User talk:Johnpacklambert

The old part of my talk page was moved to User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 1 , User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2 and User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3

Category:Steampunk music

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

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

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

Continued disruptive edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no deadline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

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

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

German West Africa

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

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

Category:American people of African-American descent

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

American Girl authors

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

Category:Male actors by nationality

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

2012_November_15#Category:New_York_colonial_people

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

Category Ownership

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

people of mixed race category issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent

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

Category:Country subdivisions

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

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

Category:Anglican saints

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

Category:Old Testament saints

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

A recent CfD comment

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

Talkback

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

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

I don't understand

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

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

CFD note

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

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

New nom

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

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

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

I did, thank you : )

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

American people of African-American descent

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

• • I can not answer the first question, but it will be soon. On the second point, the difference is that a delete just removes the category, while a merge moves the category to new contents. So when we merge something the things in that category end up in the target category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • FYI, the category has been deleted now, so please do not recreate it or add any pages to the category. A bot has moved all the contents of the category to Category:African-American people; I put Griffin, Humphries, and Berry back in the sub-cats of Category:African-American people they had been in prior to the CfD pbp 18:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• One point of order on something you said about African-American categorization...it doesn't necessarily have to be in the text of the article so long as it's in the references of the article pbp 06:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• No, it has to be mentioned in the text. If it is not significant enough to be mentioned in the text of the article, it is not significant enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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

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

added links pointing to Gond, Deogarh and Rajaram

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

added a link pointing to Lyallpur

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

Friendly chat

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

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

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

CFD closed and needs further attention

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

Imperial Russia

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

December 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imperial Russian people by occupation

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

Actress abominations

Hi JPL

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

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

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

African-American people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metatheories of religion

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

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

Stop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop it

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