User talk:Pastorwayne: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:15, 28 September 2007

Welcome

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start.
Wikipedia:Tutorial runs through all the basics.
Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
Wikipedia:Help desk is a place to ask questions.
Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You can also feel free to ask me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here. Happy editing, Howie ☎ 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create articles about yourself

Dear Mr. Wayne Scott,

Please do not create articles about yourself on Wikipedia (Wayne Scott). Thank you. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne W. Scott

I note you recreated an article about yourself that was previously deleted. Please read WP:AUTO regarding why writing an autobiography in Wikipedia is considered to be a bad idea. A tag has been placed on Wayne W. Scott, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Wayne W. Scott is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Wayne W. Scott. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. Regards, Accurizer 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Wayne William Scott

I've nominated the article Wayne William Scott for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Wayne William Scott satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne William Scott. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Wayne William Scott during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. I am giving you this notice even though you did not create this article initially, because you have edited it and also it is similar to other deleted articles that you created in the past. Regards, Accurizer 15:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop articles

Multiple stub articles

You have been starting many stub articles about Bishops in the United Brethjren of Christ. Unless these are soon expanded and linked, they will be deleted. Please think about expanding one or more of them before creating others. That way you can point to what the articles will look like when people start wanting to delete them. Dabbler 15:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel_Heistand

Hello! I waited 10 minutes from the insertion of the contested notice by you but saw nothing added to the talk page or the Speedy Delete talk page as indicated, so I completed the deletion. If you feel this page was deleted in error and have article text that asserts the notability of Samuel Heistand, let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Heistand

An article that you created, Samuel Heistand, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Heistand Thank you. SkierRMH 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notification (just for spite, because of an edit conflict)

Someone has nominated Samuel Heistand for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Heistand). It looks like you were going to write more about him, but never did. Do you have more material, and sources (such as from the Catholic Encyclopedia) to back it up? YechielMan 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! To redirect pages: add the text "#redirect" right in front of the link; see for example this edit which I made to Robert Elijah Jones. See you around! --HappyCamper 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just following up on your message here - based on your post, I assumed that you wanted to move the content from Robert E. Jones (bishop) to Robert Elijah Jones and did just that. Please let me know if this was what you wanted! :-)

On Wikipedia, you can only move an existing article to a destination article that does not exist, so you were correct in saying that the redirect was preventing you from performing the move. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the page where requests for these sorts of moves are done. Essentially, an administrator just deletes the destination page so that the move can be done. However, the response time on that page can be quite slow when there are a lot of requests, so as an alternative, please feel free to make such requests on my talk page as well. Cheers! --HappyCamper 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that what you wanted to do? Yes, I stopped by the requested moves page and saw your request for moving John W. Hamilton to John William Hamilton. I admit, sometimes the extra steps posted there make the process seem excessively bureaucratic - you're right, these moves are extremely easy to do. If you encounter another one, just let me know.

Oh yes! For your convenience, Wikipedia provides you with a little button sign at the top of each talk pages for you to add new topics. There should be a little plus sign (+) beside the "edit this page" link - when you click on this, it creates a new topic at the bottom of the talk page automatically. --HappyCamper 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops list

Hello, fellow UMC clergyperson! I've noticed you've been doing a lot with the bishops, which is great. I've also noticed, though, you've created a lot of "red links" (also called "dead links"). I'm sure you've done so with the intention of eventually creating articles for those bishops, and that's wonderful. But, if I may make a suggestion, make the articles already "red" before making more red links. On Wikipedia, red links are not good things, unless they're simply there briefly while the article is being created. Thanks; hope to see you around Wikipedia. KHM03 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further quick note on the articles relating to bishops. I have been doing some editing on a few of them, and noticed that you haven't been linking dates, and thought it might help to show to do that. For example in John Morgan Walden you had written "He was born at Lebanon, Ohio on 11 February 1831" ... which I have changed to "He was born at Lebanon, Ohio on February 11, 1831". (For more detailed guidance, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). Hope that helps! -- BrownHairedGirl 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: stub removals

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, as I did two types of stub removals. First, I've removed all stub templates from two or three articles because they are too long and descriptive to be considered stubs. Second, in sub-length articles, I've removed all stub templates but two, {{bishop-stub}} and {{US-bio-stub}} (or sometimes {{US-academic-bio-stub}}).

The purpose of stub templates is not only to place nice messages in the article (I can't help noticing that 5 stub messages took much more space than the actual content of the articles, and that didn't look good), but also to place articles into stub categories. The purpose of stub sorting is to place articles into specialized stub categories. For example, there's no sense to mark all stubs with {{stub}} because Category:Stubs would contain all 200000+ of them and become completely unusable (well, it was so once...). So, if templates {{stub}}, {{bio-stub}}, {{tl|reli-stub}, {{Christianity-stub}}, {{Christian-clergy-stub}}, {{US-stub}}, {{bishop-stub}} and {{US-bio-stub}} put an article into various categories, it makes sense to use only the latter two, as Category:Bishop stubs and Category:American people stubs are subcategories of Category:Stubs, Category:People stubs and so on.

See also: WP:STUB (recommends to put use 1-2 stub templates per article), WP:CG (recommends not to put an article into a category and its subcategory). Conscious 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Done moving Matthew W. Clair to Matthew Wesley Clair :-) I was just about to head out the door so just in the nick of time! --HappyCamper 22:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just getting back to you regarding those special page moves. For those cases, you have to be an administrator in order to perform those moves yourself. Administrators (also known as sysops) are regular editors with the additional ability to delete pages and protect pages. The administrator deletes the target page which makes room for the regular move. If you are interested in becoming an administrator, the best place to start is to read up on all the relevant material found here. I generally suggest waiting a generous amount of time before applying. The reason is because there are quite a number of subtleties of Wikipedia which I think one gathers and learns from only over building an established contribution history. In the meantime, I don't mind at all performing the moves for you - after all, we are just volunteers who are here to serve the community's needs, and to write encyclopedic content! I hope this helps, and as always, if you need something, don't hesistate to contact me on my talk page. --HappyCamper 23:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Calvin Kingsley

I have amended the article you created on Calvin Kingsley to remove a clause which did not fit with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle. See Talk:Calvin Kingsley -- BrownHairedGirl 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

HI again Wayne, please could you remember to include an edit summary whenever you create or edit an article? It makes it much easier for everyone else to keep track of what's happening. See Help:Edit summary. BrownHairedGirl 14:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When creating edit summaries, please take care that they do not mislead. Your [revisions at 1:50 on March to Erastus Otis Haven were labelled as "updates", but did not add any new information. They simply removed the words "in the United States" from the opening sentence. BrownHairedGirl 09:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries again

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Your edit summary usage is still only 4% for major edits :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.M. Bishops

Hi Wayne, see my reply to you, on my talk page. BrownHairedGirl 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Stamm

Hi again, glad you liked what I did with Stamm! :) I was getting nowhere in my efforts to find a location for Alida, until a bit of googling drew up a lat/long location for it as a rainfall data centre ... but google earth placed it in the middle of a lake, which confused me until I googled the lake and found out what had happened. Why did they go to all the trouble of flooding a lake just to make it difficult for us? {big grin}

Anyway, if you look at the page again, you'll see that I managed to find both his year of death and a photo of him, to which I have linked. BrownHairedGirl 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax, etc.

Wikipedia usage (in line with many other manuals of style) is to use the initial capital when the word is being used as a title (e.g., the Bishop of Oxford) but not otherwise (e.g., he saw a bishop in Oxford). The "of"/"in" question is trickier, and without any indication as to which article you're referring to, I can't comment. When leaving messages about articles, it's always good to include a link. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple categorisation of Bishops of the United Methodist Church

Thanks for your note about classification. See my reply to you, on my talk page. I have replied there to make it easier to follow the conversation which I think will be needed to resolve this one. --BrownHairedGirl 14:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Betts Galloway tagged for speedy delete

The article Charles Betts Galloway, which you created today, has been tagged for speedy deletion. It appears to have been a pematurely saved stub, so I have tagged it as "hangon" to buy some time and left a note for the admins at Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Charles_Betts_Galloway. You may want to make a comment there too. --BrownHairedGirl 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hi there! Thanks for coming by. Here is the edit that I made to follow through with your request: [1]. When you are redirected from a page, there is a little link at the top left hand corner of the screen that tells you the original page where you came from. Here's a nifty page where you can find some more information on redirects: Wikipedia:Redirect -- most if it I have not used before though! --HappyCamper 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Rainer Minor

I have moved your article and announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you create more articles about German bishops, please add them there. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bowman

I created Thomas Bowman, a disambiguation page, and also moved Thomas Bowman, 1 to Thomas Bowman (1872) - I actually haven't seen this case of disambiguation before, so I decided to be creative and use the date instead. It might be better to choose another convention, so if you like, feel free to move it to a more meaningful location. --HappyCamper 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William McFerrin Stowe

Hello! I have placed a {{inuse}} tag on the above page, as you say that you are editing it at the moment. Please remove it when you have finished your edits! Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 30-May, you blanked Herbert George Welch. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated from my talk page: You'll need to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. An adminstrator has to do the move since the redirect page will need to be deleted. Switches like that are required to be listed for discussion to ensure people are in agreement. Let me know if you have other questions! -- JLaTondre 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Johann Wilhelm Ernst Sommer

Can you please tell me the source for Bishop Sommer's World War II experiences? Thanks -- KML 09:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short, Roy Hunter, Bp., History of the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church 1939-1979, Nashville, Abingdon, 1980.

Female bishops

Thank you for adding to the "Female bishops" category which I created earlier this year. I appreciate your assistance in making this category more useful. Ringbark 12:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that someone has proposed this category for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26#Category:Female_bishops and vote. Ringbark 11:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about UMC bishops by episcopal area

It looks like there are 3 types of subcategories there: currrent episcopal areas, former episcopal areas (such as Category:United Methodist bishops of the Des Moines Area) and states. Is that in fact correct? If so, it would be helpful if the categories for things other than current episcopal areas had that more clearly marked in their descriptions. Mairi 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your helpful suggestions. I will do so. Some of these areas are the same except under new names (such as Iowa and Des Moines). I did not realize there were so many different areas until I started doing the research. Thanks again! Pastorwayne 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much clearer now (any plans for articles? ;) particularly basic ones, such as episcopal area.) Two remaining concerns: (1) for the historical areas, are some of those specific to predecessor denominations? (e.g. was there ever a Des Moines Area after the mergers that created UMC, or was it only called such as part of The Methodist Church?), and (2) the categories by state. The problem is that for some of the categories, 'bishops of the state' doesn't seem entirely appropriate, as the area doesn't cover the entire state; it'd seem like 'bishops in the state' would be better (similar to Category:Political office-holders in the United States, although even that isn't entirely consistent). Mairi 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good thoughts. Yes, I will continue to write articles as time and research permit. Yes, I believe some of these Areas were unique to certain predecessor denominations. Still haven't been able to determine all of that. For example, I believe in The Methodist Church the Areas were named for the major city (like Des Moines), rather than the State. To some degree this is still true, especially when more than one Area in a State (like Texas). But I am not yet entirely sure when this changed. Bishops "in" a State (rather than "of") sounds fine, regardless. Thanks for your helpful comments and suggestions! Pastorwayne 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: {bishop-stub}

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you can point to a specific instance where I removed a bishop-stub tag, I would be happy to explain my reasoning. I certainly have not been running around removing tags for no reason. --Alynna 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case you pointed to, I did two things. I removed redundant categories; Wikipedia categorisation policy is to not place an article in both a category and its parent. I also removed {{WPChristianity-invite}}, which as a self-reference should never appear in articles. Hope this clears things up. --Alynna 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Gonzalez Carroll

The article Edward Gonzalez Carroll says that he was born in 1972, but ordained an elder in 1935. Do you know his real date of birth? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth and death

Hi PW, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death? It specifies that the full dates should be in the opening para if they are known.

So please do not remove the dates, as you did in this edit today to Matthew Simpson. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article renamed: James Newbury FitzGerald

Hyphen removed from "Fitz-Gerald". See explanation at Talk:James Newbury FitzGerald. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New/revamped articles

Hi Pastorwayne,

I appreciate the valuable work you are doing to create and expand Wikipedia articles.

--Kevinkor2 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and more biographies:

Well done! --Kevinkor2 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Chauke

Please would you urgently improve this. - Kittybrewster 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not at present have resources to do so. I will keep it before me in my research. Sorry. Pastorwayne 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops and Primates in Australia

Hi Pastorwayne, there are a few bishops of Australia listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography e.g.
Michael Kelly (bishop), Francis Murphy (bishop), Charles Perry (bishop), William Grant Broughton, Augustus Short, John Polding, Frederic Barker, Francis Russell Nixon, Field Flowers Goe, William Thomas Thornhill Webber, Thomas Joseph Carr.

This is not my area of expertise, can you advise which of these would be categorised as Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Australia (which currently does not exist). Which of these bishops were primates?

Also, which other categories should these bishops be in? e.g. Australian Anglicans | Christian religious leaders | Anglican archbishops | English Australians | Australian religious leaders - Diverman 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you created (Archbishop of Cape Town)

Hello Pastorwayne. The page you created (Archbishop of Cape Town) seems to have no content other then a stub tag. Because of this I have nominated it for speedy deletion. If you have any questions about this then feel free to ask me. Thank you. -Mschel 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added some content now. Hope this suits you. Pastorwayne 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It does. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. In future please add a reasonable amount of content on the first edit. Thanks again. -Mschel 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primates

Do you have a use for my article Primas Germaniae? It would be great if you could find some places to link it. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! This provides further insight. Apparently applies to both Mainz and Salzburg. Thank you so much!! Pastorwayne 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Deleting material from your talk page

Hi,

Please don't remove comments and warnings from your talk page unless they are vandalous or truly irrelevant. Your talk page is an important record of your interactions with the Wikipedia community.

Thanks, Hbackman 19:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi, Wayne. I created a (very small, very basic) userpage for you, because redlinks for genuine users annoy me. You're free to change it to whatever you like, of course.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedia contributor. DS 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and...

... when you leave a message, either on an individual user's talk page, or on an article's discussion page, it's good protocol to sign-and-datestamp the message. This is done by typing a row of four tildes, like so: ~~~~.

No harm done; this is just so you know. Keep up the good work, eh? DS 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Oh yes, nice userbox :-) Finally, no more red links! --HappyCamper 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk pages

You might want to check out User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto for an easy way to archive your talk page (it's getting a bit long!). SkierRMH 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE BLOCK TEMPLATES FROM THIS PAGE

Do not delete block templates from this page. The administrators need to see your block history. Dr. Submillimeter 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it SAID at the bottom that the template SHOULD be removed "after two days" after the user was UNblocked. That is all I did! Pastorwayne 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete block templates from this page. Do not make excuses. You have enough experience with Wikipedia to understand this by now. Dr. Submillimeter 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon Valley College

Hi! I just wanted to let you know why I reverted your edits to this article. The wiki links to articles that don't exist (Hervin U. Roop for example) will never exist as those people are not notable. And W. Maynard Sparks is indeed a former Bishop, pertinent information since he passed away in 1999. Did you attend Lebanon Valley College? If so, consider placing Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lebanon Valley College on your user page. :-) Cheers, Rkitko 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

be bold

I'd like to see it expanded. But maybe better, at article on "Bachelor of Sacred Theology", like articles on other academic degrees. Be bold - don't waste time proposing - do it. -- RHaworth 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inappr edits

I noticed you add affiliations down the throat to schools that maintain only historic and very loose connections with their original founders. I noticed somebody else already commented on your edits for Dickinson College, University of Puget Sound and Duke University. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on the talk pages for what you forcefully try to add to these pages. Why are you persisting...you are a Christian, that's cool, but the aforementioned schools are historically and very minimally associated with their founders. Remrem 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC--Liface 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I just wanted to add, on this same note, did you happen to have a list of colleges that are CURRENTLY affiliated with the methodist church? See talk page at Template talk:MethodistColleges. --Liface 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWU, for example, is very much affiliated with the U.M.Church, not loosely. It is historically and still a U.M. school. The President celebrates this affiliation. It is officially approved by the University Senate of the UMC. It is entirely appropriate to include it in this category. Dickinson is, too. So is Duke -- extremely still a U.M. school, as well as historically!!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are obviously other editors unhappy with your POV edits on the pages of Ohio Wesleyan University, Duke University, Dickinson College and Puget Sound. So, by all means, keep on adding these strange affiliations. Let me address your comments regarding the first school: you must be speaking about Oklahoma Wesleyan. Ohio Wesleyan recently even had a huge incident with a prominent national Christian group because of their invasive PR and almost kicked them out. The president for your information is not even Methodist. Remrem 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say MAY be correct. But I assure you, OHIO Wesleyan is very much affiliated with the UMC, always has been -- and probably always WILL be! Those who have problems with my edits must be mistaken. Though I know Dickinson less well, I do know it, too, is still affiliated with the UMC!! These are correct and accurate categories for these schools!! Please contace the universities themselves if you have any doubt whatsoever!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Your logic is that once something is affiliated with something else, it is forever affiliated with that thing! Germany is affiliated with the Nazis! Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls, and so on and so forth. These schools divested their affiliation with the Methodist church for a reason. --Liface 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also this list is outdated, incorrect and should not be relied on. Furthermore, it says "United Methodist" related schools, not affiliated. --Liface 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the list at the General Board is accurate as of 19 September 2006!! Affiliated and related, in this context, mean the same thing!

They claim that they're accurate but in fact they're not. I have e-mailed them to ask why Puget Sound remains on their page. --Liface 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Kappa

The category was deleted on May 24, 2006, and as such has been speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria #4. Thanks. -- Avi 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Luckey

http://famousamericans.net/samuelluckey/ has a biog. (Genessee Sem Pres) roundhouse 15:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist Colleges tp box

I notice you were kind of out talked in a prior discussion on the Template talk page for Methodist Colleges. I just posted this on the talk page and hope that you could return.

I discovered two sources listing Methodist colleges and universities the first is the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU) founded in 1991 which describes its members as Methodist-related schools, colleges, and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. the other is the directory of untied methodist related colleges, from The Untied Methodist Church in the US. Both are from the General Board of Higher Education websites:

From these sources this template seems pretty accurate, however it is missing several universities

Both the University of Puget Sound and Duke University are listed and the last elections for board of Directors are January 25, 2007 see here so this list seems pretty up to date, any objections to adding them back to the template?

- thank you Astuishin 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to give you a heads up before I changed anything, I will let the other users who participated know, however I since I disagreed with their conduct in handling the information that you provided I thought I'd let you know first. I believe the compliant in the past was that there was a lack of evidence, along with a slight misunderstanding of the meaning of affiliated, they ignored the General board of higher Education, by saying that it was outdated. And I thought it was rather interesting that user from Ohio Wesleyan made a gratuitous assertion in stating that OW was not Methodist afflicted, while brushing aside your evidence that it was. I will change the article template as soon as all of the past participates are aware of the new info. On a side note, know one has ever said God Bless to me on wp, Glad its said - thank you Astuishin 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pastorwayne, thank you for your earlier post, the discussion is going along well, there have been a few bumps of course but I think those can be smoothed over. I have one quick question, is the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) under the governance of the General Conference. Some one the discussion page voiced concern over uses the GBHEM is a source. Thanks for your help and have a blessed day. - thank you Astuishin 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MethodistColleges

Some of us are trying to build consensus on this again. Looking back at the discussions on this I see that you were treated rather terribly. Sorry about that and any contribution I might have made to it. Anyway, feel free to discuss the proposed changes. I feel we are watering down the wording a bit much, but the resistance to this by students at some of these schools is staggering. Regards, -MrFizyx 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category editing

Proposed deletion of Category:Retired people

You'll see that a discussion has started about deleting this category. --Mereda 15:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would help?

You said on one of the delete categories it would help if I were less prolific... What would help? Some of you would stop being so agressive in nominating my categories for deletion?!? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Pastorwayne 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these categories are badly thought out, leading to over-categorisation of articles, and to unneccessarily complex hierarchies. In many cases, the categories have only one or very few members, and in other cases (such as the reigious leaders by continent), theyare adding an unnecessary extra layer to hierarchies. Many of the categories are also being used to create an unnecessary duplication.

I don't usually like seeing categories deleted, because I'm aware that in some cases a lot of work has gone into them. But the many of the categories which you have created reduce the clarity and usefulness of the category sytem, and I think that unless you take a more considered view of what categories are for, more of them will be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State nominated for deletion

I have nominated Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State for CFD as overcategorisation: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_U.S._State. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation 1

Hi Pastorwayne, I am writing to inform you of a discssion on my talk which may be of interest you, relating to your recent category creations: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Episcopacy in Protestantism. As you will see, it is likely that your latest categories will be nominated for deletion. That discussion will take place at CFD, and I'm sure that you can make your views known there.

However, the reason for this message is to say that I am now persuaded beyond doubt that your creation of categories is becoming highly disruptive: you are creating new categories at a remarkable rate, most of which appear to be promptly nominated for deletion at CFD, with a high proportion being deleted. That should have been a signal to you that your approach to category creation was flawed, but unfortunately it does not seem to have slowed you down.

At this point, I think that it is time to put on my admin hat and ask that you be banned indefinitely from creating any further categories. This is a formal process on wikipdia: see Wikipedia:Banning policy, and if a ban was imposed the result would be that if you created any categories, you would be blocked from editing wikipedia — initially for a short period, but for longer times for each offence, with the possibility of a permanent ban.

I don't want that to happen: it is a last resort when all else has failed. However, I think it's inevitable unless you stop creating so many useless categories.

So, please, may I ask you to help us all to avoid the formal procedure, and instead to consider making a voluntary promise not to create new categories unless you have first discussed them with other editors? As above, it's entirely up to you whether you want to do this: you are quite entitled to say no and instead to argue your case when the matter is taken to WP:ANI.

However, I know that I am not the only editor who would be happy to help you to get things right, so I would be delighted if you agreed instead to simply consult first, before creating any categories.

Would you like to do that? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Pastorwayne_action, where I have asked once again for you to stop creating new categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have Category:Sermon writers amongst 5 or 6 new PW cats per day I take it that the answer is 'no'. roundhouse 13:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Episcopacy in Christianity and some sub-categories

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_17#Category:Episcopacy_in_Christianity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 17#Category:Evangelical_United_Brethren_bishops_of_the_Southwestern_Area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 19#Category:Methodist_bishops_of_the_Buenos_Aires_Area. This proliferation of single-article categories is really getting out of hand, and it's a pity that you are creating more such categories rather than participating in the discussions about them. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20#Category:Bishops_of_the_Methodist_Church, following from the renaming of the main article at The Methodist Church (USA). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20#Category:Methodist_scholars. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest one is: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 21#Category:Post-Civil_War_American_people --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is one more, which probably should have been included in an earlier CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 22#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_Episcopal_Area. As you will see in the nomination, I think that Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction will provide sufficient geographical sub-division to break up the category without creating too many small categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove CFD tags

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Category:United Methodist bishops of the Denver Area - it is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks.

Please note that you have removed CFD tags from a long list of categories where the CFD closed with a recommendation to upmerge. I have listed only one here, but you know which the others are. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed ones for discussions that had closed. I believed this was correct procedure, since the discussions were over. I appologize if I did something wrong. What happens once discussions are over? Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion below is copied from my talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I only removed ones for discussions that had closed. I believed this was correct procedure, since the discussions were over. I appologize if I did something wrong. What happens once discussions are over? Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a CFD is closed, then the tags should be removed from discussions once any necessary actions have been taken or where the categories are to remain unchanged (i.e. not deleted or renamed or merged). The categories on which you changed the tags are all to be upmerged per the decision at CFD, so there is no need to remove the tags: once the merger has taken place, the categories will be deleted, along with any CFD tags.

Given your track recird of creating so many problematic categories, and your notable reluctance to contribute to the CFD discussions or to respond to other attemts to discuss the issues, I would strongly recommend that you do not remove any CFD or similar tags from any articles or categories. Your category-creation has already become so deeply disruptive that admin intervention is now likely, and interfering with the tags could propel you rapidly towards a block. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please respond to CFDs, please stop creating new categories

PW, I have followed recommended practice and notoified you of CFDs which I have strated on categories you have created: see User talk:Pastorwayne#CFD_for_Category:Episcopacy_in_Christianity_and_some_sub-categories. I am disappointed that you have not offered any comment in several of them, and I would be grateful if you would take the time to participate in those discussions.

As per discussions on my talk page, plase note that there have been several calls at CFD for you to be banned from creating categories. Note also that I have asked you to stop creating new categories, and I would appreciate a response at User talk:Pastorwayne#Category_creation.

Given that so mnay of the categories you create are deleted at CFD, I have to say again that if you continue to create so many problematic new categories without substantive discussions first, then it is inevitable that a formal request will be made for admin action, probably quite soon. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perceived "anti-religious bias"

Hi,

I was disturbed to see in a recent discussion that you perceive the deletion of some religion-related categories as the result of some bias against religion. This could not be further from the truth. Many of us discussing these categories are involved in religion ourselves. It's not that we dislike religion. It's that we want to see information about it organised in the most useful way. For most people here on Wikipedia, redundant categories or categories containing only one or two items are not useful - they may even be an inconvenience at times.

People often perceive some kind of bias when articles or categories important to them are deleted. Everyone can point to some other page that hasn't been deleted. But contrary to popular belief, that's not because everyone is out to get you. It's just because noone's noticed that page yet. If you point it out, it might go away too - or you might get an explanation for why this is different.

I hope this is enlightening. And by the way, merry Christmas.

--Alynna 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American members of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ

Category:United Brethren in Christ Americans and Category:American United Brethren in Christ appear to be for the same thing (in which case one ought to be merged to the other). Is that correct, or is there some difference I'm missing? Mairi 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd agree about Category:American United Brethren in Christ being better. Should I delete the other one (you could also tag it for speedy deletion as a mistake)? Mairi 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the future you can mark 'mistakes' like that with {{db-author}} so they can be speedy deleted, or ask any active admin to take care of it. Mairi 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at WP:ANI

I have left comments regarding your category creation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Dr. Submillimeter 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the dicussion mentioned above is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive170#Pastorwayne_and_category_creation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United Methodist Bishops of the Southeastern Jurisdiction

Hello. I revised the description of Category:United Methodist bishops of the Southeastern Jurisdiction only to reflect changes in categorisation policy. Your description referred to Episcopal Area subcategories. These are being deleted, and the individual bishops recategorised to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church (and probably eventually to these Jurisdiction categories). Therefore, it would be inaccurate to continue saying this is a category of Episcopal Area subcategories.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on UMC policy. I'm an active member of the United Methodist church, and I have a working knowledge of its structure and policy, but I'm no expert. However, I cannot conceive of why expertise in UMC policy would be required to make the change I made. Please review WP:OWN. --Alynna 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation (again)

Instead of responding to my suggestions above, or indeed following your own admission of:

"Since I have been "warned" about my activities, I have restricted my category creation."

you've apparently decided to continue creating categories, even though you know that it is now being considered "disruptive".

Just in looking over Special:Contributions/Pastorwayne, I see over 100 category edits in just 2 days. And then there is this, which is demonstrative of exactly what others have been concerned about.

At this point, I'm asking you to stop creating categories at least until you've demonstrated to the community that you more fully understand the category system.

If you continue to disrupt the community in this fashion, you will be blocked for said disruption, per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I'm sorry that this step has become necessary, and I hope that you will see this break from category creation as a positive opportunity (to learn, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways). - jc37 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. Is there not a difference between category CREATION and category EDITS? Yes, I continue to find appropriate cats into which to place articles. This is editing, not creating. And what is the this? I do not understand what you are pointing out. I have put down some suggested categories. But I have not created them. I HAVE severely restricted any category creation. Please explain further. I am certainly NOT trying to be disruptive. Moreover, several more recent category creations seem to be "winning" in the CfD's. Does that not indicate valuable categories created? Thank you. Pastorwayne 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a difference between creating a category, and adding an article to an existing category. However, by adding a category to an article, if the category didn't previously exist, that's effectively "creating" the category.

In regards to the linked example, note the redlinked categories below:

Category:Biographers of John Wesley
Category:Christian Editors (See also: [2])

By adding them, you were "creating" those categories.

I'm sure that everyone appreciates that you're making a concerted effort to not be further disruptive. Just understand that, at the moment, apparently tensions are a bit high regarding you and any association with categories. So you might want to take that into consideration before making further category-related edits.

Thank you for the clarification. If you have any further concerns or questions, please feel free to ask. - jc37 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So making these "suggested categories" is actually CREATING them, eventhough when I click on a "red" category at the bottom, wikipedia asks me if I would like to CREATE the category (that it says does NOT exist)??? Sorry, I couldn't find my previous message on your talk page. I trust you will get this here. Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. if you add categories to an article, a category list is created. However, it's still redlinked because the category "page" has not yet been created. See WP:CAT#How to create categories. - jc37 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: it has been suggested that I discuss categories I'd like to create, rather than just going ahead with the creation. WHERE does one have such discussions? Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. For general category discussions, WT:CAT would seem to be the best place. You might want to check out some WikiProjects related to your topics of interest. You might find the following useful:

Note that each of these WikiProject pages list related projects. You may wish to look over those to see if there are any others that may interest you as well.

Hope this helps. - jc37 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your advice led me to WT:CAT, where I find information that seems to "vindicate" my intentions about category creation: specifically, that there is DISagreement about the purpose of cats, and that what I do (create/find appropriate cats for various articles) is one of the many ideas about cat creation, NONE of which (at least there) are judged to be "wrong." In reading more generally about categorization, I found similar information. So just because others disagree with what I try to do, why does that make my work "disruptive?" We have differences of opinion, all of which opinions appear to be equally valid and acceptable. But I am "labeled" the disruptive one, and threatened with chastisement?!? I find disruptive the fact that people do NOT discuss the validity of a cat on IT'S talk page (but instead CfD it). Isn't that what a cat's talk page is for? It would seem all such discussions should be THERE first. Then consensus there could lead to CfD. Please explain. Pastorwayne 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD = Categories for Discussion. As for the rest, I think you might want to re-read that page and its related pages. Did you read the entire section about "How to create a category"? (For example, WP:CAT#Look before you leap which explains much of what I've said previously.) I think you may be working to hard to try to find some vindication for your actions, rather than reading to learn. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. - jc37 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also say - PW, please stop creating categories. (You did create over 100 in December, 19 of them between 30-31 Dec - let us digest them.) I would like to know more about Methodists, United or otherwise, in Africa. There are only 2 bishops listed in Africa, both in Zimbabwe (Muzorewa being one). Explain the 3 regions - Africa, Congo, West Africa - in an article. (Britannica manages perfectly well without even mentioning categories.) roundhouse 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for comments on this same issue, after noticing the vast number of categories on CFD created by you that only you often seem to think should exist. There is clearly a disconnect between how you think articles should be organized and how just about everyone else does. These disputes arise from your singular interest in one subject area, which is conflicting with broader considerations of organizing information. While it's of course perfectly fine to only want to contribute to one subject, the category system must work for Wikipedia as a whole by being integrated and consistent. You really need to start discussing whether categories would be useful or appropriate before you create them. Postdlf 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint about alleged "personal attacks"

This is a copy of my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Cut_the_personal_attacks.21. Pleaae reply there --02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You continually point out (in CfD's) that something should be deleted because it is "yet another example of [my] ill-conceived cats..." or something like that. I appreciate that you find me illequiped to create cats. But just because I created a cat is no reason for it to be deleted. Vote on deletions based on the merits of the cat itself. It matters not who created it, or why, or if such creation was illconceived, etc. It matters only if it is a good cat or not. Please refrain from including such attacks. I believe you are as bad at not assuming good faith as you believe I am at being "disruptive" in cat creation! Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, I do wish that you would read those CFDs. I am not aware of any instance where I have recommended deletion solely on the grounds of it being one of your ill-conceived categs, though I have on many occasions mentioned the fact because I think it is important to draw the attention to other contributors the fact that so much of the traffic at CFD results from your disruptive editing practices. If I have on occasion failed to mention other reasons, it becasuse I have agreed with the reasons cited by others, and rather than recite the list again, it is sometimes quicker to point people to the pattern of your disruptive category-creation.

However, you are also mistaken in calling these "personal attacks". I have criticised your actions, not you as a person, and I hope that you understand the difference.

On your second point (about good faith), let me be direct and blunt. (But before continuing, please read WP:AGF, particularly where it says in bold This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary).

I asumed good faith for months. When others were calling for a ban on you, I was the one who tried to start a dialogue with you, but I got no response from you until I issued you with a formal warning about a related technical matter. When you eventually responded, I pleaded with you, repeatedly, to stop creating new categories, and to start by discussing them first. Despite the fact that scores of categories you had created were being nominated successfully for deletion, and that your disruptiveness as being widely commented-on, you cntinued to create new categories at a truly phenomenal rate, most of which ended up at CFD, where most were deleted.

At that point, any person acting in good faith would have stopped categ-creation and sought dialogue. But instead of responding to my repeated pleas to you to stop, you set to at the end of December 2006 and created dozens of more categories, most of which were subsequently deleted.

PW, your actions have gotten to a point where anyone assuming good faith could do so only by ignoring the evidence. Instead of whining about being the subject of what you mistakenly call personal attacks, why not simply stop being this disruptive creation of scores of inappropriate categories, and take time to learn how the categorisation system works?

Your disruptiveness has consumed a lot of the time of a lot of other editors. Rather than complaining about the editors who are giving up their time to tidy up the mess you have been creating, I suggest that as a Christian minister you might find it helpful to read Matthew 7:3. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS On personal atacks, please read WP:NPA. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two CFRs on UM bishops

See

Both proposals relate to the question of whether it is historically apropriate of applying the "United Methodist" label to people whose careers predated the foundation of that church. Please note that I am aware of the UM perspective on the role of these bishops, but I that I consider it more appropriate for wikipedia to use labels which would have been accurate at the time these people were alive. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorisation and other related problems

Hi PW

I have been running through the methodist bishops articles, trying to remove some of the massive overcategorisation which you have inserted. Some of the edits bewilder me, such as one to William Logan Harris.

Please do not add an article to both a category and its subcategory. If the article belongs in Category:Evangelical Converts to Christianity, then it should not also be placed in the parent Category:Converts to Christianity. (see WP:CAT: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory", and also WP:SUBCAT).

That's only one example amongst many. I have found articles where the subject has been classifed in three or more of Category:Christian pastors, Category:Methodist ministers, Category:Methodist bishops, Category:American Methodist bishops, and Category:American United Methodist bishops. One will suffice!

What I find so puzzling about this is that while you are creating loads of new categories for every conceivable intersection of aspects of methodism, you have also in many cases neglected to categorise articles by the basics of xxxx births, xxxx deaths, or year of birth missing/year of death missing. Please please please, could you also take some time to read WP:MOSBIO, and make sure to include both those categories and also to put the dates in the opening para? Plenty of the articles you create only have d.o.b. in the second section and date of death at the end: those are fundamental biographical details, and best practice in wikipedia biographical articles is to have them follow the name.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: see my edit to George Foster Pierce, where there were no less than nine superfluous categories. Please, please, please do stop and study the guidelines (WP:CAT, WP:SUBCAT and WP:OCAT): this degree of overcategorisation impedes the use of categories and clutters up articles. As you may recall, I raised this with you before, in March 2006. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar topic, you could improve some of your excellent articles by putting more in the opening paragraph - eg Elijah Embree Hoss is more impressive than the first para suggests. Listen to BHG - she is good - as is jc37 - as is submillimeter (I would not wish to argue with any of them, never mind all 3). You could also improve the article on E & M College by adding a section on the Principals - you have 2 already. There are dozens of E & M alumni already on Wikipedia; just search. All UK universities have an alumni cat; so do all Oxbridge Colleges; these are standard cats that can be added without any controversy. roundhouse 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick notice to all those interested in these events: At least as of January 4, 2007, Pastorwayne has said that he is attempting to follow the suggestions and advice of the community. So as corollary to that, please don't "chastise" him for categories created/added before then (such as the George Foster Pierce link above, of which Pastorwayne's last edit was from Dec 31 2006). If the agreed plan is for him to learn, the best we can do is teach : ) - jc37 09:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More overcategorisation

Hi PW, just spotted another one: in this edit yesterday], you added Paolo Manalo to the Category:Filipino writers in English without removing him from the parent category Category:Filipino writers. Please do watch this sort of thing, it creates category clutter. (Same happened in this edit to Ian Casocot).

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where categories are welcome

I noticed that some of the categories you've created, such as those about the bishops and "Emory & Henry", are receiving some amount of flack. I understand that categories like this take quite some time to develop and flesh out, yet these particular ones appear to be unwelcome at Wikipedia, unless I'm misunderstanding the argument. I hope that you will continue your work here at Wikipedia. However, just so you know, there are also other wikis out there that might very well welcome such a Category project as yours. You might start by looking at Wikia.com, Centiare.com, or PBwiki.com. If you feel that this message is too spammy, you are welcome to delete it from your discussion page. --JossBuckle Swami 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UM Bishops

I have put together some thoughts on categorisation problems etc at Category talk:United Methodist clergy with a view to drawing a line under recent disharmony.

I am supposing anyone interested in UM bishops is already watching PWs page. (I give PW very high marks for endurance under withering fire. 'No-one is perfect. Even I am susceptible to draughts' - Oscar Wilde.) -- roundhouse 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Cats

I see you have resumed creation, at a modest rate so far. I would not have thought that burials in New York needed subcats. Cause of death, place of death, place of burial ... roundhouse 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PW, I am disappointed to see that you have created more new categories. I really don't want to return to the situation we had reached in December and early January, when we got to the point of a discussion at WP:ANI seeking action against you.

Like roundhouse, I am pleased to see that that the categ ceation is at a slower pace, but I am concerned that it does not appear to be producing better categories. One of the new categories is Category:American Free Methodist bishops, which seems to me to be an unnecessary subdivision of a small category, so I have nominated it at CFD : see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 18#Category:American_Free_Methodist_bishops.

I hope this is a one-off, and because if there appears to be a return to the previous cycle of new CFD containing lots of nw categories created by you, then we might end up back at CFD.

So please, before creating any new categories, could you seek advice? There are several ways you could do this:

Start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization
leave a message on your own talk page explaining why you tkink a new category would be useful, and ask others to comment
leave a message on the talk page of one of the categories you want to sub-categorise, and ask others for comment

I know that there are several editors who would be happy to help (e.g. me, roundhouse, Jc37 and Dr. Submillimeter. It really is much less work for everyone to discuss categories before creation that to run through CFD afterwards, and I think it's also much less confrontational to try to find some sort of consensus in advance. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Hi PW, the new DEFAULTSORT keyword just does what it says: it specifies a default sort order for an article's categorisation. The effect of this edit was to stop Matthew Simpson being sorted by "Simpson, Matthew" and make the entries sorted only by his surname, which is less precise. Please don't do that.

And by the way, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please can you use Edit summaries? It makes it much easier for other editors to see what has been done. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary categories

Hi PW, I would welcome your thoughts at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intersting question raised about "to" or "in" ("Missionaries to Ruritania" or "Missionaries in Ruritania": see Category_talk:Missionaries#.22to.22_or_.22in.22. Can you help? Your professinal experience may help us answer that one! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Listing

You now seem to be adding the heading Category Listing above categories. Please stop - just follow the usual layout. roundhouse 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating deleted categories (Category:Indian pastors)

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian pastors, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Indian pastors is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:Category:Indian pastors]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.

PW, I thought that after all our lengthy discussions in December and January, you had done well in refraining from category creation. I'm really disappointed to see this resuming; recreating deleted categories is really pushing your luck, especially when you are currently involved in CFD discussions deleting other "pastors" categories.

Can you suggest any resaon why we shouldn't return to WP:ANI to seek a ban on your disruptive creation of categories? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian pastors and sub-categories

Hi PW,

I was very disappointed to see that yesterday you created a whole lot of new sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors, while there was a CFD underway on Category:Christian pastors (see CFD February 12). Since you had yourself contributed to that discussion, you must have been aware that the consensus was forming in favour of upmerging to Category:Christian ministers. It was very unhelpful to create new sub-categories when the parent category was facing deletion: rather than prejudging the outcome of the CFD, it would have been good prcatice to wait until the CFD was closed, instead of creating new sub-categories which might themelves have to be brought to CFD.

I have now nominated for renaming all the new sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors: your thoughts would, of course, be welcome at CFD:Sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors.

I really dislike this sort of situation. Nobody wants to spend their time on wikipedia chiding other editors, but it is very frustrating to find ourselves repeatedly facing a cycle where you create categories knowing that they are likely to be promptly renamed or deleted. There are currently three CFD discussions underway about categories you have created (1, 2 and 3), relating to 13 categories which you have created (and that's not counting your re-creation of a deleted category, which was speedy-deleted yesterday). All of this could have been avoided if you had taken up the countless offers from other editors to give help and guidance in categorisation.

As discussed countless times in the last few months, this just wastes the time and effort of other editors, which is why it is labelled as disruptive.

You do great work on writing new articles, but why do you take such a disruptive approach to the creation of categories? There have been so many discussions on this that you must be aware by now of how to avoid being disruptive, which is why a return to WP:ANI seems inevitable. I'll hold off for a few days, in the hope that you can persuade me that such a step will not be necessary, but otherwise I can't see any alternative to seeking a ban on category creation. :( —BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also meant to point out that none of the sub-categories you created yesterday of Category:Christian ministers were categorised under any categories relating to the countries to which they referred. I took time to add what I hope are the appropriate parent categories ... so that, for example Category:English pastors is now under Category:English clergy.

Country categories are not much use if they are not part of the category hierarchy relating to that country: it doesn't just impede their usefulness to readers, it also means that other editors may not be aware of the, and end may create duplicate categories. If you are going to create categories, please try to avoid leaving other editors the job of sorting them out. —BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you nominated them for RENAMING rather than deletion should be reason enough to see that the concept is good, even if you disagree with what they were named. I still believe Pastor is the better occupation cat, more precise. But whatever we call them, it is helpful to cat them by nationality, too. And yes, I know I did not complete the process. I was taking a "go slow" approach, such as you have suggested. I wanted to see how they would be received under the parents I used. If well received (as they basically are) then I would go back and subcat them to other parents, too. Thanks for your input. Pastorwayne 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaarghh!!!!!! This is getting really silly. :(

As you can see from the CFD, those categories have not been well-received: they are all inappropriately named, and you knew when you created them that they would be either deleted or renamed. Why on earth do you continue to make so much work for everyone else?

I think it's good that you claim to want to take a "go slow approach" ... but going slowly would involve being more cautious about creating categories, as you have repeatedly been asked to do. Leaving new categories disconnected from the countries they relate to isn't going slowly, it's simply doing the job very badly, and hiding the categories from the places when they might be of use to readers or editors.

I really can't decide whether you are trying to game to the system or whether you really don't understand why this is so disruptive. But I can't see any other explanation, and either way, it's ANI time :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation, revisited

Once again I've been asked about your category creations. I've spent the last 2 days reading through a morass of arguements and discussions. At the moment, I'm refraining from commenting on those, except to say I've read quite a bit. (Time which I would have liked to have spent rejoining WP:CFD.)

Here's my opinion right now:

1.) As requested, you stopped creating categories, with the understanding that you would learn more about categories, and the category system (including WP:CFD), before creating any additional categories.

2.) You have returned to creating categories, which says to me that you feel that you now understand categories on Wikipedia.

3.) Several Wikipedians clearly disagree, and feel that you are still creating superflous categories, as well as poorly-named categories.

4.) And seemingly in response to those who you see as marshalling forces to oppose you, you create even more categories. (I find your response to User:Astuishin quite telling. As a quick response, I think you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Consensus.)

Among the many other concerns, what I think you don't understand is that Wikipedia is a volunteer resource. Not just in editing. While we do now have bots which can ease the work load some, in the end, some administrator has to go through each and every category for discussion, and untag/delete/rename/merge/etc. Those tasks take time and effort. And consistantly creating multiple categories fully knowing that they will likely need to be discussed (renamed or whatever) seems to me to be VERY disruptive.

Just for example, The apparently duplicative Primate categories which you've just created today would seem to fall under this. The article makes it clear which titles are also primacies. To create a category would seem to be duplicative. (Not dissimilar to having a Category:Commanders-in-chief, which would have similar problems.) Whether it is duplicative or not, I presume these categories will likely be nominated for CfD. (I again suggest that perhaps you should spend some time reading - and hopfully understanding the reasons behind - WP:OCAT.)

I want to make it clear: I am a strong proponent of being bold and the ability for anyone to edit. However, in the past you have abused that, and I think you are, at the very least, beginning to again. (See: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.)

There are just too many of such edits, too many times being counselled by many Wikipedians, over several months to consider this a "mistake" any longer.

Consider this a warning: If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by intentionally creating superfluous categories contrary to consensus, or by intentionally creating categories which violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), you may be blocked, and even possibly community banned.

I have this talk page on my watchlist, and will watch if you have any wish to respond here.

I of course welcome any further comments on this from you and/or others. - jc37 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that rather than explain your point of view, you chose instead to ignore the concerns and the warning and created another new category.

Therefore, based on the warning above:

You have been blocked for tendentious editing and rejecting community input (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) for a period of 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. jc37 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly disappointed that this has escalated to this point. - jc37 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

In all humility, what is there to explain? The Primates cats seem quite appropriate. We have Prelate cats, Archbishop cats, metropolitan cats. So why not Primates? Another "type" of Bishop, among many other types, all of which have cats.

I am sensitive to the input of the community, and welcoming of it. The "Pastor" cats, again in all humility, are not being deleted, but only renamed. That suggests the idea is good. I just had the name wrong (from the perspective of the community, even if this consensus is factually inaccurate).

Yes, obviously, you and others do not appreciate my cat creation, and believe I am doing it simply to be disruptive. I, in turn, feel attacked by persons who seem to not understand the value or accuracy of at least some of what I create. As before, I assure you I have absolutely no disruptive motivation. Indeed, I have taken seriously all such warnings, and have saught to be a very obedient peon.

So I don't know what else to say. I will redouble my efforts not to be disruptive. Pastorwayne 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking your points one-by-one:

"In all humility, what is there to explain?" and "Indeed, I have taken seriously all such warnings..." - If you take the warnings seriously, I would presume that you would address the only example that I presented, rather than continue without even a comment. I think you very well know that if we were to create a list of your many category creations it would be quite long. I merely mentioned the primates categories as a current example of what has been an ongoing concern.

You must think me totally dense. I thought I DID "address the only example..." You mention the Pastors and the Primates. Please tell me what I am missing. - Pastorwayne 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The warning was yesterday, and you continued to create categories, a primate one, specifically, without comment, today. If you are truly "...sensitive to the input of the community, and welcoming of it", then I would think at the very least, you might have asked (as you do now), what the issue is. You didn't leave even a comment. And no, I don't think you "totally dense". I think that you believe that you know what you're doing, and are taking action, despite months of counselling by others, including myself, suggesting that you learn more before continuing the action, as I've explained above. - jc37 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I, in turn, feel attacked by persons who seem to not understand the value or accuracy of at least some of what I create." - While I would also agree that in the past you have been treated a bit roughly by others (though also in response to your agressive comments/responses as well), for the most part, they've toned that down quite a bit. I realise that you feel "attacked", and even mentioned it above. But feeling that way doesn't justify your current actions. You should note that I haven't yet brought up your (or others') comments from WP:CFD. I think what you're still not getting is that the act of creating these categories which have been contrary to consensus repeatedly on WP:CFD (based on closure results, and not yet taking the discussions within into account), is what is and has been disruptive. Many (though not all) of your categories are only a step above the situation of a person who creates categories for each of his schoolmates (Category:Hall monitors, Category:Teacher's aides, etc.)

Once again, I do not know what cats I created "contrary to consensus." I created the Pastor cats WHILE those discussions were/are ongoing. No consensus had/has been reached, at least to my knowledge. - Pastorwayne 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about any one specific category, but about your actions over several months, and that you are continuing those actions, contrary to the concerns of the community. - jc37 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, obviously, you and others do not appreciate my cat creation..." - On the contrary, speaking only for myself, I appreciate that you have a want to contribute to Wikipedia. The concern is merely that such are positive contributions. And I'd like to take a moment and point out that (AFAIK) the only CfD discussion involving one of your categories which I have ever commented on, I supported it to be kept.
Thank you! - Pastorwayne 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As before, I assure you I have absolutely no disruptive motivation." - You misunderstand. You have a motivation to contribute to Wikipedia, and one of the ways in which you do, is to create categories. However, unfortunately, your choice(s) of category creation has itself been disruptive.

"...and have saught to be a very obedient peon." - This isn't about overlording masters and peons. And I am truly sorry if you feel that way. This is about a community of contributors. If this was only 2 or 3 or even 5 editors who have issues with your categories, perhaps there might be a question here, but it's been many more, over several months.

please try to recognize sarcasm. No offense ment or taken. But it DOES seem only the same 2-4 editors who keep coming back. They seem the only ones who truly care, truly think there is a problem. - Pastorwayne 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While those 2-4 are understood, there have been others as well. - jc37 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, I just want to suggest that you please read the pages which I've linked to above. I realise that there are quite a few, but until you understand WP:CAT, WP:NCCAT, WP:CLS, WP:OCAT, WP:CFD, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:OWN, etc, these situations will likely continue to occur. I really am hoping that this doesn't continue to escalate and result in a community ban.

I hope that this helps to clarify. And of course, feel free to respond, I am, as I mentioned, watching this talk page. - jc37 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading further, I submit that tendentious editing is not an accurate description of what I have been accused of doing. Obviously, some have a problem with my cat creation. But that problem does not seem to be tendentious editing. Is there not a more correct reason to block me? If not, then I respectfully request to be unblocked. Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the first, please re-read WP:TE, especially the section on WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors. For the second, please re-read WP:DE, especially the section on WP:DE#Definition of disruptive editing and editors. The reasons for your block are copied directly from there. - jc37 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading as instructed, I find this: "Campaign to drive away productive contributors:" at WP:DE#Definition of disruptive editing and editors. That section seems to describe BrownHairedGirl and Dr. Submilimeter (sp.?). They seem to "own" the cat scheme. They seem to think they are the only ones who know what is helpful, useful, appropriate, even in areas about which they know only a little. Of course, you will interpret these (my) comments to mean that I am simply not assuming good faith, etc., again. So why should I bother. I guess we ALL have "sins." Just in the eyes of those who seem to have control of wikipedia, mine are the worst. Pastorwayne 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, your actions aren't the worst, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be better. The standard way to collaborate is that if enough people ask you to stop then stop and discuss it. If no one agrees with you after you provide your reasoning and evidence, then just let it go. It's just not that important. - Taxman ^Talk 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

As one of two people attacked by PW above, I think that I ought to reply.

The allegation of a "campaign" to drive PW away is simply silly. A review of this lengthy talk page will find a few issues of contention, but the only ones which have been persistent have been categorisation and the absence of edit summaries (the latter, I'm glad to say, has now been improved a bit, but only after a year of PW ignoring repeated pleas). Far from trying to drive PW away, I have repeatedly encouraged his editing of articles, while deprecating the category creation.

As to the categorisation problem, I agree that Dr S and I have probably been the most proactive in monitoring PW's category creation and nominating categories for CFD. But PW's reply above does indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening here. :(

First, nominating a category for CFD is just that: it's a nomination. Unless there is a consensus to keep the category, it will stay, and the nominator gets only one "vote", just like everyone else. Of course many contributors lack expertise in the areas they are discussing, but one does not need a huge level of expertise to assess the appropriateness of a category, and those with expertise can offer their input. The persistent problem, though, has been that PW's knowledge of the intricacies of religious labels and structures has not produced satisfactory explanations of why these categories are helpful. WP:TE is relevant here

"You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones."

Too often, PW's comments at CFD have amounted to little more than "this category is useful. Thank you", which tells us nothing. On other discussions, such as CFD on Category:German pastors, PW got too immersed in the detail to provide a persuasive answer to the key question, which which was whether there is a sufficiently clear and consistent usage of the term "pastor" across different denominations

Secondly, specialist knowledge of a subject is sometimes of little or no relevance to a category's appropriateness. As but one example among many, the repeated subdivision of useful categories into numerous very small sub-cats is not a problem which requires a huge knowledge of the religious terminology. It just requires a knowledge of wikipedia's categorisation conventions, which PW seems to ignore.

Thirdly, plenty of PW's actions have the effect of overloading the decision-making system

The third point, though, is the fundamental one, which Taxman covers above: this is about collaboration. As with any other collaborative exercise (whether that's a church or a workplace), Wikipedia has to have some way of making decisions on content: it could be done by some form of autocracy, by a hierarchy, by majority voting, or by consensus. Wikipedia's system is consensus, but the problem would be the same in any other system: when decisions are made, it is highly disruptive to continually take actions which are clearly likely to face a negative decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shipwreck deaths (and "ashes consigned to the deep")

What do you think of such a cat (Category:Shipwreck deaths), as a subcat of Category:Accidental deaths. There would obviously be lots and lots of articles to include, such as Titanic victims, etc.? There are similar cats (for railroad accidents, plane crash victims, space program fatalities, etc.).

Also, I am curious why "ashes consigned to the deep" would not be a "burial at sea?" Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for raising the thought rather than just creating it.
There is already a Category:Deaths by drowning, a subset of Category:Deaths by cause so we absolutely don't need Category:Shipwreck deaths.
Most titanic deaths were not sufficiently notable to be in wikipedia.
Because consigning ashes to the deep, eg Rock Hudson, necessarily follows cremation which is not burial. - Kittybrewster 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reply. But sometimes we bury ashes -- in fact, probably more often than consigning them to the deep (at least here in the USA). ??

Thanks for the notice of the drowning cat. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it. Pastorwayne 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think ashes are frequently buried all over the world. But it would not be a useful category. - Kittybrewster 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation 2

I notice you have created Category:Burials at sea and populated it with Bishop Coke. I think this shows that you are incapable of acting consensually. - Kittybrewster 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your history, I think you should not create ANY fresh categories without first seeking views of others by discussing on THIS talk page. I am not saying some of them would not be nodded through. I have myself begun populatng it using google search <<site:en.wikipedia.org "buried at sea">> but that is your job as category creator. I have other things to do. Maybe you don't understand or don't care how much time is taken up by others merging or undoing your categories. My point is that you should be undertaking not to create fresh categories at all without first asking others. You are not unintelligent so I don't understand your impatience. We are not attacking you personally - we are trying to get you to appreciate the purpose behind new category creation which you seem not to understand. May be you can restrain yourself to include in every article WHY the subject is notable. And no new categories until you have identified 40 existing articles which fit into them. And incidentally you might like to read Wikipedia:Sock puppets#Circumventing policy and Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_make_a_point#Gaming_the_system. RSVP on this page please. - Kittybrewster 05:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I will respectfully not abide your request to only create new categories containing 40 or more articles. There are hundreds and hundreds of cats with just 5 articles (many times even less). Size does not seem the primary reason for a cat's existence. I appreciate your populating the cat in question. Please feel absolutely no obligation, however. No, it is not your job. Yes, I will work at it as time allows. But it is ultimately offered to the community, just as all cats are. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you (again) not to create any more categories - you've created more than enough already for 1 human being. -- roundhouse 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW you are not listening. Please undertake not to create further categories without first proposing them on this page. - Kittybrewster 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have resumed category creation, without prior notice on this page, or anywhere else as far as I know (eg Category:Burials in Maryland and subcats, to go with the slightly earlier Category:Burials at sea etc). I had hoped for a respite of at least a few weeks. -- roundhouse 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

It's been determined by checkuser that you evaded your block by editing articles as User:70.104.101.220. Please read WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks.

Due to this, I'm reinstituting your 24 hour block. If you attempt to evade this block, it will be restarted. - jc37 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, I was as surprised as anyone that I was able to edit this way. I had no intention of "evading" anything. I think the only thing I did was offer some comments about Samuel Heistand for the good of the community (AFD). You keep talking about doing things for the good of the community. That is all I itended. I ignored wikipedia otherwise during the block. I therefore APPEAL such "reinstitution." Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over Special:Contributions/70.104.101.220, I think you were a bit more active than you mention. But all it takes is a single edit. Since you admit that you evaded the block in this way, which confirms checkuser, I don't think an appeal is justified in this case. (And it would seem that you confirm that you are also User:User44130 from your AFD comment.) - jc37 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about User:User44130 I'm guessing someone in my church re-wrote the Wayne William Scott article some time back. Perhaps this is that person? Curious -- 44130 is a zip code in which I once resided. Pastorwayne 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appeal block

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

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

Request reason:

I was told my username was blocked, by which I abided the block. Subsequently, not seeking to in any way evade this block, nevertheless (surprisingly) I was able to add a few edits which I thought purely were for the good of the wikipedia community. I did not violate said block in any other way. Nor was it ever made clear that anything other than my username had been blocked. I understand now that a block is meant to be of more than just a username? Yet, if the IP address was meant to be blocked originally, but wasn't, how is that my fault? I therefore respectfully request this block to be voided. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You did violate the block. Our assumption is that we don't need to go out of our way to prevent any possibility of editing, a simple notification should be sufficient. - Yamla 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Louis Nuelsen

How do you justify the various nationality cats for John Louis Nuelsen? The article says where he was born (Switzerland), where his father was born (Germany) etc, but does not state his nationality. -- roundhouse 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Probably they were thought of more as ethnicity cats. He is believed to have been an American nationality-wise. But he had these ethnicities, too. Feel free to correct any errors. Pastorwayne 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I would guess that John Louis Nuelsen was American (as his father had emigrated from Germany to America, and JLN was born when his father was in Zurich as an American). JLN would probably be entitled to Swiss citizenship, and to German citizenship, and perhaps even Dutch (if he had a Dutch grand-parent) - my objection to all these nationality cats is that we don't generally know anything definite about a person's passport(s) so it is just guesswork. (Some have dual nationality.) -- roundhouse 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not even thought about dual-citizenship possibilities. I will continue to research him, to see if I can tease out an answer. But as you say, without the passport, it is hard to be definitive. Pastorwayne 12:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preachers

Category:Preachers proposed for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Preachers for explanation. --BrownHairedGirl 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates

Hello, PastorWayne. I noticed that you created some new categories for Eastern Catholic Primates. Thanks for the initiative! They should prove useful.

I'm going to suggest a slight changes to the names to bring them in line with convention. Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates should be called Eastern Catholic primates so that it conforms with the agreed-upon name which we voted upon earlier this year. Also, some of the sub-categories should use the term "patriarchs" or "metropolitans".

Once again, thanks. Majoreditor 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review.

We have been here before, less than 3 months ago (see User talk:Pastorwayne#Recreating_deleted_categories_.28Category:Indian_pastors.29), but this time you have recreated a category which was deleted only 24 hours earlier. Please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primates categories

Hi PW

As you will see, I have nominated for deletion a group of primates categories which you had created: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Eastern Rite Catholic primates and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but many of them are ridiculously-named. As but one example, how you named Category:Primates of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchial Catholicosate of Cilicia for the Patriarch of Cilicia is beyond me, but it is a nearly incomprehensible category name, and there are any more like that :(

After completing those nominations, I looked further at the primate categories, starting at Category:Eastern Orthodox primates, where I found a whole load more these tautologically-named categories (such as Category:Primates of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia, most of which are underpopulated. I have not been though the whole of the Primates category tree, but nearly every category I have checked so far is linked only to the primates category hierarchy, and not the categorisation system for the churches involved.

The result is a mess which will require a lot of work by other editors to fix, and it is something which does need to be fixed, or else the categories won't be found by editors working within the church hierarchies. This is also not a new problem with your categories; see, for example, the discussion above about Category:Christian pastors and sub-categories.

Earlier this year, after a previous bout of creating problematic categories, several editors asked you desist from creating categories. I'm sorry to see that we seem to be back where we started, with the same problems recurring.

May I ask you again to stop creating any new categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I will merely comment that the "primate" category scheme was one of those that you were asked about previously, during the time period when you were blocked. I suggest that, since it's becoming clear that this scheme is about to come under scrutiny, that you prepare a thorough and WP:CIVIL response/explanation for the entire schema. - jc37 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing categorisation problems

Hi PW, I am writing about two things: one small one, and a bigger one which is related to the first.

The small one is this edit which I have just reverted. Why did you remove Category:Church of Ireland clergy from Category:Anglican priests?

The bigger one relates to the aftermath of the numerous CfDs on the primates categories which you created. As far as I can see, every single one of those categories resulted in the relevant categories being renamed, merged or deleted, and you opposed every such category change apart from the CfD to rename the Category:Primates (bishops) to Category:Primates (religion). I have not yet counted all the categories involved or the number of CfDs, but at a quick guess there must have been more than half-a dozen CfDs covering thirty or more categories.

What troubles me is that this all seems to be a part of the same pattern which was discussed at the end of last year, and which was subsequently taken to WP:ANI. No action was taken then because you appeared to have stopped creating categories, but that restraint has not continued. Instead, the problems with the primates categories seem very similar to the problems identified with the categories you created for Methodist bishops, for missionaries, and for Christian pastors, including

Excessive sub-categorisation, creating far too many small categories
Duplicate categories (many of the primate categories could only ever contain one thing, a category for an Archbishop or Patriarch)

... and this time you also created some bizarrely named categories, such as Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East, which was renamed in this CfD to the much simpler Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch. A Google search shows that the long term is used only by you ... and that's not the worst example; among many others Category:Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem was renamed to Category:Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch.

Now, looking at your recent edits in category space, to which Roundouse was kind enough to draw my attention I find a whole load more problems, including:

the familiar one of categories being inadequately parented, so that they will get missed by readers ad by editors (e.g. Category:Papua New Guineans by religion was not in Category:People by nationality and religion and Category:Primates of Continuing Anglicanism was not in Category:Continuing Anglicanism; Category:South_East_Asian_Anglicans is not in any Anglican category)
more superfluous categories, including Category:Church of Ireland archbishops. Not only is it not in any bishop or archbishop categories, it is entirely superfluous to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland
and of course, all this done with no edit summaries other automatically-generated ones, which makes it harder for other editors to follow what you are doing.

Please, please please, PW ... surely it is clear to you by now that the approach which you take to creating categories isn't working? Please will you agree to stop creating categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, I think that it's great pity that you didn't even take the time to acknowledge my comments above, and that you have continued creating new categories but have not participated in the recent CfD discussions on categories you created earlier. This seems like a fairly clear indication that you are not interested in seeking consensus on categories, so I will now take the matter further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on a few CfD's. Obviously several of you do not appreciate the names I gave the various Primate cats. That's fine, I suppose. What can I do about it anyway, since the same three or so people keep voting against them (and winning these votes -- which I find an unhelpful procedure anyway, since it tends to ignore fact in favor of protocol), eventhough I named them with great precision related to what they call themselves (which obviously is not appreciated either). I am appreciative of the process of perfecting these cats, even if by deletion. That is how consensus is being reached. I still think a complementary tree of Primates (alongside those for Bishops or Patriarchs, etc.) is and will be helpful. What else can I say. Pastorwayne 13:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example. I hope you (PW) will agree that the Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa is the same person as the Archbishop of Cape Town. It follows that there should be one article on this office-holder; if there were 2, one would be merged into the other and become a redirect. (Archbishop of Cape Town is the familiar phrase - Desmond Tutu, Archbishop of Cape Town, ...) A list of Primates of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa would be same list as a list of Archbishops of Cape Town; no-one would argue that there should be 2 separate lists. Equally, Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa is the same category as Category:Archbishops of Cape Town - any article placed in one should be in the other, each is a subcat of the other, they are the same category. There is one category with 2 (or more) possible names.

Another example. I look at Category:Archbishops of York and I see a mess - it is a subcat of Category:Anglo-Saxon bishops so Wikipedia is stating that John Sentamu is Anglo-Saxon. PW sees the opportunity for a Category:British bishops super-category, thus making the claim that Sentamu and various Anglo-Saxons are British. (I have no idea whether Sentamu is British - I have no access to his passport. I am sure he is not Anglo-Saxon.) The structure needs a careful sorting out, not additional layers of confusion. -- roundhouse 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, by now you should know perfectly well that creating hundreds of categories and relying on others to tidy them is disruptive editing. Countless editors have explained that to you, and you seem to be oblivious to the huge amount of work involved for others in sorting out these categories once created: it is much much more efficient to work collabratively by discussing them in advance, as has been requested dozens of times.

You also claim that you "named them with great precision related to what they call themselves", but you have offered no evidence to counter any of the changes, not even the sample one I pulled out above:

Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East, which was renamed in this CfD to the much simpler Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch. A Google search shows that the long term is used only by you

Your clear intention to continue this disruptive editing means that it is now time to block you. I know that Jc37 has posted below giving you 24 hours to reply, but I'm not waiting: see the block notice below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's time

I think we're finally past the point of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been pretty much the last bastion of hope in regards to your building of category trees.

Simply:

You create innumerable categories, and when other ask you IN GOOD FAITH, to explain or clarify, you ignore them and choose to not respond unless "forced to" (such as in a CfD discussion, or as a result of being blocked). - jc37 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply have understood that clarity is self-evident in these cats. Obviously there is a "procedure" to dispatch these cats when just a few people don't like them. When you check the websites of these groups, and even sometimes the wikipedia articles about them, it is clear (in most cases) that:

1. "Primate" is a commonly used term

2. That THEY prefer the title "Patriarchate" (for example) or whatever else I have called it in the cat.

When each is brought up in CfD, then if it seems appropriate I have added my comments/vote. But the CfD system is severely flawed. It allows two or three people to "gang-up" on someone simply because they do not agree. There should be a better system of arriving at "perfection" at wikipedia. - Pastorwayne 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the past, others have been at times less than civil with you in regards to this, but I honestly have seen that they have worked hard at curbing such responses, and have attempted constructive dialogue with you on innumerable occasions. In other words, they've curbed their actions, and you have NOT curbed yours.

I think I've finally figured out what's going on as far as your category trees. It's simply POV-pushing. You want "your" preferred title (primate) to co-exist with "other" such titles, even if the title is a synonym, or isn't in use for such a personage (in violation of current naming conventions, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). In addition, it's clear that while you understand that categories are a group, you want these titles to "show" on article pages, as a way of advertising your preferred title (also known as spamming). We had thought that maybe it was that you were confused about tagging, but no, I now think you're more than aware of what you're doing.

Proof?

Your initial response to my query (higher up on this talk page) was that: "In many cases, I have created sister-category trees to some which already existed (for example, I create many related for Protestant, esp. Methodist, Bishops to match what has already been created for Catholic Bishops)."
Your response (finally) to User:BrownHairedGirl, above: "I still think a complementary tree of Primates (alongside those for Bishops or Patriarchs, etc.) is and will be helpful." - jc37 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again, Primates are an important distinction in Christian bodies. As important (if not more so) than bishops or archbishops. It is not simply because "I want it this way." I am striving to make wikipedia (in these respects) as accurate as possible. Personally I could care less about my own desires. Primates ARE important. Few seem to see this. Because the CfD system is so flawed, there is nothing I can do about it. And one gets tired of "defending" the self-evident accuracy and usefullness of these cats. Moreover I HAVE backed off cat creation, especially while the Primate tree is being scrutinized. I want them to be sifted to arrive at whatever will be best (even though the system for doing so seems flawed). - Pastorwayne 1 June 2007 (UTC)

moreover, I went very, very slowly initially creating the Primate cats, knowing that I would be "watched," and if these cats were "inappropriate" I would be told so. When no one said to stop, I continued because I believed (and still do) these were very good cats to create! But I DID take into account the opinions of others. Indeed, the initial responses to these cats were positive! Pastorwayne 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course the literally hundreds of categories created.

So here's what I am asking:

You have 24 hours (following your very next edit after I post this) to comment here, or else I will block you for at least 24 hours for intentional disruption (the innumerable CfD nominationss regarding your category creations, with little to no responses or explanations to good faith requests), and following that, I will personally nominate the entire primates category tree for CfD discussion based on the reasons above, since apparently, as you've made clear to User:BrownHairedGirl directly above, you at least respond at CfD. - jc37 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did NOT see this until just now (8:15 a.m. EST), yet I am still blocked??????? - Pastorwayne 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is NOT CfD the place for such? It is the "discussion" format, as you yourself pointed out to me once. - Pastorwayne 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I await your choice. - jc37 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Being currently blocked should not preclude you posting to your talk page, and so should not prevent you from responding to my query listed above. - jc37 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments above. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for responding (though apparently you feel that you've been "forced to").

To address a few of your comments above:

"But the CfD system is severely flawed. It allows two or three people to "gang-up" on someone simply because they do not agree. There should be a better system of arriving at "perfection" at wikipedia." - Your concern is not isolated to just CfD discussions. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more information about how discussions are resolved.

"And one gets tired of "defending" the self-evident accuracy and usefullness of these cats." - Apparently not "self-evident", if you are constantly asked to explain. One solution is to write an essay on a sub-page of your userpage explaining why you feel this way, and then you can link to that essay whenever someone asks you to explain. It's also a great place to list your references, for those who wish to follow-up on your claims.

"Primates are an important distinction in Christian bodies. As important (if not more so) than bishops or archbishops." - This statement is subjective in many ways. Please provide references showing this to be true. and not in just a few isolated examples, but showing support of your Primate category tree schema, which includes many individuals who do not even call themselves this, but you have placed them in such categories due to primate being, in your estimation, a synonym of some title that they do call themselves.

"Moreover I HAVE backed off cat creation, especially while the Primate tree is being scrutinized." - While you may believe that, it doesn't appear to be true. See: User:Roundhouse0/test6.

"When no one said to stop, I continued because I believed (and still do) these were very good cats to create!" - No one said stop? I'm sorry, but that's plainly false, even by merely reading this talk page.

"Is NOT CfD the place for such? It is the "discussion" format, as you yourself pointed out to me once." - Actually, I suggested several WikiProjects and WT:CAT (Wikipedia talk:Categorization) to you, above. And any talk page may be considered a discussion page as well. Only discussing when someone posts to CfD forces other editors into a situation to where it's more difficult to assume good faith of your edits.

See User talk:Pastorwayne#Indefinitely banned from category creation below for more information. - jc37 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

PW, the problems are much wider than the individual CfDs. The point being made by Jc37, by me, and by other editors is that your rampant category creation has for a long time amounted to a pattern of disruptive editing, and that pattern is what you have been asked to discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I don't see how discussing a "pattern" will be beneficial to anyone. You disagree with my cats (or with my "pattern") and you tell me so every chance you get. What more would happen in a "discussion" of this? Is this a negotiation? I don't think so. You make your feelings known. Where appropriate and beneficial to wikipedia, I offer comments and provide answers. You disagree with those answers. And YOU have all the "power." So what more is there to "discuss?" I am happy to discuss anything with anyone, within the constraints of the time I can devote to such. Tell me how this will benefit anyone. Pastorwayne 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, "where appropriate and beneficial to wikipedia" is here and now, before you create any more categories. Yes, it is a negotiation, up to a point: the issue is whether you can persuade admins that that you can create categories in a way which does not amount to disruptive editing. Whatever you write here will be reviewed by others, and may help us all avoid going to a formal WP:RFC/U process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, who am I to persuade? You? I doubt I will ever be able to persuade you of anything. You don't want me to persuade. You want me to buckle-under! I state truth/fact in articles and cats I write/edit. But it doesn't seem to matter. You (and some others) want things only one way. Where is the negotiation? Where is the discussion? Where is the acknowledgement of fact? Pastorwayne 12:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, the problem is that at CfD, there seem to be no-one else who agrees with your idea of what is a fact.
So let's discuss just one point of "truth/fact": Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East, which was renamed in this CfD to the much simpler Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch. A Google search shows that the long term is used only by you

Do you have any sources to demonstrate that the long title is anything other than your own invention?

Do you have any sources for any use by anyone other than you of the term "primates of the patriarchate" or "primates of the xxxxish patriarchate"?

This is the third time I have asked you about this since the CfD closed. If you "state truth/fact in articles and cats I write/edit", where are your sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see that the name of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is "Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa" (in the box) -- as just one more example. It is clear that in that box the title Primate is also used. Plus, the prefered way of refering to these churches is "The Patriarchate of...", rather than simply the X Orthodox/Catholic Church. You will find similar examples throughout wikipedia, and at the official websites of other such Patriarchates. Many, many other churches use the term Primate as WELL as the term Patriarch. Thus, it is appropriate and helpful to have trees related to both. Pastorwayne 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to this specific example, in the box at Maronite Church the Church is called the "Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East," and the term Primate is used. The diff. between "the Whole East" and "All the East" maybe between this and the official Maronite website. This is so simple to discover, I am very surprised you did not do so on your own. Pastorwayne 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, could you perhaps reply chronologically rather than inserting replies in random places? It makes the conversation impossible to follow. This diff shows who is responsible for the cumbersome title (unknown to google) in the info box of Maronite Church. -- roundhouse 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved the above two comments (17:33 and 17:39) to chronological placement.) - jc37 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to several points above) - At this point, whether you feel it's beneficial or not, we're all asking you to explain. Please do. If you choose to not explain, then others may be forced to take action without the benefit of your explanations (which includes things such as reverting edits, deleting articles/categories/etc, and even blocking you). I hope you see that it's in your best interest to join in the discussion, rather than unilaterally making subjective choices, which have in the past been seen by others to be counter-productive and even disruptive.

Second, whether something is "simple to discover" is also subjective. It may be true, but it's nice when an editor is helpful and actually posts the reference links which support the editor's claims. And in any discussion, you shouldn't presume that others in the discussion will rewalk the research path as you have. They may have neither the time, nor inclination to do so.

Third, I think you should take some time yourself and read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The very first section answers nearly all your "rhetorical questions" to User:BrownHairedGirl:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

This is what you're being asked to do. And removal is what's likely going to happen if you don't. - jc37 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the above was written, I had started writing a long reply, which I will post here.

PW, I don't think that you understand the problem. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, where it says that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So if you create the categories, it's up to you to demonstrate that there are sources which show the terminology to be appropriate ... and what I am asking for is for those sources. So far, all you have offered are wikipedia articles, which are not the external sources we need... but let's work with those wikipedia articles for now.

First, I think it's a pity that you will not discuss "Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East"; you used that to name a category, so you should be able to explain it.

You point me to Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, which mentions the title "Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa". This is where it gets interesting. First, note that the article uses the shorter title "Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria", not the longer form you prefer. This is all correct as per the the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): we do not use the longest possible formal title.

Now, if we were going to us the most formal sounding title for the patriarch's office, we would use "Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa"; the office is the patriarchate and the office holder is the patriarch, just as "The Presidency of the United States" is the post held by the President. We don't call George Bush and Bill Clinton "Presidents of the Presidency of the United States", because the word "presidency" is redundant; we just call them "Presidents of the United States". So in this case, we would call these people the "Coptic Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria and of All Africa".

But that's only if we want to use the most complex possible name. A bit of burrowing leads to the title Patriarch of Alexandria, which lists the five different denominational uses of that title. The Coptic Orthodox one is at Patriarch of Alexandria#Coptic_Orthodox_Church: his full, formal title is 139 words long, which is no use as a category name. But the list is at List of Coptic Popes of Alexandria. Why not use that simple title rather than your huge category name Category:Primates of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa?

The CFD discussion proposes renaming it to Category:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, which is shorter, clearer, and is better English than the redundant phrasing "Primates of the Patriarchate etc". It's a great pity that you have not even commented in the CFD discussion.

This sort of thing has been going on for ages. In the CFD discussions where you have participated, you have never before even give the inadequate explanations you gave above. We only got this little explanation 4 weeks after I first asked you stop creating categories (see User_talk:Pastorwayne#Primates_categories above), 6 days after asked again for some specific explanations (see #Ongoing categorisation problems, above) ... and in those 6 days you had created 30 new categories.

You only replied to any of this discussion once you were facing an immediate threat of a sanction, and we only got any vaguely substantive reply once you were actually blocked. This is no good: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it should not require blocks or threatened blocks to have a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

-

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruptive editing, as discussed above at User talk:Pastorwayne#Ongoing_categorisation_problems and in countless previous discussions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

the 24 hours granted had not expired, nor had time been alloted for explanation. Moreover, the person doing the blocking was not an objective party, but in fact one of the persons who most dislikes my work (BrownHairedGirl). Shouldn't a block be made by a disinterested, objective third party?

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which appears to be valid. - Yamla 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

- *I do believe I am a disinterested and objective third party here, and it would seem to me that the block was in order. >Radiant< 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely banned from category creation

I asked you previously (January 3) to not create any more categories until you better understood the category system, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding them. At that time, you agreed, and stated that you would restrict your category creation activities. You then began those activities again around January 16, by which I presumed that you felt that you understood the guidelines and policies well enough to continue category creation. However, the concerns continued, leading to your block of February 21. Since then you have had many complaints, and CfD discussions regarding the Primate category schema alone, again bringing the question of whether you understand the policies and guidelines regarding categories. And finally the discussion above. Well, it's very clear by your comments in the discussions above that you still do not understand them.

Therefore:

You are indefinitely banned from creating categories until you clearly show that you more fully understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Consensus (As I asked you previously on February 21). If and when you do, then you'll need to discuss your understanding of Wikipedia:Categorisation, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Wikipedia:Biography of living persons, and other category-related or people-related policies and guidelines.

To make it very plain, your very obvious lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are causing you to be a consistantly disruptive editor.

As such, if you create any further categories you are to be immediately blocked by any admin for 72 hours, which will escalate in at least 24 hour increments for further violations of this prohibition. Note: You are already to 48 hours, which is why the next block will be at least for 72 hours. Be aware, though, that "at least" could quite possibly become an indefinite block for intentional disruption. See: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Duration of blocks for more information.

I am very sorry that this has come to this, but this has been consistantly asked of you by many editors, including by me several times as an "outside opinion" since January 1 of this year, which you agreed to on January 4, and by User:Taxman as another outside opinion on February 23, and you just simply have not done so.

I welcome any comments from others concerning this action. - jc37 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late at night for me to add much for now, but the first thing I want to say is that this all seems very sad, and it ought to be unnecessary. But after months of asking and asking for restraint and discussion, and not getting any substantive reply until today's completely inadequate responses, I don't think that there is any choice but to impose a ban.

However, I don't think that that it is sufficient to ban PW from creating new categories: the problems extend to the other edits he makes in category space. Here are a few examples:

this edit on 23 May. 6 days ago I asked PW to explain why he removed Category:Church of Ireland clergy from Category:Anglican priests. No reply :(
This edit (pointed out to me by roundhouse), which redefined the category to include bishops who didn't serve in the UK.

There are many more such problems, and PW has a long history of adding inappropriate parent categories to articles and to categories (as well as of omitting the correct ons). I am concerned that unless the ban extends to all edits in category space, then PW may direct his attentions to other changes to the category system, some of which may be harder to detect than the creation of inappropriate new categories. If PW finds a problem with an existing category, then he can leave a note on the category's talk page, and ask other editors to consider implementing the change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, a single user (except for Jimbo Wales) isn't autherized to ban a user from such edits. However, if Pastorwayne created categories in some way against the rules of Wikipedia, after such warnings and blocks, he can be blocked each time for longer periods. Od Mishehu 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response : )

To clarify, this isn't just a "single user" doing this, per se. I'm merely finally acting in response to what many others have been asking now for over 5 months. It's been slow going simply because I've strongly felt we should assume good faith and give every opportunity to allow the user to learn so that he may become an even more knowledgable/competent editor, and not be one who is (as he is now) currently disruptive. For the "reasons", just re-read the whole "It's time" section above. Also, this is considered a "partial ban", and should not be considered to be banning the editor completely from editing Wikipedia. - jc37 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of one of PW's recent category creations which suffers from most of the flaws discussed repeatedly with him - Category:Czechoslovak Hussite Church bishops (created and edited only by PW). The name is ambiguous at best, there is no linked article, the parent categories are incomprehensible (to me) and digging down there are only 2 articles anyway. I would myself suggest a ban on all edits in category space (easy to monitor) as an editor lacking in competence can easily make a mess of category structure by incorrect inclusions (and few of us have individual categories on our watch list). -- roundhouse 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider too his creation of Category:Czech Protestants. This in another example of PW's tendency to create intersection categories without properly parenting them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

.

PW, despite the fact that you have been repeatedly asked not to edit categories, you were back today editing categories. This edit to Category:Anglican archbishops in Ireland added it to Category:Irish Anglicans, whereas the more appropriate parent category would be Category:Anglican bishops in Ireland; the archbishops are not necessarily Irish, and archbishops are a subcategory of bishops (see Category:Bishops, where you will find Category:Archbishops under Category:Bishops by type).

as I understand it, I was told not to CREATE any cats. Pastorwayne 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second problematic recategorisation of an Irish clerical category in the last few days. Ordinarily, this would not justify a block, but since you have not offered an explanation of this edit which removed Category:Church of Ireland clergy from Category:Anglican priests, it is clearly a continuation of the disruptive editing for which you have previously been warned and which you refuse to discuss, contrary to WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS.

Because the disruption caused by this edit was relatively minor, I have blocked you for only 24 hours. Further blocks for similar disruption may be for longer periods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must never make mistakes, huh? This was surely just a mistake. Just trying to be helpful! Sorry. Perfection just doesn't seem to meet me the way it does seem to meet others. Pastorwayne 11:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, PW. But this is the first tine you have acknowledged that you have ever made a mistake: you told us above that you "state truth/fact in articles and cats I write/edit". All you had say when asked before was "oops, that was a mistake", but you just didn't answer :( Anyway, per the discussion above at WP:AN, you should now refrain from any edits to category pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Guys DONE?

Some of you must have no lives at all, to be able to devote so MUCH time to little old me. I make mistakes. I am not perfect. But that makes not difference to some. You say you want to have dialogue and collaboration. But you are sooooo verbose, I cannot keep up with you. All you do is criticize, attack and spew hate. You are the ONLY ones who know anything. I cannot answer all of your attacks. For when I try, then you just come back with several more paragraphs saying why I am wrong, no good, shouldn't even be here. I wonder how many others you have scared away from Wikipedia, that if they were still here and possibly LISTENED to once in a while, might be making Wikipedia BETTER? Pastorwayne 11:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, please read WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS. Discussing edits, and trying to reach consensus are fundamental to how wikipedia works. Time taken to discuss things is how differences are resolved here, and that's not an optional process: it's a fundamental part of editing wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to (for the moment) ignore the rest and ask directly: Pastorwayne, do you feel that I have not been listening to you? - jc37 10:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that when questions have been asked, when requests for explanations have been made, when it wasn't self-evident (and as I had time) I have TRIED to give answers and offer explanations. I have tried to be collaborative. The fact that so many of my cats have been involved in CfD's I have viewed as simply part of this collaboration (though I still see the CfD system flawed, whereas just a few people can overwhelm any defense of a cat). But when my answers have been given, it seems I have been similarly overwhelmed (by those asking) with criticism and attack, rather than collaboration. It has seemed as though the answers requested have ended up not even being what the questioner really wanted. They just wanted me to submit, to grovel, to accept that I can do nothing right. They don't care that (for example) a church prefers a certain way of refering to itself (even if other articles in wikipedia refer to that church differently). I haven't tried simply to come up with wierd ways of phrasing things for my own amusement. And the fact that I went slowly with cat creation, and waited for criticism or comments, and accepted those initial ones as collaboration, should argue for my willingness to be in collaboration. I still don't see (for example) that the Primate tree is worthless. Indeed, no one has proposed doing away with all of it, just making some changes (which, again, is the collaborative process). It seems to me that two or four editors (administrators?) think they know everything, and that they are the only ones who can make certain decisions. These also tend to be "minimalists," rejecting any expansion of cat understanding. This seems very UNcollaborative. And I simply wonder how many others, who believe they have something to share that will improve and strengthen wikipedia, have been similarly turned-OFF by such behavior by these same editors. I guess I am simply not welcome or wanted here, either. Pastorwayne 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider the average reader - nothing about these complicated churches is self-evident. I have often praised your creation of articles and asked for more (eg more on the UM church in Africa) - you have a talent for writing articles. I have often asked you not to create categories, as you don't understand them and you continue to make fundamental logical errors (as well as careless ones, which everyone makes), particularly in making category inclusions (and not noticing other related pre-existing categories). I'm afraid I give you at most 1 out of 10 for ability category-wise, and 7 or 8 out of 10 article-wise (add edit summaries, put the important bits in the first paragraph and you could be summa cum laude). So I would hope you might now turn your hand away from the detrimental activity of category edits towards the beneficial task of creating articles. -- roundhouse 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree with Roundhouse. PW, I'm sorry, but Roundhouse is right too say that you have a very poor understanding of categories, and if you look back you'll see that the criticism which has come your way has overwhelmingly been about categories (and it's not just one or two categs: dozens of them have been deleted or renamed at CfD in the last few weeks alone). Sometimes, I'm afraid, some things which may look right gets no support elsewhere, and that's where WP:CONSENSUS kicks in. The problem with your categories is that you rarely manage a persuasive explanation of why they should remain as they are, which is why other editors don't support their retention.

On the other hand, you have done great work creating articles on people who most of us have would overlooked, and you clearly have access to some excellent sources on some very interesting people in the history of religion. Why not focus on your strengths by writing more of those article? (and try using edit summaries too!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

I hope you see from the two comments above that you are indeed "wanted here", even by two who have admittedly been watchdogging your edits out of concern.

Yes, I sympathise that it can be frustrating to see your efforts so examined, and even reverted.

From what I can tell from these talk page discussions we've been having, and other examinations of your and others' contributions there are two key issues here:

1.) Communication:

So much of what's been going on has been as a result of what has or hasn't been communicated, and how it's been communicated.

You have to understand that a main part of acting as part of Wikipedia means that you should be prepared to explain any and every single edit you make. That's simply how it is. (We'll get back to "how to effectively explain".)

And it would appear that, at least on your talk page, others need to "slow down", to give you ample time to cogitate/understand what's being asked, and then reply.

But to be fair, if, rather than spending the time attempting to understand and then reply, you decide to make more edits, rather than explaining/discussing, that can be seen as a non-willingness to discuss.

None of the edits that we're talking about have an urgency that they have to be done now.

If they have to wait a week or more while being discussed, so be it.

And since "you creating/editing categories" has become contentious, discussion first would seem to be the least disruptive way to progress forward.

2.) Knowledge/Understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

While I truly believe that you've at least at times tried to be collaborative, it's rather apparent by your responses above that you just aren't understanding current policies and guidelines.

You want the feeling of oppression to stop? The sense of drama, and the feeling that everything you do is being scrutimised and attacked?

Then please take the time to read and understand the policies and guidelines that are directly related to your edits.

Look at it this way:

There are two doors which everyone in a building must pass through. One is marked In and one is marked Out. The signs on the doors are there so that movement in or out of the building is safe, easy, and so on.

Now imagine that someone keeps trying to go "in" the Out door. They're going to have many people upset, they're going to be lectured, and they're going to feel as if the world is against them.

That's what's happening to you.

On Wikipedia, nothing added may be retained which doesn't "go through" the policy:Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's a cornerstone to Wikipedia policy.

We don't add what we think is true or right or fair. We add what we can prove is true or right or fair, or is at least talked about by reliable sources.

That is one of the main complaints about your category creation. For example, evidence for one or two people who claim the name "primate" (for example), doesn't mean that all those you call primate are also called that. We need evidence for every single example. And if that evidence is not self-evident, then the groups of primates can't even be categories, they should be lists instead, per the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guideline.

The second concern is that you don't understand what Wikipedia:Consensus is, and how such a discussion works and is resolved.

Consensus is not equal to a "vote". You see, in theory, a single person can "out-vote" several other Wikipedians. But to do so requires rational discussion, and evidence from reliable sources is typically a strong factor.

I know I've asked this before, but I really want to emphasise that it would be most helpful if you read and understood Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Consensus.

There are other guidelines that would be helpful as well, but if you don't understand those, I will presume that the rest won't make any further sense to you.

I would be happy to discuss any thoughts or questions you have about these policies, or anything else related to this, for that matter.

I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make this as clear and direct as possible.

You complained:

"You say you want to have dialogue and collaboration. But you are sooooo verbose, I cannot keep up with you."

I wrote a lenthy answer above, and am waiting patiently for your response. Instead of responding, you chose to edit more categories.

Should I take this to mean that you are choosing to not respond?

Be aware: If you choose to not answer the question, I will take your next contributions as answer, and act accordingly. (For example, if you choose to edit in category space, despite previous concerns and warnings, consensus would appear to be: a lengthy block.) - jc37 09:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to respond to? You said you would be happy to discuss any of it. I am not sure what needs discussed. You have "laid down the law." Whether I agree or not seems irrelevant. I don't find a question that requests answering -- you asked some rhetorical questions, but that seems all. What am I missing? Pastorwayne 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently to not edit categories, which you did. To not create categories, which you did.

But to be fair, let me simply ask: Do you understand the post above, and do you have any questions about it? - jc37 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are editing that article, you performed this edit. That added the article to a category, and is a category-space edit.

Was it likely an appropriate categorisation? Probably. Should you have still noted it that page's talk page first, based on the above? Yes.

There were already concerns that you're just attempting to "Game the system". And considering all the discussion here which you made clear above that you've read, adding such an edit was an intentional attempt to game the system.

So based on your June 7 edits in category space, and the edit I noted above. I'm blocking you for a week. I think we've all gone out of our way the last several months to try to give you every opportunity to learn the policies and guidelines. You've intentionally ignored those efforts. 5 months of showing you 5 or so pages, and merely asking you to read them, and then to follow-up with a discussion about them, has been enough. I simply don't believe that asking you to read a few pages was such a horrible thing. So your block is for a week, and I'll be requesting that the community decide whether it should become an indefinite block. As an option, you may try for Mediation, as I believe that would be the next step for dispute resolution, as, I presume, you feel you are in dispute with other editors over your category editing. You have the option of refusing mediation (which I don't suggest), in which case, as a last resort, you or someone else may start a Request for arbitration. I sincerely have tried incessantly to provide ways in which you could avoid this, ways in which you could learn, and not continually run into the problems such as you have. For over five months I have tried. However, I suppose one cannot help a person if they do not wish to be helped. - jc37 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly what I mean. I went back to doing what several of you have said I am better at -- working on articles, especially Methodist Bishops. But STILL you are upset with me! Why TELL me to do that, then YELL at me again. You really would rather not have anyone else working on wikipedia than YOURSELVES! That is the message being communicated!! Yes, as part of that work I placed the article in one cat. One measly cat. It makes perfect sense to put him there. "Gaming the system?" I am absolutely NOT doing so! I am doing what I have been encouraged to do -- that is NOT gaming! But you people are impossible to satisfy!! Pastorwayne 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on all this is that PW knows he is right and does not understand how the community can hobble him from imparting his knowledge. He thinks it is very few individuals who are individually getting at him personally which does not make them right. What he does not understand is that this is not so much a question of right vs wrong (as I said, he knows he is right) but of WikiUsefulness of categories. What he has been doing is disruptive because it is excessive sub-categorising and sometimes failure to understand the consequences of the sub-trees that he has created (the best example is the anglo-saxon Archbishop Sentamu). He doesn't understand that a category with only two fellows in it is not helpful because he believes more will be added. this comment is intended to help PW move forward with discussion. But please don't shout (with capitals). I think I know how you are feeling. Jc37 spelled out that this is a choice between gaming or discussing - and you chose to game (in his view). Both Jc37 and BHG have given examples of discussions they would have liked. You now have the same choice - discuss or do things differently. And they are also saying they would far prefer you to stay and discuss rather than walk way. There is another admin who has implied that if you will agree not to add categories then he will unblock you. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that whilst John Sentamu (who might well be correctly categorised in his article) is indeed placed at the moment via Category:Archbishops of York in Category:Anglo-Saxon bishops via a misplaced category inclusion, it was not PW who made that particular blunder. -- roundhouse 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Additional category creation ban discussion at WP:AN.) - jc37 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for tendentious editing. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. jc37 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User agreed to self-imposed break and discussion before category edits. Blocking admin supported unblock conditions. Request handled by: Vassyana 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the block was in relation to your recent category edits on the 7th. Would you agree to take a self-imposed break from category editing (say for two weeks) and further agree to discuss and achieve consensus before making category edits after the break? You're a great contributor, but aspects of your editing (particularly in relation to categories) are extremely contentious. I'd like to see us find a way to make this work for everyone, including you. Vassyana 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I wholly support this.) - jc37 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a self-imposed break from category editing (for at least two weeks). I will try to discuss and achieve consensus before creating new categories after this break. I appologize for using the caps in my posts above, too. I do want to be in colaboration for the continued improvement of wikipedia. I did indeed initially go very very slowly creating the Primate cats, in expectation that there might be some discussion as that went along. When none occurred (except for posts of approval), I figured that was tacit approval by others, too. I now appreciate it just took a little longer, or that while not a problem for many, for a few they vehemently disagreed with the usefulness of the Primate cats. I am not trying to prove I am "right." Truly. I utilized the articles (especially the boxes on those articles) and the patriarchal websites when creating those Primate cat names. That is where those odd sounding names came from. I really don't care if I am "right." I simply want wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. Thank you for the second chance! Pastorwayne 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments from me atm, except to say that I do wish you well, and hope for the future. - jc37 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

PW, great to hear that you will be taking a break from category editing, but your explanations above leave me concerned that you still don't understand (or don't accept) any of the reasons why your editing has been so problematic. We have been here before: in January, admin action was delayed only because you agreed then to hold off creating categories, but since then you have created dozens of categories which have had to be renamed or deleted.
This isn't your "second chance"; depending on how we count things, it is your fourth or fifth (or more), and none of your responses here or to the CfDs persuade me that you actually understand why your category editing and creation has been such a huge disaster. Please do not assume that one lifted block amounts to some sort of general reprieve: it is simply another chance for you try to show that despite all your repeated objections to discussing your edits, that you can after all this time work collaboratively. I seriously doubt that you really will do this, but also sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong.
As a quick sign of good faith, though, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please can you start using edit summaries, as requested dozens of times? They are a very important aspect of collaborative working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I know you think I am an idiot where cats are concerned (maybe more generally than that even). But I find it interesting when you say "have had to be renamed or deleted." Nothing about them "have/had" to have been. That is way too absolute. You and others decided they should be. But wikipedia would not have been "harmed" if they had not be reversed. Indeed, with as few people as probably relate to the material being categorized, it probably would have only been you who thought it a problem. Don't misunderstand me: I am ok with them being renamed or deleted. I see that as part of the collaborative process. And yes, I should seek more consensus at the beginning, too (in this case, not creating them at all). But your statement just seems too extreme. If wikipedia is about collaboration and consensus, then let us not think in terms of "have had to be." Lets be honest: some (even the majority of those voting) believed it "better" that they be deleted or renamed. That is all. Nothing "absolute" about it. Pastorwayne 12:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not very promising - "have had to be renamed or deleted" is correct. If you still don't see this after so much instruction and example via cfds and elsewhere then there is little hope. -- roundhouse0 18:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

Like Roundhouse0, I despair. After all these months of discussions and CfD, you do not understand why it is harmful to wikipedia to create two categories whose purpose is to include holders of the same post, two categories with identical contents, whose effect is solely to create category clutter and impede navigation. You also do not understand why it is inappropriate and harmful to create a category which a hugely long made-up name, when the post in question is better known by a much shorter name.

“

Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. — Larry Sanger on Wikipedia:Etiquette

”

At this point, I have to conclude that you don't understand what WP:CONSENSUS is all about, and that your idea of collaboration remains to continue to push your disruptive editing in the face of a long-established consensus; I can no longer sustain the hope that a break of two weeks from category editing will help you to improve, or that two months would make things any better. In view of the long history of disruptive editing discussed at length above, your repeated failure to answer questions about your edits have therefore imposed an indefinite block on you. You may of course ask to have it overturned; if it is overturned, I will seek a community ban on you. It is simply far too time-consuming for admins to engage in endless attempts to persuade you to accept some basic aspects of collaboration and consensus, when the discussions go around in circles and every previous attempt at persuasion has ended the same way: with promises from you of restraint which are set aside as soon as the pressure is lifted. Enough is enough: you are behaving like a wiki-anarchist and meet all three criteria set out in the definition of disruptive editing and editors. It's now time to show you the door and stop this huge waste of so many people's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for because of your persistent disruptive editing as discussed for months on this talk pe, and continued rejection of consensus on appropriate creation of categories..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following Vassyana's example above, I am tling your request pending further clarification.

I (and others, it seems) have a concern about the following:

"Would you agree to take a self-imposed break from category editing (say for two weeks) and further agree to discuss and achieve consensus before making category edits after the break?" - User:Vassyana
"I will take a self-imposed break from category editing (for at least two weeks). I will try to discuss and achieve consensus before creating new categories after this break." - User:Pastorwayne

"try to discuss" and "creating new categories" - This is not what was asked of you. If you will clarify that you will do as requested, I may unblock you under those terms. But I will only unblock if this is clarified. - jc37 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I am not to create new cats without discussion/consensus, after the two week break (nor, obviously, during it). I must ask Vassyana if "cat editing" includes simply adding articles to appropriate pre-existing cats. For example, as I write articles for U.M. Bishops does this mean I should not add them to the few appropriate cats they should go into? Thank you for your consideration. Pastorwayne 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am of course interested in Vassayana's thoughts on this, as the blocking admin who supported that resolution, what I felt I was supporting is no category-space edits whatsoever without prior discussion which results in a consensus for such edits. That includes adding an article to a category, because that "affects" category space. (Indeed, it was just such an action coupled with a lack of discussion, which prompted your being blocked.)

Also, be aware, if I should unblock you, you are still facing the possibility of community ban (and not just from category space). In my opinion, based on the current feeling regarding at least the last 5 months, you would appear to be walking a very fine line in regards to other editors' opinions regarding your category edits and possibly now even your edits in general, not just your category edits. I feel that you should probably be aware of this before choosing how you wish to respond. - jc37 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to do here, jc37, and I think it's very valuable that you are so determined to ensure that we do use bans and indefinite blocks only as a last resort. However, I can't see that any response from PW will alter the situation, because, all the discussions above illustrate that it is useless to have a promise from PW of accepting consensus and collaboration. He still argues that hundreds of CfDs are just the word of a wee clique rather than a very clear demonstration of consensus; even in the last week, as we have been nearing endgame, he has been gaming the system by creating a user category and by using weasel words when asked for assurances. I can't see how anything which PW says at this point will remove the need for a block or a ban of an editor who doesn't even bother with the minimal courtesy to other editors of using edit summaries.

Since I started writing this, roundhouse0 has posted on my talk page two further examples of PW's disruptive creation of both categories and articles. Even if we put a stop to all this right now, it will takes many dozens of hours of hard work by other editors to undo the damage which PW has already done to Wikipedia.

I cannot be satisfied with further grudging and limited concessions; I could perhaps be satisfied by a huge and unequivocal (and clearly sustained) change in approach, but at this point I cannot see PW making anything near the leap required to make this exercise anything other than yet another futile bout of circling around the point: that PW is an editor who does everything possible to reject and undermine collaborative working, and has benefited from a quite astonishing degree of patience from this community whilst creating hundreds of duplicate or daftly-named categories and a plethora of misleading and unreferenced stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Before anyone unblocks PW, I suggest that we should await an explanation from him of his creation of Category:Primates of Italy, currently under discussion in this CfD. I suggest that it is important for us to hear from PW himself what he has learnt about categories from all the discussions so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I understand your criticism, even hate, toward cats such as Category:Primates of Italy. At one point you or someone else told me that cats are for navagating between like articles and subcats. I created this cat because of all the other cats regarding Primates, so that persons interested in learning more about Primates might have the most complete set to study. I realize now you don't like these Primate cats. But please be assured they were created with only the purest of intentions -- no "gaming the system" or any other tendentiousness involved at all! I am not an "anarchist!" I simply saw something that IS used in many churches (the title Primate -- just as the title Bishop is used), that was missing from this wonderful wikipedia, so I set about to provide it, using words used by the churches/patriarchates themselves. To tell you the truth, it never occurred to me that there would be such a tremendous outlash at these creations. The initial consensus about these cats (as evidenced above on this Talk page) was mostly positive -- that having Primate cats was a good thing. That being the case, I continued this work. You think I did not seek consensus. In the past I have not. But with these Primate cats, I truly DID seek consensus and colaboration (some of which is evidenced above). I never would have created these cats if I thought the reaction would be otherwise (or if that initial reaction had been otherwise). As a user of wikipedia I want to know everything I can about a subject, going from subcategory to subcategory in my quest for knowledge. I guess I assumed most people think the same way. I DO want wikipedia to be the best it can be, and am committed to that personally, as well. And am very, very thankful to those of you who do give so much of your time to this same end! But I am also open to the fact that I do not know EVERYthing (just as none of us do). And those who create something with a pure motive, that they believe improves the whole, may know more than me and so should be encouraged rather than denigrated (not just speaking of myself, either). Anyhow, it doesn't seem to matter what I think. You all have spoken -- the Primate tree is worthless (and in some of your eyes, the creator thereof should be chastized). So who am I to disagree. But all that I have done has been only with pure intentions seeking the best for wikipedia. Pastorwayne 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, one positive reply is not a consensus. And even after a dozen or more CfDs of these categories, on 8 May you recreated Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East, which had been recreated the previous day after this CfD; when I pointed this out to you, you didn't even reply.
You have replied now to some of the points raised, but you still show no sign of understanding why the primates categories were a bad idea, or why the subcategories of Category:Christian pastors were a bad idea. That's why I believe that you should be indefinitely blocked: not to punish you, but you stop you doing further damage, because your replies indicate very clearly that you think you did nothing wrong, and that you don't see a problem with the many messages on your talk page expressing concern, but which you did not respond to. In your reply above, you explain how you use sub-categories; but you really do not seem to understand how that could be achieved without creating dozens of duplicate categories with absurdly complex names.
Here's the nub of the problem: unless you understand why there has been such strong opposition to four category trees you have created (the excessive subcats of Category:Christian missionaries, the proliferation of Methodist bishops categories, the Pastors categories and the primates categories) as well as to many individual categories, then I can't see anyone can reasonably expect you to work collaboratively with other editors to avoid doing more damage in future, as with your recent collection of misleading and unsourced stubs.
That's the issue now: what will change if you are unblocked? If you think that everything you have done so far is fine apart from the objections of a few stroppy people, then unblocking you merely guarantees that at some stage soon the problems will restart.
There are two posts today on my talk page from editors who say that they no longer even trust any of your edits to articles. How exactly can you reassure them that you are not going to continue making the same mistakes over and over again for another ten months? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for due to Tendentious editing; Disruptive editing; and other reasons cited directly below.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

After going through the notices on your talk page, I'm faced with the overwhelming reality that you simply don't listen, ignoring everyone's attempts to help you.

You were asked several times to not create an article about yourself. You recreated it not once, but twice!

Same goes for edit summary usage, you were asked three different times by two different people, and you've ignored them.

And the same for deleting warnings and other notices from your talk page.

And then there are the concerns about category edits, and whether you even understand Wikipedia:Consensus, or WIkipedia:Verifiability.

I think that this is enough.

You've complained that User:BrownHairedGirl is and has been involved with content disputes with you, and as such shouldn't be the blocking admin. I won't bother to agree or disagree, but instead, since it's clear that I've never been in such a dispute with you (indeed, as mentioned above, I actually supported your category in the only CfD discussion that I know of), I will act as blocking admin and reblock you indefinitely for all the reasons I just laid out above.

My requested requirements for your unblock are those which have been requested innumerable times in the past:

Understand, agree with, and comply with Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability
Fullly accept the unblock agreement proposed by User:Vassyana, as I understand it: That you make no category edits whatsoever (including, but not restricted to: creating category pages, creating redlinks, or categorising articles) without a talk page clear consensus to do so. This also presupposes compliance with WP:CAT, WP:OC, WP:CLS, WP:BLP, and other category or biography guidelines and policies.

If you demonstrate the above, I have no problem with any administrator unblocking you, and if requested, I would do so myself.

And to make it clear, the gravest concern is that you simply have ignored other editors' concerns, ignored opportunities to discuss and learn, and instead have become continually disruptive, despite everyone's attempts to help you. - jc37 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to jc37 for setting out the situation so clearly, and for re-applying the block.

However, at this point I no longer feel able able to believe any assurances which PW may give. PW's long history of disruptive editing and tendentious editing is documented in countless discussions on this page, in countless CfD discussions where duplicate or bizarrely-named categories have been renamed, moved or deleted.

The discussion above at User talk:Pastorwayne#Indefinitely_blocked sets out my concerns (and those of others) that PW is either unable or unwilling to change, and that he has responded to the questions and concerns of other users only in response to the pressure of threatened or actual blocks or bans, and then inadequately.

It may be that at this late stage PW will somehow manage to find a form of words which satisfies jc37's very useful set of tests ... but I don't see any reason to expect that there is a reasonable chance that these assurances will be sustained. So if he is unblocked, I will not re-block, but I will seek a community ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reading and digesting all that is above. I will be away for a week, so will be unable to respond to any of it atm. Taking it all very seriously. Pastorwayne 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking request

Unblock reason - after taking the summer "off," I am certainly now ready to meet User:Jc37's requirements as stated above. I have noticed, lately, others taking an interest in the Methodist Bishops, which are also my primary interest. Not only will I agree to the above, but will pledge myself to make my main focus only these Bishops. I simply want to be able to join this gathering community of editors interested in these important articles, adding my expertise to the same (an expertise that has been recognized, even by some of my harshest critics). I fully realize now the mistakes I have made in the past, and do humbly ask the forgiveness of the wikipedia community, pledging my commitment to stay away from such mistakes in the future. I only want to add to the advancement of wikipedia. Thank you for your every consideration! Pastorwayne 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Editor promises to follow rules. Continuing a pattern of disruption will result in the block being reapplied. Request handled by: Navou ^banter 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navou ^banter 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support the unblock. And also echo User:Navou's statement: "Continuing a pattern of disruption will result in the block being reapplied."

I wish you well : ) - jc37 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been inclined to consider supporting an unblock, if PW had been busy evading the block by using sockpuppets: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. I note that this promise of good behavior follows only after User:Roundhouse0's diligent work uncovered a series of sockpuppets used by PW to evade the block, which was eventually stopped when the relevant socks and IPs were promptly blocked. I think that this unblock was mistaken, and will ask the unblocking editor to reconsider; Navou may not have been aware of the sockpuppetry.

I don't intend to wheel-war with another admin, but I will re-apply the indef block if PW either creates a category or makes even one edit in category space (Category talk is fine, but no categories). None of the lengthy discussions above nor the edits by PW's sockpuppets give me any reason to believe that PW understands how categories work, and it would be deeply disruptive for PW to resume that editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: The use of even a single edit by a single sock to circumvent the user's statement/request will cause the block to be reinstated indefinitely. - jc37 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad we agree there ... but what about the sockpuppetry?

And does PW explicitly accept no category edits as a condition of his return? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the (presumed) understanding. However, it's become moot, see directly below. - jc37 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but please before any further unblocks could he be asked to explicitly accept the no-category-creation-or-category-edits condition? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored indefinite block

Since both User:Navou and I were unaware of several of the incidents of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, we have agreed to reinstating the block. Sock-puppeteering does not instill faith in your statement/request above. The requirements for unblocking (above) still stand, with the addition of no further violations whatsoever of WP:SOCK. - jc37 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly forgive me for being so out-of-the-loop, but what is this discussion of sock-puppets? Am I being accused of some infraction of the rules here? What is a sock-puppet? Is someone doing something in my name? Has someone compromised my username? As stated above, though I have read wikipedia from time to time, I have stayed away all summer from any consideration of editing, or even the reinstatement of such privileges. Please understand that I DO "explicitly accept the no-category-creation-or-category-edits condition" stated above. That is the reason I now requested the unblock. But this sock-puppet business has me confused. Please provide further direction. Thank you. Pastorwayne 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. Basically, an account was created over the summer during your time off and it made edits very similar to yours. So it's suspicious and was checked out, and checkuser (those who have access directly to the IP logs) said it was likely to be you. This doesn't mean it's certain, but "likely" is as much confirmation as we can get in many cases. However, I see no reason to continue the block if you will agree to operate only this account, since you have explicitly accepted the requested condition. Mango juice^talk 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this Requests for checkuser... So you are saying that these accounts that have been created, because they are similar to mine, ARE me? I know nothing about this. These various names? I appreciate your willingness to consider unblocking me. I would welcome it, as stated already. If I have not made myself clear yet, please understand that I am Pastorwayne, only, and that I have NOT been editing, and barely reading, at all all summer. Pastorwayne 12:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, please read WP:SOCK, and look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne for a list of some of the accounts under which you have been editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see quite sure of yourself. "you have been editing." I think I understand what is meant by sockpuppet. But I learned my lesson -- back many months ago, when I DID edit, after having been blocked. I guess I had not logged in or something? I fully admitted that error, one of the "mistakes" referenced above. I do not want to be disruptive. I simply want to help edit these Methodist Bishop articles, adding my voice to whatever other voices have also taken an interest. Pastorwayne 12:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just requested a checkuser on the more recent socks: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. If PW makes another request to be unblocked, may I suggest that a response should await the result of the checkuser, unless PW chooses to acknowledge the sockpuppetry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to receive this response. For curiousity's sake. Do you think by any chance you are mistaken? Could these so-called sockpuppets actually be other usernames (users) who are being inappropriately accused of something? Just wondering. Pastorwayne 12:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can indeed satisfy your curiosity: you can read the results yourself at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. And no, it's very unlikely that two other new accounts with an editing pattern so similar to yours were both deemed by checkuser to be "likely" sockpuppets, with a third noted as "possible", while several IP addresses from your ISP, in your area, are also engaged in the same pattern of editing. And please do read the section below this one called more sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both of your statements (above and below). I looked at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne. Quite interesting. I even looked at some of the edit histories, I think. I find interests there in Anglicans, Salvation Army, other biography topics. Also some Methodists. What puzzles me is how you can be so sure that these users are not simply interested in these subjects? I am now only interested in Methodist Bishops. Are these other users protesting being called "sockpuppets?" Are you blocking them as you are me? Are they complaining about that? Are they even really users? ISP addresses? I think I would be outraged if I were thought to be someone else. Nevertheless, what must I now do to show you I am only who I am, and that my only interest now is helping with the Methodist Bishops? Pastorwayne 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to continue to keep an eye (diligently) on the various editors/IPs involved in PW-like edits recently. In particular I have no objection to PW being unblocked subject to the various assurances he has already given. -- roundhouse0 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to PW, there are some very unusual elements to your editing, which are present in the editing of these other IPs and registered editors. The fact of so many of them popping up at time when you are blocked is most unlikely to be a coincidence. Sorry, but I simply don't believe what you say. --18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

My thoughts on this are that I too disbelieve PW. I think he is being disingenuous with his denial of sockpuppetry and I think that arises because he is genuinely convinced he has been misunderstood, wronged and ganged up upon. He does not understand Categorisation, but believes he understands it perfectly well. And therefore he thinks it is OK for him to have circumvented the block. The positive messages for him are (a) if only he would stay away from Category creation it may be that he has a contribution to make (b) this block has been imposed purely to prevent him causing further wiki-chaos and (c) indefinitely blocked does not necessarily mean irrevocably blocked. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-dent) You're right that it's interesting about the comments and lack thereof of the other accounts. (But it's not interesting in your favour...) Personally, I doubt your veracity based simply on your comments above, regarding your previous (admitted) attempts at block evasion. And your current comments seem like in kind. For me, you just fail the duck test. (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck...) - jc37 05:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I feel at a loss for words. What can one say to these statements. You believe you have me pinned. I submit to you I am Pastorwayne and only Pastorwayne, but of course have no "proof" of this -- what proof CAN there be? You believe you have ALL the proof. As to being "misunderstood," obviously that is inaccurate (though that feeling was accurate once). But NOW I fully admit (above) my failings and mistakes in the past! I don't believe I have been "ganged-up upon." I believe those of you with Admin. power are doing what you believe is most helpful to wikipedia. I respect that. I am telling you now, that after a long period of reflection (the whole summer), I now recognize the problems I have created in the past, the mistakes I have made, and I repent of these (meaning it is my intention to desist from them in the future). My only desire now is to make a contribution to these Methodist bishops and related articles, especially those on Methodism. As has been noted before, I do have some excellent resources for this work. I desire to make wikipedia the best place for Methodist encyclopedic information and biography. I realize this is what I am best at, as you have shown by your consensus. But saying this is all I can do. What can I do to PROOVE it to you? I would welcome the opportunity and would be most grateful!! Pastorwayne 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I can see to be done is for you stop the sockpuppetry. As Kittybrewster usefully said, indefinitely blocked does not necessarily mean irrevocably blocked, and if there is a suitable period of time without active sockpuppets, or you acknowledge the sockpuppetry and agree to stop it, I'm sure that the block can be reconsidered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, that is what I mean. You want me to stop doing something that I am not doing. Of course I would stop -- or would never have started -- if that's what it took. That is, when blocked before I did evade the block, unknowingly, by editing without being logged-in. I did not understand back then. You "caught" me, and I "confessed." I learned my lesson. Now I simply want to be able to edit Methodist bishops. I am being very patient while you all decide. But I can't stop doing what I am not doing to begin with. Nor however, apparantly, can I prove I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. What is the answer? Pastorwayne 11:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PW, when the sockpuppetry stops, and stays stopped, that'll be sufficient proof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Am I not being clear? I have no control here. What am I supposed to do? Make a plea to ALL of wikipedia to stop doing what you accuse me of doing?!?! Pastorwayne 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppetry

Hi Pastorwayne

The Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne has noted one likely sockpuppet, and one possible sockpuppet (a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts). Meanwhile, some diligent monitoring by User:roundhouse0 has revealed yet more edits which looks exactly like your editing pattern, this time from from an anonymous IP address (User:72.69.220.166) in your area, from your ISP.

Pastorwayne, you need to know that when your username has been blocked, that means that you are not allowed to edit wikipedia (see WP:EVADE). This applies to the username which has been blocked, to any other username which create or have access to, to anonymous edits (i.e. those made without logging in). You should already have known all this even before you were indefinitely blocked in June, because this happened before, in February 2007: see block evasion, above.

It may seem to you to be relatively easy to evade the block on your username, but it's also relatively easy for admins to discover that you are doing this. When you asked to be unblocked, above, you said "I fully realize now the mistakes I have made in the past, ... pledging my commitment to stay away from such mistakes in the future." I and other admins woukd like to be able to accept that assurance in good faith, but we cannot do that while you continue to evade the block on your username. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments and Discussion

Quadrenium

Just to let you know that I have proposed Quadrenium for deletion. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrenium, where the reasoning is explained. BrownHairedGirl 02:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is the key to not being eaten by the Robot Overlord

The Hero of Time has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Inuse template

I've noticed several times as I go through the pages on Special:What links here/Template:Inuse that you've forgotten to remove the {{inuse}} tag after the end of an editing session on several occasions. Please do remember to remove the tag; we don't want to unnecessarily discourage people from editing articles. --Robth^Talk 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity template - please engage discussion

Please engage the discussion on the Christianity template before adding the Methodism link. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Methodism

Hi Pastor Wayne,

There is a prposed WikiProject you might be interested in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism.

--Kevinkor2 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007 Wikiproject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Volume I, no. 1 - June 2007

Project News

Four articles are at FA level and sixteen are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic.

There is a lot of work for this Wikiproject. Go to tasks to find out how to help.

Please help with the Destubbification Drive.

John Carter created the template {{Christian list}}.

There are currently five article being peer reviewed by the peer review team. Please stop by and see if there is any way that you could contribute to those articles.

It has been proposed by John Carter that the various other projects which relate to Christianity ought to all at least tag those articles which fall within their scope. That way, this project would have a better idea which articles do not fall within the specific scope of any of the other related projects. Articles can be "tagged" by placing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} in the articles talk page.

Current proposals and discussions

We're sorry if you did not want to receive this newsletter, but this is sent to all Wikiproject Christianity Members as it is the first newsletter. If you would like to recieve this in the future, or if you wouldn't, you must add your user name accordingly here.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue

Christianity Articles by Quality

Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.

We couldn't do it without you!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

June 2007 Automatically delivered by HermesBot

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[3]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,165: / Line 1,165: @@
 :::*See, that is what I mean.  You want me to stop doing something that I am not doing.  Of course I would stop -- or would never have started -- if that's what it took.  That is, when blocked before I did evade the block, unknowingly, by editing without being logged-in.  I did not understand back then.  You "caught" me, and I "confessed."  I learned my lesson.  Now I simply want to be able to edit Methodist bishops.  I am being very patient while you all decide.  But I can't stop doing what I am not doing to begin with.  Nor however, apparantly, can I prove I am not doing what you accuse me of doing.  What is the answer? [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 11:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 ::::*PW, when the sockpuppetry stops, and stays stopped, that'll be sufficient proof. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
+::::*Ugh!  Am I not being clear?  I have no control here.  What am I supposed to do?  Make a plea to ALL of wikipedia to stop doing what you accuse me of doing?!?! [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 === More sockpuppetry ===