asians are different racial groups.  of course there is no gathering of South Asian data, there are probably people who mark "Pakistani" and "Bangladeshi" under other Asian, and there may even be people who chose to mark "Gujarati" or who knows what else there.  Then there is the Afghan population, which no one knows what race they are.  This is a real issue in understanding Fremont, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Two or more" may not be an option on the form, but it is a reporting category in the Census data tables. Go to Table DP-1 for the whole United States. Scroll past the ages to "RACE". Under "Total population" you will see "One race" with a total of 299,736,465, or 97.1%. Below that is "White" at 72.4%. That is the total white population, including Hispanics, but not including people who reported white in combination with another race. Also under "one race" you will find categories such as Asian (total 4.8%) and subcategories such as "Chinese" and "Korean"; the various Asian subcategories add up to the Asian total. Immediately below "Some other race" (6.2%) is "Two or more races", which is 2.9% on the United States page. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The DP-1 data table on factfinder2 is rather comprehensive and gives the kinds of information I think should be reported. If you record the numbers for "One race" white, black or African American, American Indian or Alaska native, Asian (total), Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander (total), "Some other race", and "Two or more races" (total), the numbers should add up to 100%. Other information, such as an indication that the "Asian" population in a community is almost entirely Vietnamese or that the "Hispanic" population is 75% Cuban and 25% Puerto Rican, can be interesting to report in an article, but only to the extent that it the article is directly supported by the data categories that the census reports. (And since "Hispanic" is a designation completely separate from race, it should be reported separately. Seeing that more than one-third of the Hispanic population describes themselves as "some other race," it's my personal opinion that the statistic on racial breakdown of Hispanics is fairly meaningless. However, as I have said previously, the "non-hispanic white" fraction is of interest because it equates to "not a minority".) --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The book I mentioned above was Kenneth Coleman, ed., A History of Georgia Athens, Georgia and London: University of Georgia Press, 1991 (second edition). The chart where they classify every last person in Gerogia as either white or black, not only in 1990, but for every year they give figures from 1752 onward (evidently the Cherokees who were no removed from Gerogia until the 1830s were not people) is found on p. 415. This book is all the more egregious since it was published by a university press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Linda Hunt
Hi. Please can you add the source you used for your recent update to Linda Hunt? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Uni categories
It may be quicker list any further uni categories at Categories for discussion/Speedy which takes just 48 hours. There's ample precedence there to rename in line with an institution's current name. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pennsylvania State issue that I most recently posted is different though. The name has not changed.  The use of a nichname is an independent issue.  I think the one I posted before that was to change to agreement with the cat name, technically the actual name of the place was being used in the cat but it was ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Clavians and Old Danes
John, as the creator of the Old Clavians category it would have been customary to let me know that you listed it for deletion. I hardly ever check my watchlist, so it's lucky that I did today :-)

Just to let you know, the issue of these categories has come up (at least) twice before: see and. As you'll see, both led to extremely lengthy discussions without any consensus. Unless you've just come up with a killer argument this time, I advise you not to bother! Wereon (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of the previous discussion came to any precedent. In the more recent one the specific objections to specificly difficult constructs were ignored in the final judgement which was just there was no consensus.  Neither of these categories have ever been brought up specifically on their individual merits where discussion of their unique dificulty can be done.  There is no ownership of categories so there is no reason to notify people about potential category name changes.  Anyway, these are rename not delete nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey
I'm not judging (heck, I've been misjudged before), but please see remarks here related to a comment in your Oppose post. CycloneGU (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated, fix the top of your talk page. You have a lot of redlinked archive links. =) If you want an archiving idea, look at my talk page.  I'll be happy to help set it up by year, a monthly archive, whatever you think is best.  And it will work. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion is now closed, so no need to retract there now. But nonetheless I'd still suggest watch your terminology when you post, something like that could really offend somebody.  CycloneGU (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

More Census issues
Hi. With the 2010 Census data becoming a focus for a lot of editing activity, I think we need a US-wide discussion of editing conventions. I've started this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, which I think is an appropriate venue for it. First topic there is Describing/naming census designated places. Please participate in that discussion, if you see fit, and add more topics. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

by gender
It's a significant distinction in all public performing professions at least, and probably in all professions. My argument, which I shall make at each of the nominations, is that I do not think there is firm consensus any longer on the refusal to make category distinction by gender. And a good thing too, for frankly I think it was just political correctness. The point of categories as we use them is to be helpful. this requires a certain degree of consistency, but it also requires matching what people are likely to look for. If one person is able to better use Wikipedia for their information need because of a category or other navigational device, that is reason for having it,and IAR is a sufficient justification. Enshrining the "rules" at the expense of usefulness is against the spirit of the encyclopedia -- and not just against the spirit, against one of the foundational principles. (I think it best to nip the deletion of these in the bud by opposing every specific proposal on them on this basis, in the hope of clarifying the practical consensus. Given the random participation at XfD, I ask you not to   nominate  additional categories or retrospective add additional categories to a nomination until the consensus becomes clear, and if the result of the individual CfDs is not clear or representative, we'll find out by an RfC. I may of course be wrong, but but have you any argument why it's harmful to the encyclopedia?  DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We still refuse to divide actor categories by gender. Is not nominating categories for CfD the proper way to bring in more participation?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Renominated for deletion: Category:African American women and CategoryHispanic and Latino American women
As you know, recently, these were nominated for discussion at Categories for discussion, but was closed. Per the recommendation, I have reopened the nomination.Curb Chain (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China
You are invited to join the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17. Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC) - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Xs
The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for formal pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there has already been a number of individual cases where "former pupils of..." categories have been renamed to "people educated at...", so there has been some precedent for changing them already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eg there was a cfd in Jan 2011 in which after long discussion various 'Old Edwardians' categories were renamed to 'People educated at ...'. Occuli (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Febuary discussion seemed to point towards "People educated at". either early this month or late last month I made several nominations to move things to "People educated at X" and all of those passed.  Most of the categories created this year are named "people educated at X", and I do not believe any "former pupils of X" categories were created this year.  Of course there is no clear consensus, which is why I did not try to speedy these nominations.  People are welcome to make their views known in the various CfDs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominations I refered to were made back on July 7th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, its good form to contact other editors who have expressed opinions on these changes in the past. Some of us would rather edit articles or lead a life outside WP rather than patrolling the CfD pages to see what changes people are trying to get passed. Ephebi (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing so many related changes at once is disruptive and a pain to to have to wade through one at a time. OK, I understand and sympathise with your motive for getting them changed, but I disagree with your conclusions. We know from previous CfDs over several years that opinion is polarised and doing it this way is going to get into an ugly Yes/No argument. So why don't you withdraw those Old Foo CfD requests and instead focus on the other ones, where there is a good chance that we could come to agree on a standard form. (Personally, I would recommend "former pupil..." as the "People educated at" had only one or two supporters, IMHO )


 * There is no requirement to notify anyone about cfds. There is a requirement not to canvas, ie to notify people in a biased fashion, eg diff, this diff. "People educated at" was suggested by user:Bduke: I trust Ephebi will be notifying him asap of the present cfds. (I agree with Ephebi that it would be nice if someone could list the UK ones which are not of the form 'Old Fooboodlechoolians' and get them changed to 'People educated at Foo'.) Occuli (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One doesn't need to "patrol CFD". All one needs to do is add the categories one cares about to one's watchlist. As long as you check your watchlist at least once every 7 days, you won't miss anything because when the category is nominated you will be notified. If on the off chance clicking a button to watch the category is too difficult for some users (some have told me it is too onerous), then I suppose we have to live with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is most frustrating how people insist on treating different nominations as a group. Icenians are a unique and difficult case.  Old Lansing has the bizarre non-plural form, and Down House Seniors is not like anything else.  It is quite frustrating that people act as if the problems of Bristolians, Gregorians, Elizabethans are easy to subsume into one large discussion.  I nominated each of these seperately because the issues of each is seperate and unique, and therefore the resolution needs to be unique.  At one point I thought of trying to explain more clearly how we do not use individualized jargon elsewhere, in matters of city origin or any other schools, but it seems that with many people this is a lost cause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And it's equally frustrating that when a group nomination is made many similar people start complaining that it affects too many categories! Frankly there's too many who just oppose any proposed change in the tree regardless of what the individual proposal and categories are. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you were to just suggest a poroposal to change the top category names to reflect the near consensus that "People educated at X" is the best term, people would claim that was some sort of sneaky, backhanded double-dealing as well.
 * On a different note, I am trying to figure out was happened to the rename nomination of Category:Old Georgians (KGV). It is not on the page anymore as far as I can tell.  Was it moved or did someone delete it or what?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I found and restored that section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Davies (linguist)


The article Mark Davies (linguist) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Oddbodz (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David A. McClellan


The article David A. McClellan has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fairly modest citability in GoogleScholar for an active field like biochemistry; h-index of about 8. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF.

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 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 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. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Publishing companies established in the 1950


A tag has been placed on Category:Publishing companies established in the 1950, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Typo in title ("the" before 1950), correctly named cat has been created

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion 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 the page's talk page 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Crusio (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted category: Irish people of Jewish Descent
I recently re-created the category Category:Irish people of Jewish descent. You'll notice the link is red, because it was delted as per you discussion here. However, as you may notice there are many categories with the formula 'X people of Jewish descent'. And while you may disagree with labeling living people, or misuse of categories, being of Jewish descent can only be true or false. I agree 'sloppy application' of the 'X Jews' categories are given, but that is because of people who identify themselves as being (or not being) Jewish. With Jewish descent however, you cannot dispute the fact that one of your anncestors may have been Jewish, in the same way if your anncestor was African. Whatever a person says about themselves, giving that person a 'x of jewish descent' cat is true - because its true. You get what I mean.

More to the point - my re-creation of the Irish people of Jewish descent (if you click the red link above), is actually different from the version that was deleted July 9th. My version has a properly structured cat links (following standard cats of 'X people of Jewish descent'), it links to the 'Irish people by ethnic or national origin' and 'people of jewish descent by nationality', both of which are container categories. You will also notice that the category is no longer empty, and in fact has Bob Geldof in it.

'''I believe that all the points I have made above, counteract all of the arguements used by yourself and others to delete the (not so well maintained version) originally. Please will you allow the category to reopen in the way which was created by me?''' Colt .55 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ps. You were only able to delete the category because it was empty. All of you arguements could apply to any of the 'X people of Jewish descent' but you wouldn't have got away with it, because they are too well maintained.


 * Since this went through CfD, I am not sure why you are talking about things like "you would not have gotten away with it". The parent category was delted, so the issue is more complexed than you are acknowledging.  Anyway, there is absolutely no reason at all to have empty cats.  Beyond this you ignore that there is another matter besides being true or false.  How far back can we go to search out Jewish ancestry.  Is the fact that Hugh Nibley had one great-grandfather who was Jewish before he converted to Christianity in about 1820 enouygh to put this man born in 1910 in the applicable category.  What about his daughter Martha Beck who was born in 1962, thus about 140 years after her last ancestor stopped being Jewish, and she is only 1/16th Jewish.  Do we really want a system where we could put people in each of the applicable ancestry cats for all 16 of their great-grandparents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also note that four people supported my nomination. I was not the one who deleted your recreation of the cat, so complaining here will not help you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jews vs. Jewish descent
I think the logic of having a "FOOian Jews" category as a subcategory of a "FOOian people of Jewish descent" is that Jews are typically "of Jewish descent" by definition. That's why they are Jews—because they are descended from Jewish people. Although it is possible to convert to Judaism, my understanding is that doing so is quite rare and that most Jews are "of Jewish descent". So I think it makes sense for the Jews categories to be subcategories of the Jewish descent categories. I don't really like the Jewish descent categories much, but as long as they exist, I think that's how they should work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However we explicitly state that people should not be in both these categories. Also you say "Jews are typically of Jewish descent" which means that they are not always.  However if we make Jews a subcat of people of Jewish descent it will encorage putting Jews into the People of Jewish descent cats, which we do not want.  It is very explicitly stated that Jews do not belong in the people of Jewish descent categories.  If we put the Fooian Jews in these categories it will encorage people to mix the two categories which are to be distinct and non-overlapping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add subcategory first, add that category to biography, then delete original category from biography
I suggest for items like Category:Hispanic and Latino American women, that we first create subcategories, then add the new category biography pages to the subcategory, _then_ delete the original category from the biography page. It's much easier to do that methodically than to try to match biographies to subcategories when weeding biographies out of the higher level category. P.S. I am camping this weekend near Brigham Young University - Laie. Aloha, Peaceray (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to create subcats of this category. Women and occupation intersection cats should only be created where there is consensus that this is a notable interaction, so there is no point in assuming that most of these women should go in any women related cats for both being a women in a given occupation and being Hispanic.  The sub-tree of Hispanic and Latino American women that was attempted was deleted as not useful.  There are subcats here, but no consesus to create other subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help with the suggestion of the category "Simon & Garfunkel members" as a category for discussion - you can probably tell that I do not do this type of thing often! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then again, there is already a template heading the category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:Category:1967 establishments in Kenya etc.
Could I please ask you to use Template:EstcatCountry when creating categories such as Category:1967 establishments in Kenya? This ensures the category is in all the appropriate sucabtegories. Thanks, Tim! (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division
Category:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Stephen Palmquist for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Palmquist 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 Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist 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 good 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. Ozob (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: a revised version of a deleted page that you thought should be kept is up for deletion review. The deletionists seem to be ignoring the evidence being presented. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_20 philosophyeditor 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozobbozo (talk • contribs)

Synthetic logic
I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see
 * Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

Thanks!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

reference for Romig
I noticed you've been adding some information from Romig to a number of articles, but using a partial citation (e.g., ). I suggest using the following:

Cheers. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The copy of Michigan Place Names I have appears to be the original publication and does not appear to have a data listed for publication. It is definantly not the Wayne State University Press reprintJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. The Wayne State version is a true reprint and not a second edition so you could probably cite it if you liked. The original appears to have been self-published as the reprint includes the following information about the original: Originally published by Walter Romig, 979 Lakepointe Road, Grosse Point, Michigan, 48230. Also see this worldcat record). If you'd prefer, the following citation should work for the original edition:
 * which produces
 * Cheers, older ≠ wiser 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, older ≠ wiser 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, older ≠ wiser 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Lagrange613 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Paul Tillich. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of categories
Why have you removed three categories from Isaac Asimov? Debresser (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Nevertheless, I've had to revert you again, since your argument was incorrect. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you have been doing the same on a lot of articles. Please stop until you are sure to understand the rules of categorisation. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The rules are clear. People who are in a sub-cat do not belong in the parent cat.  People born in Russia are not Belarusian.  People are only supposed to be in one category with in a category tree.  Anyway, what specific edits of mine do you object to?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confused as to what constitutes a subcat. I think you should consider reverting all of your edits. In addition, you have not used editsummaries, which is very annoying, because it makes it hard to guess what the reason for a specific removal was. . Debresser (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not confused. Those categories are clearly listed as subcats of the relevant categories.  If they should not be then the category trees need to be altered.  As long as the category trees are as they stand then I am right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't stop now, I'll ask WP:ANI to stop you. You are wrong here. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Debresser -- see below. John -- if you have a problem w/the cat tree, make a suggestion and put it up for discussion.  Of course not every major league baseball player is American -- do you seriously believe that?  If you are completely ignorant of the game, perhaps that is the case, but if you were I would be surprised that you would be editing so many baseball articles.  Please revert your edits, per consensus and common sense.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, you have incorrectly removed a Jewish category from David Avadon . It was in the article there. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but it was burried, and a fleeting reference. I try to go through the article, but some people do not make it easy to find the reference.  It would be nice if people put such info in headers.  The number of articles I have found where there is absolute nothing supporting the categorizing as a Jew makes it hard to spend to much time on articles that burry it somewhere in the middle of very long text sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is nice to agree. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper deletions
You just wrote: "Jew MLB players is a subcat of Jew Am sp". I'm not sure if that is a POV edit, or one out of lack of knowledge. But it is based on an incorrect assumption. Of course (I would assume you would know) not all major league ballplayers are American. Please don't make such improper deletions in the future, and correct any other mistaken deletions you have engaged in. Improper deletions are disruptive, and if continued can lead to sanctions. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have repeated your error over a series of articles. I'm sure you are not intending to be disruptive.  But that is the effect of your mistaken edits.  Please fix them.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the one who set this up. I am not the one who created the one being a subcat of the other.  That was done by Eagle4000 back on April 7th, 2011.  I am just following the set up of the categories as they now stand, I am applying the tree structure to the categories as they now stand.  I am not the one who created the structure as it now stands.  I did not create this "error".  I am just going along with how the categories are set up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the rule. There is what is called a distinctive subcategory. Please reread the rules, and ask around. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * John -- It doesn't matter whether you "were the one who set it up". It is a non-senical deletion.  As not all MLB players are Americans, don't delete cats on the basis that that is the case.  That's disruptive.  If you think one cat should not be a sub-cat of another, start a discussion on that point.  For you -- when you plainly know that not all MLB players are Americans -- to delete wp cat info on the supposition that that is true is knowing disruption on your part.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are non-distributive sub cats. But where in this cat does it say it is such.  I do not think it does.  I also think Debressers threatening because I was removing people from a subcat when they were in the parent cat is uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me I wasn't happy to do it. But you weren't stopping. I hope you understand and aren't offended. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, he was correct in removing the Jewish baseballer's category from a bunch of article where it was unsourced (even though Joe Goldberg is obviously a Jewish name). Debresser (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't focused on that aspect of his editing in my comments to this point, though it does raise some questions. In general, everything should be forced.  Why a person from his particular alma mater would seek to delete mention that people are Jews, from dozens (hundreds?) of articles, while not paying the same attention to other uncited facts in their articles, or to other religions, taking note of his alma mater, is an interesting question.  This is a second issue, however, that perhaps is better addressed ultimately at a noticeboard, where his pattern of edits can be reviewed.  In isolation, I agree with any such deletion, though given his interest in Judaism you would have thought he could have easily noted that nearly all such deletions could be addressed with supporting refs, if his goal is to be a productive editor.  My focus above, however, is on his deletion of cats "because" people are in a MLB cat, when he knows that not all MLB players are Americans.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the main statement about non-diffusing subcats "It is useful to identify non-diffusing subcategories with a note on the category page. The allincluded and distinguished subcategory templates can be used." Then go look at the Jewish MLB players page.  If there any note there saying it is non-diffusing?  NO, there is no such note.  You guys are attacking me for following the category tree, and for not following a note that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two more points. 1-"Obviously a Jewish name" is hogwash. These are German names, there is nothing Jewish about them.  2- Even if it is a Jewish name there are non-Jews with "Jewish" names, especially since Jewishness is inhereitied through the mother.  There are lots of possibilities, unless the article says someone is Jewish it should not be assumed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't expect you to presume that a person is Jewish. But if you wish to be productive, and not delete material that is clearly accurate (if you were to take five seconds to research it), you could do a simple google search.  Instead, you've chosen to delete information that is accurate, in lieu of improving the Project with a ref that you could easily find.  The vast majority of what you have deleted is accurate information, easily referenced.  The vast majority of the deletions are of Jews.  Why have you focused on them?  And not on other material in their bios, or more to the point -- not on other religions/ethnic groups/facts/etc.?  Unequal application of equal rules, resulting in deletions, is something that is of interest.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, until someone actually marks the category in question as a distinguished category (or non-diffusing category) or removes it as a subcat of the Jewish sports people cat I see no reason that I should not remove people from being in both the parent and subcats. There is nothing keeping you guys from doing that, so I still think your actions so far basically constitute bullying.  What you should do is try to fix the failure of the category to say it is either not a subcat or not diffusing.  Until as such time as you do that I really do not see why I should let you two guys bully me around, especially since there is nothing preventing you from fixing the problems that are in the category tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned that the name sounds Jewish, without intention to use that as an argument. So no reason to tell me such obvious things as that some Jewish surnames are also German, or that Jewish goes through the mother. I really know all these things. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your insistence that a certain category be marked specifically is not in any of the pertaining guidelines. And believe me that any admin who will see you continue with edits like this after you have been pointed to your mistake by two separate editors, will kick your ass so hard, that you'll stop whining about "bullying". Debresser (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree w/Debresser -- it is not a good argument, John, for you to say in essence "I know that not all MLB players are Americans, but I will make dozens of deletions based on the supposition that that is the case because that is suggested by the cat set-up". That's simply disruptive.  You are not supposed to be disruptive, to dozens of articles, deletion information for such wiki-lawyered reasons that are at complete odds with common sense (another wiki concept).  And to simply say -- I see no reason to follow consensus, because if it does not agree w/my POV then it must be "bullying" does not advance the discussion much.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may, but I sometimes wonder about the people who cat. I still think you should at a minimum put up the non-diffusing notice on the Jewish MLB cat.  I am going to nominate it for deletion.  I really think it is unneccesary, but will probably get out voted, but maybe then people will do something about its cat tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still being heavy-handed. The guideline clearly says that it should be marked, as I have quoted.  That is a quote from the guidelines, and it says it should be marked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to stay polite with you. The guideline says it is useful. Where did you see it is obligatory? Furthermore, even if it were obligatory, that does not mean that failure to do so means it is not such a category, with all consequences. Debresser (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge all to be polite (as all have been). As to the subtance, John -- you used the word "should", and Debresser responded by pointing out that the actual phrase is "useful" .. can you explain how you read "useful" as "required"?  I also don't see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So how is anyone supposed to know it is such a category if it is not makred as such? You are expecting people to just know what is not obvious.  If you want people to know something you have to tell them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you going to get on my case about other cats, or will you at least accept that Category:Jewish American sportspeople is a sub-cat of Category:American Jews in a way that means people should not be in both cats?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your last post on my talkpage. Basically I agree. But there are some caveats. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Elfman is Jewish
External reference, bottom paragraph: http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php?topic=116104.10;wap2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Elfman (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason I should have to go through external references to learn something used to create categories. If it is notable enough to categorize, it should be mentioned in the artticle. I do not think this is an unreasonable expectation.  I have even let stay in Jewish cats articles where it only says they were on the board of some charity with Jewish in its name, but if the first time the word Jew or Jewish or Judaism appears in the article is in the cats there is no way to know it is a proper categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Albert M. Bender
Hello Johnpacklambert,

I noticed you removed the category that Bender was Jewish, just before I was heading off to bed. Here's a source: Cosmopolitans: A social and cultural history of the Jews of the San Francisco Bay Area, by Fred Rosenbaum, University of California Press, 2009. pages 263-265.

Bender was described as "the best-known Jew in San Francisco" in the 1930s. He "was a founding board member of the Federation of Jewish Charities and a long-time congregant of Emanu-El, whose cavernous sanctuary could not hold all who came to his funeral."

I will add this material to the article tomorrow.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Put a line saying "Bender was Jewish" with that source in the article. It should say someone was Jewish somewhere in the article before it says so in a category.  This applies to any other ethnicity or religion as well.  These things should be mentioned and sourced in the article before being categoriazed.  I guess I will add this one, but just remember that in the futre.  With other religiouns they sometimes will even say that you need to show more than a minor connection, but since Judaism is an ethnicity it gets a pass for having to prove more than passing connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that before today, my involvement with this article was minimal, having made only one minor edit. The article was on my watchlist because of Bender's close association with Ansel Adams, a significant interest of mine on Wikipedia.  As for the broader issue, I think that it is a mistake for you to remove a Jewish category when there are abundant references readily available that show a person was a prominent and notable Jew, as in the case of Albert Bender. Simply find the reference and add it to the article. Thank you.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * John -- why are you focusing on deleting references that people are Jews? I see you doing that in articles that are completely unreferenced, otherwise.  You seem to be focusing specifically on deleting references to Jews, which I find interesting for someone from your alma mater.  Thanks.
 * Also, you seem to be making various deletions of work that other editors have entered, without leaving any edit summary. Please assume that in such cases your deletions require an appropriate edit summary.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, why does my alma mater have anything to do with this? Secondly, I have removed references to other things as well, such as being of Romanian descent when there is no mention.  Your complaint also fails in that you have not sited where these articles show that they are Jews.  They do not.  I guess I will have to go to removing even more cats to satisfy you.  So be it.  If it is not mentioned in the article, it should not be categorized.  As it is it is unrealistic for an editor to focus on all cats, it so I focus on the Jew cats and remove when there is no support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you were the one who volunteered what you alma mater is. Second, I've looked at your past edits, and they seem to be quite focused on removing mentions of people being Jewish from the Project.  That strikes me as interesting focus, and seems unlikely to be undertaken in the manner that you have done so unless you got it in your head to focus on this group of people.  Unequal application of equal rules is always a problem.  I'm sure, for example, that it would raise an eyebrow of yours if I were to delete every unreferenced sentence from the article of every Brigham Young graduate.  In addition, in nearly every case a five second google search would reflect that the info was accurate -- you seem disinclined to engage in such a search.  If you find my comments unconvincing, we could always make a request to seek the views of other editors, but this is how I see it. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not deleting unreferenced sentances. I am delting unmentioned categorzation.  You are also misinterpreting the rules.  I am not the one who decided what to say or not to say in the article.  However if it is not said in the article there is no reason for it to be categorized.  The cats an article is put in should be supported by what it says in the article.  You still have not explained your insinuations about BYU.  As it is I can tell you that virtually every mention to someone being an alumni of BYU is well sourced, and they all are based on mention in the article.  This is not at all the case of Jewish articles, nor is it the case with Hispanic and Latino American articles.  The difference is that when I remove cats from those articles where there is no in-article support, no one accuses me of some sinister plot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You still didn't explain why you, a Brigham Young grad (again -- you are the one who raised that you are a Brigham Young grad -- I wasn't the one who raised it ... had you been a Yeshiva University grad perhaps your response would be different), are focusing on deleting true (unreferenced) mention (via cats) of people being Jews from Wikipedia. And do so even when (as appears to be the case the vast majority of the time) the info is accurate -- if you were interested in improving the project, by doing the fastest of google searches.  Instead, you delete accurate info from dozens (hundreds?) of articles.  I agree that all information on wp should be referenced.  But I don't focus on a particular religious/ethnic group and seek to delete information as to them.  But you are still not explaining why you chose specifically to delete information of this religious/ethnic group.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, you were the one who mention my alma mater. It was not relevant to anything.  Secondly, I think maybe you should read up on ethnic categories.  These categories need some minimum support, and that means that they should not be introduced in the category line when there is no mention of them in the article.  There is no rule that only Jews can edit cats on Jews, but since my Grandmother was raised Jewish I can claim to be Jewish in some senses.  It is interesting that you do not bring up the other thing I mention at my info page.  I think I know why.  If you made am netion of what I would think about the deltion of unreferenced mentions of people being Latter-day Saints, I would point out to you that it happens all the time, and to include a mention to someone being a Latter-day Saint I have to provide explicit proof of that.  Jewishness not being a religion gets a pass.  There are several articles that do not say someone is a Jew, just that they were part of some Jewish communal board, I let those pass.  I do not even object when an article says "person x was a Jew" with no reference at all.  As long as the article in the text says the person was a Jew I do not do anything.  However when the article has as its entire text "Person x was a German-American psychologist", and I am not exagerating, I see no way that 4 categories built around them being a Jew are at all justified.  Information should not ever be introduced through categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case you described above, I suggest that you simply do a Google Books search and a Google News Archive search, with the psychologist's name in quotes, plus the word Jewish outside of quotes. You may well find that reliable sources are readily available, and you can then add them to the article rather than deleting encyclopedic information as you did in the case of Albert M. Bender. Thank you for your consideration of my suggestion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Cullen -- a wise suggestion, that is far more helpful to the project. The alternative (current) approach appears to be resulting in the deletion of a large amount of accurate information.
 * As to the other points, a) you are the person who first indicated what your alma mater is -- I did not ask for that information ... but if you were focusing on deleting information from Brigham Young articles, I would better understand your focus; b) unequal application of equal rules is problematic, as it would be if a cop sitting in Alabama would give tickets to only Blacks driving one mile over the speed limit and not to Whites (and argue -- but that's what the law says is speeding) ... if the cop is not Black, that would generally raise even greater concerns; c) I hope you will heed consensus, as you have received feedback now from a number of editors; d) I did not make mention of the other info on your talkpage only because I didn't need to read that far to make my point, but my my point would be the same as to the other information.
 * In fact, the POINTYness of your deletions is reflected IMHO in the fact that in your latest-created article (the only one I have checked), you provide ZERO refs. Zero.  So, on the one hand, you are creating articles with ZERO refs, on Brigham Young people.  And on the other hand you are deleting cats that people are Jewish, though a quick google search could easily confirm that they are, and in the vast majority of cases that I have seen you are in fact deleting correct information.  This is highly disruptive, and coupled with your additions of non-sourced information as to Brigham Young graduates, highly suggestive of a POV at work.  Please understand that AGF is a rebutable presumption.  Please consider what editors have communicated to you on this page, and address your editing in accordance with consensus.  I believe that AN/Is and RFC eat up a lot of time needlessly.  But your editing habits are highly problematic, for the reasons indicated, and if they continue I would understand an editor bringing your editing history up for community review.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche, I provided 4 sources plus an external link. I have never deleted anything because it was not linkied to a reference.  I have deleted things because there was a failure to mention them in the article.  You can not just sneak a fact in the categories.  Keith N. Hamilton's status is adequately supported by the articles and is adequately explained in the text.  Maybe it would be better to link specific facts to specific references, but most of the articles give a full rundown of his life, so the various facts are supported by the various things in the article.  Now if I had entered Hamilton in Category:Converts to Mormonism from Baptist denominations with Zero mentions in the text to his ever having been a baptist, than you would have a point.  However since I did not, you have no point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You supplied zero refs. Zero.  To your article, about someone from your church, who attended your alma mater.


 * Elsewhere, at the same time, you have deleted cat information, that indicated that a person was Jewish, even when you were supplied with a url that supported that information. Together, and together with your mass deletions of references (via cats) that people are Jewish, and your single-minded effort to delete such references of people being Jewish even when you have reason to know that the information is accurate, is problematic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since we are getting on better terms here, John, I would like to mention to you that Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion. An ethnicity is defined as having a common culture and heritage. I'm sure you know this as your grandmother is Jewish. There are other ethnicities that fall into double categories. It's a sticky area when a person begins removing things in one swift blow, and I would advise against doing this unless you do some research on each person separately. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI as promised
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you.

Removal of Jewish categories
I notice you have removed Jewish categories from possibly hundreds of article because the articles don't mention the person being Jewish. On the one hand you are within your rights here. On the other hand, when you make such a large amount of edits, you should think about a little more carefully. These categories were added for a reason (WP:AGF). Some perhaps try and find a source. Or at least use Category relevant?, and revisit the article after a month to see if somebody else has come up with a source. Or raise the issue on WikiProject Judaism, or WP:BLP, and let others give some input before you singlehandedly start removing hundreds of categories. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the reply to your very good question on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that in reverting most of your edits to categories yesterday, I have also reverted a few things which upon closer look were correct edits. I have reverted myself a few times, but there must be more. I do apologise for these reverts. On the other hand, I hope you understand that you left me no choice. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that I have upheld your edit to Category:American people of Ottoman-Jewish descent. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

African American vs. African-American
Please be aware that "African American" is a noun and "African-American" is an adjective. That's why we have articles titled African American and African-American literature. Your current move to rename all categories with "African-American" in their titles is wrong-headed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are used as adjewctives. If you go through the various category names there is no consistency in whether to have the dash or not.  Anyway, having dashes is just annoying because there are multiple types of dashes, and so you never know which type of dash is actually being used.  If I had my way we would never use dashes.  Search engines general ignore dashes in finding results.  They make it much harder to enter category names.  However the main point is that if what you say is correct, we would have to rename a bunch of articles the other way.  There is no reason to have African-American sportspeople but African American baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of "People from x" cats, from bios of Jews
I don't understand why you are deleting "People from x" cats from Jewish people, when it is clear that the person was born in the locale, with a edit summary that "Being born somewhere does not create a natoable connection". Can you point to guidelines support for these deletions? See, for example, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the entire text of the guideline on categorizing people by place "The place of birth is rarely notable from the perspective of an individual, although it may be notable from the perspective of local studies.

People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not "Natives of Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence.

The category page of People from Foo may mention the most commonly used names for residents ("Fooians", or "Fooers"), assuming that common usage is verifiable (e.g. by Google). Such names may also helpfully be used to redirect towards People from Foo. For an example of this, see Category:People from New York.

The place of death is not normally categorized; consider using a list if this relates to a specific place or event. If it is relevant to identify the place of burial (either from the viewpoint of the person or the burial place), then someone buried in a less notable cemetery, or in a place with just a few notable burials, should be recorded in a list within the article about the burial place. However, if the burial place is notable in its own right and has too many other notable people to list, then burials should be categorized. Such a category will be recorded in the form Burials at Foo Cemetery."

That opening line "The place of birth is rarely notable from the perspective of the individual" is the key.

That said, the fast majority of deletions of cat by place I have done have not involved Jews. The fact that the individuals in question even where you note it were Jews is entirely immaterial to the edit. Being from a place is independent of ethnicity, so do not bring Jewishness into this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm .. you truncated the sentence. Your second quote of it is of course misleading, as you leave out the end of the sentence, and don't even inform the reader that you have done so by adding elipses.  The sentence continues, and the second half is supportive of inclusion.  Respect the last half of the sentence, not just the first half.  And please stop your unilateral deletion efforts, that lack consensus.  All manner of editors are telling you as much, above on this talkpage, below on this talkpage, and at the ongoing AN/I.  Please respect consensus, and alter your ways.  I think that RFC/U's eat up time that can be better spent, if an editor such as you simply respects the views of others in the community (and quotes sentences in their entirety, when the second half of the sentence bears on the issue).  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * People are categorized by what is defining to them. If where someone was born is not defining for them, we should not categorize people by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Building and structure fires mass deletion
Please explain your mass removal of buildings and structures having had fires from the category created for the purpose of navigating to these related articles: Category:Building and structure fires. Your mass deletions were made with no explanation, no discussion and no replacement category to use to nagivate to these articles. Hmains (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The category is for fires, it is not for buildings. The category is for fires that occured in buildings, not for articles on buildings that had fires.  It is in the article tree for fires, thus things in those categories need to be articles about fires, not articles about buildings.  "Building and strcuture" is defining the fire, it is not an open invitation to include articles on things that were not fires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the category was named Category:Businesses established in 1923 I would not have to explain why I removed articles about people. The category is for articles on fires, and articles on buildings are not on fires.  You can if the fire is major create a redirect from an article named for the fire to the article on the building, and put the fire rediect in this article, but articles on buildings should not be in fire categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally do not understand how the category system works in practice in WP. If there is not an article about a fire in a building, but the article about the building describes the fire, then the building goes into the fire category.  This is true throughout the WP category structure.  Your disruptive and self-jusitfying edits are being made without the consensus of anyone and seem to be simply based on whatever you happen to think at the moment.  I suggest you take more time to learn first and only act if there is agreement.  And if redirects are necessary, then it is your job to create them, not just leave articles with no navigational handle to the fire category structure.  Your work is cheap and unhelpful. User:Hmains|Hmains]] (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The category says its contents are about fires. I see no reason to include articles about things other than fires. The category is meant for fires. I think you are the one who is wrong. It is not my job to create anything.  People have the right to remove categories that an article does not fit in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * John, the category in question is a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures by condition. This suggests your interpretation is incorrect and Hmains' is correct. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It says fires in its name, the articles are to be on fires. On discussions in the fire cats there was agreement that they needed to be cleaned up to not have fires.  I got consensus to clean up.  You peopele are not just attacking everything I do.  You guys are wrong and very rude to boot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The category was renamed to its current name 5 days ago. the intent was clearly to change it so it was a category limited to articles on fires.  My actions reflected the change in the name brought about by CfD.  This change was discussed and agreed upon.  I did not act unilaterally.  People should stop accusing me of bad faith for implementing the results of the change of a category name.  This category went from being about buildings to being about fires, and so the contents also needed to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The official result of the August 4th, 2011 CfD on renaming this category is "rename and purge". This was a consensus agreement to remove all articles not about fires.  I did not act without consulting others.  This was agreed to at CfD.  I was just acting to implement the policy developed at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of Jewish cats, even when you are presented with an RS url
You deleted the fact (via cat) that this person is Jewish, even in the face of a supporting RS url ... and deleted the url at the same time (leaving later editors without the benefit of it) ... here.

Coupled with all of the above, and all that has been discussed at your AN/I, this is troubling. It is not in keeping with our effort to build a Project for you to focus on Jews, and delete from the Project a reflection of the fact that they are Jewish, while you at the same time delete the supporting RS ref. That you do this while at the same time creating articles with zero refs -- articles on people who belong to your church, and went to Brigham Young as you did -- is especially troubling.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the categorizing system. Categorzing is built around how notable to a person something is.  If it is not mentioned in the article it is not notable enough to be categorzed.  It does not matter if there is some sorce listed that says something about them, if it is not in the text of the article it should not be categorzed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just Jewish categories - you were too lazy to Google to see if Vincent I. Breen was of Irish descent. Well, he was. Please stop this indiscriminate crusade against ethnic categorisation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Categorization follows the article. If it is not important enough to have been put in the article it should not be included in categories.  Plain and simple.  Someone putting a category has the duty to make sure the information is in the article, and if not it can be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reaching out to you to have a serious conversation
I think that we need to stop this arguing and come to some sort of agreement here. As I've said before--I do not think you are a racist. But I do find some of your actions problematic. Maybe we can come to an understanding of why I find that stuff problematic. Sometimes I overreact about things, thats something I will own up to and it's a shitty thing I do. Let's have this conversation not as an argument, but as two people trying to understand each other.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the beganing problem is that you speak of actions. It seems to me what you really disagree with is my under-lying philosophy about category inclusion.  The issue becomes worse when you try to make people villains for not seeing things the way you do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also say you should refrain from using the word "hypocracy". Hypocracy means to pretend to be good but be evil on the inside.  It has no place in discussions of various ideas about how to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See you mentioned that removing categories does not remove articles and I shouldn't get upset about it. But to be honest, I get upset about this because this is what makes it easier for me to do research. I know a lot of people who do research the same way I do--and categories really help them through the mode of research. I don't know I agree with your definition of hypocrite. I think it just means a person says or does one thing, and says or does the opposite. Evil and good doesn't really have anything to do with it. But really, if I have called you that in the past, I apologize. You don't have to forgive me on that, it's alright.
 * I did not assume anyone was of any race, although I did make one assumption about you which was not right--since I lived in the midwest for a short time, I experienced a lot of discrimination against Southern Americans (I am Texan) and heard/saw a lot of ignorance toward other cultures. ::I did not assume anyone was of any race. I did make a few assumptions about you based on where I thought you were from--Utah, because midwest tends to be less ethnically diverse than the South. But I cannot know your life, and I can't read your mind. It was wrong of me to do and actually ignorant in itself. I apologize for that. But I want to let you know I think this has gone too far, and we need to resolve our differences and really understand each other. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, hypocrite implies doing evil. You will make a lot less enemies if you avoid using such loaded words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not from Utah. That is a horrible assumption to make when 2/3rds of BYU's students are not from Utah.  Also it is just wrong to call Utah "midwest".  The large cities in the mid-west (Like Metro Detroit_ have a type of diversity no one knows in the south.  In Metro Detroit we have the nations largest Arab, Chaldean, Belgian, and Maltese populations.  Detroit itself has the highest percentage of African_americans in the US's 100 largest city.  Anyway Utah has more Tongans than any other state, a much higher percentage of Native Americans than Texas, and you should stop making groundless assumptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I lived in Wisconsin for some time, and it was not ethnically or culturally diverse. I experienced a lot of bias due to to where I was from--the South, and had to deal with a lot of ignorance. So these are my experiences with the midwest. Because of my experience, I had a bad experience in the midwest. I also deal with a lot of stereotypes of southerners and have to combat that, so I can get aggressive about things easily. And I will say aggression coming from me had to do with me feeling upset about women's categories that I felt you were targeting. I felt in a way I was being targeted myself, so I went into a protective mode that came out as aggression. I said a lot of things that I shouldn't have said--a lot of things that were clearly inappropriate to say. I will plainly say, as I said a million times before, I do not think you are racist in the least. I don't think anyone here is. I really like that we're able to express these thoughts together in a calm manner though, and I'm glad that I could talk to you about this--perhaps in the future we can get along better. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out to you, though, that as a person who works in psychology, there is a difference between behaviors and thoughts. Now some psychologists feel that all behaviors indicate thoughts, but I don't agree. I believe that sometimes organisms do things that have nothing to do with some deeply seeded thoughts. This is where I'm coming from. I felt like you did some things that could be seen as discriminatory, but that doesn't mean you thought in a discriminatory way. I didn't feel like you had a sinister motive behind it. I said things in the heat of the moment which were completely inappropriate as a reaction, and yeah it was wrong, I totally admit it. But I feel like maybe both you and I could refrain from editing in a way that might situate certain groups the wrong way. It would help both of us out.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Marjorie Dannenfelser for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marjorie Dannenfelser 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 Articles for deletion/Marjorie Dannenfelser 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 good 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. Herp Derp (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Event venues" and single purpose stadiums
I don't know much about the category but in common usage an "event venue" would seem to be a location at which a variety of activities might take place - for example, a theater or a multifunction arena like Madison Square Garden. That's why you use the broad term "event venues" instead another, more specific term - the specific term doesn't cover everything that happens there. It seem to me that golf courses and football or baseball stadiums (for example) would seem to be inappropriate to include in such a category; indeed including them in "event venue" because football games or whatever are "events" reads the term so broadly that it renders the category functionally meaningless. I see you've put a lot of effort into it the last couple of days and thought it might be useful to raise this.

What do you think? Is "event venue" employed this broadly as a category? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to read the term broadly. A football game is clearly an event.  Anyway, part of the reason for the term is most football stadiums are used for other things.  I am clearly not the first person to put football stadiums in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. That's pretty unsatisfying.  If you define an "event" as "anything that happens that people attend", then it's hard to see whatisn't an "event venue".  Church services, weddings and funerals are "events", as are bingo games or whatever all other fundraisers might be held on the premises, but it'd be stretch to start adding churches to the category.  Likewise town squares where holiday concerts are held, or streets down which parades proceed two or three times a year.  It's so broad that just about any place that people come together to view  or do something would make the cut.  I think a little discrimination is in order, at the very least along the general, and typical, breadth of events held at the location.  Just because one stadium makes the list (e.g. Pontiac Silverdome, which had tractor pulls and Elvis concerts along with football games for years) doesn't mean that they all should.  (I don't know if the Silverdome is actually an "event venue" but offer it as a contrasting example b/c you seem to be familiar with SE Michigan.)  JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes it not an event venue? So you want to limit this category to venues where lots of different types of events happen?  Are there really enough such places to have a large enough number of categories for each year.  I actually think including streets where parades are held makes sense.  I think you should open a discussion on this.  The most logical would be to propose a rename to something like "multiple-event venues established in X".  That is the most likely to get even a little discussion.  I still think a broad definition is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this category was initially set up for stadiums and theatres. However I am not sure its full proper inclusion criteria have ever been defined adequately.  I think though it has always been understood to include all stadiums by definition, since a sports game is an event.  I see no reason why having a football game in any way fails to make somewhere an event venue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Theaters - particularly if they're used for several different kinds of events - and multi-use stadiums makes sense as "event venues". Single-purpose facilities like golf courses and football-only stadiums, or locations at which the "events" are incidental to the thing's primary use (Main Street), makes far less sense to me.  I know it's primitive, but when I Google "event venue" I get a long listing of places at which a person can hold a wedding or a 50th birthday party, or see a show, or listen to a concert.  Not baseball stadiums or golf courses.  In common use the term refers to places that lend themselves to a variety of uses that don't fit easily into a single category like "ballpark" or "golf course" - and often too, are rented out for private purposes.  And again if the term "event venue" is defined as broadly as "a place where something happens" (which is what an "event" is after all) then it is so broad that practically any structure or place in which people may gather would qualify.  And I can't see how that's useful.  Perhaps I will open a discussion about it.  You seem to know more about Categories and the like than I do - where would I go to do such a thing?  JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

== Per your !vote here ==

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WHY
Why are you removing so much CORRECT information regarding David Schrader? It's really frustrating to put this up and see it removed. I don't think you even know David, much less much of anything about him. If you do him, he's never mentioned you to me, and I'm his partner. Please stop. JPD-Lawyer (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)JPD-Lawyer
 * I actually did not remove any information from the article on Schrader, so I am 100% confused by this post. I would point out that the issue in wikipedia is that information be verified, so if the information is not sourced it can be removed and in the case of living people there is an extra burden to remove unsourced information.  That said, I did not remove any information from the article unless I am majorly misreading the history of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Former Muslims by country
Hi: it was incorrect to remove people from the categories by nationality in advance of any decision to upmerge at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 22. Please can you check your edit history and reinstate them? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you speaking of the at most two who I removed because they were specific conversions to Christianity? The vast majority of my removals were built on the fact that the people were not clearly identified as being former Muslims.  Another two I removed because they did not fit the assigned nationality.  However as I said most of the people I have removed it is because they do not fit the criteria, either the articles fail to mention them ever having been Muslim (the most common flaw), or the articles make mention of their allegedly having been Muslim but in ways that it is clear the fact is disputed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, I was misreading your comments in the CFD as if you had removed members of "Converts to X from Islam" from "Former Fooian Muslims" in anticipation of the latter being upmerged to "Former Muslims". Given your explanation above of what you actually did, that sounds fine. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, archiving this long page again might be a good idea. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mvto!
Thanks for creating articles for the Four Mothers Society and the Crazy Snake Rebellion. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Talk:Society of Biblical Literature
Hi, since you contributed to the article in the last year you may wish to participate in the discussion on refs and tags. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Abac, Georgia
The page history indicates that you created this page. Do you know anything about it or have any information on it besides the encyclopedia entry? I ask because it came up as I was trying to work through the backlog in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data and haven't been able to find any other reference to a town of that name. I note with suspicion that there is in fact an Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College in Tifton which uses the acronym ABAC. I therefore suspect that this could be a mistake on Encyclopedia Brittanica's part resulting from a misunderstanding of population data. Any info you have would be appreciated! LWG talk 01:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to find more information. However I would not be so quick to doubt that there was a function place refered to as Abac in 1950.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the source is an atlas page entry. It is the Encyclopedia Britainica Atlas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Buster Seven   Talk  16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lorin F. Jones


The article Lorin F. Jones has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article fails to meet WP:N. There have been hundreds of president for the LDS church. Unless they meet WP:N for other reasons the don't have individual pages.

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 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 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. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations
Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing an now-old issue, just for the record
At Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 8, you wrote:
 * Keep Category:Cue sports players is only used to contain categories for players of specific Cue sports. There is no precedent for making a category that groups players of cue sports across sports. What next will we rename Category:Women volleyball players and Category:Women's baksetball players into Category:Women netball players because they both play sports that involve a net and a ball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not actually a helpful comparison, because volleyball and basketball are not even vaguely related games, while pool, carom billiards, snooker, bumper pool, novuss, Russian pyramid, and other forms of cue sports are all simply variants of what was originally simply called "billiards". [We use "cue sports" as the article and category name here for the overarching topic, because it's an unambiguous industry-accepted term, while "billiards" can mean 4 different things, depending on your dialect of English].

This is pretty much a moot point, since the CfR was improperly closed before anyone could reply to you, with only 2 !votes (do I hear a "WTF?!") instead of being relisted to gain a clearer consensus, meanwhile I've moved on to more pressing things off- and online (which is why I didn't make much of an issue of the out-of-process closure, other than suggesting to the closer that it shouldn't've been done that way). No one else seems to care any more, since I'm really the only one maintaining the cue sports categories. But I wanted to (finally) get around to addressing the disparity in your comparison, and its inapplicability to the cue sports category structure, not just to make a point, but because the issue will re-arise eventually.

To run with your volleyball example, what I was trying to do is more akin to trying to rename an existing Category:Female beach volleyball players (compare female pool players) to the missing but needed higher-level container Category:Female volleyball players (= fem. cue sports), effectively an upmerge, and put the articles on female court volleyball players (= fem. snooker, no existing category) and female mud volleyball players (= fem. carom billiards, no category) all into the same general female volleyball (= fem. cue sports) players category, until such time as there are actually enough fem. player articles in different game to warrant a split by variant, which is a lot more maintenance work, plus forbidden by WP:EGRS unless/until it is genuinely necessary. Which might be never, since in this scenario most mud players are also beach players and very often also court players (= fem. cue sports players are often notable in more than one disciple), making splitting by game type rather pointless nitpicking and busywork that does not actually help readers or editors. Hope that makes more sense to you than the original CfR nomination evidently did.

Cue sports issues come up from time to time at CfD/CfR and elsewhere, and it is actually a complex case most of the time, in multiple ways, not just this gender classification stuff. For example, with a fandom subculture and an independent worldwide governing body, snooker is actually a thing of its own, and essentially divorced from all other cue sports;, it is historically simply a variant of pool with a few rules borrowed from English billiards. It gets even weirder when you start trying to categorize ground billiards and hand billiards, and other variations. To clarify: The point is really that categorizing cue sports stuff is gnarly at times, and the CfR would have simplified matters. Instead, its premature closure has resulted in precisely the parallel females-only category structure that EGRS says to create: Category:Cue sports players, Category:Female cue sports players, Category:Pool players, Category:Female pool players, Category:Snooker players, Category:Female snooker players, with lots of redundant categorization because almost all notable female snooker players are also notable as pool players. I may raise the issue at CfD again, but will wait a year or so. The August CfR definitely was an attempt to merge categories of unrelated things like basketball and volleyball, and if you thought it was, I can understand our objection. Basketball is essentially a variant of football using the hands, while volleyball is an outgrowth of tennis in the same hands-on direction; it's convergent evolution, like fish and whales both having fins but otherwise being unrelated. All of the cue sports are a linear family tree (compare: mammals), with the possible exception of carrom, an Asian boardgame sometimes played with miniature cue sticks (compare: monotremes - kinda mammals, kinda not).

PS: Netball is actually a real game (a variant of basketball that is incidentally played almost exclusively by females), but I figured out what you meant: "all games played with netting" being compared to "all games played with cues". At first it didn't parse, because it looked like you meant combining volleyball and basketball into the netball subcategory of basketball, and a "female players" category for netball at that, which would be redundant in the first place since there are no notable male ones. Did not compute at first. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:College of Notre Dame of Maryland
Category:College of Notre Dame of Maryland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Student7 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:College of Notre Dame of Maryland alumni
Category:College of Notre Dame of Maryland alumni, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jackman Music Corporation


The article Jackman Music Corporation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:CORP. There are hundreds of "sheet music publishing" why is this one Notable verse all the others that arn't. This looks more like an attempt at advertizing.

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 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 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. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of university and college name changes in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Thomas More College

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding Jews and Judaism CfDs and AfDs
Hi there Johnpacklambert: A few months ago (July 9, 2011; July 11, 2011; July 26, 2011; July 28, 2011; July 29, 2011) you nominated CfDs at:


 * 1) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9 and
 * 2) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9 and
 * 3) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 11 (sic) and
 * 4) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 26 and
 * 5) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28 and
 * 6) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28 and
 * 7) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 29 and
 * 8) Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 29.

Unfortunately, editors who have worked on the dozens, more probably perhaps even hundreds, of categories effected by the CfDs were not aware of your nomination. I would have liked to participate in the discussions but I had no clue they were taking place. Please, in the future, when nominating articles or categories relating to any aspect of Jews and Judaism could you please place a notice, per WP:EQ, at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism (WP:DELJEW) in the relevant section. You should the also place a " Judaism ~ " template within the actual CfD to indicate that you have notified the WP:DELJEW. Thank you. Another helpful suggestion would also be that before you consider any major moves against Jews and Judaism articles or categories you first seek out the input of experienced Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM to build WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks again for all your attention to this, and please feel free to be in contact with me about this or anything else relating to this subject. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. You nominated so many categories over at least eight different times in eight different ways (I may even have missed some) that made everything so confusing. Please avoid creating such confusion because it just makes it evident that you are confused and uncertain about the complexity of the over-all matter. IZAK (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wolf Pawnees
Delighted to see that there's an article about the Skidis, and hope that it'll be expanded (and that we'll also get articles on the Chauis, Kitkehahkis, and Pitahawiratas).

A few points perplex me, however. First, I don't believe I've ever seen the name "Panismahas". I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I read a certain amount about Pawnee history while working on Pike-Pawnee Village Site and other Nebraska-related articles, and all of the sources that referred to the Skidis used that name. Certainly, "Skidi" seems to be current usage for the band today: see, for example, the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma website. Unless you've got a number of sources that agree on "Panismaha", I'd suggest moving the article back to "Skidi", with P. as a redirect; and I'd suggest a citation to verify that the Skidis were, in fact, called Panismahas at all.

Second, the article says that the Skidis were related to the Pawnees and to the Omahas. I would describe the Skidis as one of four bands that eventually were recognized jointly as the Pawnees; although the Skidis had a different history from the three southern bands, I don't think that the southern Pawnees were more "real Pawnees" than the Skidis. The Omaha connection needs verification: the Pawnees spoke a Caddoan language, like the Arikaras and the Wichitas, to whom they were related; the Omahas spoke a Siouan language.

Third, the bit about the loss of separate identity around the end of the 18th century strikes me as inaccurate. The sentence suggests that they merged with the Omahas, which certainly wasn't the case. The Skidis occupied a separate village at least as late as 1850 (see sources cited at the Pahuk article), and even today, the distinctness of the four bands is recognized by the Pawnee government: for example, the governing Nasharo Council consists of eight members, two from each band. (See Article VIII of the Pawnee Constitution.)

I hope that the article's a work in progress, and will undergo great expansion and improvement. To the extent that I can, I'll do some myself; I expect to be researching Pawnee history again in the course of the next year. Look forward to watching and helping it grow and improve--

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did find one source that mentioned a connection between the Skidi and the Panismahas, but I am not sure it was very good. The best source I have on the Panismahas is Elizabeth A. H. John's book, a later edition of which I think is in google books.  She speaks of them as distinct from the Pawnees.  I think I am going to unlink these articles.  I think the Skidi connection to the Panismahas is a false association.  Sorry about the confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have split the Skidi and Panismaha articles. I would agree that this is still in a very preliminary stage.  The new Skidi article needs a lot of work.  My current interest is more in Texas based tribes, which are so numerous and so fluid that I get a headache just trying to understand what is going on with them.  Much of the most recent historical scholarship has not been incorporated into wikipedia articles on these groups.  The Omaha/Panimaha connection might also relate to the slave trade.  There is a book called Stealing Indian Women that talks a little of the Pawnee slave trade, but I am not sure there are enough sources in this matter.  You probably know a lot more on this matter and are probably right I made some errors in starting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. The latest version of Skidi looks a lot better.  I'm afraid I can't add much to it right now: my last major bout of research on the Pawnees was while working on Pike-Pawnee Village Site, so I was chiefly concerned with the Kitkehahkis, beginning in about 1770.  I expect to be back into Pawnee research in the next few months, which will include re-reading Hyde and Tyson; as I do that, I'll try to add to the Skidi article.


 * Sympathize with your difficulties re. Texas tribes. It doesn't help a bit that some of the early explorers were rather casual about their identifications; for example, Tyson says that Lewis and Clark misidentified the Kitkehahkis as Arapahos in their account.  I'm sure that similar things happened in TX.  Good luck with it--  Ammodramus (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Census 2010 data for New Jersey
Take a look at the Dover, New Jersey article, which has been updated using data from WikiProject_New_Jersey/Census_2010/Demographics, which has data for every place in the state. If you are editing other municipal articles for New Jersey, the data is all there and can be generated from the template without the need to retype data manually. I hope this helps. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Dale Fushek, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Thomas O'Brien (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) 11:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Actopan, Hidalgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Moctezuma


 * Sinaloa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Copala

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Crime victims by nationality
Please note that the subcategories of Category:Crime victims by nationality are up for renaming again. Given that you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in participating in this on, too. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

ROC categories
FYI, there is a consequential request here at CFD as a result to the previous move request on ROC universities. Regards. 116.48.183.128 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Siosa'ia Ma'ulupekotofa Tuita


The article Siosa'ia Ma'ulupekotofa Tuita has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Manly Daniel Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomfield 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) 10:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Southern United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catawba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

CfD Discussion
A CfD which you have been previously involved in has been proposed again at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_12. You are invited to participate in the current discussion. Frank &#124;  talk  01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Rocky Anderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogden 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) 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Pratt–Romney family. BigJim707 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Taiwanese emigrants to the United States
Hi hello. Would the CfR be in any way relevant to the debate around the move from Republic of China to Taiwan (See Talk:Republic of China and Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation))? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is yes. I think we should hold off on this until that is settled.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the contemporary ROC doesn't cover only Taiwan, but some other landmasses as well. And even if they are synonymous as at 2012 they certainly weren't before 1945. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you bring up this point in the categories discussion. It needs to be said where it can be easily learned by all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the ROC one be created straight away if such cases are identified? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I created Category:Pre-1949 Republic of China emigrants to the United States. I am not sure that is the best way to have the name though.  If we follow the Ireland precedent it would be Category:Republic of China emigrants to the United States (pre-1949)

New Israelites
See Talk:Oliver_Cowdery. Really, you should not delete sentences with references when you've determined that you disagree with the author's conclusions. You should open a discussion about it, especially if a user reverts your initial deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole assertion is based on no real evidence at core. It is based on unproved allegations that even if proved would not add up to the claim made in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But again, listen to the argument you are making. It's one of truth, not one of verifiability and the reflection of sources. Also, see here—I honestly don't know what you are trying to achieve as you brought up the Smith–Cowdery relationship issue previously. You can't just keep deleting material you disagree with for one reason or another, especially after it has been discussed on the talk page with the resolution that the material should be in the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think you should stop unilaterally deleting cited information. We need to get another set of eyes on the article apart from mine and yours, but I don't think the approach you are taking is at all advisable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of St. Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Michigan's 18th congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lyon Township, Michigan


 * Pemba Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Yakut


 * Wituland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Witu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. When you recently edited William E. Cole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article
Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.206 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Basic Research for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Basic Research 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 Articles for deletion/Institute for Basic Research (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrahnbahr (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You've been here for long enough to know to use edit summaries. I refer to the removal of a category from Carlos Castenada which is supported in the article text with a citation. Yworo (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that's a perfectly good explanation that I understand. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Finding sources for deleted entries from Category:African American soccer players
I seem to have been able to find sources for many of the entries in Category:African American soccer players that you had been unable to find. I'm sure that it takes a great deal of work to find sources for some of these entries, but I'm surprised that your efforts to find sources for many of these entries was unsuccessful. Please let me know if I can be of help with finding sources to improve these articles along with you as part of your efforts in building this encyclopedia on a collaborative basis! I'm always glad to help another editor looking to add more sources to articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dallin D. Oaks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dallin D. Oaks 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 Articles for deletion/Dallin D. Oaks 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 good 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Seperate categories for actors and actresses are not needed"
I did nothing of the sort. The pre-2009 sentence you "restored" is identical in meaning to the "replacement" sentence that I wrote — the only difference between the two versions is that one begins As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed and the other begins Separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, for example. It means the same thing both ways. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Spouses of United States Senators Category Inclusion Criteria
I noticed that you recently established an inclusion criteria for Category:Spouses of United States Senators which I have been a frequent contributor to. If I understand it correctly, to be included in the category, a spouse should be married to the Senator during all or part of his or her Senate term, but marriages which occurred after the Senator's time in office are excluded. Please feel free clarify my interpretation if you feel I got it wrong. I am also wondering if the inclusion criteria developed by User:Dr who1975 for the closely-related Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives which allows for people who marry former U.S. House members to be included should be reviewed. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of what I meant is correct. However I also meant to exclude tyhose who died or divorced before the spouse became a United States senator.  One reason for this rule is so that Walter Eugene Hawkins becomes the first potential member of the category by time of inclusion who is male, since he was the first husband of a current senator.  We do not as yet have an article on him, although we definantly do on his wife, Paula Hawkins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please archive this page
Hi, please would you archive this page again? I'd do it for you if you like. Although long pages open fine in decent browsers, it's a horrifically long wait while they load in Internet Explorer, and that's all I'm allowed to use at work... – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Fayenatic L  (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)