User talk:Johnpacklambert

Biographies of Living people

The category Category:Living people has 987,022 article presently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the page Sandeep Singh Russian was not right. The page had enough references directly about him . Pls read the hindi language newspaper that had been added. The deletion needs a review. Sunny50888 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Empire-categories

Please stop removing categories such as Category:Russian salon-holders from categories such as Category:Russian Empire salon-holders.

The Russian Empire is a sub-category to the parent-category Russia. Therefore, all the Russian Empire-categories are, when the overlap, sub-categories to Russia-categories. The Russian Empire is a period of Russian history. All period-categories are sub-categories to the nation-categories of the country in which they belong. For example, the Victorian era is a sub-category to the United Kingdom, the French revolution-era is a sub-category to the France: and the Russian Empire is a sub-category to Russia. They exist in parallel.

If you remove Category:Russian salon-holders from Category:Russian Empire salon-holders, then Category:Russian Empire salon-holders will suddenly look compeltely different from all other Salon-holder categories, and each nation has their own salon-category, sorted by nationality. Further more, it is not permitted by Wikipedia's rules to have a category deleted by emptying it, which can become the case when you act as above, as it has in this case.

Further more: you can not replace, for example, "Russian 18th-century dancers" with Dansers of the Russian Empire": the Empire is a period, an era, not a century. It included the 18th-, 19th- and some of the 20th-century. The century categories exist in parallel with the era/period-categories, and that is the way it has to be. Otherwise, it will be time consuming for the reader to find a person form a certain century, when they look for them.

Please consider the above carefully in the future. --Aciram (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• • No the Russian Empire was a distinct polity. Many of the subjects of the Russian Empire would never have considered themselves to be Russian in any way, and to tag them in that way is not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aciram. The Russian Empire categories should be subcategories of the Russian categories. This is for ease of navigating the category tree, if nothing else. The Russian Empire was not a completely different "polity" than the current Russian Federation. At international law, the Russian Empire was the legal successor state to the Soviet Union, which was the legal successor state to the Russian Empire. Thus, the Russian Federation and the Russian Empire are legally the same polity. (For instance, a treaty ratified by the Russian Empire is still in force for the Russian Federation without any further action being taken by the Russian Federation.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Khan (author)

I closed this as soft-delete, but an editor asked for it to be undeleted which I am compelled to do per the policy.

As you participated, up to you if you renominate it.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2011 establishments in Trinidad and Tobago

A tag has been placed on Category:2011 establishments in Trinidad and Tobago requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ricky Allman AFD

Could you please review Ricky Allman AFD one more time. I have added new information, such as museum exhibitions and Harvard Business Review citation. I feel these may change your mind.Webmaster862 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP

There are currently 987,710 articles in the category Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1923 establishments in Mongolia

A tag has been placed on Category:1923 establishments in Mongolia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1975 establishments in Odisha

A tag has been placed on Category:1975 establishments in Odisha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikitha Grero

Hi. I don't get that. How you cite that he is non notable?? As a Sri Lankan and a native person, he is well adjudged in our country due to his leadership qualities and popularizing the international school system in Sri Lanka. I have added a hardcopy of his notability through a newspaper. So, my concern is "HE is notable" and valuble asset in our country. So help me to keep the article. If you need soft article references, I will send them soon to Wikipedia. There are many non notable things in Wikipedia, but never ever get deleted and never concerned by Admins. Thank You. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1992 establishments in Andhra Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1992 establishments in Andhra Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilmot N. Hess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert AfD nominations

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your tireless efforts in weeding out non notable biographical articles, you do indeed deserve this. Thanks and keep it up! Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly uneven coverage

It really irks me that Andrea Cassone still has an article with just a blog source, but articles on Benjamin de Hoyos and Michael John U. Teh were deleted even though they had multiple sources to written articles in publications that involved editorial oversight. True two of those were from publications controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Hoyos and Teh are officers for, but they had no direct control over the creation of those sources, and there were in both cases at least one article that was from a reliable source that was fully independent of them. I actually suspect that if someone tried they could find more sourcing on Cassone, but it irks me that I did all that sleuthing and research to build fairly good articles on Hoyos and Teh, and probably close to 50 other individuals, to then have all those articles deleted while people can but in the absolute minimum effort on these bishops and archbishops and have the articles stand indefinately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1957 establishments in Kerala

A tag has been placed on Category:1957 establishments in Kerala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Anarchists of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Anarchists of the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be down to this edit. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP tracker

We are now to 988,294 biographies of living people based on the contents of Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedians are so rude

A Wikipedian has accused my actions of "lacking integrity". I am sick and tired of the personal insults and character assassination that is carried out by editors on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That was me. I have explained (more than once) that I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that the nomination lacked integrity, since it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. Those were cases where you were nominating only parts of the relevant category hierarchies. In another case, you attempted to nominate a full hierarchy even though it was very large, and I commended you for this.

I apologise for using words that seemed to be a personal insult. I expressed myself badly, and will try not to do so again. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Imagine if that had been said about someone voting keep in any given AFD or discussion about certain always-keep-voters, JPL. We'd all be sanctioned out the wazoo. Sorry you're going through this. CUPIDICAE💕 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, are there people who have 100% of all their AfD votes as delete? Contrary to popular belief I actually do at times vote keep on AfD. In fact all my bio related votes today may have so far been keep. Admitedly if that is so, it is more a sampling error, since it is just one vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so but I can give you an example of extremely disruptive keep votes from "seasoned editors" who will vote keep for a blatant hoax based on a user generated source even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. CUPIDICAE💕 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have seen arguements to keep that come close to being "this article has existed over 15 years so we should keep it." On Conan the Librarian the argument is "this article used to have false information, so we still need it to counter those falsehoods."John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If you guys are deletionists then I wonder what that makes me? Please do not be discouraged, John. I honestly wonder what Wikipedia would be like if the small minority of editors such as ourselves, that actually try to enforce the notability criteria, suddenly went. It would just be a paid-for spam fest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Echoing Spiderone, take away JPL, MER-C, Praxidicae, & other editors enforcing the notability threshold be met & fighting spam, Wikipedia would cease to have value. It’s just sheer double standard that so called deletionists are demonized and treated harshly when they occasionally make errors (when !voting) but the keep squad are never held accountable when the reverse occurs. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was investigating the article on Dallin H. Oaks, who clearly passes GNG, probably many years and sometimes months on its own, clearly passes academic notability as a former president of a university with about 30,00 enrollment, was a state supreme court justice, and possibly as a legal scholar was also notable. He probably passes author notability, maybe even for his post-1984 written works which are barely covered in the article. The article dates to 2003 (when he was only a little less notable than now, I think it can be convincingly argued that all those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are notable, I still want to extended that to all general authorities and general officers ogf the church, but apostles are a clear pass). Oaks was then Philippines Area President and an apostle. The Philippines area had roughly 500,000 members then. I would argue either apostles or general authorities are eqivalent to Catholic Cardinals and area presidents are equivalent to Catholic archbishops, although this ignores the fact that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general authorities fully run the Church. Oaks is now in the 1st presidency, which has more authority than the 12, but not much, and the differences are much less now than pre-1970. However for the first 2 years the article was unsourced. Pre-2005 Wikipedia was atrociously lacking in sources. The problem still afflicts us in part because people ignore verifiability and then interpret source existence to argue to keep articles just because sources might exist but are hard to find instead of doing the hard work to find sources. As I said above I suspect that most Catholic bishops if people actually looked one could find sources on, but to pull an article basically at random has this [1] as its only source. That fails reliable source, fails indepdent source at least as it is applied when the person is a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and is not a multiple source. Why do we even have a seperate article that says as little as that article says? I see no reason that we could not contain everything that is in that article on the page Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá. I have tried this before, and what happens is people manage to dig up some, maybe not indepth, coverage (some of it is the type of coverage we did find on Benjamin de Hoyos and Michael John U. Teh but were told even though it was from a reliable source, and clearly indepdent and secondary, it was not substantive enough to count) and people will then accuse me of targeting article on non-Americans, and use all sorts of negative infective. The article will end up being inproved, which is not going to happen anytime soon otherwise. I could also start trying to trudge through sources, but since I am not fluent in Portuguese and very marginal in Spanish and French, I will have no good way to know what I dig up, and with some names not even be sure they refer to the same person. So I sit back and wait for someone else to tackle this true mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

More thoughts on the issue with Catholic bishops

To pick just one diocese, Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá is has had 14 bishops. We currently have articles on 5 of those. Of those only Antônio de Almeida Lustosa has any sources that are not a blog, and only Lustosa has multiple sources. Lustosa was also the only one who was an archbishop. Maybe considering all bishops default notable was a bridge too far. One blog as the source of all articles is not a good system. I know if we go to the US and pick basically at random a bishop Aloysius John Wycislo (I found him because the only archbishop I was sure I could spell his name totally off the top of my head was Adam Maida, and I picked one of his non-archbishop predecessors), we see sourcing that may pass GNG (I am not sure if those who wanted to delete articles on say Octaviano Tenorio or Yoshihiko Kikuchi would actually be persuaded by the actual level of coverage of Bishop Wycislo, but it is clearly much, much, much better than what we have on Bishop Costa). So some of this may reflect various factors that make it so we average toward better sources on articles on people in the Anglosphere, and in the US and Britain especially (maybe also Australia and New Zealand, I suspect that thought Jamaica is in the Anglosphere, we have under sourcing issues there, and I am sure there are other such cases). Clearly if the article on Bishop Costa cannot be more substantive, we would be served just as well redirecting him to the article on Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá and maybe making that article say just a little more on him, but having gone through this with a few articles on bishops in Nigeria, I suspect if people tried they may be able to dig up articles that actually say more about Bishop Costa than what we currently have in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lucas Abadamloora has 2 sources. The Catholic hierachy blog, and the diocesan publication of the Wisconsin diocese that his diocese in Ghana was partnered with when he died. Does the second source meet GNG guidelines? If it does not, it is only because structural issues of how the Catholic Church is set up make it easier to argue indepdence than it is possible to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1962 establishments in Tamil Nadu

A tag has been placed on Category:1962 establishments in Tamil Nadu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2015 establishments in West Bengal

A tag has been placed on Category:2015 establishments in West Bengal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Russian Empire agnostics has been nominated for renaming

Category:Russian Empire agnostics 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you change "Category" on the bio page for Dennis Carothers Stanfill from "Living people" to "Possibly living people"? It looks like vandalism.

Why did you change "Category" on the bio page for Dennis Carothers Stanfill from "Living people" to "Possibly living people"? It looks like vandalism. Somebody else almost immediately reversed your edit/vandalism.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1993 establishments in Assam

A tag has been placed on Category:1993 establishments in Assam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2002 establishments in Andhra Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2002 establishments in Andhra Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2011 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2011 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2012 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2012 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2012 establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:2012 establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP

The category Category:Living people currently has 988,970 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP

The category Category:Living people now has 989,079 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2005 establishments in Chhatisgarh

A tag has been placed on Category:2005 establishments in Chhatisgarh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 establishments in Delhi

A tag has been placed on Category:2019 establishments in Delhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Chhatisgarh by year

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Chhatisgarh by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Courtiers of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Courtiers of the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) by year

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: you emptied this nascent hierarchy stating that "This category structure does not exist right now",[2] but they seem to be valid, even if there is scope to improve links and parenting. Do you object to them being reinstated? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1 is the precedent for keeping them. – Fayenatic London 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French emigrants to Cambodia

A tag has been placed on Category:French emigrants to Cambodia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1782 establishments in Norway

A tag has been placed on Category:1782 establishments in Norway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Birds are not dinosaurs

These are English words which we use per their standard English usage. When people say "diosaur" they in no way mean birds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What is a semi-published author

I just removed the most truly odd entry on an allegedly notable alumni "* Brandon D. Jones, semi-published author". What in the world is a semi-published author? The guy wrote a book, and it got half published? So it was like being published in serrial, in a magazine, and he only turned out about half of it, and the rest never came out? That is the only thing that maybe makes sense, and that just seems odd. Unless they meant to say self-published author. Even if he had a full book published that would not equate with default notability. Semi-published does not make any sense to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably just a strange and roundabout way of admitting that the author isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

JPL's sense of humor is premium and very healthy, @Spiderone, swear you didn’t laugh out loud when reading this the first time. This regaled me so fucking much. Lmaooo. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2010 establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:2010 establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP

There are currently 990,096 articles in Category:Living people.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2013 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (state)

A tag has been placed on Category:2013 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (state) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

John Barcellona

I'm still not convinced this person is notable. If you propose this at WP:AfD, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1538 establishments in Japan

A tag has been placed on Category:1538 establishments in Japan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Russian Orthodox Christians from the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Russian Orthodox Christians from the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

India state establishment categories

When creating India state establishment categories, please use {{EstcatIndiastate}}. Like {{EstcatUSstate}}, it requires no parameters, and automatically adds the relevant parents. This would save you from setting up only one of the relevant parent categories, which you have still been doing after I left you a reminder about this, e.g. Category:2007 establishments in Chhattisgarh.

For decades, there is also {{EstcatIndiastateDecade}}. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2001 establishments in Uttar Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2001 establishments in Uttar Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been some comments about you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lebeau

If you care to respond. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1965 establishments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea

A tag has been placed on Category:1965 establishments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

School notability

Hi, John. Hey, please don't PROD or AfD school district articles in the United States. As tax assessing bodies with fixed geographic boundries, they reach the level of inherent notability just as an incorporated city town or village would. All that is needed is proof of existence. Thanks. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And while on the subject, it would likely cause less hassle for both you and everyone else if when you encounter a US lower school article that is not notable, simply redirect it to the school district (public) or diocese (parochial) or settlement (other private schools and schools in the other two catagories that don't have redirect targets). Please add {{r from school}} after the redirect markup, and if you get pushback, THEN go to AfD. Thanks. I think you'll find this good for your blood pressure and it will be good for mine too. I appreciate what you are doing, and with lower schools, I'm (almost) always gonna be with you on it. There's little opposition except from SPAs on the notion that lower schools generally lack notability. Let's try to limit the discussion to secondary schools. Many oppose gazetteer level notability for secondary schools (I don't), but that's certainly a spot on the continuum we can try to find a common ground. Let's not waste effort on lower schools. I appreciate what you do, man. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think you are wrong about school districts. We do not create articles on every water district, and other non-direct government entity that has taxing authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, John! See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts. I've been involved in writing school district articles for over a decade and the practice is to pretty much have every school district to have an article when possible. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello, John,

When you tag an article for proposed deletion (PROD), please indicate this in the edit summary. If an editor removes the PROD tag and the page is reviewed in the future, it's important to see that it has already been PROD'd and typically this is determined by scanning the previous edit summaries to see if it has been PROD'd or nominated for deletion at AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matthew Deane (Australian actor)

The article Matthew Deane (Australian actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nota tagged since August 2016. Very little to no coverage; some non-notable easy-to-get awards and a bit of promotional stuff in Mormon papers. (Note: while on the surface WP:BEFORE may seem to show results, these actually refer to Matthew Deane Chanthavanij, an entirely different person.)

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. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) 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. User:Namiba 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 establishments in Himachal Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2017 establishments in Himachal Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people in colonial Burma

A tag has been placed on Category:British people in colonial Burma requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people of colonial Malta

A tag has been placed on Category:British people of colonial Malta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please consider marking edits that only add/edit categories as "minor"

Can you please consider marking uncontroversial edits that only add/edit a few categories (e.g., [3], [4]) as "minor" edits? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk)

@ElKevbo: your advice is not consistent with Help:Minor_edit#What_not_to_mark_as_minor_changes. That "information page" specifies that actually adding/removing categories should not be marked as minor.

IMHO, changing the sort key in categories would be minor. I guess I might occasionally have marked a simple and indisputable correction to a category as minor; but generally, category changes are not minor. Even when they appear unimportant to the article, they are not minor in their effect on populating the category. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Adding or removing a category can on occasion also be major vandalism to the article. Consider this edit, twice repeated, to a BLP, for which I blocked the perpetrator. Category vandalism is pretty sneaky vandalism, too, quite likely to pass unnoticed, as this did for over a month. I understand that ElKevbo was specifically talking about uncontroversial category additions, but I worry that marking those as minor could serve as an excuse for a pretense of believing BLP vios by category being minor also. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continuous fight against trash articles. I know, it is very hard to continuously comment on AfDs which clearly fails our guidelines. Best wishes for the future. Störm (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:2001 establishments in the Republic of Artsakh

Hello, John,

I see you created this category. In doing so, you created several red link categories. Could you also create those as well? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1996 establishments in Kyrgystan

A tag has been placed on Category:1996 establishments in Kyrgystan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2000 establishments in Saint Kitts and Nevis

A tag has been placed on Category:2000 establishments in Saint Kitts and Nevis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality

Hello, as you know, the above category was merged into Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country as a result of this discussion. You recently re-created the category. I understand that there has been some push-back on that CFD, and it may not reflect a broader consensus. So if you disagree with the result of that discussion, I suggest you take the issue to WP:DRV, which is designed for situations like this. We do need some degree of order, and part of that is not allowing users to simply re-create categories that were deleted because they disagree with the decision. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Killian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 establishments in Rajasthan

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 establishments in Rajasthan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Prades has been nominated for deletion

Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Prades 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Belize

Do you agree that Category:Bishops in Belize should definitely have Category:Bishops by country as a parent? It is less obvious that Category:Belizean bishops should also have Category:Bishops by country as a parent. That question is still open given the recent controversy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Belizean bishops should have as a parent Category:Bishops by nationality. As long as we have such clearly by nationality categories, we should have the by nationality parent. I have a strong suspicion the latter category has been misapplied, but misapplication does not prove a category is unworkable, it just shows editors have been sloppy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you be concerned that this might result in many articles having a double parentage (i.e. Bishops in Belize and Belizean bishops)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No that does not concern me. Although we could agree to a system where we treat one as the primary and do not double use it. However if we categorize by specific bishop someone was a bishops of and a general by nationality category this is not duplicative very much. Especially if we agree that bishops are a dispersing sub-set of priests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What if all bishops were categorised to Bishops by country alone and to only add the second category (Bishops by nationality) if the state of the nation differed from that state of the country. That's very bad English. I don't know how to say it better. So if a French man was sent to Belize he would be in Bishops in Belize but not in Belizean bishops. I suppose he could be added to French bishops instead. So he would still have a double parentage now that I think about it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1995 establishments in Madya Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1995 establishments in Madya Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1978 establishments in Costa Rica

A tag has been placed on Category:1978 establishments in Costa Rica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Red link categories

Hello, John,

Please do not add nonexistent, red link categories to pages unless you plan on creating the categories. See WP:REDNO for details. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1702 establishments in Scotland

A tag has been placed on Category:1702 establishments in Scotland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For agreeing that Wikipedia is not a place for IMDb references in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Robertson JTZegersSpeak Aura 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:1788 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:1788 establishments in Austria 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:1885 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:1885 establishments in Austria 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2014 establishments in Curacao

A tag has been placed on Category:2014 establishments in Curacao requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Temple Lot

I'm working on an ACW battle article involving the Temple Lot site in Independence, MO. I'm not very familiar with Mormon/LDS terminology, and I would like to get it right. Would referring to The attack of the 13th Missouri Cavalry shattered Confederate resistance at the Temple Lot, a religious site related to the Latter Day Saint movement be a reasonable way to describe the Temple Lot? Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• That seems a reasonable way to describe the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, John,

When you PROD an article, please state this in the edit summary. You've been editing for over 14 years and have over 400K edits, I don't know why you would omit something as simple as an accurate edit summary. If the PROD tag is removed, it's important that there is a record that the page has already been PROD'd in case another editor decides to tag it again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert. Thank you. Vaticidalprophet 05:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what J needed today. The general trend of today has been one of my 10 worst days on Wikipedia ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You have my sympathy and best wishes. I would not wish ANI on anyone. This too shall pass. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1885 establishments in Austria

A tag has been placed on Category:1885 establishments in Austria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1905 establishments in the Congo Free State

A tag has been placed on Category:1905 establishments in the Congo Free State requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion by this editor

You weighed in on an AfD recently regarding the Category:Our Lady of Częstochowa churches in the United States which was successfully deleted. I was poor in my defense of the category, and only have to ask, as you may be more proficient at sussing out these miscreant categories, but you made my point about these particular churches even more succinct, when you mentioned "....Christian Church has nothing to do with the Black Madonna of Częstochowa." and tossed in some nonsense about Pan-Africans and Egyptian theologies. These few churches in that category were the only ones I found that subscribed to the Icon of the black madonna, which was the reason for only those and not all of the PNCC churches in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York being in the category. IMHO, you jumped the shark on this one, and totally missed the point. What's shared is their recognition of the Icon as the bastion of their church, they are not even all named the same. You have history with being called out for Category: AfD's , maybe a second look, I always listen to opposing views... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You are saying the Shrine of the Black Madonna iui s nonsense. This is a shared name category pure and simple. Also you seem to be headed towards an even bigger issue. There is a Polish Natioal Catholic Church which is a distict group from the Roman Catholic Church. This is a shared rednamecategory pure and simple. It is not nonsense to bring up the Shrine of the Black Madonna, this is a real group that really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Animators of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Animators of 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!} 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Celebrity

Dam, and I mean dam, I don't think I have ever seen so much written about you on wikipedia at ANI level. You really have turned into a wiki celeb! Govvy (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I just wish there was a limit to how long they could drag it out and leave the sword of death hovering over me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• No sword of death. Just keep doing your best to improve. Don't compromise your beliefs. We may not always agree but that's okay. Where we find common ground we will advance Wikipedia forward and where we disagree we will try to find compromise or it may just be that we have to agree to disagree so we can move forward. Do Not Quit. You'll regret it and come back anyway so you might as well stay and keep on keeping on. Not that every AfD needs it but I have read some of your !votes and when you clearly have thought through your answers and responded accordingly you have been amazing, again, regardless of whether I agreed with what was said or not. Wikipedia is better with you here, John. Trust me in that. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wolf: I just read your post, it felt like I was hearing parts of a Winston Churchill speech. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:American women academics of Chinese descent has been nominated for merging

Category:American women academics of Chinese descent 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. User:Namiba 15:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Been noticing your categorization work. It is a thankless job—I do not entirely understand it myself—but what I do know is that it helps out the encyclopedia in navigation. Thanks for your work, hope you continue to find enjoyment in this place, even when it comes to be a bit much. Urve (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar-ul-Islam

Hi. I hope you are well. You are invited to participate at this AFD discussion. If there are more participants, then it will be easier to get clear consensus. Hope, you will participate. Thanks and Have a nice day. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 11:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

American Falls, Idaho

Hi John Pack Lambert,

Thanks for drawing attention to the questionable date of origin for American Falls in the high school article. The 1800 date seems to have been widely disseminated, as the exact same wording is available on multiple websites. I dithered around a bit, and finally decided to leave out that date, since the more relevant 1879 date of the arrival of the original builder is at least after the known early expeditions to the area. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Graham Phillips

Hello, just wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Phillips_(journalist)_(2nd_nomination) and invite to take part in the discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there

I promised you this and saw to it that you weren’t banned from editing in deletion discussions. Please do not let such threads weigh you down or stress you out. Keep up the good work JPL. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people of North Borneo

A tag has been placed on Category:British people of North Borneo 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!} 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Swiss emigrants to Mandatory Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:Swiss emigrants to Mandatory Palestine 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!} 14:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing categories

I don't spend much time working on categories, so perhaps I am missing something, but could you explain this edit? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Establishment categories are not to have non-establishment categories as sub-cats. Only other by year establishment categories and articles should be in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Johnpacklambert, is that a policy, or a preference? Could you point me to something? Like I said, I don't do much with categories. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • This is the way things are done. It makes no sense otherwise, because with categories most of the things do not belong in establishment categories and often have no relation to the year they would be placed under.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1903 establishments in the North West Territories

A tag has been placed on Category:1903 establishments in the North West Territories 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!} 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spanish emigrants to Kenya

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish emigrants to Kenya 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!} 14:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spanish expatriate Roman Catholic bishops in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish expatriate Roman Catholic bishops in Africa 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!} 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1959 establishments in Equatorial Guinea

A tag has been placed on Category:1959 establishments in Equatorial Guinea 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!} 13:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1889 establishments in South Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:1889 establishments in South Africa 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!} 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:School distrcits established in 1931

A tag has been placed on Category:School distrcits established in 1931 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!} 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Johnpacklambert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A dark day

The dreaded day when there are over 1 million articles in Wikipedia in the Living people category has come. This is insane.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:School districts established in the 1867

A tag has been placed on Category:School districts established in the 1867 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!} 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

School district establishment years and categories

This edit is one of many that have added categories for when a district was established. This article merely says that a school building opened in 2006, it does not say that the district was established that year. Other edits in other articles have used a date when a school was opened as the year the district was established, when there is no indication that the school was opened as part of the school district. Please be far more careful in making such edits. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

School districts

It is amazing how many school district articles exist with no information on when they were formed. This is a very disheartening situation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Marion High School (old) (Ohio)

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Marion High School (old) (Ohio) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting pages you've created

For future reference if you are the author and only substantial contributor to a page, you may request deletion by blanking or placing {{db-author}} on the page see CSD WP:G7. In addition pages obviously created in error, by you or anyone else may be tagged with {{db-error}} see CSD WP:G6. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Misspellings

Hello, John,

I've deleted 6 or 7 categories you've created where the title has used "distrcits" instead of "districts". I'm not sure why this particular misspelling keeps reoccurring. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1664 establishments in Norway

A tag has been placed on Category:1664 establishments in Norway 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!} 15:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:1884 establishments in the South African Republic

Hello, John,

It looks like you are responsible for creating some South African Republic categories, like this one, that have multiple red link categories, some of which were deleted through CFD discussions. You can find more of these nonexistent, red link categories if you go to Special:WantedCategories and search for "South African Republic".

If you are going to create categories, could you also take a moment or two and create the parent categories or configure the new category page so that these red link categories are removed from the page? I'm sure you do not intend for your editing to cause work for other editors to clean up but that is what is happening. I know you are an expert on categories so this information should not be news to you. See WP:REDNO for more information on why red link categories should be eliminated whenever they appear, either through removing the red link category from the page or by creating the category. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This situation apparently also happened with Category:1959 establishments in the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands. Please do not continue this behavior and create categories containing red link categories. You're a extremely experienced editor and should know better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in Libya 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!} 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in the South African Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in the South African Republic 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!} 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in Vietnam 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!} 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870 establishments in South Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:1870 establishments in South Africa 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!} 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

I have some thoughts related to issues I have seen lately and other developments.

• 1. No article should be placed in multiple location of establishment categories, with the rare excepotion that the thing was actually established in two places at once. For example we do not but something in the Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union establishment categories, we only choose one. Some editors are trying to do both by current location and by location at the time. We should only do by location at the time. A Yeshivah established in 1925 in Tel Aviv was not established in Israel but in Mandatory Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2. We should not categorize the same establishment multiple times. Thus right now both Brigham Young University and Brigham Young High School are said to have been established in 1875. What was established in 1875 was Brigham Young Academy. This is the date Brigham Young University claims as its establishment. The name Brigham Young University was first used in about 1901. So maybe that is when we should date its establishment from.
• 3. We are over 5,000 articles in the Category:2021 deaths. This means it is on track to be the largest deaths by year category we have. Falling pandemic death rates, lower overall death rates in the summer months and other factors may or may not mean we stay on track. We shall see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Failure of AfC

I submitted an article through the Articles for Creation process back on Feb. 11 of this year. It is still pending. This is way too long of a wait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2015 establishments in Nagaland

A tag has been placed on Category:2015 establishments in Nagaland 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!} 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Latvian establishments in the Russian Empire by year

Now that 1912 has been deleted, are you planning to do a batch nomination for the remaining anomalous years? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870s establishments in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1870s establishments in Libya 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!} 14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 in Libya 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!} 14:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 in the South African Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 in the South African Republic 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!} 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czechoslovak mycologists

A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovak mycologists 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!} 15:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands by year has been nominated for merging to Category:Establishments in Okinawa by year

Category:Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands by year has been nominated for merging to Category:Establishments in Okinawa by year. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Optimizely: Categories

Hi John, trying to understand your logic for removing the top level categories on this page. Why can't a page be in both a parent and child category? There are plenty of individual pages on Category:2010 establishments in the United States. Should all those removed? How could a company ever be listed on that page without also being in a child category?

• I see you created a talk page on the article itself, we can continue the conversation there.Salsakesh (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well, Category:Companies established in 2010 would have the following A-companies that function in multiple places, so they have no clear place of establishments, 2-companies that were established in countries that do not have a sub-cat, and 3-companies whose articles do not make clear where they were established. Even then it should only have those if these is no difussing sub-cat such as Category:Software companies established in 2010 the article could be placed in. So yes, Category:Companies established in 2010 should be nearly empty. Likewise Category:2010 establishments in the United States should only include articles that all the following apply to A-they are not about railroald stations, tv shows or companies, if that applies they go in the sub-cats, and b-they can not be linked to a specific state. That is why Category:2010 establishments in California is larger than Category:2010 establishments in the United States. There are lots of musical groups connected to the US that the articles are not clear on what state they were formed in, which is a big reason why the listed parent is not bigger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Canadian Paul 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite repeated pleas to be careful when removing Category:Living people from individuals who are clearly noted as being alive recently, you continue to remove it. This is in addition to the dozens of removals where a quick check of the references would have verified that the individual in question was still living. Due to the gravity of this actions as they impact WP:BLP, in addition to your unwillingness to discuss this issue with editors, I have no choice but to block you to prevent further disruption to the project. Please consider the disruptive impact of your edits, not to mention the amount of work other editors have to put in to correct these mistakes, and the importance of engaging the project as a community. Canadian Paul 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

This basically is a reaction to my editing the article Bruce L. Douglas. That article has one listed source, from the early 1970s. Yes, the article also states he won a recognition in 2015, which I missed before I made my edit, which I am very sorry about. I will be more reserved and make sure to review the article more thoroughly in the future. Still, this amounts to punishing me for editing an article which other editors did not bother to post with any sources more recent than almost 50 years ago. To me this is a clear over-reaction. A block that is total and lasts a total of 1 week is way, way too much of a block for such an action, especially since it was a good faith revision based on the lack of any listed sources that were less than 40 years old. I am very, very sorry that I did not review the article more throughly and I will make sure to do so in the future. To impose a block of an entire week over what amounted to a legitimate mistake based on the lack of listed recent sources on an article is an extreme overreaction and not justified in this case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid this unblock request shows a failure to understand the reasons for the block. It is not for one "mistake", it is for persistently and knowingly editing in a way which you have been repeatedly asked not to do. JBW (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

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

I am sorry your request has been declined. I think it is an ovverreaction. Sorry to see this happen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs better guidelines on more than local notability for biographies

Wikipedia needs much, much clearer guidelines that 2 articles in a hyper local paper do not make someone notable. That there are any keep votes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Acree shows that many editors are either unable or unwilling to discern what topics are notable and which ones are totally local concerns that do not merit any coverage at all in a worldwide encyclopedia. The same issues of local coverage is why we reject almost all articles on institutions lower than high schools and why we should start reje4cting most articles on high schools. The reality is that in most of the world the nature of local media and local secondary education means we will rarely have articles on most secondary educational institutions. The fact that we have deleted a whole slew of such articles on secondary institutions in India and the Philippines means that this is clearly an issue where we will end up under covering some areas and over covering some others if we follow our current policies. However of we required something more than a local paper having a few articles on the local football team, we would more quickly remove a lot of insubstantial articles on high schools that are not needed in the long run. The current policies also can at times lead to putting undue weight on a high school student arrested for a bomb threat, which has no importance to the high school in its overall history. The fact that well over half of the articles on US high schools, maybe even two thirds, do not in any way say when they were established tells me we are dealing with subjects of little true importantance. Virtually every article we have on a college says when it was established. That is only true of maybe half the articles we have on sub-units of colleges, some of which use the name college, but the later are not as notable as people seem to think. Research Institutes so often end up being articles sourced only to their own website that this is one of the major sources of true cruft in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia still suffers from poor planning

Wikipedia still suffers from being set up with down right horrible planning. The legacy of the early wild west days of the project is still hurting Wikipedia a lot. It still has a huge number of articles that in no way would meet any even half reasonable inclusion criteria. The number of articles sourced only to the unreliable IMDb is staggering. The notion that every film that had a commercial realese is notable we have never accepted in theory, but in practice we have come close to allowing it to be an as applied standard, with disasatrous results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There are more absurd results. It seems that at one point Wikipedia had an article on every name that appears in The Lord of the Rings. We may have at one point also reached that absurd level for The Silmarillion. At one point we seemed to accept that everyone who had ever won a Miss America state competion (such as Miss Delaware) or a Miss USA state competion was notable. Although we only provided coverage of all such candidates for a few years. We also at one point accepted that anyone who was a "major party" nominee for US house in the US was notable, although there also we never came close to providing anywhere near complete coverage, leavcing us open to be turned into a free campaign platform. The absurd lengthenths we have been taken in coverage of local politicians in Louisana, New Jersey and Dedham, Massachusetts are only exceeeded by the other absurdities connected with our coverage of Dedham. There are many other idiocyncratic examples of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs better policies against abuse

Wikipedia needs better policies against abuse. We in theory do not allow the creation of autobiographies, but we get so many that we clearly do not make creating articles hard enough, and do not have strong enough deterents against misusing the platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many categories

Wikipedia has too many categories. This especially applies to award categories and eponymous categories. There are also too many American categories that are split out by state or city with no good reason, and we are too willing to allow extremely small occupation by nationality categories. We have also failed over and over again to apply ERGS rules in good ways, and end up with too many categories that intersect occupation with ethnicity in ways that are not defining. Even worse, we have allowed the application of ethnicity and descent categories in some cases where the person in question did not know they had such. The caution that every point in a person's life is not worth categorizing by is too rarely headed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a unique and disruptive use of the term "secondary source"

Wikipedia uses an understanding of secondary source at variance with how it is used by most historians. Most historians consider a report, especially from a local newspaper, on an event or thing to be a primary source. Wikipedia treats articles in newspapers as secondary sources. This is a very bad policy in a lot of cases. Actually both sides of this policy are bad. There are newspaper articles that are secondary sources and some that are primary sources, and the exact lines depend on meaning and definition. However any policy that acts as if all articles are either is bad. Wikipedia would be better off if we started giving any mention in truly scholarly publications a lot more weight than newspaper articles. We also need to start enforcing the no original research policy better. Too many articles mention census information on a person. While including such is doable if it was included in a published secondary source, in some cases the Wikipedia editor seems to have indepdently gone and found the person on the census and extracted information that way. In some cases it is less than clear how they know that it is the right person. Even less clear is that the editor has the skill to treat the census the way you need to treat any primary source, as limited in its meaning and needing to be considered in the context it was created. In the case of available US census information this is being a comiled summary of enumerations filled out by a person other than the subject, so that especially things like how a name was spelled may not reflect anything more than the views of the census enumerator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's worst inclusion rule

In my view Wikipedia's worst rule is treating all competitors in the olympics as if they are default public figures. This is probably the most glaring exemption to the general notability guidelines multiple sources we currently have. a huge number of articles on olympians only report their involvment in one olympics and say nothing about their life before or since. This is probably the largest group of people falsely placed in Category:Living people, some of whom have been dead since before Wikipedia was launched, and they are a disproportionately large componant of Category:Possibly living people. Both are a direct result of them being by and large non-public figures. This is even more true of the time when the olympics had strict rules requiring those who participated to be amatures. Even some cases where one would think we would have substantial coverage, like the Jamaican bobsled team, if you dig down you realize we have very little content on the real people who really did form a part of that team.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Category horror

In category discussion no matter how bad a category is, fixing it on its own causes people to attack you. This is a bad situation, since some category structures run to theoretically hundreds of categories, and expecting people to nominate them all to fix just one is absurd. Luckily we have not imposed such absurdity on articles. Also, Fayentic London is just wrong. We should not have any anachronistic categories that do not express a reality on the gound at the time. Wikipedia right now is drowning in anachronism. I am also tried of the popularity of assaulting people at CfD. No one there every suggests we give special praise to those who have done exceptional good jobs. I will not back down in speaking against those who try to create a whiggish impression that the way things are is exactly the way things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this refers to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_12#1902_establishments_in_Lithuania.

Sometimes you do a batch nomination, like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_13#pre-1917_establishments_in_Latvia, which is helpful (although it was still incomplete). Other times you pick off individual years. I don't understand how you argue "Each category should be considered on its specific merits" but then immediately state "These categories are wrong" without stating specific merits.

I was not wrong to state that other CFDs have ended in consensus that certain anachronistic categories are useful. You may disagree with that consensus, but you are incorrect to deny the existence of the consensus at that time. A few years ago we tried a RFC to set a principle one way or the other, but that ended with no consensus.

Credit is sometimes given at CFD for exceptionally good jobs; I could provide examples if you wish. But we all do better in Wikipedia if we are content with our own work. I think you have agreed before that WP:DGAF can be a healthy attitude.

I was surprised to see that you have been sanctioned. I hope a short break will prove to be helpful.

Best wishes – Fayenatic London 17:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Also for the record, the polite discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_17#North-West_Territories_establishments includes an example of anachronistic locations being stated in source documents. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• • You are calling for assaulting people which is totally uncalled for. My nominatio clearly improved things and your approach is backward. If you want polite discussions you need to start it by ending the practice of going around and threatening people with assault for not enslaving themselves to the overly demanding process of entering into discussions according to your preconceived notions. It is very tedious to create a nomination on the level you demand, and to threten people with assault for not conforming to such a tedious demand is entriely uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi, what threats and assaults are you talking about? WP:TROUT? That is intended as a humorous rebuke. I have a userbox inviting it on my own user page for when I make mistakes. Please, keep a sense of proportion. If you did not grow up with Monty Python and do not get the joke, I apologise for a poor choice of words.
    • Anyway, I came here to say that I just commended you for the group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_18#Establishments_in_the_Russian_Empire_when_there_was_no_Lithuania. Thank you for completing this despite finding it "very tedious", and some other complementary nominations on the same page. Thanks and well done. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • And what is the point of that. I write a long, detailed explanation pointing out how these categories can not possibly work, and then I have rabid nationalist argue to keep them without even recognizing my very clear reasons as to why these categories are not right. We should get rid of all ana chronistic categories, but a few ignorant people who ignore both reason and historical fact and make lots of noise with no sense are able to impose this wrongheaded set up on the rest of us. This is why I hate dealing with categories, because no one actually recognizes when you do the work to hunt down sources, maps etc. and show that there was no unit that even came close to being the supposed place and just clamor to keep the categories as is. Wikipedia then allows a few irresposible users who engage in lieing to advance the cause of various natiolisms to destroy any reasonable scheme to properly categorize things in a way that reflects the reality on the ground in a given year. This is frustrating, and it is those of us who try to be historically accurate who get critizes and the radib nationalists who do not do any study and essentially repeat the same hollow claims get off scot free. I am sick of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical categories by period

I wish there was a central discussion for all of your systematic changes to period categories. You clearly have some model for this, but I can’t divine what it is or whether it is consistent (e.g., do you envision removing “in Germany” categories before 1871 and “in Russia” categories before 1917 and in 1922–1991?). Is there a main guideline we can refer to? If not, it would be helpful to explain your principles and present them to the community, rather that have people vote on scores of individual categories based on their preference and not your obscure (to me, anyway) conceptual model. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, the basic principal is we reflect the politcal reality on the gound at the time. Lithuania was not a political unit in the years referred to, so your argument does not hold water there. Ukraine was even less a political unit, which even you admit, citing 3 areas that made up some of modern Ukraine at the time. pre-1871 Germany is a messy subject, but you are welcome to work on it. We do have Soviet Union categories. The issue there is there was a recognizsed sub-unit of the Soviet Union that was named Russia. Wheather we should have a category for that sub-unit is open for debate, but it is a doable situation because we do have categories for other sub-units. As pointed out neither Ukraine nor Lithuania was in any way a recognized politcal sub-unit of the Russian Empire at the times in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Where does this “basic model” come from? Why are you restricting country to the sense of “political unit,” and why in some cases to state and others to “sub-unit”? Is there a guideline for this categorization, or is this your personal view? We have hundreds of “History of [country]” articles on a model that is based on reliable sources and that you are completely contradicting. —Michael Z. 15:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I am not contradicting these. This is brought about by the clear consensus that when we have categories for the establishments of things, they reflect definable boundaries at the time the establishment is happening. It derives out of the fact that categories have to be clearly definable, and so they need to be based on clearly definable units, such as the Russian Empire, not amosphous places that had no defined boundaries at the time. Otherwise we end up imposing the present on the past, and then there is no good reason to deny categorization to hoped for polities that do not exist at the present. The whole thing becomes a mess, so the only reasonable way to do this is to follow political boundaries at the time. Thus we have the Russian Empire categories in the years in question. So you see we have categories that reflect such realities, yet you are trying to ignore them and impose present categories that have no meaning. As I have said multiple times there is no recognized, definable, boundaried Ukraine or Lithuania in 1899, there is no sub-unit of the Russian Empire known by that name, so we should not have categories using that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    Where is this consensus described? What you’re doing is still ill defined, and you are unrealistically optimistic by envisioning these clear boundaries throughout history (you are only reinforcing nineteenth-century imperial aspirations by using lines on old maps that did not reflect reality: a rejection of current historiography and a disservice to our readers). If it was already clear, you wouldn’t be moving scores of categories at once. Please consult first. —Michael Z. 19:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    No, the boundaries in any year are clear. The problem is people trying to impose modern boundaries through all history, which is just plain wrong. When we categorize something as established in a given year in a given place, we should use places as they existed in that year. There was no Lithuania or Ukraine in 1899. There was a Russian Empire with a clearly defined boundary. The Russian Empire really did control these areas, this is not about some unrealized "imperialistic aspirations", this is about the real and actual control of the areas in question by Russian authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    No, it is not about “control,” nor “clearly defined boundary,” nor did I say it is necessarily about imposing “modern boundaries.” The category tree is named “by country,” and it is about countries. As these are historical categories, and as category names are aimed at readers, the names should reflect historical articles’ usage as is determined by reliable sources.

    There is an entire subject field of history about Ukraine, for example, and a large entire set of articles about the History of Ukraine, and you are trying to wipe it out of the category trees because Ukraine’s history does not conveniently fit your personal views about what constitutes a country. This is contrary to the practice of historiography, contrary to the way it is represented in Wikipedia, and an egregious example of imposing your own WP:BIAS.

    In short, it is about consensus historical countries that you refuse to accept as countries.

    You are trying to impose a personal interpretation by making sweeping category changes, and since you haven’t discussed it in one place, you are now having to deal with a dozen uncoordinated discussions responding to specific cases by editors who agree or disagree almost randomly based on details and still with no chance of coming to any consensus for a systematic overall structure. I suggest you put these temporarily on hold and start a comprehensive discussion on the nature of category trees that cross the “by year” and “by country” branches, or all of this energy might end up with another random mess that’s only partly different from the previous random mess. —Michael Z. 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

    • This is not my personal inperpreation. It is the reality of the time, that there was no Ukraine in 1899, that there is no way to define Ukraine in 1899. Each discussion relates to a specific place and time and the issues are different. It is you who fails to actually engage with the reality of specific times in history and tries to treat everything in a uniform way, and so who fails to actually engage with the discussions at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. It is difficult to have meaningful discussions at CFD when faced with multiple walls of text. It is also awkward to have multiple discussions at CFD going on regarding the same basic issue rather than consolidating the discussion into one place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is difficult having a discussion at CfD with people who refuse to engage the specifics of the actual discussion and refuse to recognize historical reality and try to impose the presnt on th past. On the second point, I group as many entries as was reasonable. However, it only makes sense to group things when there are like issues at play. The splitting up of the discussions makes 100% sense, what does not is the general refusal to engage with various discussions as they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

CFD participants definitely value brevity when making different points. (That's something I'm still working on myself!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Horrible practices in alumni lists

Lists of notable alumni when they list a graduation year should always put all 4 years. We are not on paper, so we have no realistic size limits, so we do not need to engage in practicies adopted when people were trying to fit a lot of information into a little space. The most egregious use of these 2 year dates I have seen related to institutions that are over 100 years old. Once an institution passes 100 years of age saying someone graduated in '02 in no way tells one what year is actually being refered to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Anachronistic Categories

JPL,

I completely share your conceptual view on avoiding anachronistic category and believe I've !voted in favor of all your proposals. I'm honestly surprised the nominations have proven so controversial. From a strategic standpoint, it may make sense to hold off on additional nominations until the ones for Ukraine are closed so we have some sense of where the consensus lies.

Just a tactical suggestion for your consideration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• There are 3 editors who are fighting this. I am sick and tired of so few people deciding the course of Wikipedia. I am tired of doing research, and yet having people just outright misrepresent things, and try to claim that some how having three distinct area named Polonia, Volhinia nad Ruthenia which collectively leave out large swaths of Ukraine equates to there being a place called Ukraine. I am even more mad that editors are allowed to unilaterally force a category I create like Category:1894 establishments in Lagos Colony into the Nigeria category, even though there is no conceivable way to say Nigeria even if it in some sense existed in that year included the Lagos colony. When I try to express myself all I get is rudeness. Some days I wish we had never allowed any sub-national establishments categories at all. This would be a lot easier if we had disallowed such 100 percent. Even if no one has yet claimed that Ukraine was an actual clearly established sub-national unit. I feel truly unapreciated for all the work I do to try and improve Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am so fed up with being told that my view that the Russian Empire, the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had boundaries that included every inch of modern Ukraine and Poland in 1899 is a "personal interpretation". It is an indisputed fact. I am even more fed up with people trying to classify three distinct sub-regions of a larger state as somehow showing that a particular place existed at a particular time.
• In 1700 Guinea was a distinct area in the European mind, this does not mean we should classify anything as having been established in Guinea in that year. Just because a name can be invoked and people think it has a generalized boundary does not mean it is an area we can use to classify that things were established there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am sick and tire of being attacked for having the view that if something was sestablished in an area that was indisputably part of the Russian Empire, it should be in any category other than the one for the Russian Empire. Especially when the proposed other place did not exist, but instead was split between multiple places with different names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I share your frustration about these categories, and that the nominations seem likely to end in no consensus. I'm also concerned that this seems to really be getting under your skin, especially with this edit summary. That really surprised me since I've always enjoyed our conversations even when we've disagreed! - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I really do feel he is undermining my contributions to Wikipedia in a backhanded way. If he does not want to let Category:1894 establishments in Lagos Colony stnad on its own, he should be forced to sent it to AfC, not to surreptitiously undermine it by stealth adding a category it does not belong in. He has does the same thing in impossing South Africa categories before that place was created in 1910.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Old Perth Boys School

The article is about the physical building not the institution. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ariel S. Ballif for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ariel S. Ballif 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/Ariel S. Ballif 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.

4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just plain wrong caegorization

I just moved John Greig (bishop) from the 1925 births category to the 1865 births category. I have no idea how some people get some categorizations so totally wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect inclusion in Living people category

I just moved someone to 1999 deaths whose article already stated they died in 1999. This is a pretty extreme case since Wikipedia was not even born until 2001, and the article in question was started in December of 2004.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

 —Michael Z. 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why bishop categorization is sub-standard

We have horrible categorization of bishops that often is not very good. This is largely because so many of our articles on bishops are poor extrations of what is said at the Catholic hierarchy website on them. Catholic hierarchy is a blog with directory style articles on its subjects. Just look at this entry [5] which is the sole source of the Wikipedia article on the subject. It does not even give the place of the subject's birth, I have no idea where that information actually came from in the Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1639 establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

A tag has been placed on Category:1639 establishments in 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!} 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yugoslav female discus throwers

A tag has been placed on Category:Yugoslav female discus throwers 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!} 16:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Missed death information

I just moved two articles into death year categories from the living people category. These were on people born in 1994 and 1996. Wikipedia was not even started until 2001, so the articles have always been incorrect in stating the subjects were living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

18 year old hoax?

I saw that you mentioned "we have hoaxes that have existed over 18 years" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Church International. What is that referring to? The oldest hoaxes listed at WP:HOAXLIST are only 15 years old; this would be the longest lived by a substantial margin. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to thank you (belatedly) for this clarifying note you left on my talk page. It's very helpful, and I've pointed to it several times in in AfD discussions. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Flora Benson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flora Benson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora Benson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to notify you of this (as article creator), but it slipped my mind at the time. I'm glad there is a bot that does this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew E. Mason (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robertsky was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matthew E. Mason and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matthew E. Mason, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– robertsky (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Johnpacklambert! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – robertsky (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

W:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Year of birth

The top year of birth category in Wikipedia is 1988 with 17447 entries. 1989 is just behind it with 17444. 1987, 1986 and 1985 also have over 17000 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ottoman Empire Romanians

A tag has been placed on Category:Ottoman Empire Romanians 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!} 16:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments at AN/I pertaining Lugnuts.

I was a bit shocked to see these comments “Lugnuts should be banned from creating new articles. He has over and over again shown a complete disregard for the GNG”. against Lugnuts, I would have thought as one who has been the target of multiple editors at ANI, you would have shown a little more compassion(or at least not attempt to initiate a process that would make article creations for them impossible) In the same manner I stuck out my head for you more than I can count from pitch fork welding editors who wanted to crucify you, I presumed you’d appreciate the predicaments of Lugnuts and be a little nicer. Think about this. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• • Lugnuts is a major cause of the problem of Wikipedia being flooded with useless stubs. I am not going to back away from my views on this, especially since he has been one of the editors who has most ignored GNG and tried to force it to be subperseded by subject specific guidelines that in no way approximate passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Whist the notability aspect is debatable, my point was(and still is) you could have been more amiable or empathetic before commenting, as you know first hand how it feels to be attacked by several editors simultaneously at ANI, I remember in your last three ANI incidents or fourth incident (can’t remember all too well now) that it was my final comment that led to the ANI being closed without any action against you. I also note that you mentioned Lugnuts is a major cause of the problem of Wikipedia being flooded with useless stubs I think its unfair to refer to the work of a long standing editor with over a million edits as “useless” in the same manner people called your !votes at AFD useless (which I defended you severally) I would have thought that you’d extend the same kindness to others. I do agree with you that they mass create stubs a lot, but all those stubs largely meet WP:PSA, I however do appreciate your stance on this, after-all, it is indeed your opinion and it’s your prerogative to air your opinions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• In fact in the matter of editing Gayle Bluth, Lugnuts fought tooth and nail to leave the article a basically unsourced stub. He removed information that I put in there that was sourced to a publication of the Smithsonian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Baird

Hi - You say in your edit summary "Baird's death is cited to the Telegraph". The only telegraph citation I see is "Lady Baird died on 14 May 2009". When I try and open the citation it says "Messages are disabled for this announcement." I cannot see any statement in the main text that Sir Thomas Baird died in 2019 with or without a citation. Please can you explain? Dormskirk (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• I think in this case I actually took the fact that he was in the death category and placed that death in the article. Having reviewed the available sources, there does not seem to be any indication that Baird is dead, and it is almost certain that if he were dead we would be able to source it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is good to know it was just a mistake. I was alerted by the edit summaries "Someone keeps amending this page saying he has died, but he is alive and well" and "Someone keeps putting him down as having died in May 2019. He is still alive!" It is essential that WP:BLP is observed at all times as declaring a person dead when they are not causes unnecessary distress for families, friends and the individual concerned. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Expatriates category

Hi! I have a quick question: do the expatriates categories refer to people that have lived in a country or only to those that are currently residing in it? Thanks beforehand! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• • All Wikipedia categories are non-temporary. So now category refers to people only who currently do so. So the answer is anyone who is a national of country x who has ever "lived" in country y is an x expatriate in y. So Gerrit W. Gong, an American who received his master's and Ph.D. at the University of Oxford and also was on a rowing team there falls under Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom. He is not directly in that category since he is in Category:American Rhodes Scholars, which is a diffusing sub-category of Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom. To pick one of the few of these categories over 1000 articles, Category:American expatriate basketball people in France (which is roughly twice as big as the direct contents of Category:American expatriates in France) many of the entries are in multiple basketball related categories. For example Larry Abney is in 12 related categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• The tricky thing is figuring out how long being in a particular foriegn country makes someone an expatriate. Ezra Taft Benson is in Category:American expatriates in Germany. There is a specific quote in Sheri Dew's biography of Gordon B. Hinckley about one Christmas when Hinckley and his wife Marjorie Pay Hinckley stayed at the home of Benson and his wife Flora Benson in Frankfurt, Germany. I would have to look into this more, but I am not sure this was ever technically a house owned by Benson, I think it was owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I do not think it was the Europe Mission Office, so it was a private house. The Benson's were in Europe multiple years, living in Germany but overseeing Church operations throughout continental Europe. Benson was the key moving force in eastablishing recognition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Italy, with his previous role as US secretary of state, and had a role in the Church being recognized in Spain. Benson also was the moving force in establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Finland, but that was 20 years before when he left Flora and the children in the US and was there just after World War II and constantly traveling. So Benson ends up in the category American expatriates in Germany and in a sub-category of Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom based on his time as a missionary for 2 years in the United Kingdom the 1920s. His trips to the Soviet Union, Finland, Italy, Spain, and several other countries both in Europe and in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific, never rise to the level of categorizing him as an expatriate in any other country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• It is sometimes a hard call to figure out what the minimum time in a country is for expatriate classification. My general rule is if you are a graduate of a university there you count, if you are stationed at a military base there you count, if you have a diplomatic posting there you count. However having closely studied the life of Russell M. Nelson, I have come to realize that now all visiting academic postings are enough to count. If someone was a year or more as a fully placed professor at a university in a country, at least in a situatution where they lived in a country (I live in Detroit and have had work collegues who lived in Windsor, Ontario while working in Detroit and thus had never actually been resident in the US) you are going to count. Nelson had titles as visiting professor in Uruguay, and I believe Mexico, and a multi-year affiliation with a university in China, and was on a special team that vistied all the MASH units in Korea during the Korean war, and may have had an appointment in Mexico similar to the one in Uruguay. However the Korean War assignment also involved being in Japan part of the time. OK, I went and looked it up. In 1981 Nelson had appointments as a visiting professor in both Chile and Mexico, but at the time he was working as a cardiac surgeon based in Salt Lake City, these were short term appointments. His psotion in Uruguay was so only during one month. In both those years I think he also went to work with a university in China. Nelson is in the category Category:United States Army personnel of the Korean War which is a sub-cat of Category:American military personnel of the Korean War which is a sub-cat of Category:American expatriates in South Korea. He is not in any other expatriate category, because although he had visited well over 50 countries, in a huge variety of capacities, first 2 with the US army, then a whole bunch as a medical doctor going to conferences and the like, then a little later for very short recognitions as a visting academic medical professional, and then a huge number as an aposlte and then president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, none of these assignements every rose to the level of living outside the US.
• On the other hand Dallin H. Oaks was for 2 years Area President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Philippines, and is in the category Category:American expatriates in the Philippines due to this 2 year assignment where he lived in that country (although he still did travel a few times back to the US during that period), Jeffrey R. Holland, likewise was area president in Chile and is in the category Category:American expatriates in Chile, he was earlier when a general authority seventy area president in the United Kingdom for 3 years, and so is in the category Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom but in a sub-category because he was previously a missionary there. It takes some thinking about the situations to get these right. An Area President in going to be an expatriate in the place he is assigned if he is not a native (Joseph W. Sitati is a native of Kenya, where he is based as president of the African Central Area, previously when he was in the Africa Southeast (since rename to South) Area Presidency, he was based in South Africa, I need to go make sure we have that categorization done right.) Papal Nuncios to give another example, and bishops, will count as expatriates where they are assigned, but the Pope does not become an expatriate with each visit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• The trickies case I am still debating is Lloyd Alexander. I think I need to add him to Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom, he was there in total close to a year. WWII veterans are probalby under categorized as expatriates, but they moved around so much it is hard to pin them down. For example I just added L. Tom Perry to Category:American expatriates in Japan. He was connected with the force doing the post-WWII occupation of Japan and assisted in rebuilding a Christian Church in Nagasaki. I am not going to throw him into any category directly connected with Saipan or other islands in the PAcific campaign he was involved in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• In general if you are born to nationals of a particular country who then return to that country in a country where they are foreigners, you count as an expatriate in that country where you were born. This is very clear if your parents are diplomats of a country other than your birth. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Of course on the other end, there is a question of when someone goes from being an expatriate to being an emigrant. If they become naturalized they will be. However they do not have to actually be naturalized, and many articles do not say if they were. It is a hard call, and a lot of articles really do not give enough information to make it very well. What is clear to me is that we have far more articles that can fall under the emigration and expatriates trees than have been placed in them. You can in fact be a country a emigrate to country b and later be a country b emigrate to country c. In theory you can be a country a emigrate to country b, and a country a emigrate to country c, but for this to really be the right way to categorize you, you also have to be a country b emigrate to country a. If you go directly from country b to country c and are not logically conisdered a national of country b going to country c, but a national of country a going to country c, you were an expatriate and not an emigrant in country b. We do not however have to follow the policies particular governments used to admit people, because some of these past policies were clearly not reflective of logical reality. For example pre-1965 the US simulteneously had A-no limits at all on emigration from Latin America, Canada or the Caribbean, b-disallowed naturalization of people from the "Asia Pacific Triangle", c-for most purposes counted people as nationals based on place of birth, not citizenship status, d-for Asia Pacific Triangle issues, would count the child of Japanese nationals born in Brazil as Japanese, not Brazilian, even if the person in question had never set foot in Japan. Clearly no matter what the government said, if we can find a Maria Takagashi born in Sao Paulo in 1937 and living there exclusively for the first 18 years of her life who snuck into the US in 1955 she would without question be a Brazilian emigrant to the United States, not a Japanese emigrant to the United States. The one possible complication would be if Takagashi's father was a diplomat, but even in that case, if she had never actually visited Japan I would still say she was not Japanese, and most Japanese in Brazil in 1937 were farmers not diplomats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's very comprehensive, fortunately it seem that it will be a good reference for future articles. I'll let you know if I have any other questions. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick message on the expatriate cats! I don't think I agree with the idea that those studying abroad are by necessity expatriates in the common sense of the word - the expatriate article has little if any mention of university students being expatriates. That said, I don't care that much and as long as there is a clear understanding one way or another it doesn't matter. If students being included is what you're going for, I would try and find some sources describing them as expats and add them to the expat article so there's at least consensus between the mainspace and the categories. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

THis is just plain stupidity on your part. Expatriates are nationals of one country in another category. It is that plain simple. You are fighting against the actual meaning of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article on expatriates is just plain horrible. For one thing it overly focuses on well off expatriates. If we go by some of its thrust, we would basically not have an easy category to put people who worked for 6 months as a Filipino maid in UAE or 3 years as a Filipino domestic worker in Hong Kong, but would have a place for an Argentine banker who worked 3 years in Oman. That is a horrible way to set up categories. If I do a search for "expatriate student" I get 38,000 hits, showing that this is a term, and that people in actual language usage consider students to be expatriates. An expatriate is a national of one country living in another. The basic format is we have X nationals, we in theory should have just one category Category:American nationals in France. However someone at some point decided that we should split it and have Category:American expatriates in France and Category:American emigrants to France. Category:American expatriates in France covers all Americans who lived in France, from Mitt Romney to Molly Spotted Elk to lots of other people, who do not in some way cross the threshold and become actually French. For other reasons, that at times border on headache causing, we have decided we create almost no sub-categories of x emigrants to y, with the odd exception for Jewish emigrants who were escapaing Nazism, an odd exception that I am not convinced is justified, and for other reasons that I think are less well thought out than people realize, we have a huge number of sub-categories of the expatriate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Categorization is about basic terms. So you need to look at basic terms. That is where you look in the expatriate article. At the opening. It states "an expatriate is a person residing in a country other than their native country." So we have to define "native country" and "resding". Gerrit W. Gong studying multiple years for multiple degrees in the United Kingdom clearly is residing there, and the United Kingdom is not his native country. He is thus by definition an expatriate. "native country" should not be read "county of birth" in this case, but "county of nationality or allegiance". 99% of people born in a country even if they lack formal citizenship would be considered in some ways nationals of the same country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, I know the largest number of expatriates are neither students nor diplomats. In the current world there are huge numbers of employees of various companies who have been sent by their company to other countries. These people need to where possible be placed in the appropriate expatriate categories, however because of the realities of Wikipedia notability policy, and sourcing, these people are not going to be the main source of such categorization, and finding those articles to categorize is even harder. Harold Atcherley is a good representation of a business expatriate. However that seems to be only in a few cases connected with his notability. George C. Butte on the other hand is the type of expatriate who actually as an expatriate held a level of position that made hom notable, but there are not many of these. What is clear is there is a huge amount of work to do in categorizing expatriates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we need the expatriate actors categories?

I am debating in my own mind whether we need the expatriate actors categories. I will explain why this is a mess. So we have a category like Category:American film actresses. The decision seems to be that this is for actresses who are "American" who act in film, not for actresses in films that were American. The fact that probably 75% of actresses in American films, or maybe even more, are American, and that over 90% of American films actresses who are notable (and here I may be low balling the number) are notable at least in part for works in American films, although I may be underestimating the effect of Spaghetti westerns, makes these a classic case where most of the time we do not have to answer the question. However there are a large enough number of people who are actors and actresses from a few countries in a few other countries, that they seem to be worth so categorizing, thus we have a category like Category:Canadian expatriate film actresses in the United States with over 100 entries. 100 years ago this was actually however a much more staightforward thing. 100 years ago films were almost all shot in a particular place, studio lots. So if you were in a Hollywood film, you had to come to California to work on it, and if you were in a British film you would be in a place in England, a German film you would be in Germany, and that was about it. The films were also silent, so language did not play a big part. 85 years ago (1936), language did play a part, but films were largely still shot on studio lots. After World War II you start to get films shot on sight. By the 1970s you have Star Wars shot in Tunisia, and Britain, and California, but one would not argue that any of the cast became nationals of the places the films were shot. You probably have more people in acting living long periods of time in countries other than their birth today than in the 1930s, but it may be not easy to tell this from quick glances at articles, and may in some cases say less about their acting careers than we believe it does. Even as I write this I begin to realize one thing though, I really have less sense of which movies are shot on location and which are shot on stages than I used to. I guess my extreme examples of this are ones like Mary Poppins" which I first watched as a child well under 10. It was probably my second watching that I tried to analize spatial housing distribution in London from the film, only later realizing it was shot on sound stages in LA, and was thus not a good source for making observations about London. I have noticed in the last year that American moveies seem to play up lots of locations across Europe, but we very rarely get specific and indepth names locations in the US outside of New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco. I may be simplifying it a little, but no matter how broadly you define those three metro areas they end up being the setting of a disproportionately high number of American films set in the US. Although there are cases of films set in places other than they are filmed, and some of the works I can think of that fall in the rublic of these 3 places are animations, so the issue here has nothing to do with where the works are actually filmed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• • The cateogry I was thinking of is actually Category:Canadian expatriate actresses in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Irene Becerril for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irene Becerril 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/Irene Becerril 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.

PepperBeast (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian emigrants to Belgium

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian emigrants to Belgium 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!} 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:University of Düsseldorf faculty has been nominated for renaming

Category:University of Düsseldorf faculty 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) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hotcat not working

The program seems to not be letting my quickly add categories at the bottom of pages. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Holy Roman Empire emgirants to the Kingdom of Great Britain

A tag has been placed on Category:Holy Roman Empire emgirants to the Kingdom of Great Britain 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!} 15:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1549 establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1549 establishments in 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!} 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1556 establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1556 establishments in 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!} 16:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1994 establishments in Honduras

A tag has been placed on Category:1994 establishments in Honduras 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!} 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2014 establishments in Tonga

A tag has been placed on Category:2014 establishments in Tonga 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!} 16:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevene Bowers King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leroy Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian expatriates in Czechoslovakia

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian expatriates in Czechoslovakia 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!} 17:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Roma people from Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:Roma people from Spain 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!} 15:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Romani people from Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:Romani people from Spain 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!} 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop moving pages without consensus

I noticed that you've been renaming a lot of pages and changing "Mormonism" to "Latter-day Saint belief". "Mormonism" is a useful term that encompasses cultural beliefs not contained within Latter-day Saint doctrine. You are making pages less accurate by changing their names. Please get consensus on talk pages before changing the name of a page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• It states specifically "In August 2018, the church's president, Russell M. Nelson, asked members of the church and others to cease using the terms "LDS", "Mormon", and "Mormonism" to refer to the church, its membership, or its belief system, and instead to call the church by its full and official name.[76][77] I will not use this depricated term. It is useful for marginzaliing and attacking. The current consensus is designed to oppress, to stop the voice of, to destroy all articles I create, and I will not sit idely by and let it go on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• These articles are not about cultural beliefs. They are almost all specifically about doctrine. So there is no justifiecation to not use the name. The term is not useful. This consensus was built by people who refuse to accept the right of people to determine what they are called, and instead encourage the activities of a newspaper that has nevger apologized for its role in denying women the right to vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• The claim of "cultural usefulness" is of course just a way to try to silence those of us who are serious about trying to actually use the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as much as possible. With the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejecting the term "Mormonsim", and the next largest denomination in the Latter-day Saint movement even more strongly rejecting the term, there is no coherent way to argue to continue to use the term for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Right of control

I have a right to remove any comment from my talk page that I find offensive, and will exercise it as I see fit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The true message

Because of threats elsewhere, I am moving the link to this most important message here. [6] Also see this link [7]. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams 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/List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams 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.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Hoping there's another solution, but I think it's time for this conversation, unfortunately. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Star Mississippi 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Now I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. This is an unjustfied extreme reaction to my attempts to defend myself. This whole situation is unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. Unless you comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your editing privileges risk being revoked entirely (as they have been now) or in part. I recommend that you take a break from editing Wikipedia in the interim, consider why your conduct was inappropriate as a whole and what steps you are willing to take so that you do not engage in this conduct in the future. The issue isn't your personal views on a topic or even your wish to defend yourself. Rather, it is how you have approached disagreements. Personal attacks, incivility and accusations of bad faith are not tolerated. The discrimination due to autism accusation was just the tip of the iceberg; you will need to do more soul searching, but I don't think you actually can appreciate the issues until you have at least taken a break from Wikipedia to do things which you enjoy or will help calm you in real life and return to this tomorrow after you have had a night to sleep on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is my whole life. It is the one thing in my life where I actual make useful contributions to the world. To take this away is just plain horrible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Johnpacklambert, the LDS disruption was already bad enough, but now you also charge that the thread's OP is part of a general pattern of discrmination on Wikipedia against those who have Autism (diff)? Sorry, but it's too much. As far as I'm concerned, some major assurances are going to be needed if this block is to be lifted. If you wish, you may appeal this block to another admin by making use of the {{unblock}} template, but I'd advise you to read WP:GAB carefully first and then apply it to the context of this sanction. El_C 19:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I renognize that my claim that the attack on my over my autism was over the top. I sincerely apologize for this. I reognize that I have been escalating some discussions in ways that lead to incivility, and I most sincerely apologize for this. I also most sincerely apologize for having lashed out with attacks against some other editors. I would like to apologize for doing this. It was most un-Christlike of me, and I am ver, very sorry for having done so. I will noit try in any way to justify what I have done, and take full responsibility for it. I only ask that people forgive me and allow me to return to editing Wikipedia, even if it be with a few restrictions. I explain more below, but I will agree to an additional one, I will not move any page without first at least seeking some sort of discussion of the move first. Unilateral moving of pages was the big source of this debate having come up. So I will not do it ever again, even in cases that seem very obvious. I really, really, really value participating in Wikipedia, and ask that my editing privaleges will be restored. I agree to A-not accuse others of targeting me for various reasons 2-not edit any page related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Latter-day Saint movement in general 3-I very, very sincerely apologize for my comments. I am most sincerely apologetic and wish to have my ability to edit Wikipedia restored. Please, please, please, please undo this block. I am very, very, very, very sorry for my actions. I recgonize that my falsely implying negative reasons for a proposed ban was rude and unfair, and I most sincerely apologize for it. I really just want to go back to my systemic edit of articles on people born in 1922, adding various categories on occupation, where they lived and a whole slew of related factors. I am most sincerely apologietic about my comments about Autism. I realize they were uncalled for and I most sincerely apologize for them and ask that the ban please, please, please be lifted. I recognize that my attack on another editor was wrong. I cannot fully justify it because it was wrong.I wish I had not done so. I am so very, very, very, very sorry about it. My heart and soul is broken. Please, please, please give me another chance.John Pack Lambert I am really trying to get people to regnoze that I understnad I want too far. I am sincerely sorry. I most fully and completely apologize. Please let me edit Wikipedia again. There was a comment on the ANI "I agree with the "too much" sentiment for the indef, but don't think the indef needs to be infinite (hopefully the autism comments were a one-time mistake). I think a topic ban relating to the intersection of WP:Manual of Style issues and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is necessary for an unblock, I'm not sure how broad it has to be beyond that to be understandable and enforceable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)" I will accept that topic ban. An indefinte block is not justified. Please, please, please give me a second chance. In addition to the ban on edits to articles directly related to MOS concerns, I will agree to the following I have agree to a general ban on MOS topics. I instead will argue that my edits on say Dallin H. Oaks have been very constructive. I will also in the future seek to A-be more measured in my discussion of topics that are contentious. B-not accuse anyone of hate speech for using the word "M-----". C-respond to discussions with more information. D-only make edits on articles in any way related to religion that either A-are in-line with existing manual of style (such as mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name in the first reference, making mentions to the Catholic Church agree with that as the name of the article, etc) or B-are fully backed by reliable, secondary 3rd party sources. Thus I will not add information to articles with religion as their topic that are not to recognized secondary sources and I will not make edits that are more substantial than edits to comply with existing MOS guidelines except when they are backed by reliable, 3rd party sources. I will also agree to never again accuse anyone of proposing any restriction on me based on dislike of me because of any specific class of people used broadly (that is not just class as generall understood, but sex, race, religion, religious fervor index, medical diagnosis, and lots of other grouping) or out of a general desire to inhibit people in that class from editing Wikipedia. I will also not make any edits to article that are about the beliefs or practices of the Latter-day Saint movement. That is the specific set of articles where the most recent set of mainly discussions of views got so heated, so I think it is a fair scope of a reasonable set of articles that I will not edit. I am not sure what I can say to make things better. I recognize that I was getting way too worked up. I am really, really, really sorry about this. Please, please, please let me edit again. I am pleading for this. I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better. I am very, very sorry for my comment. I recnognize now that it was out of line. Please let me edit again. I am wanting to be civil, and I will do so in the future. I promise to not accuse others of ill intent. I promise to never again accuse any editor of engaging in hate speech. I promise to never again attack any editor for a porposed restriction on me as having any other intent than restriction my actions. Please, please, please, please let me edit Wikipedia again, please. I am also sorry for having acted uncilly in talking with others, and will seek in the future to assume good faith. I am very sorry I have gotten so frustrated about these matters. I want to sincerely apologize for my actions. I have very strong feelings about using the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and recognize I became way too worked up and emotional over this issue. I want to sincerely apologize for this. I want to apologize also for unfairly accusing another of blocking based on Autism. I have very strong feelings when editing on some issues, but in general I edit in an even handed and mesured way. I am pleading for another chance. Please, please, please, please let me edit Wikipedia again. I realize that my reflexive comments on the user page of the person who made the ANI were out of line and I most sincerely apologize for them. I am very, very, very, very sorry for having made that comment. I am sorry for getting so defensive. I am most, most, most sorry about this. Please, please, please let me return to editing Wikipedia.(talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request as I have decided if I grant it that I likely will be made to feel foolish about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

• I am really, really, really, really, really, really sorry for my post. I was very frustrated. I am very, very, very sorry. I really, really, really, really want to be involved in Wikipedia. I am asking that I be given another change. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want one. Please, please, please, please let me edit again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Just a comment to anyone considering unblock, I accept JPL's apology he extended here I realize that my reflexive comments on the user page of the person who made the ANI were out of line and I most sincerely apologize for them and am neutral as far as this request is concerned as I believe he's agreeing to the topic ban I proposed. However I'm aware of the other concerns raised, and know this might not be acceptable to all involved editors Star Mississippi 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I will apologize for saying anything was hate speech. I was wrong for saying such. I was taking too defensive a position and apolgize for it. I wish to express this apology in the most sincere manner possible. I was also wrong for getting so defensive about the general matter. I wish to apologize for that. I am most sincere in my apolgy. I wish to apologize for not assuming good faith on the part of all editors involved. I most sincerely and fully express this apology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I promise to never again say that anyone is every engaging in "hate speech" based on any edit they ever make in Wikipedia, ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I wish to sincerely apologize for my unfounded accusations against others for engaging in "hate speech". There is no good justification for choosing such a course of action. I would like to most sincerely apologize for this. I promis to never do so again. I wish there was more I could do to fix this matter. I wish to sincerely apologize for rashly attacking people. I recognize I need to take a more measured and balanced approcah to some of the issues involved. I would like to sincerely apologize for my actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would be open to other specfic block considerations. I am really trying to find a way to get back to editing articles in the way I love. I wish I had just stuck with editing articles realted to Category:1922 births from Monday on, and never tried to edit articles on anything else this week. I wish I was more patient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi JPL - I've seen this, and I get that you're hurting over it. It's been a long day and I'm tired, and your unblock request is long (!), so I think it would be better for me not to review it right now. It might also be good for you to go for a walk, or read a book, or do something else for a little while, just to de-stress. I promise to look back on in this tomorrow (UK time), and to consult with El C promptly. Just putting a note here to let you know that people have seen it. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wearing my admin hat here (so I am not endorsing or declining) but I just wanted to remind JPL that the community has talked with you about this before, how you get frustrated in dealing with others, even when you may feel like they are "baiting" you, or "against you" in some way. I suggested disengagement then, and I suggest it now.

This is merely a suggestion, but I also think that it might be in your best interest (presuming you are unblocked) to avoid LDS-related pages/discussions for awhile. It's a topic that (from my experience in seeing you in discussions over the years) seems to lead to these situations. YMMV, of course.

I recall in the last discussion, they were starting to discuss banning you outright - if you are unblocked, please, please keep this in mind, I don't think another trip to WP:AN/I would be in your best interest.

I hope this helps. - jc37 23:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I just saw this. I honestly dunno what to think at this point. Regardless, I hope nothing but the best for you. - jc37 23:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock (Involved editor) While I have not known John Pack Lambert long, I do know they are an experienced editor who's participation Wikipedia greatly benefits from overall. Considering this is one of his only major slip-ups I've seen, and that he is agreeing to topic-bans, I think he deserves a second chance.

I find JPL's agreeal to not make any edits to any articles that are related to the LDS Movement to be particularly convincing that he understands the community's reason for concern. His promises to not take place in similar uncivil and disruptive conduct again makes it easy to hold him accountable moving forward. I support his unblock request at this time.

I still support a temporary topic ban of at least 6 months from all LDS-related topics. I understand there are editor's who have spent more time interacting with JPL than I have, and I think their requests should be equally heard out as well, even if they weren't involved in this dispute. ––FormalDude talk 23:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the situation, I think waiting for consensus at ANI (which will likely be for an unblock with Topic-Ban conditions) is the best approach. Surely an infinite block is not necessary, yet JPL needs to be required to avoid the topic of short names of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the short term. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of promised conditions, to get unblocked. If you're unblocked, I reckon many editors will be closely watching your actions, from here on. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am reviewing this unblock request. I will not proceed with it without an agreement with the blocking admin which will probably involve conditions. Failing such an agreement I will leave it to ANI to decide. Nothing done regarding this unblock request will prevent ANI from reaching further conclusions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI is now turning into a throw everything and the kitchen sink at me forum. I just want to go back to editing articles related to Category:1922 births. The issue here is really that I get frustrated when people disagree with me. I have promised to A-not engage in unilateral editing in violation of MOS B-always discuss any page moves. C-not accuse anyone of "hate speech" and to assume good intent. I think the attempt to broaden this limit is illogical. I will even agree to D-I will not nominate any article on a bishop in the Catholic Church for deletion, even if it is sourced only to blogs (as a huge number of them are) and I do a good faith search for additional articles on the subject and find nothing. I will alos agree to the other very spefic limits I mentioned above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am very sorrty about ***:*Zelnhelm_the_Wise (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  • • • Zelnhelmthegreat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) They were not created because I wanted to defy restrictions. They have not been used to circumvent any restrictions. The later one only was used for some very minor edits, and the first one was barely used at all. I was just so tired of people brining up things from 8 years ago to attack me with that I got really frustrated. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please give me another change. The attempt to force me to confess my wrongs below was not really a fair assesment and no one gave me adequate time to respond.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  There is more information related to multiple undisclosed accounts operating in project space at WP:PROJSOCK, and at [8]. This isn't something from years ago being brought up. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Trying to ping User:Girth Summit but I am not sure I really know how to ping anyone. I am very sorry about the way this is turning out. I am really sorry I got so scared I tried to circumvent the rules. I was tired of people attacking me for things that happened 8 years ago or more, and for a bit thought that maybe just a clean start would help. I realized I was wrong the first time and stopped. Then when this discussion came up I panicked again, but that time I really did not do anything at all. I am very, very sorry about this. I will abide by all the rules of Wikipedia and the polices at hand hear. I am very sorry about this. I really want to edit Wikipedia again. Please, please, please, please please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I really am a failure. I wish I had never tried to create other accounts. I was really scared though. I was also really tired of being attacked and judged for every indisgression I had had for decades. This whole process is very frustrating. I just wish I had not panicked. I was not trying to game the system, and even when I made the scoed comment, I made sure not to vote. Comments are not the same as votes. I am very sorry about that lone mistake, and very much apologize for it. I just want to get back to editing, and as can be seen above I have agreed to a whole slew of restrictions. Can someone please unvblock, Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I admit Zelnhelmthewise was created yesterday. At the time I had decided to just give up on this account, and move onto a new one. I thought better of it, and then came back to this account, and did not use that account any more. I should have admitted it, but asking people to admit something in the way done I think was unfair. Asking someone directly if they were using that account is a far better approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I find it very frustrating that the block is sustained for actions that have no relevance to the issue at hand. As I said before, my plan with Zelnhelmthewise was to start anew, with a new account unburdened by people harping on my for past actions, and to just edit a few things and forget about my old account. On further reflection I decided that was not a good course, and so returned to my old account. Unwisely instead of just keeping my head low, I began to fight again. Please, please, please, please, please give me another account. When confronted with this I panicked, I was in a situation where no matter what I said I risked everything. I wish I had admitted up front, but I was very, very, very, very, scared. I was for a little bit yesterday hopeful, but no I am sinking again into despair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If I may

Hi John. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before, so I'm coming to this as an uninvolved observer. I totally understand your frustrations in this entire episode. I have a tendency to overreact when I feel "attacked", and often respond by digging an even deeper hole for myself. Then once I "come to my senses", I'm really overcome with guilt at allowing myself to react badly. This seems like where you are now. If I may suggest, take a days off of Wikipedia. Do some things that you enjoy, and/or be with some people you like/love, etc. Wikipedia will still be here when you return. If you want, you can send me an email, and we can talk further in private. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Not with an indefifinate topic ban. With an indefinate topic ban, no matter how long I leave it will still not be here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I meant is that this isn't something you have to solve today. "Indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, so that can be addressed later, when you're ready. BilCat (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • • I intentionally deleted part of my discussion above to seek to avoid ANI. I was trying to be reasonable. I have sincerely apologized. I have made over 400,000 edits to Wikipedia. Indefinte is permanent most of the time. The limiting of me to one nomination at AfD has gone on for years. I have been hounded at times for being 30 minutes under 24 hours between nominations. It is excessive and this has the potential to be too. I wish I could just unwind the clock and not get into this fight at all. Going away and letting things boil over does not solve problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Mvbaron I have agree to a general ban on MOS topics. I instead will argue that my edits on say Dallin H. Oaks have been very constructive. I will also in the future seek to A-be more measured in my discussion of topics that are contentious. B-not accuse anyone of hate speech for using the word "M-----". C-respond to discussions with more information. D-only make edits on articles in any way related to religion that either A-are in-line with existing manual of style (such as mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name in the first reference, making mentions to the Catholic Church agree with that as the name of the article, etc) or B-are fully backed by reliiable, secondary 3rd party sources. Thus I will not add information to articles with religion as their topic that are not to recognized secondary sources and I will not make edits that are more substantial than edits to comply with existing MOS guidelines except when they are backed by reliable, 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

An observer writes

John, John, please take a couple of steps back, close your eyes, and take a couple of deep breaths. I know you've done good work here, and can do more. You're not the only high-functioning autist on WP (I'm not quite on the scale, but can see some of the signs in several other prolific editors, including some admins). My advice - stay away from topics where you aren't sure you can be objective. Narky Blert (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have been given an indefinate ban from all editing. I spent huge amounts of my life trying to hide my autism, and getting fired over and over and over and over from jobs when my autism flared up. Everything I ever enjoyed and valued in my life has been taken from me. When I am attacked no matter how I try to defend myself it is used against me. I have apologized for attacking other people. I have made a most sincere and abject apology. No one accepts such things. No one accepts that the overall tenor of my edits on all topics in Wikipedia has been balanced. I am just attacked and attacked again John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  JPL, I do not know you but I empathize most sincerely with what you've been through in your life leading up to this. Please hold on and do not harm yourself. I hope that your faith in God will pull you through this difficult moment, and that with a bit of time you will be able to rejoin the community here. I do not know you but I care about you, and I am sure that I am not alone here. Please remember that you are not alone!! People care about you, even strangers like me. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Amen. BilCat (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I accept that the overall tenor of your edits on all topics in Wikipedia has been balanced. I also value you as a Wikipedian and a person, as I'm sure most everyone on this project does. You are very experienced, and we all hope this was merely a momentary lapse in judgement. I am preparing to speak on your behalf about being unblocked. ––FormalDude talk 20:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

User:ARoseWolf I would like to thank you for your attempt to speak to me kindly on the ANI. I mainly reacted netgatively to it because yesterday at one of my times in a drivethrough line I had an employee there condescendingly call me "honey" and it really annoyed me. I live in Detroit a city where way too many people in customer service jobs way too regularly use such condescending language in their interactions with customers and it was just at the boiling point. I wish I had not reached so many boiling points today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Promise me that you are not seriously thinking about hurting yourself. Email me if you need to. I will always listen. Life is so precious. You are so precious. We never walk the path of life alone. I care about you so much and your Song is beautiful to me. As much as you plead to rejoin us here, and I believe you will rejoin us, I plead with you even more on your behalf for you. I will never refer to you as any term again if you will just promise me that you will be okay and not do what you said above. Please see yourself as I see you, an amazing painting, a beautiful symphony and an incredible light. Don't harm that, please! --ARoseWolf 20:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

John, people care about you. Don't read anything I write in any other way. Narky Blert (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am not going to kill myself. I am getting a little hopeful that this will be able to be resolved in a way that will allow me to edit Wikipedia again, but I am less than fully hopeful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My life is over. It will be a meaningless shell of an existance from now on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am a failure

I always fail at everything I set out to do. Everything I try comes to naught.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• The things I most want in my life are routinely taken away from me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • John, take some deep breaths, if you have any pets give them some attention and love, focus on something else and get your mind off this place for a while. You are not those things and its not the end. If you have anything constructive and positive that you normally do to calm yourself then take a moment to do that. It's going to be okay. Everything is going to work out. --ARoseWolf 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We're all failures, at various times and in various degrees. Not everything we do is useless though often it's not easy to see that. Here is my advice, since everyone else has given you some already: put the computer away and come back in a day or two. I have a feeling that you're going to be unblocked if you agree with a set of editing restrictions--from LDS, maybe from BLPs, maybe a 1R restriction or a serious "civility" warning. Right now, there's really nothing you can say that will make this better; you already have editors willing to stick out their neck for you. I know you and I have probably never agreed on anything, and in your heart of hearts you probably know that I was usually right, but I also proposed you be unblocked. So go do something else for a few days and come back to see what the community can agree on--because it's up to the community now. Take a walk. Pet a dog, or two. See you later. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Having seen you at times on AfDs, CfDs, and other venues, I believe that you really had a lot better understanding of policies than most people here. You should never think for a second that you failed here, instead you need to think that you deserve better. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment User:Abhishek0831996 I really want to ping you. With the "throw the kitchen sink at him" phase of ANI having begun it is very hard to feel this. They are bringing up things like my expressing frustration at the actions of the Group of 88 who prejudged a group of people guilt when the evidence clearly shows the accused were not guilty. I will admit that I over-reacted and was too harsh in my language in that incident. The fact it gets aired again in a forum where I A-cannot currently defend myself B-if I do try to defend myself in any way, it will be interpreted as trying to say what I did was OK, which I am not saying, but I am saying that to constantly rehash, rebring up, relitigate, and reattack for single incidents that happened years ago is unfair. No one seems to bother to look at all the positive things I do, all the categories and articles I have edited in ways that truly improve them. This is very Frustrating. I will sit back and let these people rehash old things, and not in any way speak ill of anyone for doing so. It is a very frustrating thing though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I really am a failure. I wish I had never tried to create other accounts. I was really scared though. I was also really tired of being attacked and judged for every indisgression I had had for decades. This whole process is very frustrating. I just wish I had not panicked. I was not trying to game the system, and even when I made the scoed comment, I made sure not to vote. Comments are not the same as votes. I am very sorry about that lone mistake, and very much apologize for it. I just want to get back to editing, and as can be seen above I have agreed to a whole slew of restrictions. Can someone please unvblock, Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter M. Johnson

At least my article on Peter M. Johnson still stands. We will see if my prediction about Johnson being the next person called to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes true. My record of actually making such predictions is abysmally poor. Pretty much with all openings after 2003 I predicted the call of Claudio R. M. Costa. In the 42 years that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had the practice of giving general authorities emeritus status not once has an emeritus general authority been called to the 12, so it is extremely unlikely that Costa will be called. Also, I predicted that Gerrit W. Gong would never be called as a general authority because I thought his long career of working for the US government in foriegn policy would make him too much of a liability in a Church that seeks to be international in scope, but clearly I was wrong, so I know nothing about making such predictions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your strong devotion to your faith is truly admirable. Peter M. Johnson is a very well-written article that you deserve to take pride in. Try not to fret over what you perceive as shortcomings. You have many successums to celebrate that outweigh the things you haven't yet succeeded at. Reminds me of a good quote: if you're not failing, you're not trying hard enough. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, failing at something does not make us a failure. I do the WP:BRD of life. I make a bold attempt, I pull myself back when I see its not working or is negatively impacting my world around me. Then I evaluate my trajectory making adjustments and boldly go again on the new path. Sometimes we might have to give up something for a while but it comes around full circle again. You got this, John. Just keep your head up. Dude is right, that is a well written article. --ARoseWolf 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf I am a total failure. I panick about things when confronted, and then am denied something because I am hesitant about confessing. I really do not like how I am being treated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts

We have only interacted a few times before, but I feel that now is the time to share personal information. I have not fully assessed the situation, but I think I know enough to offer some encouragement. I am autistic too. Thankfully, it does not affect my Wikipedia editing all that much, but it has reduced the quality of my life substantially.

I just had to drop out of college for the second time and get on disability because the anxiety that comes with Autism is crippling me. There have been times in life where I have considered ending my life because I am unsure as to whether I can succeed in this world. I'm not a LDS, but I do worship the same God as you. He is looking out for you even when it does not seem like it. Before I started editing Wikipedia, I was on the brink of suicide. Wikipedia literally saved my life because it helped me distract myself from my suffering. Had I not been on the brink of suicide, I would have never discovered Wikipedia. The fact that you are in what seems like the worst situation ever should not make you think you are a failure. I just dropped out of school again, but I have enough life experience to know that this does not mean I won't achieve my childhood dream of becoming a Forensic Scientist. I know my advice sounds crazy, but it is true. Again, you are not a loser.

I hope to see you unblocked soon. Administrators have said that they are willing to review your unblock request, so you should not be 100% discouraged. Until then, it is just best to wait. A topic ban might be all that is needed to help you come back. It is never too late to change your editing.

Based on the support you are getting, it seems that a lot of people genuinely care about you. I'll pray that you come back stronger after this before I go to bed. Peace. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The administrator in question has accepted your apology. That is a good first step. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Although you and I have not always agreed in our editing, I'll second what Scorpions has said in this post. I am wishing you the best; from one autist to another, I know it can be difficult to get along (especially when it feels like there's no way to predict what people will get mad about). I hope that everything turns out all right for you. jp×g 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Whatever. People accepting my apolgy is of no worth. I still cannot edit Wikipedia. I am still being attacked for all sorts of things. People are still keeping me from doing what I want. My life is still unlivable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• jp×g I wish I knew how to ping others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  {{ping|editor-name}} is the template you use to ping people. Just input the editor's name where I wrote "editor-name". Please don't believe that your inability to edit Wikipedia right now makes life unlivable. Wikipedia ultimately just isn't that important and indef blocks aren't necessarily forever blocks. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  • {{ping|Scorpions13256}}@Scorpions13256: I am more discouraged than ever now. People seem to like to hit me when I am down. I cannot even defend myself. I have apologized over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It is never enough. People still literally attack me over something that happened in 2013. Something that we corrected in 2013.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• {{ping|Celestina007}}@Celestina007: I really need more communication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at the ANI at times is unhealthy. People are attacking me because I do not appreciate That in 2019 dozens of articles that I created were deleted. This whole approach is very discouraging. I really just want to go back to editing. One of the people arging for a permanent ban says that only 2-3% of my edits are problematic. This whole process is frustrating. I have apologized over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It is not helping at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @Scorpions13256 and Celestina007: Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  John, I promise you things will work out. We are working out a way to help you edit more productively. I see your talk page access has been revoked. Use this time to do something nice for other people in the real world. INDEFINITE IS NOT PERMANENT :). Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request review

I am creating a new section talk about this as it is a bit crowded up above.

I have discussed this with the blocking admin. First and foremost before an unblock can occur it needs to be understood that accusing other editors of hate speech or discrimination against neurodiverse persons will not be repeated. I recommend if you truly believe this is happening that you compile evidence and submit it to arbcom offline.

It also needs to be understood that if I do unblock you it in no way vindicates your actions, the block itself in my opinion was justified. The block will be removed because it is no longer needed because of your assurances.

Finally I want you to know that if I unblock you it in no way interferes with whatever conclusions the community comes to at ANI. I considered making a topic ban a condition of this unblock, however El C has suggested to leave this to the community and I see the wisdom in that.

Your unblock request seems to cover the conditions needed to unblock you. I just need a short statement saying you understand and accept my comments here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also please ping me when you respond so I notice it. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Chillum, personally I think that we can unblock after we figure out on ANI what to do about restrictions, which will give us time to mull things over and will prevent JPL from being tempted to jump in into the ANI discussion, which I believe is likely to be counterproductive. Let me suggest an intermediate solution: you unblock with the restriction that for now JPL stay away from ANI/AN (and LDS topics, but I think JPL should realize this), or an unblock with a partial block for ANI. The more I think about it, the more I think that in the case of an unblock some restrictions, even while we are talking about a more detailed proposal to cushion their return, are warranted lest it appear that even for the moment that they can return to business as usual. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I could support an unblock with a relatively narrow topic ban restricting any edits related to the decision of the nonagenarian senior LDS church "prophet" leadership to repudiate their long-treasured word "Mormon" three years ago, and redefine their own previously preferred brief euphemism as "hate speech". It is crystal clear that this editor is incapable of anything remotely approaching NPOV regarding this narrow topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • • I will accept the general limits of your recomendation. However I highly object to your putting President Russell M. Nelson's title in scare quotes. I also think your harping on his age ignores the fact that such a decision was done jointly by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, that it has been implemented by a wide range of changes throughout the institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that you ignore that on multiple occasions prior to this the leadership of the church had tried to reshape the use of words. "Cherished" is far too strong a moniker. However the use of scare quotes is truly uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have discussed this with the blocking admin. It is their position that topic bans should be left to the community to decide in this manner and I see the wisdom in that. This block was for a specific thing and that is the thing I am addressing. There is an extensive discussion going to on resolve the larger issues.

I don't see the value in keeping them away from their own topic ban discussion. I also think it would be poor of me to withdraw my offer after making it. I will however caution Johnpacklambert that they should be on their best behavior there. I will have no objection if another block is issued for new poor behavior.

I do respect both of your opinions and you may be correct. However I don't think it is my place to impose these conditions when the community is currently discussing the matter and the blocking admin prefers leaving it to the community. I am sticking to the standard laid out by the blocking admin.

Johnpacklambert please do not make me look foolish for this :). HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert do you have any other accounts that you would like to disclose to us at this time? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to have the block lifted as soon as possible. I have profusely apologized for my out of line actions and promised to not do it again. I just want to go back to editing articles related to Category:1922 births. I really would like to get back to editing. I am really, really sorry for my actions and would like to again profusely apologize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC, Drmies, and Cullen328: Please hang on until my question is answered. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 12:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Sorry. I have tried to create two accounts recently, but have not really done much with them. One did four edits, and they were extremely minor. The other did even more minor edits. I am sorry about that. I was just very fearful and hoping to avoid some of the drama. The fact that people still attack me for incidents that happened 8 years ago in very unkind ways at times makes me wish I could establish a new identiy and start editing without the baggage. I wish I had dis colsed this.l — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I do not believe that this is an honest answer based on technical evidence. There is another account that has edited from the same IP, and the same device, around the same time, to the same project-space discussion that this account has edited. This is not the only related account that I have found. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Let's try this a different way. Here are the accounts that I am referencing above:

      • Zelnhelm_the_Wise (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
      • Zelnhelmthegreat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

      I am going to go ahead and block these accounts for sockpuppetry. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    FYI, this was not the original answer, which denied having any other accounts - please see: [9]. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    • I think the original question was way to much in the mode of trying to coerce a confession. I know the full rules of legal protections do not apply in Wikipedia, but people have a right in most criminal and disciplinary procedures to know what they are accused of. To me this means that if you have an idea what other accounts a person may have used in the past, you name them specifically, so in my mind specifying what is asked is far better than asking someone else to do an open confession. Trying to coerce a confession in my mind is very bad form. I still think a much fairer question would have been a direct naming of the accounts. I guess deep down I know I should have responded differently, but I really did not want to drag myself through the mud more than I had. I seem to fail at everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my offer to unblock as I am now concerned that there is a strong likelihood that if I unblock that I will be made to feel foolish about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please, Just ask You will not be made to look foolish. I am very sorry about creating those accounts. This was done not in direct attempts to skirt the unblock but just trying to move on to a new forum, where I was not weighted down by my past mistakes, and did not have people harping on me for it. I really did not go anywhere with them. Please, please, please, please, please, please reconsider. Wikipedia is my life. I just want to go back to editing. When I can't edit my life feels empty. I promise to abide by all the restrictions I agreed to above. I am very, very ,very sorty about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You argued for deletion in the same AfD using two accounts[10][11]. I am sorry but the trust is gone. I will not be the administrator who unblocks you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • one was a comment, comments are not direct imput on votes, so I did not see it as a problem at the time. I did not duble vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I really do not like the trying to coerce a confession methods used above. If someone thought they found sockpupets they should ask directly about it. I have not effectively used either account in any where near the number of times to make it an issue, and had no plans to continue to use them. One has only done 4 edits. I am very sortry about this. I was not trying to game the system. I was just trying to find a way so that I would not be constantly attacked for things I did nearly a decade ago, but on further reflection realized I should abode by the rules and stopped using them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I did ask directly, my very direct question can be seen at this link, [12]. Your reply can also be viewed at [13]. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • A direct ask in my view would have been asking about the specific accounts. I know I made a lot of mistakes. I am asking for forgiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • There is nothing unfair about the question that was asked. That you weighed in with two accounts on the same AfD is simply not acceptable--it doesn't matter if one is a "comment" rather than a vote or something like that. And it's obvious too that these weren't made to move on to a new forum: Conservapedia or Wikia would be a new forum. It's very simple: you broke the rules and weren't truthful when you were asked about it--that is the part that's unfair. If you really wanted to move on, there were other things you could have done--like following the rules. Accept the restrictions and try to come back, for instance. But now everything is unfair, questions are asked the wrong way, there is a "mass attack" (when SO many people, including me, stuck their necks out for you)--no. You are not the victim of the actions of administrators; rather, we are here being distracted and working on your case only to find that confessions are followed by evasions and lies. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
        • The incident in question happened once ago months ago. I have never done it again. I have apologized for my mistake over and over again. I was wrong. I was very wrong. I am very sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is really unfair. My unblock request is refused for actions that have nothing to do with the blocking. Wikipedia really does believe in throwing the kitchen sink at some users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• All meaning and purpose have been drained from my life. I thought today would be an ok day. I thought I could do a few edits of articles related to Category:1922 births. I wish I had just confessed, although I am not really sure that would have turned out any better. I tire of all my mistakes being so minutely scrutinized. This is so frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I am very sorry for my mistake. I just was tired of being attacked for things that happened 8 years ago. I was tired of the cruel things people still say in relation to that event. It hurts on the iside to be attacked. I gave up on these accounts. I did not even remember the name of the first one, and Zelnhelmthewise I had given up on. I wish I had just confessed, but I felt like a deer in the hedlights, and I froze. My one true joy in life is editing Wikipedia. I want to do it. Please let me. I have agreed to a whole slew of restictions, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, plsese give me a chance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I wish I could reverse the clock and admit to the sockpupetry. I was really, really, really scared though, and admissions do not often lead to better things. I am really, really, really feeling depressed. This is so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I really wish I could just turn back the clock. I am asking for people to forgive me. I have promised I will try my hardest to abide by the rules. Wikipedia editing is the only thing that brings any joy to my life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I am again asking people to forgive me. Please. I promise that I will abide by the words. I am a person of very strong integrity. It is tearing me up that I lied. It hurts me to my very soul. It was not a justified act. I apologize. I apologize profusely. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The mass attack approach

Now the disucssion about this issue has turned into a mass attack on all my editing. This is a very frustrating phase of ANI. Bascially I am chastied for everything people disliked in my past. It involves brining up an incident from March 2013. The whole thing is a very unfair exercise in which all my moments of being frustrated or over reactive in the past are rebroadcast and attacked. Then people start proposing all sorts of much larger bans. They start attacking me for my expression of my opinion of various issues on my talk page. The whole process is very unprofessional in my view. Instead of letting past issues that were resolved stay resolved, the wounds and issues are repoened and all sorts of bans on editing on my part are put forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think the way that ANI is turned into a free for all attack on everything I have ever done is horrible. People who have specific gripes against me on issues not at all relevant to what was under consideration start coming out. The whole process seems to be unfair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have apologized multiple times for my actions. Yet what starts to happen at ANI is people attack me for actions done years ago. They attack me for not properly understanding the very complex ERGS rules of Wikipedia categorization back in 2013, even though I have tried very, very hard to abide by these rules in my creating categories for the last 8 years. They attack me for every episode where I overreacted, or became frustrated. They harp on things not at all related to the issue at hand, and they attack me for on my talk page expressing frustration with the fact that some articles stand with only blog sourcing, and others get deleted with multiple sources that are published in organizations that have regular editorial oversight. That last is in my mind over the top. Treating posts from my talk page where I express my general opinion that we should start to evenly enforce regulation of inclusion of articles sourced not at all to reliable sources being used to argue to create an ever widening and growing scope of a ban on my participation in Wikipedia just seems unfair. My post just stated my general views on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right about AN/I. The same can be said for ArbCom though I think some have tried to start keeping that aspect out of it. But this is the issue with being brought up before AN/I so many times over the last decade and especially the last year or so. These things follow your editing journey here and you have to understand that its not going to change no matter how many times you apologize. I don't believe there are people following you to get you in trouble but they will not hesitate to bring out issues they see when you are mentioned. If you are ever unblocked and allowed to stay I would suggest you find another topic to invest your time in and completely avoid religious subjects. That is just my suggestion. I think for most here there was a level of trust and that trust has been damaged and if you are here for the right reasons then you need to decide if you are willing to put in the time and effort to rebuild that trust and repair the damage while also understanding that, for some, it may never be enough. Is that fair? No. But it is what will be inevitably required should the community decide to allow you to remain here. I echo the sentiments of others here in that I wish you all the best no matter where or what you do in life. I care about you as a human being and I want you to be successful. I empathize with your frustrations and the pain you are feeling in this moment. It's never easy and everyone has moments where they react irrationally to fears. Please take comfort in the fact that this will pass and life will continue. Much love. --ARoseWolf 14:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

People are attacking me for things that happened over 8 years ago, that were fixed over 8 years ago. Your response does not at all acknowledge how hurtful that is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, it addresses all of it, including the pain you are feeling. In fact, I said that directly in my comment. What you need to realize is that you caused pain and hurt as well and that other editors are talking about what they view as a vicious pattern of cause and affect within your editing here from day one on. You have been hurt and you caused hurt. These things don't simply go away with a few apologies or even with remedies specific to each situation. Some hurts are lasting and when they see your name come up for AN/I again there is a natural piling on and it happens at every instance. I acknowledge it isn't fair to you but it isn't fair to anyone that the pattern seemingly continues. These are things that need to be addressed, not only on the case-by case basis but also on the whole. Right now your future here is left up to the community. If it decides you can remain then the decision becomes yours as to how you will deal with this pattern. --ARoseWolf 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Now I have agreed to remove a comment where I responded to a direct ping. I am really trying to comply with all these rules, The fact that they are sort of thrown at you over time makes them even more frustrating. No one said to begin with "If someone directly pings you with a comment, you are not allowed to respond to this direct ping in any way". I had no idea that doing so was not in compliance. I am trying my best to comply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

New unblock request

JPL, still trying to catch up to all of the above since I wrote my "Indefinite block" notice, but (and not to pile on), here's the thing: SQL wan't really obliged to prompt you with their findings (if they even CU'd you prior to asking that, who knows) so as to safeguard you against providing an untruthful answer. Their query was phrased in a way that's quite conventional. I've personally asked the same thing, phrased in that same way, like a million times. This isn't meant as a moral judgment on your character. Sorry for the distress that this is causing you. Hope you can draw comfort and strength from your faith. Best wishes, El_C 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have apologized for eveything. I am admitting everything. I admit that I was wrong. I have listed a whole bunch of restirctions I am willing to live with. I wish it was ever enough. Yet, the way ANI goes, no matter how much one corrects and fixes a problem they caused, as I have done in a great measure for the issue that came up that I get attacked as a negative publicist for Wikipedia for in 2013, I still get attacked for it. In 2013 we fixed the general framework so that the ERGS violation did not exist, just reversing the process as some argued would have caused others to argue Wikipedia was making it harder to study American female novelists as a group. The fact that then and since I have been routinely attacked with very unkind language that implies I am sexist and worst, is very frustrating. I have apolgized for my actions here. I have promised to never do anything like it again. I have promised to not use the two accounts, Zelnhelmthewise and the toehr one whose name I do not even fully remember. I am trying with all my might to fix this. Please, please, please, please, please, plase, please, plase, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: is it still possible to get you to look over this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I just removed a comment that I had which was a direct response to a comment to me. It was a comment on a discussion. I was not trying to edit mainspace. I was responding to a comment to me. I removed it becasue I am trying to comply with this restriction. I am trying to comply with everything. I really am. The way this block is being interpreted as not even allowing me to respond to direct statements to me in discussions seems a bit over the top in restricting what I can do, but I am willing to respond. Especially when the issue was directly brought up with a pinging of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I really want to go back to editing. I promise I will be much more measured in my comments. I will try harder to explain them. I will try harder to use soft words and not over state my position. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. I have made literally over 400,000 edits. I have tried to explain ideas, but I recognize at times I have been less than politic in doing so. I will abide by all the restirctions I have agreed to and will in addition strive to be more measured, more calm, more willing to listen to what others have to say. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me edit again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I have admitted that I was wrong and unjustified in attacking others. I have apologized for it. I am asking sincerely that I be given another change. Please allow me to contribute to Wikipedia again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I have admitted my wrong over and over and over again. I have asked for forgiveness. I have come 100% clean. I am sorry about my actions, and have now admitted them. I made a mistake. I am asking that I be forgiven. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please give me another chance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I was drawn here by a ping from Usedtobecool, who is ever gracious. Okay so coincidentally i was discharged from a hospital following a very horrible injury. That I am short of words and for the first time, in an unimaginable catch-22 is an understatement. On one hand JPL is a friend who significantly inspired me during my early days here on the other hand my disdain for anything related to sock puppetry or unethical editing here(UPE) is basically my very core. I note that this started with the ANI filed by Star Mississippi who obviously didn’t envisage what this is spiraling into. I haven’t yet read every entry here meticulously and I am almost tempted to ask El_C, Girth Summit, and SQL how they knew JPL was guilty of socking and if Checkuser rights was abused but it’s a moot question because it doesn’t invalidate that JPL is guilty of this(perhaps done in ignorance) Please for anyone reading what I’m about to say(type), this may come off as something other than what I intend it to be, @El_C, could you be so kind as you have always been to “forgive this” putting into perspective that JPL is a unique editor? Please I do not want to get in trouble and I’m carefully choosing my words and treading with extreme caution because I see this has been raised elsewhere but can the fact he is managing a “problem” Take for example, he appears to have been here a decade+ but from what I’m seeing here he appears he doesn’t know how to ping properly, this appeal is to anyone one is a system operator. Socking warrants a block no doubt, an indef block even, seeing as they have been here for 10 years plus and know or (ought to know) to not violate our policy on abusing multiple accounts. Putting other factors such as productivity and passion as their plea above shows be put into cognizance? For the initial proposal by SM at ANI I do not object to that apparently even JPL agrees to that. In all my years of editing I never thought a day would come where I’d plead that IAR be evoked but that seems to be the only plausible reason to accept this unblock appeal. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, correct. The only outcome that I thought might happen depending on consensus was the LDS topic ban. Unfortunately, the conversation spiralled and unfortunately led to personalization and socking. Star Mississippi 16:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi JPL, I'm responding to your ping. Last night I promised to look at the unblock request; since then, I see that HighInBC took on the unblock request and declined it, you made a new request, you have removed that request, and about a million words have been written here and at ANI. I need to read through and digest before I make any fresh promises about taking action or offer you any advice, give me some time. Best wishes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, JPL. I've read through now. When I left the last message, I didn't realise that TPA had been switched off. My advice to you is to take the week off and do something else, and then discuss a possible path forward with Floquenbeam, who I think is offering you really good advice. I'll leave it at that for now - best wishes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

I came here from the ANI thread. It seems to me the best thing would be:

• JPL, you should remove the open, still un-answered unblock request that, I am confident, no admin is going to accept right now. The whole situation is too chaotic, no one is unilaterally going to over-rule a fairly clear consensus at ANI (even if you don't agree with that consensus).
• I will remove talk page access for a week as a cool down period. I think you are stressed and feeling attacked on all sides. I really think you need to decompress, and take some time to get your thoughts in order. Right now you're just being reactive, and you're becoming your own worst enemy.
• I'll restore talk page access in a week. Starting in a week, you can invite people you trust to discuss a future unblock request in a calmer manner. But this will likely be a slow, deliberate process, because...
• You should be aware that in my unbiased, uninvolved opinion, an unblock in the next... I'm guessing a little now, but I doubt I'm far off ... month seems unlikely. I'm not imposing this condition, I'm predicting it, based on previous experience. It is my uninvolved best advice.
• You should be aware that an unblock in the future is not impossible, but it's going to need to be a slow, calm, deliberate process. I don't see that happening in this current negative feedback loop.
• Also, of course, you can't create or use any other accounts.

JPL, think about this and let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• A week is super, super long. This is horrible. I will comply, but this is so horrible. This morning I thought I could see the thing unclock now. This is just horrible.John Pack Lambert (talk)
  • I have removed the unblock request because I am trying to show I will comply. I really feel down about all of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I am really hoping there is a way to resolve this faster than in a week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • The above is the most discouraging post I have ever read.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, if we do it this way, it won't be sooner than a week, because I would remove talk page access. And I'm guessing there won't be a super rapid resolution when the talk page is turned back on. I'm not imposing this on you, John, I'm suggesting it. I honestly think, after reading the ANI thread and this talk page, that an unblock is a ways off. I know you hope differently, but we don't always get what we want. I suggest a better approach is to refocus on a practical way to resolve the problems, rather than continue to hope for really unlikely outcomes. I understand you're down about all this. Tell me if you want to do it this way, and I'll remove talk page access. If not, I won't do it without your permission. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
          • • • I have suggested a whole slew of restrictions. I will even agree to not A-nominate any articles for deletion until at least December 2021. B- Not edit any articles that have as their subject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all. C- not make any edit that is out of line with MOS. D- Not make any nomination of any page for deletion that could be construed in any way to relate to religion. D-not to ever attack anyone again. E- If I ever attack anyone again I will agree to a 6 week suspension, but I promise to not attack anyone again. I really, really, really want to edit Wikipedia again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• OK, I give up. I will agree to have my talk page editing suspended for a week. It seems to be the only possible course to ever return, which is what I want most of all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I realize you're agreeing to this because you feel backed into a corner, but I still think it's for the best, so based this comment above, I'll remove TPA for a week. The easiest way to do this is to reset the indef block but with talk page access revoked, but you have my word I'll restore talk page access in a week; don't panic about what looks like a permanent talk page revocation. See you in a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I have no idea how to talk with anyone here in a private forum though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think you should do that. I think you should give yourself some time and distance, and then talk with people here on your talk page in a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

JPL, you may be unable to reply to this but Floquenbeam, is doing what is only apt here, I’m your friend and I can see how this is taking a very negative effect on you which is the inverse of what editing Wikipedia should be, “a hobby”, Please I worry greatly about the potential mental stress this is causing, please as suggested elsewhere by Girth Summit and now by Floquenbeam, please just take a very short break. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklamber, I wrote you a long email. I also am about to CC you (send a copy to you) of an email I'm about to write to Floq, El_C, Celestina, HighInBC, and ARoseWolf. I'm hoping (and confident) that we'll be able to move forward. Best, D. (you know the letters after D), Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seen. All appear to be best plausible outcomes. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

I hope the break helped de-escalate for everyone. In addition to Herostratus' email, I also received an email from someone else with suggested unblock conditions. I want to make it clear, I am not taking lead on an unblock here. I have neither the time nor the understanding of the underlying history. All I did was remove talk page access because the discussion seemed to be getting out of control, and after reading this talk page and the ANI thread, I couldn't imagine things improving in that timeframe. I do not support, or oppose, an unblock, and I do not have unblock conditions in mind. I'd suggest that JPL reach out to someone they trust to discuss what happened and how the problem might be solved, rather than multiple people all chiming in with their own suggestions. I would imagine that a torrent of friendly suggestions, mixed in with some non-friendly suggestions, could be overwhelming. But that's just a suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have been talking with someone. I think we may have found a way to move forward. I think I may be waiting for him to come up with the exact verbiage for a formal proposal for an unblock. I will see what exactly he wants to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Not sure why goats can now be given, but here is a goat.

Naraht (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• LOL. I am not sure if a goat is a good or a bad thing. It just made me more hungry at this point, but since I cannot eat a digital image of a goat it did not help with that. Even if it was a real goat it would take a lot of work to get to the point of being able to eat it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Goats are a good thing. It means you're the Greatest Of All Time. ––FormalDude talk 06:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If this was ancient times, you would be consider quite wealthy if you had a few goats! Govvy (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou all for your expressions here. I very much appreciate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward perhaps?

Hello colleagues. Johnpacklambert has offered and suggested that it would be OK if he restricts himself to the subject of persons born in 1922. Working on existing articles from that cat and adding missing refs, fixing grammar and improving writing, finding new material, possibly creating new articles in that cat, and so on and so forth. And ONLY bio articles of people born in 1922, for a good long time (we can revisit in some months I guess). And if the article is by random chance is of a Mormon, no, move on to the next!

This will be easy to check, an occasional quick random look at User Contribs will show compliance or lack thereof. I'll do a bit of this occasionally, and probably also team with him on some of the articles, for a while anyway. It's up to johnpacklambert to stick that. He knows if he can't it is probably curtains. He may soon enter a formal unblock request (up to him), but before that any informal comments on whether this sounds acceptable?

Johnpacklambert, may I also offer you my congratulations and admiration to sticking with this and not taking a "take my ball and go home" attitude. Sydney or the bush. Herostratus (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• The plan is to move back to 1921 when I get through the 1922 articles, but I can bring up that in a specific petetion when I get done with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• This seems extremely restrictive. Personally I'd be fine with no restrictions, as I think the lesson was learned. If forced to choose a restriction, I'd say something like a global WP:1RR or BRD restriction. I'm involved here, but I'm on the side opposing JPL in the dispute that led to this block. @JPL, if you haven't already, go read the guide to appealing blocks. Then read over this page and the AN/I. Then write down the things you did wrong, and make a plan for what specific changes you're going to make so those problems stop. Write those down too. Now boil that down to just 3-4 sentences and make that your appeal. (If you write a novel nobody will read it.) ~Awilley (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• I have to admit I do see this as restrictive. However for the time being it seems better than nothing, and I think the best way forward is starting with a low level unblock with a limited focus and then expanding as we move forward in time. Basically I am willing to take this because I want to be able to do something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Having watched this saga from the sidelines for the past week or two, I'd say why not give this a go and see how it pans out. John and Herostratus have obviously been chatting about this behind the scenes, and decided that this 1922-births plan is a good starting point for John's rehabilitation into the project. And while yes it's clearly a hugely limiting restriction to be under, if they feel this is the best way for John to edit without the temptation and risk of getting embroiled back into conflict and drama, then I'd say let's support it. Further easing can come later on, once a good track record has been set. Just IMHO of course. I guess we'll have to take this back to one of the community noticeboards, or at least link to this discussion from there, because that's what was promised when the recent ANI was closed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @El C and Floquenbeam:, who were involved in the blocks and protections over this, and are probably aware of this thread, but just in case they're not!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  IMHO, I agree we'll have to take it back to ANI; that's partially my fault (for the way I closed it), and partially reality (since there were a lot of people with a lot of opinions on JPL's block and possible unblock conditions when I closed it). I do like the idea of an extremely narrow editing area. I would think this would gain a consensus at ANI. I suspect there will be tweaks added at ANI (WP-space editing? Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints topic ban? Talk page limitation?), but this is a good foundation, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I recognize that my over reactions, over defensiveness, and general attacks on others were disruptive and would like to apologize for it. As detailed above I am requesting an unblock authorization. The plan is that I will work on articles in Category:1922 births, adding sources, adding categories, adding text, and doing general improvments to the articles. For the time being I will only edit articles that are in that category when I began editing them. The plan is in the short term to when I complete that category move back to Category:1921 births, but I will wait until I get through the 1922 births to do that. For now I will only do edits on those pages that are in the category when I find them. Again I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. I want to be an editor who improves the project and does not cause problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This looks likes a good long-term plan that's both productive and is unlikely to cause further discord. The reflection and apology for the attacks also look good. If I'd also add something to watch for, it'd be bludgeoning, which is also tied to excessive length.

As for the socking, it's just weird. It's definitely vote-stack'y (seeing as on Wikipedia we !vote rather than "vote"). Still, if there's one thing I do know about JPL's body of work, is that he is an AfD fiend. So sock-voting once of twice, how does that help to the million AfDs he engages at? The reasons may well then be more idiosyncratic in nature (hence, "silly").

To that: JPL, I hope we're not gonna see a million AfDs listed for Category:1922 births pages, because that would be bad.

Finally, the level of harassment faced by JPL throughout this block is abhorrent and I will have none of it. El_C 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Scorpions13256 and Celestina007: since they may also want to comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's proposal reflects cautious wisdom about returning to the project in a gradual fashion. It also reflects a remarkable level of dedication to the project. I support lifting the block on the terms requested. Cbl62 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think this is a fair request, echoing Herostratus, I too, want to thank JPL for their demeanor. It is self analytical and very concomitant with that of a good editor(person) as (IMO) this applies to all spheres of life off wiki also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously I support rehabilitation on this basis. We can look at expanding the terms after X weeks or months or whenever the unblocking admin thinks is best. I don't get why we have to go back to ANI... admins have a lot of discretion on these matters I thought. Herostratus (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• I would seriously recommend a much longer break, and I don't think agreeing to a narrow topic area addresses the internal turmoil. To be blunt: when you want to edit Wikipedia so bad you spiral out of control when things go very much not your way, the issue isn't the "spiraling out of control" bit, it's the "wanting to edit Wikipedia" that I think is the root cause. I think what would be much better is for you to be totally unblocked and "asked" to take a 1 month vacation. In that one month, I would encourage a bunch of introspection, seeking balance, and learning to prioritize things other than Wikipedia in your life. If you can't voluntarily stay away for a month as part of rehab, you should not be allowed to return, whatever the restrictions, because editing Wikipedia would be bad for you. You've been a formidable Wikipedia contributor, but I would much rather you end up finding inner peace and balance, even if it means your contributions will never be the same, because that would be better for you in the long run. Wikipedia is a fun hobby, but when it gets to be more than that, badness ensues. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Hi all. Floquenbeam suggested opening a discussion for community consensus regarding unblocking at ANI, and I think this is wise given the valuable input that was provided in the initial thread surrounding JPL’s block (not to mention the subsequent sockpuppetry that was uncovered during the first unblock discussion on this very talk page). Perhaps the community as a whole should be given the opportunity to discuss this before any decision is made. Vetocrux (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) LTA sock

Oof, not seeing why we need to do that. Why do we even have admins if they can't decide stuff like this, we could just run Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conducts to decide these things. I've certainly seen admins no be shy about performing unilateral actions at other times. Let the admin corps talk it over on the their IRC or whatever they do, and if nobody wants to unblock the guy, then don't I guess. There's a limit to how much you want to drag somebody over the coals I think. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary. There was nothing resembling consensus for an indefinite block at AN/I. And the current block wasn't imposed by AN/I, but by an individual administrator. It can be undone by an individual administrator with the blessing of the blocking admin. ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to return to editing. I think this us a very reasonable first step. It has very clear limits. It will involving editing in only a very clear set of articles to begin with. I would like to see it approved as soon as possible. However I want to return to editing so I want whatever has to be done to get there to get done. I want to again say that I am sorry about the disruption I caused. I really just want to go back to editing Wikipedia in ways that make it better, and in a very limited way that will be the result of focusing on Category:1922 births. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Per my comments above, I would be happy to unblock on the strict terms above, but we'd need Floquenbeam to OK it as well, since he earlier promised a return to ANI. I don't want to overstep other admins on this, that's all.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C said "If there's a solid plan to resolve this amicably by charting a path for JPL's return (which looks to be the case), from my perspective, that would be ideal... if your conclusion is that the threshold for a conditional unblock has been met, you have my blessing to unblock with immediate effect". To whom did did Floq make a promise and why? In what way is he empowered to do that? Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the person who made the original statement here about Floq's suggestion is a banned LTA. I removed their second comment per WP:BMB, but left the first because otherwise replies wouldn't make sense. I don't know the context they're referring to, but I wouldn't trust them to be giving an accurate accounting of events. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked

Back early, so may as well. El_C 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ottoman emigrants to England has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ottoman emigrants to England 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) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)