User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 12

Possible violation of your topic ban

Mr Lambert, you made this edit to Paul Blanshard. As it states in that page, Blanshard was an ordained minister. The sentence you edited (the lead sentence) says he was "an outspoken critic of Catholicism". For both of these reasons, I believe you have violated your topic ban. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you have linked appears to be an inadvertent key stroke simply adding a stray letter "a". It added no substance. It seems like a stretch to assert that this apparent inadvertent keystroke is a violation worthy of any punishment .. but a good reminder to JohnPackLambert to be careful about the topic area. Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cbl62.Naraht (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 @Naraht Please look more closely. Mr Lambert changed "author" to "writer". The "a" is probably left over from the original word. "Bans apply to all editing good or bad". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorry for this edit. The topic ban used the words "religious leader broadly construed". To me that does not include a secular critic of religion, since a person is not in any way a "religious leader". The edit itself was just changing one word and had no bearing on his role as a critic of religion. As to his possible status as a religious officer earlier on, that was not mentioned in the category and was buried in the article somewhere. I am very sorry for this edit. I may have misunderstood something and for that I am sorry. If it had not been reverted I would offer to revert it. My edit itself had no bearing on religious topics at all. It was not meant to be an evade of the ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your topic ban is "Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed". I think this would include those known for being critics of a specific religion. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is a very broad construction. I will accept it as such, but I would argue it is a new introduction that has not been argued before. Especially since the edit itself did not relate to such. I was also under the impression that the term used has been "religious leaders". I am very sorry for this action, and will try to be more circumspect in the future. I would also revert this edit if it had not already been reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement on the ban explicitly states that it is understood the limits of the ban are less than clear. It also points to using categories to guide in deciding about the limits of the ban. I am very sorry about this, and would offer to revert it if I could. I think people have to keep in mind the goal of Wikipedia editing bans is to not to punish but to stop disruptive behavior. The edit itself could not be called disruptive, and I am very sorry about my making the wrong call in this case. However "religious leaders broadly defined" and some other wording in the original ban is acknolwedged to be not the easiest to figure out. It clearly says that if an edit is made because of a misunderstand of the scope there is a clear option to revert the edit and move on. I would do so gladly if it had not already been done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Critics of the Catholic Church". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had been under the impression that the wording was "religious leaders broadly construed". I have apologized for this mistake, which had no substance to such a connection, and offered to revert it, if it had not already been reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to find a link to the actual text of this block. I was unable to. Could someone please provide me such a link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at ANI archive 1079, under heading Johnpacklambert, dated 16 September 2021:
    "TOPIC BAN
    There is a clear consensus that Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. There was some concern that such a topic ban would be over-reaching, which was addressed with one comment "This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is now religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits." There is no consensus for any other sanctions." DavidLeeLambert (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had incorrectly thought the wording was "religion or religious leaders" or further review I see it is "religious figures". I will accept this includes non-religious critics of religion, but think this is a clear grey area. I think this relates to the next part that says "There was some concern that such a topic ban would be over-reaching, which was addressed with one comment "This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits." - So this gives a clear change to revert edits on borderline topics, and I have said multiple times I would revert this edit if it had not already been reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert I understand what you are saying, but I'm not in a position to decide if this is a violation of your topic ban or impose any penalty. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I think you imposed the topic ban. Can you have a look at this and decide if any action is necessary? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 said on his talk page that he does not intend to take any action. Johnpacklambert, you are warned to keep in mind the scope of your topic ban which is religion or religious figures, broadly construed. You should have refrained from editing that biography. Please be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Ritchie333 said "I can give my opinion on whether or not a topic ban was violated, but I would much prefer any sanctions to be handled by another administrator". I don't interpret that as indicating that no sanction should be imposed. If, as you say, Mr Lambert should not have edited that page, then you agree that it is a violation of his topic ban. Why is he not being sanctioned for that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Polycarpa aurata, I did not say or imply that Ritchie said no sanction should be imposed. I made that decision on my own using my independent discretion as an administrator. It seems like you are lobbying for a block. Please be aware that blocks are to prevent disruption and are not meant to be punitive. According to blocking policy, blocks should not be imposed if there is no current conduct issue of concern. The edit in question was made eleven days ago, and the behavior has not continued. The precise wording of the topic ban has been clarified, and the editor has apologized. In addition, the editor has received significant sanctions in another matter in recent days, and frankly, I did not want to pile on. I hope that this clarifies my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 This is a topic ban that has been in place for some time, I believe. It is completely independent of the very recently imposed topic ban and the edit in question occurred before that topic ban was announced. It is Mr Lambert's responsibility to be aware of the conditions of the topic bans. I think you will agree that they were quite clearly stated. What you say about blocks may be true in general but I understand that topic bans are typically enforced by a series of escalating blocks. I will open a discussion on ANI. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert@Cullen328 Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_enforcement_of_topic_ban this discussion. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated that I would rescind this edit if it had not been done so already. I have explained that I did not realize the exact wording and thought it was "religious leaders broadly defined" and not as it is "religious figures broadly defined". I have apologized for this mistake. I hope such is enough. I am very, very sorry for this mistake. I would rescind it now if that was possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia size?

I was wondering if there was somewhere where I could see something showing the size of Wikipedia both by number of articles and by total content over time. I am suspecting that over the last year the average article size has increased slightly, but I could be wrong. With over 6.5 million articles in Wikipedia, what goes on in places like AfD, even when it seems quite massive to observers, has very little impact overall.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Size in volumes, and Wikipedia:Statistics. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do these size measures, such as number of articles and average size of articles, include redirects as articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of GNG and deletion or why deletion has issues

I think a key reason deletion has issues is that too many subject notability guidelines were not written with the goal or focus on making them accurately predict a likeliness to pass GNG. Too many of them were written because someone felt certain topics were deserving in some way of coverage, and was able to find a group of like minded editors to endorse such a finding without actual consideration of if there were sources, for the full scope of what the guideline would cover, that would meet GNG. As a result there have been too many AfD discussions where people argued to keep without presenting any sources that would actually add towards passing GNG, just on whether the articles passes a subject specific guideline on not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, GNG isn't really terribly important. It's a data point to look at. And I mean after all, as time moves forward, our standards for notability should relax, naturally. Think of it like cleaning your house: in the first couple hours, your standards for being "notable enough to address" are high: if it's not actual spills on the floor, objects on the rug, or dishes in the sink, it's not notable enough. As time moves forward and the major issues are covered, your standards drop: dust on picture frames, trash in ashcans, dirt in the rug, these now meet the standards. As time moves forward and these issues are covered, your standards drop again: grime in cracks that nobody can see and so forth are notable enough to deal with.
So, a couple things I consider when looking at the worth of an article, is does it meet the Seven Virtues of an article, these being
  1. It is a decent article, or can be made so. Reasonably well written, formatted, etc. It's not such a mess that we'd be better off deleting it and starting over.
  2. And it is of reasonable length, at least a paragraph or so, if not more. It's not just a stub.
  3. And the sources for creating this decent article are OK. They're sufficiently reliable to our standards for the material referenced, and are not so obscure (local small-town paper and like that) as to be unusable.
  4. And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, at least in a way that is not easily fixable.
  5. And is likely that some non-zero number of people will want to read it, both now and in the future.
  6. And it not incontrovertibly trivia or ephemera (where Tom Hanks had dinner yesterday, what the weather was in Chicago last week, a pedestrian run over at 5th and main, etc.) or just arrant nonsense that nobody much would expect to find here.
  7. And it exists. It's not a question of "should we allocate resources to creating this article". Somebody already has.
Another question I ask is, for a user searching on the term, is it better to go to a "page not found" message rather than the current existing article? Will this improve the reader's experience? If so, how? (There are good answers to this. It's just just "doesn't meet our GNG or other bureaucratic rubrics" isn't really one of them.)
So, if the article meets these standards, even if doesn't meet the GNG one might want to ask oneself if spending their time and energy destroying these articles is better use of their time than creating new content. Herostratus (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there are no easy definitions of stubs. There are articles I have created that are several paragraphs in length I have created that are classed as stubs. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should happen is hard to say, but what clearly has happened is over time the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia have tightened. We used to allow that major party nominees for US congress were notable, but that scapped. We have seen the removal of the subject specific notability guidelines for pornagraphic performers and military personnel. We have seen tightening of the Olympian notability guidelines. We have seen a move away from treating all currently operating secondary schools as notable. This year has seen many changes in sports notability. There have been others. A few feel more as applied. At one time we basically treated every winner of Miss North Dakota or Miss Vermont USA as notable, but we do not now. Exactly why this has happened would be hard to say, bit it clearly has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pure size of Wikipedia and low standards of sourcing has meant we have had some hoaxes persist for well over 10 years. Whether the problem of hoaxes is really worth fussing about depends on how you view other issues I guess, but I think it is a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should ban all edits by non-registered users

In my experience in general both the most abusive and the most rude edits generally come from non-registered users. I think it would greatly improve the tone of Wikipedia, especially in the edit comments section, if edits were limited to editors who are currently editing under a registered account with Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I 100% agree. Most attacks that I faced in the past were from IP addresses. Plus, this would cut down on socking by a lot. Yleventa2 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Jacona (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You believe we should discriminate against a whole group because some edits are "abusive" and "rude"? Do you have data on what % of edits from these users are NOT rude or abusive? WP would lose many good edits by editors who don't or can't register. This type of rule would discourage many potential good editors from registering in the first place. Being able to edit unprotected articles is how many people test-drive Wikipedia and decide whether it is worthwhile to create an account. FWIW, I believe all of the rude comments to me have been from registered users. Registering doesn't make one civil. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping people from registering. Requiring it before allowing editing is a reasonable rule. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed so little of what I said. you'd rather throw the baby out with the bathwater. OK. I am more interested in banning people when they do something wrong intentionally. Like create hoaxes or decide to become sockpuppets... An immediate lifetime ban seems appropriate. But some people are overwhelmed or just overly concerned with Wikipedia having too much information, and others are more interested in making Wikipedia a welcoming place so new users feel welcome. Two different philosophies to deal with some of the same issues. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DiamondRemley39. Wikipedia should not be made less welcoming just because of fear that any editor may cause disruption. That is extremely antithetical to the spirit of the libre mission of Wikipedia. The disruption is dealt with when it occurs and the responsible parties are addressed with whatever sanction the community dictates through either administrative action or community discussion. A rule like this would discourage a large population of potential editors from contributing to the encyclopedia and will set an opposite precedent from that of the stated goal of the encyclopedia. The damage done would far outweigh the benefit. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP would lose many good edits by editors who don't or can't register (my emphasis) – @DiamondRemley39, out of genuine curiosity: In what scenario would an editor be prevented from registering, yet still be able to edit as an IP? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. A couple of scenarios come to mind; there may be more. While some (I'm not saying you, @Doctor Duh) may think registration as straightforward, others would find it entirely too daunting:
  1. Not everyone has their own email address or privacy in using email. (Yes, email is only recommended, not required, but it's still on the registration page.) While most people have email, others--sometimes younger people, sometimes people in controlling relationships--are not allowed to have their own email and/or they are supervised when they are using computers. I have known a few adults who shared email addresses with spouses; a few friends of mine didn't have their own dedicated email addresses that they were allowed to use as long as they lived in their parents' houses. While such rules can be defied, Wikipedia editing is probably not worth the risk... and I'd hate to encourage any such risk. I'm sure a number of IP users have edited the encyclopedia unsupervised at one place, but would hate to have any evidence of Wikipedia in email for fear of repercussions. Just think... with that username comes the edit history. I'd hate for someone to get in trouble in real life for any kind of edit.. I'd like Wikipedia to remain a safe place for people to hang out more anonymously, as IPs, until/if and when they'd like to do so under a username.
  2. Not everyone is... for lack of a better phrase... savvy enough to register. Some people may want to make some edits--simple or complex, good or not good--and be capable of making the edits, but won't have the know-how to accomplish registering. This could be a lack of tech know-how, but some who edit Wikipedia have lower literacy levels and may not be able to complete the registration process. I even know some people who have email addresses, because they have smartphones, but they couldn't tell you what their email addresses are or figure out how to complete the CAPTCHA box. They may not be able to remember their passwords; even seeing a password requirement could dissuade someone with a cognitive impairment or a neurodivergence. But they may know a baseball stat error when they see it, or they may be able to correct a typo, or an incorrect birthdate. I am all about those kinds of edits.
Maybe @ARoseWolf has additional ideas as to how people could be prevented from or seriously reluctant to registering.
My philosophy is along the lines of "let's be inclusive". Let them see how much fun we have and then perhaps they'll pay us to whitewash this fence. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts into words, but I'm frankly not sold. Editing "anonymously" by permanently revealing your IP address, which for many people will still be static and publicly connected to an organization, offers considerably less privacy than creating an account. Additionally, I struggle to think of any large website with Web 2.0 functionality that doesn't require registration to participate, even making e-mail (not obviously so, I'll admit) an optional feature is pretty unique. And this has been the standard pretty much from the get-go, the only reason Wikipedia gets away with doing it differently is the transparency of edit histories. I also find the notion that someone would be overwhelmed by a boilerplate registration process but then be able to deal with something like wikitext a little contrived. The nature of decisionmaking by consensus as defined on Wikipedia means that IP editing will only be turned off once the opportunity cost of keeping it around exceeds the alternative clearly enough to make soft factors like nostalgia for a simpler internet minor points; we're not there yet, but it will certainly happen at some point, even if this won't be enough to do it. After all, you're getting to directly influence one of the top search results for almost any given person or topic. Asking for registration to do this is quite the opposite of unreasonable, and 1.1 billion edits in, I think we can get away with it... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the time may come when we want people to register. That time will be when (as is likely to happen eventually, as it happens to many things) editing the Wikipedia becomes a less popular activity, and our corps of active editors and admins becomes to small to run an open encyclopedia. We then may have to put various restrictions in place. But that time is not yet come. Herostratus (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv or Lemberg

Should we refer to his place of birth as Lviv, Lvov, or Lemberg?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose place of birth? I have family from that area so naturally this of interest to me but presumably we'd refer to it by whatever it was called when they were born. Smartyllama (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I meant to put this on the talk page of a specific person. They were born in 1889. That much I remember. I have since forgotten their name. I will see if I can figure it out when I am on my computer at home again. The article currently uses Lviv, presumably because the person was Polish. I do not remember if the person emigrated later, or just moved to another part of Poland when the boundary changed, or died before 1940.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whichever will tell the most readers his birthplace without them having to look it up. "Lemberg" is becoming pretty obscure as more than 100 years have passed since the maps have changed. Most people who are familiar with "Lvov/Lviv" probably know that Lvov=Lviv and vice versa (but a lot of people are "Lemberg=?"). "Lviv" is the current name and, going forward, will be used more and and more as "Lvov" drops away, so all in all I think that "Lviv" best serves the readership. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Typically on Wikipedia we use whatever it was called at the time. In an extreme example, Yuri Schmidt's article says he was born in Leningrad and died in St. Petersburg even though those are the exact same city. Smartyllama (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually brought this up because it was not obvious to me what exactly the place was called during the time it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1893

I am still reviewing 1893 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity regarding your topic ban

John, I see you focusing on the "religious leaders" versus "religious figures" distinction. But please remember as you edit that the wording is "Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed." Emphasis added. Please be very cautious and do not edit any articles focused on religion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles focused on that topic are for the most part clear, since the word there is focused. It is the other wording that becomes difficult, because many people have broad and multi-faceted lives. For the most part it is obvious what is the first, but the second is at times much harder to parse out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from Religion pages, entirely. When in doubt, stay out. Heck knows, you likely got countless folks keeping a close eye on you. Scrutiny is enhanced, under such circumstances. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be "much harder to parse out" that you should not be editing a biography of Paul Blanshard, a man who attended the Harvard Divinity School and graduated from the Union Theological Seminary and then served as a minister for two years and then went on to be a prominent critic of Roman Catholicism for many years? Why are you having difficulty parsing that? Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have apologized for this edit multiple times. I am very sorry for making it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not mention any details but that he engaged in creating literature against a group, at the time I was thinking that someone who espoused hate and vitriol against a group is not a leader of that group. I see now that this was not good thinking. The rest of the lead presents him as a secular figure with secular motivations. I can see I should have dug deeper before editing, but this was my flawed view at the time. As I said I would revert the edit if it had not been reverted before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly your repeated apologies were a factor in my decision not to block you. The purpose of this discussion is not to extract more apologies but to be sure that you truly understand the scope of your topic ban. That is all. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The categories on this individual do not mention his education except for Brooklyn Law School. They treat the position you mention as not being worth categorizing by either. Only the being a critic of a belief system he was never a part of is mentioned in categories. Placing that as something that is under the "religious figures" umbrella, I will accept, but it is not how I had understood that term before (especially since I had remembered it as "religious leaders").John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the editor who reported you, turned out to be a sock. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This and some previous notices this editor did on my were starting to seem extreme. It has made me wonder if any of reverts against my edits recently were done by this same editor while under a different guise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not just read the lead and the categories. Read the article before editing. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At what point though is a minor action so minor that it makes them not a "religious figure"? This is one case, but what about someone who does not even finish religious education? Would Justice Thomas be a religious figure because he started a program that would have lead to him holding a religious leader position, or does this not count because he dropped out before he completed the program?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will and have erred on the side of caution. For example once I found someone who spent most of his career as a politician, but for a short time worked as a non-clerical staff person with a religious organization, and so I decided not to make some minor edit on the page that had no connection with that short time as a staff person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Lambert, I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from me. I don't think our paths have crossed, but I found my way here after reading some recent ArbCom stuff. Anyway, if you have to ask questions like these above, I'd suggest you just walk away. Completely forget about trying to define where the boundaries are - simply keep so far away from the boundaries that you can't even see them. The vast majority of people on this planet, and the vast majority of BLP subjects in Wikipedia, have never had any specific religious education, have never had any interest in religion professionally, and have never uttered a word in public about religion. You should be fine with any of those. I would strongly suggest that if a BLP article contains any mention of any religious activity, any religious upbringing, or says anything about religious thoughts or comments from the subject... you would be safer to consider it closed to you. The surest way to stay safe from sharks is not to define precisely where their feeding zones are... it's to keep out of the sea! Anyway, I don't know if this is any help, but I hope it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1887

A large number of people in the 1887 births category seem to have actually been born in 1877. I know my moving back quickly is going to confuse me in the future, but this makes most sense to me at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British people in colonial India

The category Category:British people in colonial India just hit 500 direct entries. I have a sense we may have many more articles that belong it it though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1889 establishments in Dahomey has been nominated for merging

Category:1889 establishments in Dahomey has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Irish to the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Irish to the Russian Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian emigrants to British Malaya

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian emigrants to British Malaya indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1550 births

Category:1550s births has several articles that only state the person was born "around the middle of the 16th-century" or other things that really cannot be reasonably taken to mean the person was actually born in 1550.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wives of Ottoman sultans

A tag has been placed on Category:Wives of Ottoman sultans indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People too often seem to build birth year categories without really paying attention to what articles say

I have seen articles where it says someone was born after, or born before, a certain year, and the person was placed in the category for that year. People need to stop just seeing a birth year and automatically making it a category before actually reading the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematicians from the Holy Roman Empire

JPL, I don't understand what you are going for. I don't think "living in the Holy Roman Empire" means what you think it means. It's not like a country in the modern sense; Vernier would never have considered himself to be a Holy Romanian. That category is meaningful for prelates and princes and administrators, but that's a very different thing. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, I don't get "Category:Kingdom of Scotland people". What have you gained by putting Arthur Johnston (poet) in "Category:Medical doctors from the Kingdom of Scotland" also, in addition to "Category:17th-century Scottish medical doctors"? Drmies (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is clear is that Vernier did not live in France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vernier would have at most considered himself a subject of the French Comte, maybe more even focused on a smaller place. The way people in medieval and some times of early modern Europe thought of themselves do not lend themselves easily to categories. On the other hand we have people placed in British categories before Great Britain even existed, which is another thing we should not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a different matter. The term "British", unlike the terms "English" or "French", is connected to the British Empire in a way that "Scottish" is not connected to any of the official overarching national entities. You seem to think of these categories in terms of nationalities, and that's just NOT helpful. "French" as a general descriptor can apply to people from Marie de France (who wrote in Anglo-Norman and lived in England) to Montesquieu and Alain Delon. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • since Category:French writers is a sub-category of Category:Writers by nationality, saying I should not think of the category in terms of nationality asks me to think about it in defiance of what its category tree actually says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The heading of that category says "If they wrote in French but were not nationals of France then they should not be included here, if they were nationals of France but wrote in a language other than French they belong here."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of this helps. "Citizen of the Holy Roman Empire" is still meaningless. And maybe you should just think a little broader than "nationality"--we all should. Marie de France is still categorized as a French writer, which is proper, by way of 12th-century French poets --> 12th-century French writers --> French writers by century --> French writers by period --> French writers. So you can go back to Marie, if you like, and remove her from 12th-century French writers, but I would take issue with that. She's also under "French women poets", which leads to "French poets", which says "This category is for articles about poets from the European country of France"--which is ridiculous. What I think you should do is temper the obsession with overcategorization and think more about what matters over time, before Romantic nationalism and the myth of nations. Precision here is unnecessary and dangerous--overcategorizing the past in terms of "nation" makes no sense, and it doesn't even make sense to be too detailed about language. After all, Marie de France didn't write "French" in the strict meaning of today's French, governed by the Academie Francaise; she wrote in Anglo-Norman French, or perhaps Francien, but little is gained by that gained of specificity unless there are special circumstances. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Printmakers from the Polish-Lithuania Commonwelath

A tag has been placed on Category:Printmakers from the Polish-Lithuania Commonwelath indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tsardom of Russian military leaders

A tag has been placed on Category:Tsardom of Russian military leaders indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical occupation categories

A huge amount of debates happen in Wikipedia because for some reason we have tried to place names connected with modern nation-states onto people in occupations far before these states came to be, instead of trying to invoke contemporary polities in occupation names. If we did more of the latter we would have far fewer problems. Wikipedia categorization should not be used to advance narratives that are disputed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1585 births

There may be at least one case is Category:1585 births where we have 2 articles on the same person just with different spellings of his name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Honeywood

There appears to be a second article on Thomas Honeywood under a different spelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now merged to Thomas Honywood (usual spelling seems to be without the "e"). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emigration categories

I am coming to think we should change from having categories be Booian emigrants to Foo to be Emigrants from Boo to foo. The current system has Category:American emigrants to the United Kingdom paired with category:British emigrants to the United States. I think we should use the same method of naming sending and receiving country in emigration categories. We have a few such as Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the United States and Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to France that already use the Emigrants from Boo to Foo form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth category issues

Some days I feel like I am being a broken record. Reviewing Category:1590 births and the 40 categories of birth earlier, I am seeing way too many articles that say things like "born between 1587 and 1591" being put in Category:1590 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to Denmark

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to Denmark indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to the Tsardom of Russia

A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to the Tsardom of Russia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emigration categories

Emigration categories should reflect the names of the polities at the time of movement. Thus we have categories such as Category:Emigrants from the Republic of Venice to the Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Sayle

I noticed you recently edited an article on a topic of interest to me: William Sayle. Sayle was notable for, among other things, his pursuit of religious freedom. As you can see from reading the article, his religious beliefs set him at odds with various folks at the time, to the extent that he actually led a group of like-minded religious believers (though not as like-minded as he would have preferred, it turns out!) away from Bermuda and consequently founded the first European settlement in the Bahamas. It's also kind of interesting from a historical perspective that the settlement involved a founding document guaranteeing religious freedom, which was unusual at the time. All of this to say, I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that editing this article is not a violation of your topic ban on articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on emigration categories

Wikipedia has huge numbers of people who the text makes clear were emigrants, but we do not have in the emigration categories. There are also people who have Wikipedia articles who were emigrants but the articles lack the details to show this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use the name of the place when the event happened

In the late 19th-century this is an issue. For the 16th-century people really, really need to stop assuming that France, Sweden or any other country had its modern boundary. The Duchy of Burgundy was not part of France in the 16th-century, nor was Skane part of Sweden. Those are the two most common misstatements on geography I have seen. I have even seen statements placing births in the 1890s in Czechoslovakia, thus neither using the current or the then in place geography to describe the event. This is a huge problem we have in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Foote

Nathaniel Foote is an article with an excessive amount of listings of descendants. This seems really an indiscrimiate list. I do not think people who lived 300+ years after someone are reasonably grouped because someone in their ancestors back 300 years they share a common ancestor with someone else. Actually some of these people were closer to 400 years after Foote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from France to Arcadia

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from France to Arcadia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French emigrants to Arcadia

A tag has been placed on Category:French emigrants to Arcadia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Parma and Piacenza

Which is the right name? I am not sure. Our article is named Duchy of Parma and Piacenza. However the parent category is Category:Duchy of Parma. It would be best if they matched. I do not have an opinion at the time as to which name would be better. I followed the lead in the article in creating some new sub-categories today, but as I say I do not have a strong opinion either way. I would not be surpised if "Parma" and "Duchy of Parma" are the common name. Parma is an article about the city. The disambiguation page Parma (disambiguation) calls this place Duchy of Parma. It seems to have been moved from that name to the longer name in July. It is not clear if there was a discussion of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British v English emigrants

I really think we should rename categories from say Category:British emigrants to the United States to Category:Emigants from the United Kingdom to the United States. Some people state that the British emigrant categories are "less precise" than the English emigrant cats, but the "British" emigrant cat is more precise by time period. Also being precise is not always a good thing with categories. Category:Actresses born in Michigan is far more precise than Category:American actresses, but that does not mean it is a better category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Immigrants to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

A tag has been placed on Category:Immigrants to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Immigrants to Arcadia

A tag has been placed on Category:Immigrants to Arcadia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Johnpacklambert. Thank you. Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

For reference, I see you have an open ARCA, and some of the arbitrators have posed some questions and comments toward you there. If you want to leave messages here to respond to those and ask for other editors to copy them to ARCA for you, that is fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 days

I will be back in 30 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the best for those 30 days, even though it's not under ideal circumstances. It might be worth staying away from Wikipedia altogether during that time, or just concentrate on research for articles or something. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - Would you install an archive bot, for your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian emigrants to Egypt

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian emigrants to Egypt indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People of the Dutch Republic in the New Netherlands

A tag has been placed on Category:People of the Dutch Republic in the New Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ARCA you filed has been closed

The ARCA you filed has been closed and will be archived once at least 24 hours have passed. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 09:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bertrand Curtis Spitzley

Notice

The article Bertrand Curtis Spitzley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to find in depth coverage in RIS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Manoel Amorim

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Manoel Amorim, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 days

So it is now only 15 days until I return. This means we are more than halfway through the period of exclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 days until I return

There are now 10 days until I can return to editing Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:42DF:4000:8072:AC81:F896:2AC4 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would such ever be a threat? It is a statement of fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP editor needs to learn from Tyrion. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoEUkE7-KeA Naraht (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Russian Empire

Hi, I just thought you would like to know that "of" will be changed to "from" in former country categories with compound names: Wikipedia:Category_names#Former_nationalities – Fayenatic London 21:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued interest, but in the meantime please continue to use the existing categories rather than creating duplicates such as Category:Writers from the Russian Empire alongside Category:Writers of the Russian Empire. This only creates more work, deleting them manually to make way for moves. – Fayenatic London 11:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Hicks (musicologist) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 days

I will be back in 9 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marinus Larsen for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom of England emigrants has been nominated for renaming

Category:Kingdom of England emigrants has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 days

I will be able to edit again in 7 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1989 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir

A tag has been placed on Category:1989 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British emigrants to British India has been nominated for merging

Category:British emigrants to British India has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Migrants from Portuguese India to British India has been nominated for deletion

Category:Migrants from Portuguese India to British India has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael P. Thompson

Notice

The article Michael P. Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has no independent sources. Subject does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV, and as an associate dean does not meet WP:NACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to British India has been nominated for deletion

Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to British India has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the United States to British India has been nominated for deletion

Category:Emigrants from the United States to British India has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to India

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 days until my return

I will be able to resume editing in 3 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1997 establishments in Arunachal Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1997 establishments in Arunachal Pradesh indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 day

I will be able to edit Wikipedia again in about one day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Welcome back! Hope you’re ok GimliDotNet (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the pie.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Harry Percival Vete

Notice

The article Harry Percival Vete has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient coverage in independent sources to establish that WP:NBIO is met

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of substance

I have been noting that a huge number of articles we have on federal judges fail to say anything at all about what they actually ruled while judges. I have noticed that our articles on politicians from the mid-20th century often either say nothing about any policies they worked for while in office, or focus on just one thing they were very peripherally involved in without giving a broad summary of the actions and positions they took while in office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is much room for improvement in how such things are covered, but we need to make sure we do so using reliable sources and avoid giving undue weight to things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largest birth year category

Right now the largest birth year category in Category:1988 births with 17,928 articles. Just behind is Category:1989 births with 17,922 articles. It drops to 17,599 for 1990 and 17,389 for 1987 (although 1986 has 17,527). 1989 used to be larger. These 2 categories have been the largest for multiple years, but I am not sure exactly how many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Johnpacklambert, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Naraht (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the other welcomes with goats and such. :)Naraht (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know goats are more nutritious and provide more total food, but I do prefer cookies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1892 v 1893

Right now Category:1893 births has 5352 entries. Category:1893 births has 5605 entries. Normally as you go back the numbers go down, but not uniformly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from Australia to the Cape Colony

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from Australia to the Cape Colony indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1891 completed

I just completed reviewing Category:1891 births. It has 5,284 articles in it at present. I am posting this here because some might find it useful to see trends over time to compare it to when I started it, or to compare it to when they find this category in the future. I hope this might be helpful at some time to someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1890 births

Category:1890 births has 5,381 entries. I am about to review the contents. I hope this post will be useful to compare trends over time for some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian (country) expatriates in France

Category:Georgian (country) expatriates in France has been nominated for speedy merging to Category:Expatriates from Georgia (country) in France. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jayron32 15:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donatus Edet Akpan for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Sorry I missed this during your hiatus, but welcome back to Wikipedia. It's to good to have you! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Activists from Southern Rhodesia

A tag has been placed on Category:Activists from Southern Rhodesia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Socialists from Southern Rhodeisa

A tag has been placed on Category:Socialists from Southern Rhodeisa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1988 v 1989

The 1988 births category is at 17,941 to 1988 births at 17,933. So the move backwards in time of the largest birth year category has remained in place for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1890 completed

Now that I have reviewed category:1890 births it now has 5,308 articles in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1889 births

Category:1889 births currently has 5,394 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Soviet emigrants to British India

A tag has been placed on Category:Soviet emigrants to British India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its sibling Category:Emigrants from Germany to British India has been nominated for merger to Category:German emigrants to India and Category:Immigrants to British India. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Emigrants from Germany to British India. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Roman) Catholic categories again

Mr. JPL, are you at liberty to comment over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 23 regarding the addition of "Roman" to make categories consistent or should they all just be stripped of descriptive adjectives? I think some people are unaware of the pervasive status quo and why it is the way it is. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not at liberty. See here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be editing well for now, but here is a brief reminder on appeals

Floquenbeam, an administrator, told the closer that he should tell you "not to file another appeal on any of his topic bans for 12 months". Exact quote can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive346#Site_ban_for_User:Johnpacklambert. I didn't see that happen, so just remember to not appeal until October 2023. (User:Yleventa2, password scrambled and don't want an account for now). 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]